competitiveness with china and supporting the u.s. ship industry. you can find everything streaming live at c-span.org or on c-span now. c-span gives you your uncensored view of government. the world is changed today -- fast reliable internet action is something no one can live without. speed, reliability, value. now more than ever it starts with great internet. >> wow. support c-span as a public service as -- along with other television providers. giving you a front seat of democracy. >> this morning on washington journal, a look on how the bank is responding on the bruen, whoe

house director of global engagement during the obama presidency. and later, retired army major general john ferrari talks about his recent op-ed calling for a significant increase to the defense budget. ♪ host: good morning. it is wednesday, march 23, 2022. the senate judiciary committee is set to reconvene at 9:00 a.m. eastern for day three of judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court confirmation hearings. we will take you through the highlights and key moments from day two and we want to hear from you. did you watch yesterday's hearing? let us know whether you think judge jackson should be confirmed to the nation's highest court. if you say yes, (202)-748-8000. if you say no, (202)-748-8001.

you can also send us a text, that number (202)-748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. otherwise catch up with us on social media on twitter @c-spanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. you can start calling in now. 22 members on the senate judiciary committee each allowed up to 30 minutes for the round of questioning. it will be another long day for judge ketanji brown jackson. yesterday began just after 9:00 a.m. eastern and ended around 10:15 p.m. over the course of 13 hours plenty of questions. here is one exchange in which she talked about her readiness to go from judge jackson to associate justice jackson. [video clip] >> what would you say to people whose politics may be different than yours, like speaker ryan, who has endorsed you?

what would you say to those people who thought you are ready to serve as an evenhanded, unbiased supreme court justice? >> thank you, senator. i would say i am committed to serving as an evenhanded supreme court justice if i am confirmed by this body. and i have a record over the past decade that is precisely how i have treated all of my cases. and i have been serving in the district of columbia both as a trial judge and appellate judge and we see some of the most politically contentious issues. my record demonstrates my impartiality. host: 51-year-old judge ketanji brown jackson yesterday. today she will be back in that seat in less than two hours.

you will be able to watch it right here on c-span. that is why this program is ending around 9:00 a.m. eastern instead of our usual 10:00 a.m. a question for you, should judge jackson be confirmed to the supreme court? lines for those who say yes and no. this is herbert out of river edge, new jersey on the line for yes. caller: good morning. i am very much in favor of the confirmation of the judge jackson. i just think she is deserving of an apology from lindsey graham, who spoke to her with such anger and mostly because his nominee was not the one the president nominated. host: that is herbert in new jersey. john in bentleyville, pennsylvania who said no. good morning. caller: good morning, john. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i call on the no with

some reluctance. i listened to the proceedings yesterday and i liked judge brown. she seems to be very insightful and knowledgeable. i have no problem with her being an african american woman as a nominee. but what i do have a problem with is when she was being questioned by ms. blackburn from tennessee she was asked to define the word "woman" and was unable to provide a definition. i would urge people to simply, instead of asking her to define the word, whether or not she is a woman and what makes her a woman. there is a distinct biological difference between a

man and a woman and for people to indoctrinate our children that there is no difference concerns me about what sort of ideology she sets forth. just a little concerning. perhaps if she is able to provide a definition that satisfied me, perhaps i would be calling on the yes line this morning. host: you plan to watch today and look to see if that question comes back? caller: i am, john. i think this is a very important thing for our country to know who it is that is sitting on the court and where they come from. yes, i will be watching again today. thank you very much. host: that was john out of the keystone state. robert in marina del rey, california.

