administration's energy policy. later, greta goodwin joins us to talk about a new report on improving security at the u.s. capitol more than a year after the january 6 attack. ♪ host: good morning from washington where lawmakers are preparing to hear from ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky. the ukrainian leader will address members of congress and the american people virtually on wednesday morning at 9:00 a.m. he is expected to ask for more military assistance from the west. the address comes as the head of the united nations warns nuclear conflict is within the realm of possibility as russian attacks inched closer to nato's borders. more coming up during our first hour and we will also get your

thoughts on the no-fly zone. the ukrainian president has asked the west and nato to provide a no-fly zone, but thus far, many lawmakers have dismissed the idea. do you support it? if you say yes, there is a line. if you say no, another line. text us your answer. include your first name, city and state or go to facebook.com/cspan. and on twitter, send a tweet. your thoughts on this question coming up. start dialing in. reuters did a poll and found when they asked americans if you would want america and its nato allies to enforce a no-fly zone, 74% of americans, including a majority of democrats and republicans, said the u.s. and its allies and nato should

impose a no-fly zone in ukraine. do you agree or disagree with that? that is our question this morning. before we get to your calls, i want to show you the headline from "business insider" about the u.s. secretary-general. he held a news conference yesterday as well as a un security council meeting. here is the headline, "u.s. secretary-general, nuclear war is back within the realm of possibility." [video clip] >> further escalation of the war, whether by accident or design, threatens all of humanity. the prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, is now back within the realm of possibility. the security and safety of nuclear facilities must also be preserved. it is time to stop the order

unleashed on the people of ukraine and get on the side of diplomacy and peace. i have been in close contacts with a number of countries on mediation efforts to bring an end to this war. the appeals for peace must be heard. this tragedy must stop. it is never too late for diplomacy and dialogue. we need an immediate cessation of hostilities in serious negotiations based on the u.n. charter and international law. we bps for the people of ukraine --peace for the people of ukraine, peace for the world, peace now. host: the in new york yesterday. do you support a no-fly zone, yes or no? we want to get your thoughts on the first hour of "washington journal."

lawmakers are preparing for the ukrainian president to address them virtually. they are going to have television coverage of that. the american people can listen as well. yesterday on the floor, senator richard durbin of illinois spoke about this upcoming address. [video clip] >> on wednesday, we are going to have a historic moment in the capitol. the president of ukraine will address a joint session of congress using the remote technology. we are all in all of his courage and leadership, and we are anxious to hear his message. two -- to think of what that man has achieved by staying on scene, regularly broadcasting videos to show he is still there, he inspires his people to get up and fight for ukraine. our message to him on that day is glory to ukraine.

it is a phrase that was actually banished during soviet times because it was so nationalistic. the soviets did not want the people of that country using it. they use it proudly today because they are an independent, free and democratic nation. america stands with ukraine in this fight for democracy and civilization. madam president, i just hope that we will learn many lessons from this. don't many of the things we are arguing about and america seem so trivial? truckers coming to protest social distancing and masks and vaccine mandates. i'm sure those are important issues, but they pale in comparison to the life-and-death struggle going on in ukraine. these people understand that they will live and die for their freedom. how many of us would rise to that challenge? host: the democratic majority

leader. from "the wall street journal's" reporting on the address to congress. they report that two republican aides said they expect the ukrainian president to put new emphasis on the ground-based defense system by asking for help and attaining equipment to shore up the systems. depending -- he said russia has yet to achieve air superiority because ukraine's air defenses and air forces remain intact. as of 10 days ago, the u.s. and nato organization had sent 2000 stinger antiaircraft missiles to ukraine. the white house said the latest tragic security systems include antiarmor, antitank capabilities. the president of ukraine gearing up to address members of congress asking for more military systems. that will be 9:00 a.m. eastern

tomorrow. you can watch it right here on c-span, our website, or if you are out and about, get the free video app on your mobile phone. it is called c-span now. you will be able to watch and listen to the training -- ukrainian president. you just heard what the administration has provided so far to the ukrainians in military assistance. is it enough? should the u.s. go further and provide a no-fly zone? chris in california. you say yes. morning to you. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. tell us why. caller: i think there should be a no-fly zone because the russian people -- the ukrainian people are innocent. what they are doing is barbaric. we need to do that no matter the cost. that is what i believe. host: do you believe that this

would not escalate it and mean the united states and its nato allies are in this war? caller: even if it leads to war, but we need to protect them. that is what i think. host: chris says yes to a no-fly zone. what do you think? that is our question to you this morning. let's go to al in fort lauderdale. you say yes as well. caller: good morning. yes, that should have been the so-called line in the sand when the russians were amassing their troops along the border. there was a president that said peace through strength. we all read the history books and shake our heads when we hear, how did the holocaust happened? it happened to what the world is doing right now. that is how the holocaust happened. let me remind people of the munich agreement that promised that hiller would not invade any further -- hitler would not

invade any further than czechoslovakia. the most worthless use of paper. how many more deaths is it going to take? 10 more hospitals? how much longer is this going to go on? what is this president going to do? it has been the typical talking points of the day. let's get through this 24 hour media cycle. that is all about us coming out of the white house right now. host: two yes's so far from all of you out there on whether or not to impose a no-fly zone. if you say yes, one number, if you say no, one number. we want to know why you think this. john in salem, illinois. another yes. welcome to the conversation. caller: three in a row, how often does that happen? i definitely support it. since zelensky is going to be

giving a zoom call or whatever tomorrow, it would be a great opportunity for joe biden to then go before congress and seek legislative approval. if he does that, there is no reason not to do it. how are we going to -- if we are sending all the supplies and aid to ukraine, and then russia is now going to start attacking these supply lines on the ground, sort of a no-fly zone and no dry zone for russia, how are we going to get these provisions in and weapon systems into ukraine, if they are now going to be a target of russian airstrikes? if he goes before congress and will get people on the record, right after zelensky talks, there is no holding back. i don't for one minute think russia is going to ratchet anything up from that point on. i just think it is a great idea.

it brings in a negotiating point. 76% of the american people agree on something today. that is a miracle. host: as president zelensky is slated to address congress tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m., president biden is considering a trip to europe. this is from ashley parker, dan, chico and kate's reporting. it says that the president, a possible trip to europe in the coming weeks to rally and reassure allies. a visit that would follow vice president harris's trip to poland and romania last week. that is under consideration are the white house right now. let's hear from vernon in north carolina. good morning to you.

what do you say, yes or no to a no-fly zone? caller: yes. host: why? caller: it is our duty -- nato itself is supposed to support all three countries. if we don't support ukraine, then putin is going to continue on his path to rebuilding the ussr. to me, i don't know how deep you would like for me to go into this, but us buying oil from russia was ridiculous anyway because their oil is filthy. our current administration has

focused so hard on shutting down our country's natural resources because of the green new deal. the thing that is so ridiculous about it is this country's grid is not prepared for ev's to take over. host: we are going to talk about gas prices coming up in our next hour of "washington journal." this morning, we are sticking to this idea of a no-fly zone over ukraine, something the ukrainians have asked for. dan and ellicott city. you say no. caller: thanks for taking my call.

i do have a problem with the no-fly zone. back in 2003, when the united states went into iraq, we had almost 80% of the american people were in favor. within one year, it dropped down to 30% because they realized it was the wrong move. that is the same thing that is going to happen here. i really think an easy solution to this is that the united states and nato should support and provide planes to the ukrainians, provide them what they need, let them declare their own no-fly zone using the planes that we can provide the. it is a win-win situation, at least solving that particular problem with the no-fly zone. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: you are saying send those polish fighter jets, the ones that some lawmakers, a bipartisan group of them, are

saying let's send them in? caller: yes. let's send them in. the idea was that those planes were not to be manned by nato, but were to be manned by ukrainian flyers, pilots. once we do that, we are simply providing another mechanism of machinery, equipment, of artillery for the ukrainians. but once they have the planes, they should be able to declare their own no-fly zone. it gives them the right to then engage the russians in the air, and it still keeps the united states and nato out of the meat of the matter. it keeps us out of using our own might to try to control this war. host: what do you think about this move? this is from "the sun."

nato amasses risks putin's wrath. it says a drill has kicked off in norway amid tensions. look at these pictures. the exercise includes 30,000 troops from more than 25 countries, from europe and north america. 200 aircraft in 60 vessels. is that enough to show putin our strength? caller: unfortunately, and again, it is my opinion, putin is holding the cards because we have all agreed he is a madman. nato was not going to be launching any type of nuclear weapons unless we are provoked, but we cannot guarantee where any of this will do to putin.

my personal opinion is that he knows we are not going to be the first to an age in war. that is why he continues on the path that he is. the only real solution is to try to support ukraine in as much as we can in a military manner without using the term "putting boots on the ground," and allow them to fight their own fight. we are just not in a situation where we can afford to anger a madman. all of those other things that you see, the amassing of military, that is more of a provocation for putin to get afraid and start doing more than he is doing now. again, that is all my opinion. host: that is what we are taking this morning. we are going to continue taking your phone calls. keep dialing in. do you support a no-fly zone by the west and its nato allies?

yes or no? our question here for the first hour of "washington journal." also this week in washington, the lawmakers are preparing for supreme court confirmation hearings asked we. -- next week. as the senate considers a new supreme court justice a new survey of more than 2000 likely voters shows a strong public interest in the court's work and awareness of the court's relevance. you can read the results for yourself at our website. here are some of the key findings. 84% of those surveyed believed supreme court decisions impact their everyday lives. nearly half, 40 7% say diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity is very important. 59% think it would be better for the supreme court to have justices from diverse law schools, not just ivy leagues.

65% say tv coverage of oral arguments. as many of you know, c-span has been very involved in this push for televised coverage of its oral arguments, and has gotten the supreme court to agree to some audio recordings of its arguments. you can read about our efforts, listen to recent oral arguments, and follow every second of the supreme court confirmation hearings next week, on our homepage at c-span.org and c-span.org/supremecourt. again, you can read the full survey results at our website, c-span.org/scotussurvey2022. back to our question. carl in oxford, massachusetts. good morning to you. you say no no-fly zone. why?

caller: thank you for c-span. even though we don't keep in touch with them, my wife and i both have friends and relatives in poland. poland is just going to put itself in danger if it goes through with this. same thing with the other countries, the baltic countries and romania and all of them. i am just against it. they are making themselves vulnerable. with that said, i'm glad poland is taking in all of these refugees. hopefully, it will be good for the relationship -- it will improve the relationship between the pols and the ukrainians. the whole thing is just a mess. just making me sick. thank you for c-span. host: the united nations is said 2.7 million refugees, 1.7 have them, cnn reported this morning,

have fled to poland. 1.7 of the 2.7 have fled to poland. poland's leader along with the leader of the czech republic pennsylvania are slated to visit -- czech republic and slovenia are slated to visit kyiv today. rick in port republic, new jersey. why do you say yes to a no-fly some? caller: well, i think it just makes the most sense, don't you? host: tell me why. caller: in all honesty, i think we should slash a bunch of chinese stickers on our jets -- host: we go to steve. caller: i say no because not until the world answers the question of whether the world will accept and is prepared for

the next step of a tactical nuclear weapon. i don't think your callers understand what a no-fly zone entails. that is, the united states would have to take out the radar systems, ground-based radar systems, and that would involve personnel of russia. i think that putin, if he loses personnel at the hands of americans, he might go to a tactical, low yield nuclear weapon. we would counter with a bigger nuclear weapon. that maybe might what would put the debahces.

ches. if we were with a bigger nook their weapon, i think that would make him stop. the world needs to answer questions that will shortly come in the event of whether it is willing to take that step. host: to your point from "the guardian," what is a no-fly zone. it is a prohibition of all or certain type of aircraft flying over a designated space. the zones require one or more parties to be willing to enforce them. that is being ready and able to shoot down any aircraft violating the space. they have been used in attempts to limit an ongoing conflict on the ground and protect certain populations, but they are costly, requiring constant air patrolling and monitoring. robert in new york. you say yes to this question. caller: i say yes that we should do it and i think we should start doing it. i don't know why we don't send a

picture to china and show them what is going on so they can see this. it looks like they are going to get the chinese to help them. if we could show all the things happening over there, that they could see it, it is possible they must know what is going on, but i do approve of doing a fly zone. if we don't do something pretty soon, this president has got to do something. think about time is going pretty fast and think, it is too late, we should have done this. if we wait too long, it is going to get worse. this might stop everything if we start doing this. host: jake sullivan, national security advisor for president biden, met with the chinese yesterday in rome and had an extensive hours long meeting with them about this very issue. quotes in the newspaper saying china is denying they have

helped the russians thus far. headline in cnn, china has expressed some openness to providing military and financial aid to russia, according to u.s. cables. anthony in huntington, maryland. you say no. caller: good morning, c-span. i don't agree. i think if we do make ukraine a no-fly zone, russia could see that as escalatory. if a russian jet is shot down because of a no-fly zone, these war simulations are saying about one million people would die. do i think the population of america, of upwards of 330, i believe, is worth taking it to that level? i don't. host: what would a no-fly zone achieved in ukraine? from "the guardian," a full no-fly zone enforced by nato

would mean russia's superior airpower could not be deployed against ukrainians, but also that kyiv would not be able to fly its fighter jets and significantly effective attack drones against the russians. it would allow civilians who are becoming casualties at a staggering rate to flee the conflict more safely. why not do it? u.s. and nato officials say for a ukraine fis on to work, their own jets would have to be prepared to shoot down any russian violators of effectively making them direct participants in the war. caller: good morning. i do support a no-fly zone and purely because of what they are doing. watching every day, the slaughter of the ukrainians. it is just too heart-wrenching. if we don't do it, who can?

host: barbara, even if that risks putting our own soldiers in war and possibly losing them, losing lives, american lives? caller: yeah. that is heartbreaking also to think about considering afghanistan and that whole big mess. on the other hand, as i asked, it is not us, where do we draw the line? personally, i think a war with russia, at some point, is going to be inevitable. host: will you be watching tomorrow morning where the ukrainian president addresses our congress and the american people? caller: absolutely. i am an extra aggression on

employee. -- x congressional employee. i'm very interested in what he has to say and i really admire the man. i truly do. host: what do you make of this, of the ukrainian leader under siege virtually addressing both chambers of congress? caller: personally, i think it is a good idea. i do. i fully support mr. zelensky and the ukrainians and whatever he might be able to say to convince us to make a different decision then we have made, i am for it. host: 9:00 a.m. eastern time for those of you that need to schedule this. i'm a clock a.m. eastern time tomorrow morning right here on

c-span. we will bring you live coverage. download the free media app. michael in wisconsin. you say yes as well. caller: indeed, i do. there are several reasons. this is the equivalent of a sixth-grader reading up on your kindergartner kid at school and he watching. we have been putting up with the russian economy and the spunk putin -- this punk putin. he is a bully and has an economy the size of new york. the u.s. and nato has a gdp of 40 bill -- $40 million. -- $40 billion. i would have american troops, nato troops, everybody go in there and physically remove these people from this country, and drive them all way back to

moscow, and then retreat to normal borders. i would also add crimea in the consolidation he has been fighting over since 2013, added back to the ukraine, and send a message that we are not going to put up with this nonsense. this punk is not going to start a nuclear war because he knows he would be finished. as long as we keep the pressure on economically, the ruble is worth one penny right now in the exchange rate. this guy cannot last. we have to cut him off from everything. because they have got eyes on taiwan right now were all of our semiconductors come from. we have to let them know that we don't screw around. if you want to lead, you lead by example. zelensky has done nothing more than to tell americans how we should behave. this is a fight between

autocrats and democracy in the largest sense possible. our friends in china converted from democracy to autocracy. we have a bunch of monkeys in places like hungary and even britain who are advocating this nonsense. certainly, trump is doing the same in the united states. this is an existential fight for democracy in the world. this is a punk who thinks he is bigger than he is. we need to drive his ass back to moscow. host: the assessment from yesterday, united nations secretary general on the conflict. [video clip] >> ukraine is on fire. the country is being decimated before the eyes of the world. the impact on civilians is reaching -- proportions.

countless women and children have been killed. after being hit by russian forces, roads, airports, schools lie in ruins. at least 24 health facilities have suffered attacks. hundreds of thousands of people are without water or electricity. and with each passing hour, two things are increasingly clear. first, it keeps getting worse. second, whatever the outcome, this more will have no winners, only losers. host: united nations secretary general yesterday with his assessment of the russia-ukraine conflict thus far. lloyd and kearney, west virginia. you are a no on the no-fly zone. caller: i don't think you need

to pour gasoline onto the fire. one thing i would like to ask, this thing with russia and ukraine has been going on for a long time. why didn't ukraine go and join nato? then they would have all the support and backing they needed. if you think anything of your country and people, you will do what you need to do to protect them, right? host: what is your concern with the no-fly zone specifically, that you think that putin sees that escalatory or provocative, and things get worse? caller: it will just be causing more problems doing this, when you can get together and negotiate and get this over with. it has to end somewhere. why do what they are doing now? host: lloyd, there is an

option of a limited no-fly zone. last week, foreign policy experts released a letter calling for a limited nato enforce no-fly zone over ukraine to establish human minute. corridors. critics said that would not limit the conflict with russia as nato aircraft would still be willing to shoot down russian aircraft. so far, the war in ukraine has not depended heavily on airpower on either side. in its invasion, russia has relied mostly on long-range and surface artillery fire to hit targets. something that you will hear from the ukrainian president when he addresses congress and the american people tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. the last caller asked, why is ukraine not a part of nato?

this is from the miami herald. is it too late for them to join? here is what experts say. nato says it has an open-door policy for members to join. any european country in a position to further principles of the washington treaty and contribute to security in the eurozone can become an alliance at the invitation of the north atlantic council. the door is open to any state that chooses that it wants to join nato. countries who wish to join nato need to meet certain political, economic, and military goals. my is in ukraine a nato member? the feeling was and probably still is that ukraine had not taken care of political corruption, that it was still developing its democracy. there were some formal reasons why the alliance could say ukraine was not ready to join nato.

it has to do with political corruption in ukraine. bill in brunswick, ohio. you say no. caller: thank you for taking my call. the reason on believe a no-fly zone may provoke a war, i am afraid that the mad disruption, that our generals will not respond if we are attacked. i want to save the planet. host: you don't think they would attack? caller: i don't think we would respond. russia might see us as weak. we are more afraid about saving the planet than defending ourselves. host: alan in pennsylvania. why do you say yes? caller: i don't think we should have a limited fly zone.

we should not even have a total fly zone. we should have a total fly zone. think about it. would you want a no-fly zone or fly zone? everyone, where they are sitting right now, has the answer to that question. the other thing, i saw the video on the three russian soldiers, they had no clue why they were there, except they were told by their commanders, you have to go. these were policemen. you have to go because of these people protesting and we have to control the area. it was supposed to be a police action and they were thrown into this. they said we don't want to kill anybody, especially women and children.

my mother saw what i was doing right now, how said she would be. these are three russian soldiers that were taken by the ukrainians. putin wouldn't give a nuclear attack. everything that he has done is for himself. the oil situation. think about it. we know what is going on here in the united states, and so does putin. you just have an energy, oil program prior to this, and everyone on the panel there, shell corporation and all, they know about these permits, they know what is going on. how private companies were being prohibited from going forward. they were not getting loans from banks. they know what is going on with

the administration. they don't want to say anything because it is retribution because of this administration. by the way, it was on your program, they were being interviewed by, you know, senators and stuff. this is the reason we got away from england, because of socialism. and we needed free speech. this is why we fought for freedom. that is pretty much all have got to say. it is pretty obvious. thanks for taking my call. host: michael in oklahoma city. you are a no. caller: that's right even good morning, greta. basically, i don't think right now is the time. those jets from poland, i think someday soon they will be in ukraine but it will not be on the news. i don't know what they are

expecting, us to have news coverage of jets going from poland and landing in ukraine? we will find out after it happens. the other thing. the president is in a game of poker with putin. he has 300 million people over his shoulder telling him how to play his hand. there are only three cards down and we have four to go. our opinions can be so shaped by the emotions, this is such an emotional thing. all of america cannot stand to see the slaughter going on, but it has to be handled in the correct way with people that you can trust to look out for our interests and everybody's

interests. like the previous caller said, remember, it was weapons of mass destruction going into iraq. how did that turn out? our opinions can change as the cards get turned up on the table. that is what is going on in washington right now with a lot of experts that no whole lot more than we do. host: we are asking this conversation because of opinions taken by reuters, a poll where they asked americans, would you like to see the u.s. and nato enforce a no-fly zone over ukraine? 74% said yes, including a strong majority of republicans and democrats. they said yes to the question. diplomacy, here is cnbc's headline. u.s. and told intense talks with china amid war.

here is the white house press secretary yesterday talking about de-escalation efforts and what faces china if they help russia. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> despite words coming out of these talks, diplomacy requires engaging in good faith to de-escalate. what we are really looking for is evidence of that. we are not seeing any evidence at this point that president putin is doing anything to stop the onslaught or de-escalate, but that is what we would be looking for. >> to follow up on the meeting, what are the consequences for china if they do aid russia? >> i will not get into specific consequences. what was conveyed by our national security advisor in this meeting, should they provide military or other assistance, that of course

violates sanctions or supports the war effort, that there will be significant consequences. in terms of what the specifics look like, we will coordinate with our partners and allies to make a determination. host: john in lakeland, florida. you say yes to the question. caller: absolutely. nato in the u.s. should implement no-fly zones immediately in bordering nato countries if there is any russian incursion into nato airspace. we are ready and waiting. we should also establish imminent chairman corridors, like the berlin airlift, which kept berlin alive during the cold war. host: calvin in kentucky, you are a no. in washington, d.c. i think i went to david. caller: i say yes.

putin says it is a declaration of war. i think he is just trying to push our buttons. i think we need to go and do whatever putin says not to do. i don't know. the communism and all of that, it is pretty sad. like the biological weapons, and erect, all of that -- iraq, and all of that, it is like a 20-year-long more. i don't know how long this has been going, the cold war. whatever putin says not to do, we do it. host: calvin in washington, d.c. you are a no. caller: appreciate you taking my call.

they need to work it out themselves over there. they are the same people, the same bloodlines when it comes down to it. i don't know why they are coming over to speak to the congress and speak with us. they should be speaking to putin, trying to work it out with the person you are having a problem with, instead of trying to pull other people into it. host: there have been talks between the ukrainians and the russians. they have not succeeded thus far, but talks have been continuing between the two sides. speaking of capitol hill, yesterday in the senate, senate pro tem patrick lahey of vermont that the opening prayer on monday. this is what he had to say about the ukrainian civilians. [video clip]