good morning. caller: yes. i think she has proven herself to be a qualified nominee. she has a harvard pedigree. she is rational, she is practical. the whole notion of politics just kind of clouds this whole process. i was happy to see the republicans did not do what the democrats did with kavanaugh and i think she might get republican votes along the way. she is a legal scholar and that is what we need on the court. whether she is in her personal life liberal or conservative does not mean anything to me. does she believe in the rule of law and i think she proved that so far. host: if you had to guess, who

do you think would be those republican votes? it was about nine months ago her circuit court confirmation came through the senate and she picked up lisa murkowski, susan collins, and lindsey graham who was on the committee asking some of those tough questions yesterday. caller: i think those three, i mean, it is hard to vote for the court of appeals and not vote for her for the supreme court. i think she will get those three and maybe even a couple more. probably 55, 45 when all is said and done. but we need to get away from this. it needs to end. presidents have priorities, they get to pick supreme court nominees and the senate needs to use their consent but not turn it into bloodsport and destroy

people like we saw with kavanaugh which was unacceptable in my mind. host: that is robert in california. callers bringing up key moments already. let's work through some of them. this was senator marsha blackburn asking that question of judge jackson of the definition of a woman. [video clip] >> can you provide a definition for the word "woman? " >> can i provide a definition? no, i can't. >> you can't? >> not in this context. i am not a biologist. >> is thinking of the word woman is so controversial, you cannot give me a definition? >> senator, in my work as a judge what i do is address disputes. if there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and i look at the law and i decide. >> the fact that you cannot give

me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about. just last week an entire generation of young girls watched as our taxpayer-funded institutions permitted a biological man to compete and beat a biological woman in the ncaa swimming championship. what message do you think this sends to girls who aspire to compete and win in sports at the highest level? >> senator, i am not sure what message that sends. if you are asking me about the legal issues related to it, those are topics that are being hotly discussed, as you say, and could come to the court. host: judge ketanji brown

jackson and her exchange with marsha blackburn. you can watch all of this and the entire 13 hours on our website at c-span.org. you can watch these in their entirety. we are asking your thoughts on yesterday's confirmation hearings. plenty of thoughts by those who are paid to write about them in today's newspapers. front page from usa today, jackson defends her legal decisions. john fritz is the author. this is how he puts what happened yesterday. in a marathon first day of questioning, jackson avoided any missteps that would change the narrative she is on a path to confirmation as the first black woman to serve on the supreme court. republicans asked probing questions about her record and judicial philosophy, but there were few theatrics as jackson repeatedly delved deeply into her approach to the law. if you want to read his story,

usa today. jerry, sidney, montana for the line for those that say no. caller: i had the same question as the prior caller. she could not define woman for senator blackburn and to me if you cannot even define the definition of a woman, how can you interpret the constitution? she is a very intelligent woman and i did like a lot of her answers yesterday but to me, it put doubts in my mind. thank you. host: michael in chicago on the line for those who say yes. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. i have watched washington journal, c-span for quite some time. i support judge jackson to be confirmed for the supreme court

because of her answers. she did not allow the politicians, the political entities on one side or another, to confirm what she is supposed to do. when it comes to the definition of a woman, when senator blackburn gave that question i thought that was appalling. it led to what the republicans continue to do and that is continue to use social controversial issues to maintain their base. that is not what judges are supposed to do. judges deal with the

constitutionality of anything that is brought before them. what i saw was judge jackson, she was able to do that. she did not deal with the issue of defining a woman because it deals with the issues of transgender americans in this country. the 14th amendment in terms of equality of americans' due process was the issue being implied. quite frankly, that is a judicial situation that has to come before the court and most likely will. for her to have to answer that question from judge blackburn i thought was unfair. host: michael in illinois. this is james and south

dakota. go ahead. caller: how you doing? how you doing? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: this is very interesting. i think she is really off on a lot of levels. god bless us all, but i do believe she is not going to be the type of person that would back up our constitution. host: what does it mean to back up our constitution? what do you mean? caller: i mean our republic constitution. i think she is more of an oligarchy. she makes a nice face but she is not going to rule in the right way under the founding fathers

of our country. host: that was james in south dakota. this is denise in carmel, indiana. caller: yes, i have a yes for her as well. i just think she is wonderful and i think lindsey graham does owe her an apology. he is a disgrace and he actually had his hood on questioning her. host: what do you mean "has his hood on." are you trying to imply something? caller: yes, i think he is very racist. the way he questioned her like he has disgrace for black people, he is a disgrace. host: that was denise. tina, huntington, pennsylvania on the line for those who say

no. caller: i just want to say, wow about that last caller but anyway, i was a yes up until two points yesterday. when ted cruz was questioning her on whether or not she knew about critical race theory and she said no. then he brought to our eyes she sat on the board of the georgetown school and their curriculum is nothing but and she said, i did not know about the curriculum. well, you are sitting on the board, i kind of think you did. after that i was like, i am going to let that one go. then we get to the drug traffickers and the drug dealers and the light on crime sentences. being that she said that drug

trafficking is not a victimless crime is deplorable. i am a victim of that. it took my child. as far as the sentencing guidelines for pedophilia and pornography, i am 54 years old and i was molested at the age of four and i still live with that. that guy should never see the light of day again in my opinion. i was a yes up until then. now i am a hard, hard no. host: tina in pennsylvania. just after 7:15 on the east coast. day three of judge ketanji brown jackson's confirmation hearings get underway in an hour and 45 minutes. we will take you there a little bit before 9:00 a.m. eastern. situational awareness though about other happenings around d.c. and the world. the punch bowl news wrap up of

president biden's trip overseas. he heads today to brussels for what punch full describes as the most critical overseas trip of his presidency as russia continues its assault on ukraine. all eyes will be on biden. reaffirmed support for nato alliance and other allies in the face of vladimir putin's aggression. on thursday he will address an emergency nato summit and meet with leaders of the other g-7 countries followed by an address to 27 leaders of the european union during a european council session. also on this trip will be a stop in poland. the president expected to be back here in d.c. on saturday. all eyes on that trip. we will be talking more about that trip and the russian invasion of ukraine in our 8:00 a.m. our. -- hour. continue to work our way through

the specific moments from that more than 13 hours of hearings yesterday. several callers bringing up exchanges between senator lindsey graham and judge ketanji brown jackson. here is one of them. [video clip] >> you whatnot say you are an activist judge. >> i would not say that. >> ok. we will have 20 minutes later but here's what i would say, every group that wants to pack the court that believes this court is a bunch of right wing nuts that are going to destroy america, that consider the constitution trash all wanted you picked. this is all i can say. the fact that so many of these left-wing radical groups declared war on michelle chow in support of you is problematic for me. thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. let me mention a few points.

congressman jim clyburn was a strong supporter of michelle childs and now supporting your nomination. michelle childs has been nominated by president biden to be a circuit judge and she will be considered by this committee as quickly as possible. on the issue of guantanamo, there are 39 detainees remaining. the annual budget for guantanamo is $540 million per year, which means each of these detainees is being held at the expense of $12 million or $13 million per year. if they would be incarcerated in colorado, the amount would be dramatically less. since 9/11 nearly 1000 convicted in the united states on terrorism charges. since 2009 with the beginning of the obama administration the recidivism rate of detainees released is 5%. >> mr. chairman, according to

the director of national intelligence it is 31%. somebody is wrong. if you're going to talk about what i said, i am going to respond to what you said. do you support indefinite detention for these detainees? >> i would just say i am giving the facts. >> the answer is no. >> i want to make sure it is clear the 31% goes back to the year 2001? >> what does it matter what it goes back to? we had them and they got loose and they started killing people. >> i can just say -- >> if you are one of the people killed in 2005, does it matter to you? >> the president of your own party -- >> i am saying advocates to change this system, like she was advocating, would destroy our ability to protect this country. we are at war, we are not fighting a crime. as long as they are dangers i hope they all die in jail if they kill americans.