>> let us pray and give us the wisdom and strength and faith to trust in you and above all things. let us always pray for the parents, the children, the innocent civilians of ukraine who are suffering more than anybody should. let us all hold them in our prayers. amen. host: monday, patrick lahey. paul is in florida. you say no to the idea of a no-fly zone. caller:. good morning. my idea is we should take all of these refugees and start funneling them into cuba. just start giving them a problem on the back door so we can keep an eye on those refugees but we need to stay out of that mess. host: elroy in lancaster,

pennsylvania. you are a yes. caller: i am a yes. i was watching this the last couple of days. zielinski was basically begging for help from nato to stop the rockets, the airplanes coming over and bombing the civilians. putin is not paying attention to the rules of war. they are not supposed to be bombing hospitals, schools, children, civilians. it is just so sad how he is like a big bully coming through, don't try and stop me or you will be next. you will regret it. nato, if we all pull together and make decisions together, no-fly zone, no more killing

civilians, if you want to fight. i understand what he is trying to do, take ukraine by stealth -- nobody is stopping me -- but it is sort of like hitler. very few people tried to stop him because they were afraid. that is how bullies work, they work on our fears. he is just a man. he is bragging about how much artillery he has but all of the tanks and stuff he is using looks like it is outdated, you know, dinosaurs. we have power. all of the nato nations, 27 of them, whatever, if everybody pulled together with all our forces against him, he would lose. host: doc in baton rouge, louisiana. what do you say? caller: i say yes. we do need to implement a no-fly

zone. no matter what people say about putin and russia, they are still communist, and he is a communist. he told diane sawyer, one of those female reporters, he is kgb. once you are kgb, you are always kgb. russia is still communist, they will always be communist. that is the only way that you deal with communism, you destroy it. i believe it was general patton who said the only good communist is a dead communist. that is true, that is life. host: let's go to rome, new york. randy, you are a no on the question. caller: thank you for c-span,

thank you for the question. i am a no, only because the question was presented to us, and respect for the u.s. and nato. my reason is, nato only has jurisdiction over nato countries. nato was created in 1949 against russia. if the united nations does a no-fly zone, created in 1945, then i would before it. as we know, at the security council, who is in charge of the security council? russia. that is all i have to say. host: takoma park, maryland. what is your name? caller: samba. host: go ahead. caller: i support a no-fly zone.

i believe we need to save people's lives. also, many people think that this will be an escalatory position. but whatever we do, we face russia in the world. i think it is better to stop it now than later. host: kamal in lorton, virginia. caller: good morning. no-fly zone, definitely. everybody who calls, they think they know the history, all of a sudden started yesterday or the day before yesterday. putin has been talking about this since 2014. there is a lot more than what we see today on tv. everything has been escalated a lot. now we are trying to do another escalation where putin will react on it again. i think no-fly zone.

a lot of baby boomers call in and think this is still the cold war, pushing for that agenda. i think we have to go back and negotiate, and that is best for everybody else. god for bid if something happens, it will be out of control. host: kamal is in lorton, virginia, a no. lynn is in north carolina. you are a yes. caller: i am a yes. the u.s. is such a convoluted state. if you remember back in the 1990's, we went and supported kuwait when saddam invaded kuwait. they were not a part of nato then and we set up no-fly zones and everything else. i don't understand the reason

why we cannot help people asking for our help. we fought in kuwait, iraq, because of a dictator, saddam hussein. they asked for our help and we were right there. i guess because there is no oil in ukraine, we are going to say no to that. host: as you know, the russians came very close to the polish border with that attack earlier this week at a training facility. here is the headline in "the washington post." the attack came from warplanes inside russia. the pentagon says underscore of the limits of a no-fly zone. here is the pentagon press secretary john kirby speaking about the significance of the russian airstrike on that ukrainian base. [video clip] >> the fact that they thought

about striking in the west, or do you consider that a signal to the way that we can do that if we want? >> i don't think we would reduce something like this to calling it a signal. they used multiple cruise missiles here. clearly, they had their reasons for targeting that training facility. it is a ukrainian training facility. i will let them speak to their targeting justifications. as for a turning point, no, i would not consider this or the other strikes in western ukraine as some sort of turning point. the russians are clearly expanding some of their target sets. that is obvious just from the fact that over the last couple of days we have seen other targets hit in ukraine. it does not change i think our

general understanding that they continue to be frustrated by a very stiff ukrainian resistance and are not making the progress on the ground that they thought they would be making at this point. host: rob in buie, maryland. you are a no a no-fly zone. -- bowie, maryland. caller: it is as simple as this. zielinski is a troublemaker. this whole thing has been unfolding for a couple of years, as i go back and read. we have been giving him weapons, and he likes to point them to russia, toward russia. all of these defense systems, weapons systems, and somebody is getting paid for pumping the stuff in. now we heard the term, you poke the bear, so now you are getting stomped, and you want us to come

to your aid. this guy tried to get entry into the middle of the eu in the middle of this crap. i say no no-fly zone. i don't want our men and women coming back in these flag draped coffins. have we learned a lesson? no, we haven't. is it ugly? yes, it is. it was ugly when we went into iraq, and that was questionable. but a lot of people have the right to say the united states should not have done that, and that is true. for me, speaking to our congress, this is -- no -- for what? this constant propaganda that the president takes no responsibility and blames putin

for these high gas prices. so everything now is, everything that we hear is a lie, that we all support ukraine. no, we do not. host: we will talk about gas prices in the next hour. i want to share some texts and social media posts that we have received, as well. alfredo says the u.s. and nato should do more to stop imperialism. no country should control and exploit other countries. all empires are people. mark in north carolina. do i support a no-fly zone? my heart says yes because i see the images of suffering and devastation. my head says to listen to those who know the consequences. when the military departments as there are better options at this point, i trust them. those who want to keep blame on the president are the weak, feebleminded ones unable to comprehend the complexity and potential consequences of the

situation. roy and austen, yes, i believe there should be a no-fly zone. there should have been one instituted when russia started bombing residential areas. the problem is that biden's puppet masters will not let him do the right thing. jeff in tennessee says it is combat and considered escalation. sitting aircraft and service to radar sites. u.s. air force would be fighting directly and things would spiral out of control fast. mary in harrisburg, pennsylvania. you are a yes. tell us why. caller: i am a yes on the no-fly zone. more important is that we send nato troops, that nato sends troops into western ukraine. i don't see why putin should be the want to put the fear of god

into us. we are sitting back here waiting, waiting, to see what he will do next so we can react. i think he need to start to think about what we might do next. not that we are going to start a third world war but that we are going to resist. right now he thinks he can take ukraine and we will just let it go, and after a while, he can take other countries that are not nato, and we will let it go. most of the other countries will not put up any kind of resistance like ukraine. so, he thinks he can scoot along as he is doing. but i think he needs to realize that he is setting himself against nato, even if ukraine is not a nato country, he is setting himself against nato. i think it is nato's fight, i think it is europe's fight.

the u.s. would go into it in conjunction with europe, but it would be europe that is driving europe that is driving this. host: i want to get jean -- jean in, who is a no. caller: any of us watching the scenes from ukraine wants to make something happen or to do something, but escalating is not the right thing to do. we need to do something harder, which is to exercise restraint and not be tricked by putin into rash decisions or fall into a reactive mode, we have so far maintained leadership, and we have the backing of many countries for ukraine, and i would like to keep it like that. host: we will return to this question later on the last hour of washington journal. if you did not get a chance to call in, please do so. coming up we will talk about the russia-ukraine conflict and its

impact on oil and gas prices. we will talk with amy myers jaffe and then gretta goodwin joins us to talk about the new report on how to improve security at the u.s. capitol following the january 6 attack. we will be right back. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here here, here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> i am pleased to nominate

judge jackson who brings extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and a rigorous traditional record to the court. >> i am truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this is -- this nomination, and i am especially grateful for the care you have taken into start -- just charging your constitutional duties and service to our democracy with all that is going on in the world today. >> president biden nominates judge ketanji judge -- brown jackson to replace retiring judge stephen breyer. she would become the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. follow this historic process and watch the confirmation hearing starting monday, march 21 live on c-span, c-span. award --.org or by downloading the free at out mobile video app.

at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of them on our podcast. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma and the war on vietnam. not everyone knew that they were being be recorded. >> shortly john's -- certainly johnson's secretary is new because they were tasked with transcribing the conversations and 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 will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report on the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died and the #to me

now and if mine is not less i want it broken down right quick. and if i cannot go to the bathroom, i will not go. i will stand right behind these black gates. >> "washington journal" continues. host: amy myers jaffe is joining us and she is a tufts university school and managing director. can i just begin with this headline, oil briefly tumbled below $100 a barrel which is good news for gas prices. what is happening and what is going on with the market? guest: the market was anticipating that things would get worse and you have a lot of speculation in the market, and now things are adjusting a

little bit and calming down a little bit. i do not think we are out of the words yet, we still have to worry about an escalation of the conflict which could lead to more countries putting bans on russian oil, or we could have some other kind of disruption, so i would not be breathing a sigh of relief yet. i think it is too early for that. host: we have seen gas go up every day since this conflict started. we are in day 20. how much higher can it go? guest: on the national average we are $4.30. we had been hovering before the crisis at $3.50. you know? i want to say, which is a little unusual. usually when gasoline prices go above four dollars, people stop driving, they consolidate errands, and they may be re-think their road trip, but

actually spring break is upon us, and the ethylene demand is up even though prices were rising. as we get towards memorial day, if people are still driving and we are still in this crisis, i think we could see a five dollar gasoline. we are already seeing that california is nudging towards six dollars and in some locations it is above six dollars. i think we are on an upward trajectory for now. unless we start seeing more news about peace negotiations going well. host: where we on an upward trend before this conflict? if so, why? guest: yes we were, and that has not been resolved. this boom bust cycle and oil which we are all used to, we remember the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, we found -- we saw 147 -- $147 and oil.

2010 we were in a reception -- in a recession. with covid was a super cycle. we had demand collapse by 9 million barrels a day on average in 2020. there was one point where demand was down 30 million barrels a day. every country in the world had to stop drilling because there was no place to put the oil. and then luckily, we had the vaccine and economic stimulus. and we had a booming economy again, and that is the same with other countries. and so oil demand went up astronomically over 5 million barrels a day in a very short couple of month period and we had this mismatch between the stop drilling from 2020 of the sun -- and the sudden demand in 2021 and you might've expected open to start increasing

production to keep the market balanced, they always say that they are the central bank of oil, but they did not behave like a federal bank or increase production. they said they wanted higher prices and we started creeping up, and again we were just starting to equilibria eight a little bit and then this event happened. people do not realize because we are having a sort of a cancel culture on russian crude oil where some refiners just do not want to to touch it. we are already down 1,000,000.5 -- 500,000 barrels a day. host: why cant the u.s. produce enough for our own consumption, or do we? guest: we do not. there is a lot of misunderstanding about that. to give a couple of numbers we

use 20 million barrels a day of oil in our daily lives. and we produce around 11 million barrels a day. for covid, we cut everything back and we were at 13 million barrels a day. i expect that we could get back to that level. we are on a trajectory to go up 800,000 this year if normal things take place. the president released the strategic petroleum reserves giving us an extra million two 1.3 million barrels a day. believe it or not things would be worse if the president had not released the strategic petroleum reserves this past fall. so, we both import oil because we need oil of a certain fingerprint and certain kinds of oil, and we export oil. the balance is we are exporting, and that helps in the sense that it costs a lot of money for our

trade belt when we import oil, but because we export oil, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel to other countries, our net trade balances good compared to the way it was 10 years or 15 years ago. so, we are in a better financial position when it comes to energy, we are keeping a lot more of the money in the united states, so think about it as people in pennsylvania or texas, or no -- north dakota are getting rich instead of people in saudi arabia, russia, or iran , but we still do not have enough oil to close the border, and that is probably not how the market works anyway. host: be more specific. the energy information agency says that we have been a net exporter since 2010. go ahead. guest: we are not quite in that

exporter -- that has to do with how many barrels are we sending out, how many barrels are we producing, and then how does that mary to the 20 million barrels a day. in recent months, we have been sort of -- we still have a little bit of a gap, a couple of million barrels a day where we are exporting, -- are export numbers, we export 6 million barrels a day and produce about 11, so that is 17 million barrels a day, but we are using 20. a net exporter would mean that we are exporting and producing more than we are using, and we are not there. host: is president biden doing anything to stop the production from increasing in the united states? guest: you know, people talk about the green new deal or

production, none of the things that we have talked about doing to lower emissions have either happened yet, or we have done them but they have not affected u.s. production. so laying that out, we are asking companies to reduce the amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that they leak as an accidental release when they produce oil. and that does not affect the level of oil production. in fact in colorado they already have a ban or restriction on how much methane can be released and it has not affected colorado production at all. that just means the oil industry is paying somewhere between five to $.20 more to produce the oil, and $100 a barrel, that does not matter. on things like federal leasing,

there was a moratorium on giving new permits in a place like new mexico where you have some companies that drill and are producing a lot of oil that we use in the united states. 400,000 barrels a day or something like that. again, the companies when president trump was president were afraid that the democrats would win and would make them stop drilling. so they bought permits and stockpiled them. so one of the companies is a company called devon, and their chairman told their shareholders in 2020 that they had stockpiled so many permits that they would be able to drill for the whole four years of the next 2020 to 2024 without needing a new permit. again, nobody needs a permit in these places where people were drilling on federal land on shore. offshore the biden administration has been offering

more acreage for leasing. there was a court case that stalled things, but that had nothing to do with the administration. so really, things were progressing as normal. as if there had been no policy is stop drilling in the united states and of course production has been going up. host: what is stopping the country -- the company that you have mentioned from using the permits? guest: that is a very complicated question. one would imagine that $100 oil companies would be drilling as much as possible. and they keep talking about their capital discipline, how they want to return the money back to the people who bought their stocks, which means i will pay you a dividend with a lot of stocks and bonds you get dividends. in some cases honestly these companies are using their money to buy back their own stocks and inflate the value instead of

using it to drill. and, you know, that is the reality. on top of that there is just some constraints. it takes a certain amount of drilling rigs and that takes a certain amount of field and human being -- steel and human beings, gearing up as a little sticky just like the car industry. if we got to the point where things worsened. i noticed in the segment before people were talking about whether united states should get involved in the war or perhaps we have this escalation on the western border of ukraine, suppose, god forbid, russia got really crazy and started attacking nato. say something different happened, and we had to put just not the united states and canada put a ban on russian oil, we do

not use much or we were not using very much. all of nato had to band using russian oil or suppose the russians cut off their oil to nato. in that case i think it would be kind of like the covid vaccine and some of the other steps we took in 2020 we could prioritize the u.s. oil industry under some kind of war powers act or some kind of direction from congress, and in that case we could do what other countries have done in the past. we could buy the oil in advance, and therefore directly companies to do more drilling and it will incentivize them to do more drilling. in that fashion if we said no, steel is prioritize the oil industry like we did during world war ii, they probably would produce more.

and probably in a short order of time, a matter of months, not years. that is in the onshore production. so, that is the quiver left in the president's toolbox and something that could be used if we get in a deeper emergency. right now, to me, it makes more sense to give people of a certain income bracket some assistance to help them with their fuel bills. that makes more sense than doing something unless it is a bigger emergency, but the president can release more oil like i said. you can use the war powers to stimulate more oil production in the united states. you know, we could say were going to tax the oil industry unless they drill more. if you drill more you do not have to pay the tax. if you are going to sit on your hands and we will tackle -- tax await some of those windfall

profits between 80 and $100. we will tax that unless you drill. you know there are some tools left, and we have to decide when is the moment of time we should use them. i would be interested in hearing from your listeners whether we are at that time now or whether we should wait to see if things get worse. host: let us invite them to call in. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. text us as well at 202-748-8003. amy myers jaffe to take your questions and comments on oil gas -- oil and gas prices. you talked about the petroleum reserve, the strategic petroleum reserve, how any barrels of oil are in there? the president released 30 and other countries are releasing another 30. as we read on "washington

journal" earlier, the 30 million is two days worth of consumption. guest: that is not really the way we want to think about it. we do not want to think about it and terms of days of consumption. we have 700 something million barrels in the reserve. the way we want to think about it is -- is at what rate are we selling oil. we are adding over one million barrels of day to the market so that every day when you average out that 30 million or 50 million and it is about 1.3 merrill -- million barrels a day, that is light the exports of mexico and -- or some other countries, i guess mexico is a little higher. in a lot of country in the world, that is their total export. it is a pretty good sale. i think that is very partisan and people say he is only giving us two days of supply.

no, he is giving us over one million barrels a day, and the strategic petroleum reserve is built in such a way that it can be multiple million barrels a day. i think you can go up to 4.4 million a day. when the question becomes do we think the oil price is harming the u.s. economy, so we go to the point where we thought that we are having a recession as a result of the oil price, then we needed more oil because we need to deal for war, then we would want to release more oil, but we would want to do it in concert with the countries from europe, japan and south korea. even china has been releasing oil so all of that adds up to quite a bit of oil. so to say it is two days of consumption is not the accurate way of thinking about it. we want to think about it and

how many millions of barrels of oil a day are leaving the strategic petroleum reserves on average in a given month. because that really tells you about how much supply is coming into the market. host: harriet in pittsburgh. go ahead. caller: good morning. one trump was in office the last year i thought there must be 20 some gas stations. they went to two dollars 69 and then two dollars 79. the day biden came in and stopped the pipeline, fracking, companies quoted -- put restrictions on him, and in a year it went up a dollar and it went up another $.59. this is before the ukrainian things started. i go to the store and i was buying boneless chicken breasts for $20. now they are $3.38 a pound.

everything he has done, you would have to do this on purpose to destroy a country. as far as this green energy, we are 10 to 15 years away from that. host: let me jump in because i would like to listen to you explain -- i would like her to explain what was going on in the last year or two and what happened after that. guest: listen, i totally understand what you are saying, it is very frustrating to go to a store and your hard-earned money is just stretched like, you are not having extra cash for things that make our life enjoyable which under all these restrictions from covid, you want to be able to go out and get something with your money that gives you a positive day. so, i understand all of that and i feel that. the reality is that if we had

approved a pipeline from canada that pipeline would not be available for three or four years and the canadians already just announced that they had extra pipelines and they are willing to sell an extra 400,000 barrels a day or more to the united states using their extra pipeline space. we are not constrained from canada. i think we will see more oil from canada so that is not a barrier or something that happened after trump left office. what actually happened is that while president trump was in office, the last year in 2020, we had a full collapse in oil use because people were not driving or leaving their houses. people were not going to the mall. and as a result of that, companies stopped drilling because literally there was no place to put the oil. president trump manage that well. we had a crisis in the united states where we were running out of storage and we might have had

a disruption in gasoline supply because we were running out of storage. it does not just magically show up at your retail space. there is a tank under the ground that comes from a terminal, there were tanks at the terminal that comes from a refinery, tanks at the refinery, and think about it like you have a tank in your home that hold your energy that you use in your house. so the point is president trump had to do something to make sure that we did not have this emergency where there was no tank or place to put it. we had to force saudi arabia to turn around so we would not clog up our system and he had offered to let companies put oil into the strategic petroleum reserve just to remove the storage problem which caused companies to stop drilling because there was no place to put the oil and no one wanted it. when you stop -- when you stop drilling you lay people off and you put the oil rigs and

storage. so when you turn around in 2021 and all of a sudden everybody wants the oil again you have to go back out and hire people and find those rigs in a storage garage and now you have to take them out and they are broken because you put them away so now you have to fix them all. that takes time. and all of that time multiplied by every country in the world that stopped drilling means that we had a shortage. there arabia that could have made it better. i am trying to be objective. the president released the strategic petroleum reserve tried to make things not as bad as what you are describing, and then speculators came into the

market so it did actually work in the sense that we would be at higher prices if the president had not done that. the question really becomes, we have lost one million or 2 million barrels a day in the market because countries in europe do not want to buy russian oil. on philosophy and out of risk, what if the russians do not deliver or what if sanctions are imposed and i cannot take the oil but i already paid for it. that is what we are coping with now, and i think it is really hard to blame that on the president's policies. companies that were drilling in new mexico are still drilling in new mexico, lucky for them. they were not sure that president trump would win so they stockpiled. they have enough permits to drill through 2024. so, permits are not the problem. the biden administration been permitting oil for the u.s. gulf

of mexico for new drilling. it is not a policy problem. it is a market problem. host: let me go back to harry, what is your reaction. guest: that is nonsense. i thought maybe this lady was neutral, but i listen to her, she is making excuses. are we wet -- we were better off now than two years ago with president trump? guest: the economy is up 5%. lesson i -- listen, i helped president trump when we had the crisis come up with solutions to the storage problem. they would call me at 2:00 in the morning, i used to work at james baker's institute in houston. i am pretty neutral. when it comes to oil, i am very neutral. i am just telling you what is

physically true. we physically did not need the pipeline from canada because others were built. that is the physical truth. i know that people like to have something that sounds right. they are very frustrated with the inflation, and there is no question that there are policies that might have been taken to lower inflation but none of them were related to oil because the oil thing is hard to change. one thing the president did that he did not work. he tried calling saudi arabia and he called venezuela which i do not agree with. and they said no. so, the next step is going to be the president is going to have to, if things get worse, or if people like yourself feels like it needs to be done now, so i would be interested to hear what you want to think. the president has the option to

use the war powers act to get u.s. companies to drill more. do you think that is a good idea? host: let us go to our calls. dog, go ahead. -- doug, go ahead. caller: i do not think that is a good idea, and also didn't biden cancel the something in alaska, i am not exactly sure. but there was drilling there. i just wanted to ring up, i am not exactly in the hearing, when i watched it was six to eight months ago when every democrat on the panel was asking oil all -- all of the oil companies, that is when all of the oil companies where there. they were asking them to promise and say today that you will stop drilling, you will drill less. you will stop this fossil fuel and they were absolutely

threatening and telling them not to drill. and that was just the democrats doing that. and -- guest: the oil companies did not listen to them. caller: go ahead, i am done. host: repeat what you just said. guest: i hear you, and they did say that. and it was premature because we have not replaced the oil with something else. but the oil companies did not listen to them, so does that matter? host: larry in north carolina. caller: good morning and how are you doing. i have a comment and then sort of a question. it might have already been talked about. when i was growing up, i was told do not quit your job until you are able to get a comparable or better job. that is what we are doing with

our energy policy. we are throwing away what we have for something that is not ready yet. it is not ready to be performed on a large-scale in the country. that is foolish to me. the other thing is -- host: let me have amy respond to you. she is shaking her head and i will come back for the second part. guest: i agree with you. i think that the so-called energy transition takes a lot of planning, and we should not be retiring energy that we still need. so, here is how i would put it to you. you have to think of energy in two buckets. there is electricity, so how do we get our electricity when i flip the light switch on, where does it come from? that is question one. question number two, what do i put my car. those are two different things.