it will not bother me one bit if 39 of them die in jail. if it costs $500 million to keep them in jail, keep them in jail. look at the afghan government made a former detainees. this whole thing by the left about this war ain't working. >> let me also note larry thompson who served as deputy attorney general under george w. bush, the assistant attorney general for policy, john belanger, and former d.c. circuit judge independent counsel kim starr were also profited conservative lawyers defending attorneys who represented guantanamo bay detainees. i don't believe we should associate that activity as being inconsistent with our constitutional values. host: that exchange yesterday during the more than 13 hours of supreme court confirmation

hearings and it is another long day today. it will begin around 9:00 a.m. eastern. janice in maryland is on the line for those who say yes, judge jackson should be confirmed. why? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i say yes and i am very proud of judge brown jackson. i think she did a wonderful job during the hearings. there is nothing that she did that was out of character. she kept her calmness. there were questions that she could not answer because either of the content of the questions, which the senator from tennessee was trying to get her to answer to, but the content of that question she could not. and then there were other

questions she could not answer because of the arguments that were going on at the time. one thing i learned from thurgood marshall's teachings was you never come into a courtroom with your own opinion already. you always hear every case and you base your judgment on that case. so, she kept her opinions to herself. she said that she had opinions. some of the questions she says, i have an opinion but it has nothing to do with my position. i thought she did very well. i am very proud of her and that is why i say yes. i think she would be a great justice on the supreme court. host: james out of new hampshire on the line for those who say no. caller: thanks for hearing me out. my reason is -- and i don't want this to be racist, i am tired of that as well -- number one, crt,

critical race theory is going to destroy the country. her reasoning on not knowing what a woman is. her reasoning on child pornography. she part of the well community going on right now? people do not realize america, the enemy is within. i am not saying she is part of this but her beliefs -- do you realize people who sit on the supreme court can decide the fate of this country at the drop of a hat? we have to come together in this country. all that is going on with ukraine, it is all coming together. and i do not think she is the right person for the job and i am looking forward to listening to senator blackburn, cruz, and even some of the democrats could step up and see. thank you and god bless america. host: micheline out of

alabaster, new york. caller: of course ketanji brown jackson is qualified. she is more qualified than any of them combined. i will bet you she could name the five freedoms no problem. if you would ask kavanaugh he will probably answer you, hold my beer. host: carla, wayne city, illinois for those who say no. caller: i say definite no because she has lenience toward pedophilia. i am not a big fan of people who do that and it is wrong. also, i agree with senator lindsey graham. i would think all 39 of them should be, you know, whatever, do away with them. if you really want to get into the democratic side, they are not asking her questions about her abilities just her family and how she was raised.

cory booker is a big drama queen when it comes to that. i sat and watched -- i have been watching this for two days. when macy corona, i think that is your name, came up with five pages nobody ever had in the hearing. i wonder how she got those and nobody else did? i don't like dick durbin. i am from illinois and cannot stand that man. he needs to be on the low down, keep his opinions to himself. he has to come back with this, that and the other comment. i think that is how it goes and i don't think she is good for the supreme court. host: carla in illinois. a couple of callers bringing up the issue of sentencing in child

pornography cases. it was josh hawley in a series of tweets last week that first brought up this issue, got a lot of attention for those, and pressed judge jackson on that topic during yesterday's hearing. here's a bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> he was 18. these kids are eight. i don't see in what sense they are peers. i have a nine-year-old, a six-year-old, and a 16 month old at home and i live in fear they will be exposed to, let alone exploited, in this material. i don't understand you saying to him they are peers and therefore, you were viewing sex acts between children not much younger that that is the reason to give him three months. help me understand this. >> senator, i do not have the record of that entire case in front of me.

what i recall with respect to that case is unlike the many other child pornography offenders that i had seen as a judge and i was aware of in my work on the sentencing commission this particular defendant had just graduated from high school. and some of, perhaps not all when you were looking at the records, but some of the materials he was looking at were older teenagers, were older victims. and the point, senator, is you said before the probation office is making recommendations and they do so on a case-by-case basis. that is what congress requires. that. this is not done at the level -- >> you admit that?