when it comes to generating electricity, we have a lot of different ways we can do that and the cost of doing that for the wind and solar is coming down. we can combine it with batteries, and hydro, and so we can retire coal, we have been retiring coal. and we are to the point where we actually can probably retire all of our coal and what we need to do is come up with some kind of assistance for the 50,000 people in the united states, it is a small number of people. i think we could all agree that some amount of money needs to go to the people who are going to lose their jobs when we stop using coal. it is a small number of people. i should not say easy. i should come up with a package. we can actually generate electricity in the united states with really no impact without

coal, and you are saying that happened naturally. we are using more natural gas and solar in places like arizona and california. we are starting to use offshore wind. we have plans to do that in new england, and there are plans to do that off of the gulf of mexico. with electricity, we have already made the right plans and we can do it without there being a rise in cost or disruption. where we get into the problem is where we start talking about the fuel from your car, because right now oil is the top and we have not made enough arrangements of how we will not use more oil in our vehicles or airplanes so we are stuck with the infrastructure we have. we do not have charging stations. many americans do not want an electric car yet. until we get to that point where we have made arrangements to be able to have vehicles or some

other kind of transportation that goes away from a gasoline car, you are right, we are not ready. host: larry, back to you for your second point. make it quick, please. caller: the other one is the products used which petroleum is used in. make up, my wife would be really upset. numerous things in our products that petroleum is used in. is there an answer for that? guest: there is not as much of an answer as i would like to see. but the answer is bottom-line, some plastics can be made from recycled plastics. so, we are already seeing that a little bit where some of the plastics companies are pivoting to processes and materials to let you buy your bottle of liquid. you can bring that back to

recycling and instead of having that wind up in a landfill, you can actually take that bottle and melted back down and make another bottle out of it. that is a key thing. that is what we want to see happening. not only because it uses less petroleum, frankly because we are running out of places to put all of these plastic bottles and in some parts of the world when you go to the beach there are plastic bottles -- bottles in the water and you cannot go swimming because there are so many plastic bottles. we really need to address that issue, not only because we might want to use less oil, but also because of the pollution aspects. host: there is breaking news, that president biden is expected to meet with nato leaders in brussels on russia. this is coming from ukraine sources. "reuters" is reporting this. for our european allies, what is

our dependence on russian oil? guest: russia was providing about 2.5 million barrels a day of oil to the nato countries, something between 20 to 30% of the oil they use in some cases like -- and in some cases like germany, it was higher. its a very high percentage and it is not easy to replace. one of the things that was a little surprising is the amount of oil that has already been disrupted could have been replaced by saudi arabia and the united arab emirates, countries that nato has provided support to in the past. so you would have have -- you would have thought they have stepped up to the plate with extra oil. and i keep hoping that they will change their minds. i was a little shocked to read in the newspaper that dubai, part of the united arab emirates

is hosting all of these russian oligarchs that we are trying to grab their yachts and they have stolen all of this money from the russian citizens and treasury. apparently they are all hold up in fancy hotels in dubai and they say they will live there forever because dubai will let them stay there and launder their money via cryptocurrency. that is surprising -- that is an surprising action by a nato ally, u.s. ally and a country that gets military support i nato. i do not think there is diplomacy on the oil side that will be possible to get us to not have europe in such a precarious balance on its oil supply. host: how much are they paying at the pump? guest: they are paying probably 75% more than we are.

so they always had higher taxes on their fuel. one option they have is to lower the tax on their fuel to help people out. that is probably something that they are going to do. they have given financial assistance to lower income citizens to help with their fuel bills. host: robert. baton rouge, louisiana. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i want to ask to the electric vehicles and hybrids currently on the roads, how much those that decrease oil and gasoline, and also does corn ethanol significantly reduce gasoline and oil demand? and what is your general thoughts on corn ethanol? guest: we are using about 10% of the gasoline you use coming from corn ethanol. if we were not using that then get -- then gasoline demand would be 10% higher, and we

would have higher gasoline prices. it has been a good thing and it helps with air pollution. we have very few electric cars on the road, so i think the impact is small. but, i have done some research together with colleagues at the university of california davis, and at the rate at which we are expecting americans to shift to electric cars, it will probably take us about 10 to 20 years before we eliminate the one million barrels a day of gasoline equivalent of oil. that is a very slow process. when people tell you that electric cars are going to bankrupt the oil industry and we should not switch because it will be too much of a shock on all of the people getting jobs in the oil industry or it will harm the economy of texas, the

pace at which we are going to buy the electric cars and use them is pretty slow. the impact on oil, unfortunately it will be pretty slow. host: tom in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. it is hard for people to swallow that the biden administration was not going to deal with that dilemma. host: you sound really muffled, is there something -- we are having a hard time hearing you. caller: is that better? host: a lot better. thank you. start over please. caller: it is hard for us to swallow that the biden administration has nothing to do with the price of oil today because we all saw when he took his office the first day he

signed a bunch of executive orders that put back regulations to all -- all types of energy, gas, coal, oil. and during his campaign he was absolutely telling the people that he was launching a war against fossil fuel. i know maybe you are against fossil fuel, but half of us in this country think god gave us many things, oil, natural gas, coal. these are things that keep us warm, they promote progress, they promote technologies. host: hang on the line. amy, can you talk about the executive orders and the comments made by the president when he was campaigning. guest: tom is correct, the

president made a lot of promises. i think tom might be a little surprised to live -- to hear that i live 25 years of my life in houston, texas so i am very engaged with texas politics and obviously i know many people from the oil and gas industry. here is my point. some of the policies that the biden administration is going to put into place are going to reduce the need for fossil fuel. there is no question. what i am not -- i am not saying that those policies will not implement that over time. what i am saying that the president has been in office for a short period of time and none of those policies have kicked in yet. so, the one policy that was put in place which was to restrict the amount of methane that can be wasted and burned into the sky. it is like burning your garbage,

taking the national gas that is so important to heating our homes and providing a fuel for cooking, and providing a full fuel for industry and for making fertilizers, the oil industry was literally burning that supply into the sky because they wanted to save money. and you know, i do not know where you come down on that. it is possible to take that natural gas and use it. and have it create jobs. host: to produce electricity, you need energy. guest: correct. caller: you will not get it from the sun and the wind. guest: that is not true. we are getting about 20% of the electricity you use today from sun, wind, and hydro. that is not actually true. in california -- actually vermont i think it would be surprised to know it is a cold

state. they get 99% of their electricity from a new opals. they use solar in for not -- in vermont and canadian hydro and they do not use natural gas to generate electricity in vermont. there are places. california and other places or they are successfully using renewable energy. you would be surprised to know where the largest producer of wind energy is in the united states? texas. west texas is the largest production of wind in the country. it absolutely does provide a high proportion of electricity. so, we know how to do that. we are working on how to do that in a way that is not -- if you are using solar, then you have to have something else that you use at night. in some places like in australia

they came up with a system and tesla put it in where i use all of my sunshine during the day when it is available, and then i have a battery in my house that provides the electricity at night, and when you do that across hundreds and hundreds of houses every little house can have a battery that is a little bit larger than they need because sometimes you have more solar energy than you can actually consume at the middle of the day. so the electricity company takes all of the extra energy and all of the different batteries and they aggregate it together and use that to smooth out when you use your electricity so you can use more electricity from your battery at night or you can lend the electricity from many different batteries to places where they need it because there is a heat wave. these batteries could be a very powerful tool. we are just starting to use them now. there is a lot of potential do it. and i think you are going to see more of that.

texas is just -- has just passed legislation to enable extra batteries to be used in their electricity system and that is in an oil and gas estate. host: let us go to texas. dale is watching. caller: good morning. help my full mine understand it again. you're talking about the strategic petroleum reserve when the president said he would release 20 million barrels, i believe it was. host: 30 million. caller: 30 million, excuse me. that was a one-time deal, that was not an ongoing thing as i understand it. so it gets back to the two day supply. guest: you have to take the average. those barrels are not sold, nobody comes and picks up 20 million barrels of oil. that is a lot.

there are seven gallons in a barrel. what happens is i sell the oil at a certain rate. so right now i am selling oil at the rate of a little over one million barrels a day. so for the couple of months we are releasing that oil it is as if the president is putting one million barrels of oil in the market. you are correct, at some point after that 20 million barrels is sold then the president will have to authorize another tranche to continue to have that one million barrels a day and that will depend on whether we are still in a crisis or not. caller: second question, if i could. you talk about drilling. well oil companies and their pipelines have a certain capacity. and i am sure -- i used to work in an oilfield -- every day they are not pumping to the full capacity of the pipeline. guest: that is correct.

caller: i would believe that there is some margin of error. however there is that capacity, and to increase more capacity, eventually you have to build more pipelines and had there been a high expense put on the pipelines, be it through regulations or lawsuits or stuff like that. so you know that is a big expense. guest: that is 100% correct. there is going to be a moment in time when we are going to if we want to continue to produce more that we will need new pipelines. in the permian basin where we get a lot of our oil today and a lot of the entries can happen. i have talked to people down in the permian and they assured me that there is plenty of pipeline space if their production would go up. and so where there is not a

constraint right now, but you are correct it is not a constraint yet in canada. you are correct. if say russian oil is permanently lost to the market and we are no -- and we are never getting it back from the next time -- 10 to five years, we would have to build more pipelines and then the restrictions on pipelines would matter. host: what is the product that comes from canada in the pipelines? guest: we get crude oil from canada in the pipelines, and we get some natural gas from canada. host: what happens to that when it comes from canada, where it is it though? does it stay in the united states? guest: it does stay in the united states, but i think the way you want to think about it is that oil is not fungible in the sense that oil from different wells has different kind of qualities, think of every oil is having its own

fingerprints, but generally speaking, if i -- it is like a swinging full. if i put a barrel of water into the swimming pool and the whole swimming pool evens out in the water is a little bit higher everywhere. so if i put more oil from canada into the united states market, then i could export more oil from the united states to europe. and that is how canadian oil comes to the united states would help europe because the united states would refine the oil and send more products to europe or the united states would export more crude oil from its own terminals so we would get oil from pipelines from canada, and then we would transmit it, either use it, or transmit it down to the u.s. gulf of mexico where it would be exported. so, i kind of think of north

america as a block and any oil that comes into the united states, which has a lot of export terminals can go back out to europe and that is the way i am thinking about it. host: canada has said that they had more capacities and pipelines. guest: they have space to export more oriole. they canned of mayday -- they kind of made a sarcastic comment although i do not think it was made in that tone. they were like why were you going to venezuela, a country that has a really horrible human rights record when you can come up to canada and we will sell you more oil. so, i think that we have to think carefully about how -- if it turns out we have to get more oil, that it is not from russia. i think we need to be looking at creative ways to get more oil from canada, more oil from mexico, more oil from the united

states. we want to think of ways to get more oil from places where we know it will not be cut off for geopolitical reasons. host: the keystone pipeline, how much of it is built? guest: most of the keystone pipeline is built. and i think the way one wants to think about the keystone pipeline is let us just do the counter. suppose president biden had approved it. president trump did not approve it either. we do not have keystone pipeline. let us say that little spur that was not built, we needed it. it takes a couple of years to build a pipeline. even if the biden administration had approved it would not be helping us now. and when you think about investments, one of your callers mentioned it, it is a challenge for companies because you do not build the pipelines because you will need it for two years.

you needed because for 20 years you will need it. and that raises the question, what will i need in 20 years. and i think that even for the companies that build pipelines, the question is do i want to build a new pipeline and i will be able to use it for 20 years. one of the things that i have talked to industry leaders about and they have told me is that in the natural gas industry one of the things that companies are look at -- looking at is that can they take new pipelines and build them to specifications or can they upgrade the pipelines that they have to carry a fuel called hydrogen. because hydrogen can be made in a way that has no carbon emissions, and therefore i can take the same infrastructure that i am carrying natural gas and i can use it to carry hydrogen and hydrogen can be used in the same way. it can be used to generate

electricity and to be put in machinery it can be used to make steel and heavy industry. and so, you do have a lot of people from the oil and gas industry studying how to use their existing facilities for hydrogen and you have some pilot projects. a company called dominion is doing a pilot project to use their existing natural gas infrastructure to use hydrogen in a power station in utah, for example. the industry itself is thinking very forward about how to green pipelines. but, there is a problem in this country because nobody wants a pipeline to go into their community. and in the end energy does not fall from the sky. and so, therefore, we have to have infrastructure to transmit it. it might be a wire. we say we do not want electricity comes through maine

because we do not want to have the wire. then maine will have a shortage because i do not allow wires. at some point people are paying more money for natural gas in new england because they do not want to have a pipeline from pennsylvania. so it some point or another -- so at some point or another, are we willing to pay that much higher price because we do not want to pipeline or are we going to permit a pipeline. host: the leg of the keystone pipeline is the one that would activate during the obama administration, that is only 10% built in the company abandoned the project, is that correct? guest: yes. i do not think that is 100% a fair way of describing it. one of the things that cause the company to abandon the project is that they cannot get the last leg approved. i do think that there were some

regulatory issues that killed the pipeline. more to the point is do we actually need that oil? right now there are other pipelines i got built and there are some pipelines from canada that have extra capacity. so we are not to the point yet where you can say if we had that pipeline, we would have more oil. because we could get more oil without the pipeline. the question will become if demand keeps going up and we have no oil from russia, eventually there might be a need for pipelines from canada, but remember it takes a couple of years to build the pipeline. so it depends on how long you think the crisis will go. do you think it will go for a couple of months or five years? then that might change the question about whether we do or do not need a new pipeline from canada. host: anthony in pennsylvania. caller: good morning.

when joe biden took office in his primary goal was to raise the price of oil and natural gas so that the relative cost of renewable energy was somewhat more compatible and the goal of this administration to make the price of oil go up as high as it can so the relative costs are equal or more beneficial to renewables. our national security is based on energy, obviously. russia is making tons of money because this administration does not take that authorization to produce more oil. we have a lot of natural gas and oil under our feet. we could provide the northeast with natural gas through a pipeline and we could change that to hydrogen by putting a sleeve and. we could be providing europe with all of the natural gas they need from our domestic. were going to iran and venezuela.

what is going on? we have tons of energy underneath our feet, why guest: guest: aren't we using it? i love that question because if you google me you see that i wrote an op-ed in "time" that says we should not be going to venezuela and iran. we should be doing it here. and i disagree with you that the president wanted to raise the price of oil because he was even going to saudi arabia and asking them for more oil and he released the reserve specifically with the goal to get the price of oil down. so, and actually, there are two sides. you could raise the cost of fossil fuels by putting in -- by putting a carbon tax on them like they did in california. we saw cap and trade. or you could lower the cost of renewables. and i do think that the biden

administration had the policy that is aimed to lower the price of renewables so that they are more competitive to the market and we are finding them more competitive. one of the ways that we do that is we fund research and development to lower those costs. and that has been a consistent policy in the united states over the last decade and more even under president trump where he was not 100% enthusiastic about ofactually, congress said no, we have to do this r&d. it is important to lower the cost of renewables. we have a certain amount of oil and gas, we can definitely produce more, but we also have a huge amount of wind resource and sun in sunny states. we also have hydroelectric. we are a lucky country, we have many different ways we can generate energy, we should

absolutely generate as much energy as possible within our own borders and we can do so in ways that don't raise in missions. even our oil and gas, we can sequester the carbon from it and have it less impactful -- be less impactful on the environment. there are things we can do, and the infrastructure bill that was passed by congress has more money to do carbon sequestration, have money to help develop hydrogen networks, had more money to build out charging stations, so more people with solar panels on their homes could charge their cars and therefore not be needing gasoline. i understand what you are saying about raising the price of natural gas and oil due to a carbon tax. that is something that would work if you care about carbon emissions.

a carbon price would work to get us to favor clean energy over imaging energy -- emitting energy, but i do not think that is on the table right now. i do not see congress passing that. i do not think it is a good idea, actually, because when you don't take into account the costs incurred by certain fuels, it causes an anomaly of the market and you basically end up using something that, for coal, for example, we don't take into account the health costs that come from people who live near coal plants. i am originally from massachusetts and there was a coal plant one town over from my town. there are a lot of people who suffer from asthma near that

plant, and the cost of having to go to the doctor, take their children to the emergency room and so forth, that is a real cost. the fact that the coal plant might have been cheaper than doing some other thing in the town to generate electricity, you have to take into account the cost of what the health cost was of running that plans, which has now been closed. the whole point of a carbon price is to take into account the extra health costs and some of the other costs that are involved in using a polluting fuel. but i understand not everybody wants to pay those costs just to have clean air and lower emissions. that's the debate we have in this country. host: amy myers jaffe, we are all out of time. thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: you can follow amy on twitter at amyjaffeenergy.

we will take a break. when we come back, greg look good when -- greta goodwin will be joining us from the government accountability office to discuss their recent report examining u.s. capitol security following the january 6th attack. >> first ladies, in their own words. our series looking at first lady's during their time in the white house and what was important to them. >> it was a great advantage to work in school, because education is such an important issue, both for a governor but also for a president. so that was very helpful to me. >> using material from award-winning biography series "first lady's." >> i am very much the kind of person who believes you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> and c-span's online video

library will feature first ladies lady bird johnson, betty ford, nancy reagan, laura bush, michelle obama and melania trump. watch "first ladies: in their own words" saturday at two :00 p.m. eastern, on c-span two, or listen to the podcast on the free c-span now mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> now available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory. this spiral-bound book is a copy of your guide to the federal government, with contact information for every member of congress, including biontech in mid he assignments. preorder your copy today at c-span.org, or scan a code with

your smart phone. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is gretta goodwin, from the government accountability office . the gao recently conducted a report looking at u.s. capitol security following the january 6 attack. ms. goodwin, what was the scope of your report? guest: good morning and thank you for having me. for this report, we wanted to get a better sense and a better understanding for how the capitol police officers themselves, what their experiences were on that day. we had four questions we were interested in. with the first question we wanted to know, what were the preparations like? how did the capitol police prepare? how did they prepare their officers for crowd control techniques or any sort of demonstration? we wanted to see what that was like before january 6, because

depending on the training for any demonstration, that is what we would have seen on that day. the second question we were interested in looks at the uses of force that happened on january 6. what types of force the police officers engaged in on that day. the third question, we were really interested in getting the perspective of the capitol police officers. we wanted to know from the people who were on the ground what their experiences were, what their observations were. for the fourth question, we wanted to get a sense of, now that immense have happened, what have the capitol police put in place -- events have happened, what have capitol police put in place to prevent those immense from happening again? host: we're dividing the lines regionally, the lines on your

screen. start dialing in. you probably have some questions for our guest this morning. let me read from the report, gretta goodwin. prior to the attack, the cpu provided training did not specifically cover large-scale demonstrations such as what was seen during the january 6 attack, when many demonstrators were noncompliant or violence. according to capitol police officials, while the training discusses the possibility for the crowds to become violent, it poses -- focuses on the types of crowds they may see at the complex. such crowds may be large, over 1000 demonstrators, but are generally peaceful, with only a few noncompliant participants. what did you hear from the police officers about this training and what they actually encountered that day? guest: we surveyed all capitol police officers who were on the capitol complex.

315 officers completed our survey, so we heard from 315 officers on the ground that day. we asked them about the training they received, whether they thought the training was sufficient. we got nixed reviews about how well prepared they felt they were for the crowds that showed up on that day. we did hear that there were concerns from the officers about what types of use of force they might engage in. we heard that some of them felt that there was a discouragement, that management might have discouraged their using force against any kind of demonstrators. if they felt that way, then january 6 happened, and they are hesitant to use force. we also heard from the officers that there are concerns about morale, not feeling like they have been heard, not feeling like they have been listened to, also that capitol police leadership had shared enough

information. what we look at in this report, in addition to the preparation, how the officers felt about the communication that happened on that day, the coordination that happened on that day. host: sticking with this idea of what type of force you use, the direction that these officers felt that they got from their leadership about not using certain type of force, was that specific to what was happening that day or was it to any demonstrations on capitol grounds leading up to that day? guest: it was any demonstration. that speaks to the first question that we had. depending on the training they received are the expectations they might have had for a demonstration, that came into play on january 6. officers told us they felt they were being discouraged from using force. if that's happening before a large-scale event, such as january 6, on that day they were hesitant about using force.

host: on that day, what communication are they getting from their leadership and what communication are they getting about what type of force to use? guest: the officers in the survey felt there was not a lot of communication, not a lot of good guidance. some of them, as you see in the report, felt like they were out there by themselves. that's some of the things we talk about in this report. that also speaks to some of the recommendations we made in this report, and i can go into those whenever you want me to. host: no, please. go ahead and give the recommendations. guest: we made a total of five recommendations. we are asking that we make the recommendations to the chief of the capitol police, but this speaks to all of the capitol police leadership. we made the first recommendation that the capitol police better understand the perspectives of the officers and get some insight into what the officers think about what the officers

know and understand about the expectations and the guidance on use of force. the capitol police leadership get that, they might need to make changes to policy, training, and guidance based on what they are hearing from their officers. that's the second recommendation. the third recommendation speaks to the training itself. when officers join the capitol police force, they go through pretty extensive training. they don't always get the types of refresher courses that would be needed. the third recommendation speaks to the capitol police providing refresher courses specific to crowd control and also use of force. the third -- fourth recommendation we made speaks to the type and way the training is delivered. one thing we found when we did the report, some of the training is class, some of the training

is online. the police officers requested there be more hands-on, in person training to help them, more situational based training. the fifth recommendation we made really does speak to morale. we are asking that the capitol police better understand the underlying causes for low morale, better understand the underlying causes. if the officers think that they can't use force, where does that come from? having a better understanding for any type of underlying factors that affect what the capitol police officers told us in the survey. host: deadly force was used that day by an officer inside of the chamber. a woman was killed. was that specific incident analyzed in your report? guest: it was. all of the incidents of use of force, when the capitol police

reviewed it, they analyzed it and deemed it all to be justified. there were about 293 incidents or reports of use of force, from pushing or shoving, trying to control the crowd, it ranged from the use of their batons and the use of chemical spray. host: and the gunshot that killed the woman inside the capitol? that was also examined and deemed justified? tell us why. guest: the capitol police look at the circumstances of every case of use of force, and based on what they reviewed, they deemed that the firing of the weapon was justified. host: our viewers are lining up to talk to you, john first in wisconsin. hi, john. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. coming from a police background, both my father and brother were in the police service, police

officers in wisconsin, i believe that the capitol police -- i don't mean to disparage anybody at all, that is not my intent, i am totally pro-police, but capitol police have never had an opportunity to experience things that police officers out in the field experience on a regular day, in my opinion. i think they see 20% more than a regular police officer, they go there and expect, you know, to have a cushy job, great retirement and don't have to worry about dealing with that situation that arose that day. i feel it was nancy pelosi's job to get them more help prior to the riot that took place, which i am totally against. the procedures just weren't followed properly.