>> sentencing is a discretionary act of a judge. it is not a numbers game. i understand that congress wanted the guidelines to be mandatory. the supreme court in 2005 determined they could not be in an opinion by justice scalia and congress since then has not come back to amend them or change them or make them mandatory again. so there is discretion at sentencing and when you look at the sentencing statute congress has given the judges not only the discretion to make the decision, but require judges to do so on an individualized basis, taking into account not only the guidelines but also various factors, including the age of the defendants, the

circumstances of the defendant, the terrible nature of the crime, the harm to the victims, all of these factors are taken into account. and the probation office assists the court in determining what sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary. and i appreciate, senator, that you have looked at these from the standpoint of statistics, that you are questioning whether or not i take them seriously or i have some reason to handle them in either a different way than my peers or a different way than other cases. i assure you that i do not. host: that exchange yesterday over the course of those 13 hours. it will continue this morning in about an hour and a half. little less now at 9:00 a.m. eastern. we are going to be taking you there on c-span.

should judge jackson be confirmed to the supreme court? what do you think. oliver in fredericksburg, virginia, you are next. caller: good morning. i just have one point to make. senator hawley with his issues which were totally valid concerns in general. back when president trump ran for president he extensively spewed during his campaigning as far as grabbing women by the whatever and found it to be funny. not one republican came back on him about that over four years.

also, i wanted to say that senator barrett, i thought she was exceptionally articulate. she was extremely diverse in her education. i think she would be an excellent justice. host: judge jackson is a graduate, undergrad and law degree from harvard university. 51 years old, confirmed to the u.s. ago by a vote of 53-44. she would be the first former federal public defender to serve on the supreme court. that career highlighted throughout the course of yesterday's hearings. she is back in the chair again today. tom in portland, oregon. good morning, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i have been watching this thing too and one, i am so aggravated. when she was asked the question she was, ugh, ugh, just answer the question. is it so impossible to just use, you know, common sense? host: on answering the questions, have you watched other confirmation hearings? caller: excuse me? host: have you watched other supreme court confirmation hearings? caller: i saw most of kavanaugh.

i am not really into politics and all that. host: the line that judges or those coming before the committee for supreme court confirmation, they often say, i don't want to opine because that is an issue that could come before the court if i were confirmed to the court. this frustration that people have about answering questions i would point out is not a new one when it comes to supreme court confirmation hearings. caller: i know. that is what bothers me. everybody goes, senator, thank you for asking that question. it is asinine. one more thing i would like to say though, any court case or anything in the court, there are

usually things called litigating factors, upward and downward. i have not heard anybody say those words. host: that is tom in oregon. ernestine and frederick, maryland. you are next. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to thank god none of us calling in will have any vote on her confirmation. secondly, for the lady who called cory booker a drama queen, i don't think anybody could be more drama queenish then lindsay and i think marsha blackburn's question was a gotcha question. my sister and i looked at each other and said, what? define woman? it says female. i am sure if she said female she

would have wanted an explanation for female which is a biological, lengthy question. also, librarians choose books for schools mostly not even teachers. in my opinion, it was imbecilic and juvenile on the part of most of the republicans. she is going to be confirmed. she is more than qualified. probably the most qualified person they have had come before the court in some time. we put kavanaugh up there that was questionable. clarence thomas talked about long john silver. trump in the white house who was a womanizer and we do not question them.

more than qualified. that is the last court of resort in our country. she is not going to be in the courtroom per se hearing cases you and i would go before a judge to hear. she is going to be more than likely judging on the constitutionality of most of these cases that come before her, like the ones that are forthcoming against roe v. wade and all those kinds of things. so, i think most of the people calling in don't have a clue as to what a supreme court justice's role really is. host: ernestine in maryland. this is brian in nebraska. you are next. caller: good morning. i don't think she should be confirmed simply because of her

stance with child pornography as one, her apologizing in the senate saying to one of the individuals because he is going to be a social pariah. that is out of line for a judge in my opinion. add to that her inability to define what a woman is. i do not think you need to be a zoologist to know what a dog is. you don't need to be a biologist to know what a woman is. host: cornell in new jersey, you are next. caller: good morning, john. i do feel she should be confirmed. she has been confirmed by the senate not once but twice but three times. the republican party has the propensity when it comes with supreme court justices that they tried to deny the democrats due process. what happened with what they did

when president obama had his pick, they left that seat empty for almost a year. then when judge ginsburg passed when the election was being counted they rammed through a supreme court justice. she would be the most qualified one. by them confirming her three times it shows they have an agenda. they have an agenda and as far as bringing up what is a woman? it is insulting. and with her, she sat almost 600 cases.

for them to cherry pick a couple of cases -- she tried to explain the fact you have to look at the whole case and then make a discretion. you cannot make a decision -- it is not black-and-white. every case is different. host: cornell in new jersey. a couple of your comments from social media. on twitter gil saying, she is qualified. she worked in the trenches as a defender and she is for law and justice. rest in california saying, the issues of crt and could not define a woman are crushing defeats. it is good night. a couple of your comments from social media from our text messaging service. (202)-748-8003 is the number to

send us a text. on critical race theory and books in schools, that was part of the line of questioning senator ted cruz, republican of texas brought up yesterday. here is just a minute or two of that exchange. [video clip] >> do you agree with this book that is being taught with kids that babies are racist? >> senator, i do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist or not valued or they are less than that they are victims, that they are oppressors. i do not believe in any of that. but what i will say is when you asked me whether or not this was

taught in schools, critical race theory, my understanding is that critical race theory as an academic theory is taught in law schools and, to the extent you are asking the question, i understood you to be addressing public schools. georgetown day school just like the religious school justice barrett was on the board of is a private school. >> so you agree critical race theory is taught at georgetown day school. >> i don't know because the board does not control the curriculum. the board does not focus on that. that is not what we do as board members. so i am not sure. >> i will note that the board is chaired by professor fairfax, your college roommate. you serve on the board together. another book that is on the summer reading for third through fifth grade is again by ibram kente.

on page 33 it asks the question, "can we send white people back to europe? " that is what is being given to eight and nine-year-olds. on page 115 it says, "the idea we should pretend not to see racism is connected to the idea we should not see color. it is called colorblindness." "it is ridiculous. skin color is something we all see." "pretending not to see color is pretty convenient if you don't want to stamp out racism in the first place." what this argues for is the opposite of what dr. king spoke about on the floor of the lincoln memorial. are you comfortable with these ideas being taught to children as young as four, in respect to

the first book as young as eight and nine? >> senator, i have not reviewed any of those books, any of those ideas. they do not come up in my work as a judge which i am respectfully here to address. host: judge jackson and senator ted cruz yesterday during her confirmation hearing to the supreme court. rob in indiana is next. do you think judge jackson should be confirmed to the court? caller: if she would answer what she did during the riots of portland and spread it across the country, i would consider her to be appointed. but until those questions are asked i am going to vote no. host: is there something in her record you have seen about that? or is that just a question you

want asked? caller: that is a question i just want asked. host: that is rob in indiana. quick reminder, it is easier to hear you calling in if you turned on your television while you're waiting on the phone line. pam north carolina, good morning, you are next. burlington. caller: good morning. i have watched so many of these hearings for, i don't know how many years. i thought she was thoughtful and very easy to understand. a lot of them will obfuscate and kind of tell them what they think they want to hear but you can tell it is not genuine.

but to -- there were a couple of things i wanted to address. being asked to define a woman and i don't think people are understanding why she didn't answer that. i believe it was like someone else said it was a got you question. i think if she had answered that, that would have gone into transgender type questions that she would not have been able to answer. she is a judge. she is not there to answer those types of questions and i thought it was unfair. host: do you think got your questions have not been asked --

got you questions have not been asked at other supreme court hearings? caller: absolutely they have. but i think in the way she handled herself shows us what kind of judge she would be on the supreme court. she is not going at it in a personal way. she is trying to explain why she is sentencing people to certain time and i don't think people are understanding, even the republican senators, are not understanding what she had to

do. and they are just looking at it -- they are not a monolith. each person is an individual standing in front of her and each person has a story. and each person has a past and a present and hopefully a future. she has got to look at all of that. host: we will take your point. terry in boone, iowa says no on confirming her. why? caller:why? she is a radical left-wing. she is just what the left wants and that is why i say now. if you listen to her, she will not give out her judicial philosophy. she has an methodology. well, a methodology is not a philosophy and what she is doing it is dancing around.