can you respond to that? thank you very much. host: thank you for that question, john. what i will say, so i know you are aware, the capitol police officers are responsible for protecting the capital complex. anyone who comes onto the grounds, they are responsible for ensuring the welfare of any individuals, so that includes the congresspeople who enter the capitol grounds, staffers and the general public. they have a large group of people they are responsible for protecting and making sure the visits to the capitol grounds is a good one. one of the things we speak to in recommendations is the training. the capitol police were requesting that there be more on hand, realistic training because the type of training they were receiving, some of them were in classrooms, some of them were online. when there is a large-scale demonstration like we saw on january 6, being prepared,

having more on hand experience would have better prepared you to deal with that type of situation. host: kevin in radford, virginia. caller: yeah, what i would like to say is, you know, what went on in washington on january 6 is definitely a mess, but it was basin -- basically a [inaudible] in comparison to gettysburg, democracy has never been in so much trouble since gettysburg. it's absolutely crazy. what we had here was just people with flagpoles breaking out windows, and now we try to compare it to something that is like world war ii? that's all i've got to say. host: gretta, what did the police tell you that day about what they experience with the

rioters and the protesters? guest: the police were hit, things were used as weapons on them. the bike racks you have seen on the capitol grounds, those were taken out of, taken off the ground and used as weapons. the flagpoles were also used as weapons. in addition to the breaking of the windows and the breaking and getting in through the doors, those types of things were used against the officers as well. so when we did the report, we wanted to get the perspective of the people on the ground. we wanted to know the officers' observations and what they experienced in that day. host: dennis in miami, your comments? caller: yes. the reality is, they call white people, most republicans call it a peaceful demonstration. i guarantee you, if those people

were black and airing their grievances like that, do you think it would have been one killing at washington, d.c. that day? or do you think it would have been a mass killing? host: the gao report speaks to what happens on january 6, 2021. it's on that day that hundreds, thousands of people made incursions onto the capitol grounds. police officers were assaulted. police officers were harmed. the report speaks to what happened on that day. host: what is the total years of experience of the capitol hill

police force? does that make a difference? guest: those range, two to 15 or so. there was a range of experiences and lengthens time -- lengthened time as officers. when you come through the capitol police, you go through extensive training. you also go to the federal law enforcement training center, otherwise known as fletc. you also go through capitol police training, so there is a lot of training, officers who were newer to the force had more recent training. depending on what unit you were in, you might have also had additional training or refresher course training, but the tenure of the officers ranged, it was across the board. host: i want to show from your report this graphic you put together on page 16, categories of use of force. this is what they were trained

on before january 6, is that correct? guest: correct. host: here's what they were trained to do. less lethal tactics first, talking, de-escalating the situation, officers may use low-level empty handed control tactics to gain control and compliance of ushering, gesturing to the person. compliance tactics. when the subject becomes actively resistant, the officer may use physical control tactics, such as joint locks, takedowns, and use of chemical spray. defensive tactics -- if they attempt to assault an officer, the officer may use defensive tactics to regain control of compliance, such as batons or hand strikes, and in their's lethal force. when the officer perceives that the subject poses an imminent danger of death or physical injury, immediate countermeasures can be used, such as a firearm or striking

critical areas of the body with a baton. was lethal force practiced? guest: on that day, not as much. we did see instances where firearms were drawn. they might have been pointed at individuals, but as you all know, only once was actually fired and that resulted in the death of an individual. prior to january 6, a lot of the tactics they used focused on de-escalation. having the conversation. verbal controls. when we got to january 6, we saw them not using, saw the initial controls, the verbal controls, the attempt that de-escalation, those were not working. they had to continue to

escalate the types of force they were using, from batons to chemical spray. but we heard from officers, even if there had been more of the officers on the ground, there were so many more of the protesters and people attacking the capitol that they were outnumbered. host: the gao calculated the types of use of force made on january 6 and how many times, this from the report. as gretta goodwin was saying, there were 91 attempts at hand controls, 83 attempts at baton, withdrawing of a firearm happen 37 times, chemical spray was used 34 times. other physical tactics came in at 22 times. pointing a firearm at an individual, 17. kinetic impact, less lethal munitions, seven times, a diversionary device used ones. the firing of a firearm was used once.

ron from pikesville, kentucky. ron? caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate the show, and i appreciate the guest for answering questions like that. the young lady that was killed, was she armed? i have a hard time with that use of lethal force being justified. and a quick comment, i think a lot of folks have a hard time calling what happened on january 6 an attack when we saw what happened when our country burned, when folks were looting and destroying. they were not treated the same and they were called peaceful protests when they were setting fires, destroying property, taking over buildings. i think we have a dual narrative like this that further leads to the division of our country that we have. thank you. guest: i am not remembering if the woman was armed. what we do know from what we

heard or what we read from the survey results, the capitol police felt threatened. they felt that had that person come through the window, there were a number of individuals trying to enter that particular entrance, and they took whatever tactic they deemed necessary to try and stop that. host: where do capitol police officers get their training, and is crowd control part of it? guest: crowd control as part of it. when they join the capitol police force, they have a number of trainings. they go to the federal law enforcement training center, also known as fletc, and there is a good number of hours they take for the training. in terms of crowd control, that is part of initial training, but one of the recommendations we made speaks to refresher training we believe is

necessary. there are a couple of units with the capitol police that get more continuous training, so the civil disturbance you'd -- unit, otherwise known as the cdu, gets a lot of training. the civil disturbance unit, on that day, maybe 276 officers. there were over 1700 officers on duty on january 6, so you've got 276 of them that have a lot of additional training, crowd control techniques, use of force techniques. the majority of capitol police officers are not a part of the cdu. there is another unit of the capitol police known as the containment and emergency response team, otherwise known as cert. that is the team that deals with hostage situations or anything a little more severe. those units get a little more additional training. the recommendation that we made, we are asking that all of the capitol police officers receive more training on crowd control,

additional training on use of force, and of course, we are asking that the capitol police help the officers better understand the expectation, the guidance, and the training as it relates to any type of use of force. host: we will go to william in budd, new jersey. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i've got a question. my wife and i were watching c-span that morning, and we were stunned to see people coming in and staying within the velvet lines that are set up there. what my question is about, how did the magnetic locks on the doors get opened? the second question, what went on with governor whitmer, with the agents involved? was there anything like that that happened during the protest? thank you.

guest: i can only speak to the doors. one of the things we heard from the capitol police officers in the survey, they felt like the locks weren't working, and it is something we talked with the capitol police officers about when we were finalizing our review. they also spoke to the fact that maybe the doors need to be secured differently, may be better. they also talked about the fact that the windows needed to be secured or reinforced. we all know there was scaffolding and other construction equipment on that day, because the complex was being prepared for the inauguration. that was also used as ways to make entry onto the capitol grounds and the capitol building. host: deborah in san diego. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i have a question. one person asked this question. as if it was an all group of black people going to the n doing all this, would they be using -- going to the capital and doing all this, would they be using the same force? they did not use the higher force, and i would like to know why they did not use higher force like that. host: let's talk about that. gretta goodwin, you address this a little bit, but as the officers are talking on their communications quit and back to leadership, what is leadership telling them to do in response? guest: this is what we heard. a good number of officers that

responded to the survey did not feel like there was good communication between the man leadership. we also heard from officers that they have been paying attention from social media, other types of avenues, and those outlets were talking about how large the crowd were going to be. -- crowd was going to be. the officers were not getting that information from their leadership. we think this is one of the reasons why when they talked with us about morale, why morale is where it is. host: larry in drummond, pennsylvania. caller: yes, i have two questions. two issues with the riot. the first being that there were a man on the ground and one elevated during the riot who seems to be coordinating the people on the on the ground to

enter the capitol and do whatever to get inside. and why did they refuse president trump's call to bring the national guard in when they sensed that things may get out of control? and the two men that were coordinating everything were never brought in and questioned or arrested. the only death that i know of was an innocent woman who was shot by a capital policeman -- capitol policeman, and nothing happened there. the fact there that the people were frustrated and angry about the election, which anybody with

any sense knows that it was a rigged election -- host: all right, larry -- gretta goodwin, your comments? guest: as you know, there is an elect committee that is asking some of those questions. our gao report was to gain a better understanding what the officers were experiencing on that day. they were outnumbered. they were outnumbered on that day. they did we have seen what's happened, officers were insulted and attacked and at gao, we wanted to provide additional insight and give their perspectives out there. host: have things improved for the capital police since your report? guest: yes and maybe.

i will explain why. we talked with the capitol police before the report came out. we know that they have added additional training, we know, particular crowd control techniques. the last time we spoke with them, what we also learned is that some of that training was to not being provided to all of the capitol police officers. they told us they were more focused on providing the additional training to members of the civil disturbance unit. we write in the report that we maintained that additional training on the different types of use of force an additional training on crowd control needs to be provided to all of the capitol police officers. on january 6, everybody was -- everybody was on the capitol grounds were engaged in trying to manage the crowd that day so

it's important that all officers receive the appropriate type of training so that if this ever happens again, they are better prepared. host: one last call, jonathan from canton, ohio. caller: good morning. i have a comment. i believe you have to understand the language of what people are trying to verbalize about the accountability of police officer training. you being an african-american woman, you should be on their talking about the training to kill black people. kyle rittenhouse got off and it's different laws for different people. u.s. and african-american woman should be talking about real and just being used and depressed. host: do you have any reaction

to that? guest: the government accountability office is part of the legislative branch and we work for the congress. the work that we do, we audit policy and programs and we make recommendations on ways to improve a policy and ways to improve the program. the recommendations we made to capitol police we think were absolutely -- would improve the work environment for officers. whenever they encounter any kind of crowd control or any kind of large demonstration, we think our recommendations if implemented will absolutely provide for better preparation step gao has a very robust recommendation follow-up process so we will be following up on all five of those recommendations and when we do that, he will make that follow-up publicly available. i would also like to say that this is one of many gao reports looking at the events of january

6. we did a report last august that looked at whether the special destinations -- designations were made and if they were appropriate. we did a report looking at the perimeter security of the capitol grounds and whether the propria risk assessments were done to stop then there is this report looking specifically at the capitol police officers and getting those perspectives and we have additional work we will be doing surrounding the events of january 6, 2021. host: is this all public? guest: not all of them. the report that we published in august is public. the report on perimeter security and risk assessment of the building security is public in this report is public. sometimes gao will do work that will be deemed law enforcement sensitive and that work is not made public but when we do that,

we work with the agencies to ensure the public report will eventually be released. host: our viewers can go to gao.gov and you can follow them at twitter as well. greta goodwin, the director of the homeland security and justice branch of the government accountability office, we appreciate the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will take a break and we will have an open form when we come back. we will started off with a preview of today's federal reserve meeting and whether or not interest rate hikes are on the way. we will be right back. ♪ >> there are a lot of laces to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source3 ♪ new matter where you are from or

where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network step unfiltered, unbiased and it when it happens here or here or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> i am pleased to nominate judge jackson will bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect and a rigorous judicial record to the court. >> i am truly humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination. and i am especially grateful for the care that you have taken discharging your constitutional duty and service of our democracy with all that is going on in the world today. >> president biden nominates judge jackson to the u.s. court of appeals for the district of

columbia circuit to succeed retiring justice stephen breyer on the supreme court and if confirmed, she will become the first african-american woman to serve on the nation's highest court. follow this historic process with the confirmation hearing starting monday, march 21 live on c-span, www.c-span.org or by downloading the free c-span now mobile media -- mobile video app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open form until the end of the program. we want to talk about a policy issue that's on your mind and we can begin with inflation in the wall street journal inflate -- talking about inflation. thinking about you and your family.

what is the most important issue you want the president and the was congress to make a top priority? on the economy, we are joined this morning by the chief economic correspondent with the wall street journal to talk about the federal reserve. what are we expecting at today's fed meeting? guest: thanks for having me. this is a two day meeting and when the meeting ends tomorrow,

it's widely expected to raise interest rates by a quarter percentage point and that would be the first interest rate increased since the end of 2018 and it's a sign the fed is moving at a faster pace to remove the stimulus they provided over the past two years which was there to cushion the economy from the downturn from the pandemic. host: your headline this morning, inflation raises the stakes for the fed, what do you mean? guest: the fed had this hope or expectation this year that a lot of the inflation we had last year which was caused by very strong demand colliding with the supply chain that resulted from the pandemic. the hope was that the supply chain would heal itself this year and that would ring inflation down step the fed response to high inflation but they cannot address supply chain issues. if there is a shortage of oil,

the fed cannot create more oil so what the interest rate increases do is they cool the economy by reducing demand. inflation results when supply and demand are out of whack and that's they're seeing now. the fed can reduce demand but it will have to do more if they don't get help from the supply side of the economy. not only is the supply not getting better but we see lockdowns now in china again because they are struggling with coronavirus outbreaks. you see oil and other commodity prices spiking because of the war in ukraine and the sanctions the west is imposing on moscow. these are things that will keep pressure on inflation at a time when the fed was hoping and expecting inflation to come down and it means the fed could have to raise interest rates even more which risks a recession. host: why not increase the

interest rate more than anticipated? guest: that's a good question. the fed has decided, the chairman has decided not to do that at this meeting partly because you see a lot of volatility right now in markets. you see oil way up and way down in the head does not want to create additional sources of uncertainty. they could raise interest rates more but they chosen not to at this particular meeting because they are telegraphing a path of steady interest rate increases this year. investors in interest rate markets which tend to influence borrowing cost across the economy expect the fed to raise interest rates at nearly all of their seven meetings this year. if the markets thought the fed is not going to raise interest rates and you see borrowing cost going up in the economy,

mortgage rates have gone up a lot but if that wasn't happening, that he assigned there is a problem here in the fed is not in control of the situation but when you see interest rate going up, it reduces the urgency to make a larger move at a particular meeting. host: there are critics of the federal reserve that say inflation is a mess including the wall street journal editorial board and they lay the blame at the feet of the chair. guest: this is a real challenge for the fed. as to where the blame goes, part of the challenge is we had a pandemic in the pandemic has disrupted the normal equilibrium of the economy. that has made it much harder to determine what is the demand going to be for workers? are all the workers going to

come back or will we have the labor shortages we are seeing now? you had a lot of federal stimulus last year and that is causing an effect as well. it's interesting that if you look across the world, you see high inflation and other countries. you see inflation in australia and canada and germany. this is by no means the u.s. only phenomena. the common thread across these economies has been the pandemic. host: you have a new book looking at the federal reserve. what are you focusing on? guest: the book is called trillion dollar triage and it's about the fed response in the u.s. economic policy makers. their response to the pandemic. two years ago today the fed cut interest rates to zero at an emergency meeting on a sunday afternoon stop what the book looks at is how jay powell moved his colleagues and rushed them.

he complains he felt they were falling behind and he said it felt like we were swimming after speed boat. you had a panic unfolding in the treasury market just probably the most most liquid market there is. he was rallying his colleagues that we need to get ahead of this. the application of that today is you find the fed in a similar situation where we have zero interest rates and seven or 8% inflation which is not appropriate so powell once again wanted to find the right gear to remove the stimulus that flooded the economy over the past two years and do it in a way that does not completely destabilize financial markets and create a greater risk, what we call a hard landing which would be a recession. host: before we let you go, who is sarah raskin and why she

getting criticism on capitol hill? guest: sarah bloom raskin is the nominee for one of the open seats on the fed board of governors. it's the chair of supervision which is probably the most powerful banking regulator in the country. she was nominated by the resident a couple of months ago and republicans have raised a series of objections including during the pandemic when the fed was aggressively backstopping an area of markets. she said it was a mistake to allow fuel companies to have access to those backdrops. she wanted the fed to essentially deny the corporate lending backstops that were created in the fossil fuel sector. that does not sit very well with some republicans and they have raised concerns about her professional act to betty's after she was at the fed. she is in the news now because yesterday, west virginia senator

joe manchin said he was not in favor of confirming her which suggests she will not have the 50 votes she needs to get on the board stopped the white house is still standing behind her but it looks like a road to being confirmed is at a dead end. host: chief economics correspondent for the wall street journal, you can follow him on twitter. thank you for your time. we are going to go back to your calls on any public ellis he issue on your mind. that will wind up today's program and we have a democratic color, good morning to you. caller: i am so grateful for c-span and your program specifically and for having such great guests. the last person was great and the person you had talking about

the attacks on january 6 was also wonderful. i just hope that when it comes to accountability, they are looking to the planners of this, apparently clarence thomas is wife was involved in trump wasn't altered and i think it's interesting the republican side says it was reallyantifa pretending to be republicans and it's a legitimate political discourse and there is no comparison to the protests of the summer of 2020 and january 6. this is a category all on its own because it took place in the capital, trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and bus deserves its own scrutiny, thank you. host: denise, a republican from minnesota. caller: good morning. i just want to tell america that

the truth will come out. ok? on january 6, i saw a busload ofantifa people go there. my gut is telling me that nancy pelosi is behind all this. she didn't have the national guard there, she said no to that and it's really sad to see where our country is going. i also want to say the gas prices for biden, he has to own up to it. the american people are not stupid. i want to give a shout out to ukraine and pray for those people who are fighting for their freedom. that's basically all i want to say, thank you so much. host: you will hear from the ukrainian president addressing the american people and members of congress tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. eastern time so you

can watch right here on c-span and on our website www.c-span.org or download on your phone, the c-span now video app. matt in ♪ st. louis, missouri, independent. caller: i just wanted to make a couple of comments about the january 6 lady that was on. apparently, she didn't see the project veritas expose the guy i think from the new york times or new york posed to said it was all a scam and we were all there. there were tons of fbi agent's. this was just the other night this came out. it was all one big joke and they had the guy throwing his own colleagues under the bus saying they are making a big deal out of it. not only that -- host: you believe this one

person? caller: no, it was on project verify for the last three days. they got the guy's been writing all these stories about how terrible january 6 was. they got them on project veritas saying it was a scam. there were dozens of is there from the paper in the crowd and not only that, he said there were tons of fbi agent's in the crowd that day. and it was all a plot to make it out to what it isn't and on top of that, why is nancy pelosi able to block freedom of information act from getting her phone calls to the d.c. sergeant at arm's at 10:00 p.m. the night before when she didn't let those

$20,000 at her d.c. property? host: glenn, greenbrier, arkansas, deming reddick caller, what's on your mind? caller: i watch that woman on your program. she is a black woman and she talked about host: tim, in illinois, independent. caller: good morning, i would like to ask a question. i read articles wherein 2020, president trump made an agreement with russia and saudi arabia on lowering the oil production step how much impact does that happen an what's going on today when it was a two-year in agreement that would end at the end of the year but yet we have an oil shortage? host: we talked about oil and gas prices in the 8:00 hour and

what was happening during the last year or two of the trump presidency and what's happening now. amy myers jaffe is who we spoke about with that. new york, caller. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] caller: we have to believe what we see with our own eyes. host: what are you referring to? caller: it was an attempt at an insurrection. we all know what it was. why is everybody saying it was a gathering and if they were black it would've been different. stop, we all know what it was. host: dan in kansas, republican. policy issue on your mind? caller: i watched the

insurrection and all the events that happened around that stuff a big man with a gun killed the smaller woman that was apparently unarmed. i'm wondering about the selection process and training for capitol police. host: did you miss our last segment about what sort of training they get? caller: apparently i did stop i just turned on. host: go to www.c-span.org and you can check from nine-9:30 a.m. and we checked with the government accountability office about their training. rob, independence, missouri, democratic caller. caller: i want to comment on the previous guest. i think the one thing she was talking about, training and how the capitol police are supposed to handle something. how are you going to train

capitol police to say the outgoing president can stand on the corner until a crowd of people to attack the capital and take back the country? no one was ever paired and no one could have imagined that something like that was going to take place. how can you prepare for such an event which is probably never going to happen again, we hope. i think the capitol police were trained properly and did all they could. the other point is that trump set watching this event on fold on tv and for almost three hours, he never called the national guard to help. he sat there like it was a tv show. he was gleefully watching it and was happy that such an event was taking place. he will never, ever be president again, thank you. host: mike in baltimore,

republican, good morning. caller: i was calling about the january 6 insurrection. to me it seemed like all trump supporters to really understand the truth. how can you be a republican or democrat and be not for anybody? host: stan in florida, an independent, good morning staff go ahead. caller: first of all, that was a sin what they did on january 6 step nancy pelosi did not in the national guard stuff at the end of trump's campaign, all the planes were on the ground and oil went down.

we were never independent of oil. we were using russian oil and the people in california are paying for it because they stopped the both the go to california to saudi arabia and russia. we were never independent so no matter how much they said he was using russian oil, no planes and no people traveling. we are using the same amount of oil we are now and there is stopping oil. these people that say they want to put planes in the air, they want them to fly over there. host: 10:00 a.m. this morning, in a few minutes on c-span3, you can watch testimony on the management of presidential records before the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. watch live on c-span3 and

www.c-span.org or watch the full coverage and are free app, c-span now. randy in texas, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning, i tried to get through and ms. jaffe was on there and i wanted to hear her response to the effect that renewables have worldwide. technology has not been capable of invading another country and stealing their sunlight or their wind. i would've liked to have heard her response to that. host: brooksville, florida, republican. caller: yes, what's the difference if we drill in texas or russia? emissions are the same. we have stronger regulations. they have high taxes for

greenhouse gases which puts high taxes on getting those permits. that's why the oil companies are not drilling. host: all right. caller: one other thing. the insurrection -- those people were protesting what they thought were illegal activity in the election process. that's what they were protesting against. host: did it justify violence? caller: it doesn't justify violence but it was very few of them that were violent. there were thousands and thousands of people out there. i think many of those violent people were put there by black lives matter. host: what evidence do you have of that? caller: what evidence do you have that it wasn't? no one has that evidence.

host: larry in galveston, tennessee, independent. caller: on 9/11, 9/11 has been shown that these people that were brought there, this was organized months and months ahead. donald trump lost the election and he couldn't handle it. he got his cronies to organize people coming into washington. they came in and they got stirred up by speakers that the election was stolen which was proven that it hadn't in stolen, 60 cases. host: happening on capitol hill right now, the senate foreign

relations committee to gavel in. they are holding a hearing this morning on combating authoritarianism, live coverage right here on c-span and on our website www.c-span.org or error-free video app, c-span now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [no audio]

>> this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order.