she does not want you to know what her philosophy is. methodology is or go to word. she dances read everything and goes back to methodology. and the other thing -- host: what is the correct judicial philosophy? what would you want? caller: does she believe the constitution? does it stand for what it says or is she one of these people who wants to change it? it sounds to me let you does not want to follow what congress and people have said, especially as far as guidelines. those guidelines have a minimum and a maximum. well, to me, when they set a guideline and they say a minimum that is the minimum. they don't want you to go below that. on all of her sex offender cases, all of them that they have brought out, all of them by the way, she has gone under. she has gone under what congress

and the law has set. host: this is raymond in connecticut. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say the lady in new jersey, she is doing a great job. they are talking about the -- the republicans are talking about the record. but they have one right there in jim jordan who i do not even think should be there. nobody is saying anything about him. as for the books they brought up about learning, they don't want to learn about what is really happening in history. some of the things that happened in history they do not want to bring up how black people went through things and how they had to struggle just to make ends meet when they was in slavery

and how they was treated. they don't want to bring those things up because i know. i am 74 years old myself and i know what happened when i was growing up and how i was treated. some of the things that she is going through is all because of these people do not want her. they do not like to see very intelligent black people to get ahead in life and i don't know why. but that is what i am looking at, how they treat her, and they should not be treating her that way. host: that is raymond in connecticut. just a few minutes left in this segment as we get your reaction to yesterday's date two of judge ketanji brown jackson's confirmation hearings. one issue that was brought up yesterday is an issue that this network has been outspoken on his position in and that his cameras in the court over in the years. c-span arguing for greater

access to the supreme court as part of our effort to cover all three branches of government and bring it to viewers unfiltered. you can see our work on that front on the website at c-span.org. an entire page and timeline devoted to our efforts on that front but here is the exchange between senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa, and judge jackson on this issue of cameras in the supreme court. [video clip] >> on another subject kind of personal to me overall and half of this committee but a controversial issue within this committee, i favor allowing supreme court hearings to be televised. what is your view on this? how would you feel about cameras in the courtroom? 40 or 45 of our states allow. >> well, senator, i would want to discuss with the other

justices their views and understand all of the various potential issues related to cameras in the courtroom before i took a position on it. >> i think that is a fair answer at this point. host: judge jackson and chuck grassley yesterday. this is jackie in clifton heights, pennsylvania. good morning. you are next, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i only have one problem with her and i cannot believe anybody else is not bringing this up. when covid head and congress decided to let some of the prisoners out and have their cases revisited they gave the judges very narrow parameters. one defendant that she had presided over, his case did not meet the criteria. so she took another law and retrofitted it to reduce his sentence even though congress

made it clear that she could not do this. she now opened the door for a new precedent. it is not in her purview to make new law, that is congress' job, and i find this to be a dangerous position. that is all i have to say. host: jackie, what area would you be worried about a new lobbying made if that is your concern -- law being made if that is your concern? caller: to make a new law? host: yeah. caller: it is congress' job to make new laws and they gave clear parameters. when he did not meet the criteria this is someone she said to him, sorry he had 20 years and then tailored it to fit. host: i guess i am asking where are you worried she would do that if she became a supreme court justice? in what areas of the law?

caller: it does not matter. in any case it is not up to the judicial to make law. host: that is your point. this is terry, atlanta, georgia. good morning. the line for those who say yes. caller: good morning, john. how are you? host: go ahead. caller: i am a little bit perturbed about some of the reasons people are giving this morning as to why judge jackson should not be confirmed for the court. first of all, i don't believe in court packing. i believe nine justices are sufficient for them to carry out the judicial branch's work to be done. and some of the questions she has been asked or a waste of our time and the taxpayers and the american people. cruz, blackburn, graham, some of

the things they said in the statements they made were out of order. judge jackson is the only, only person who can serve on the supreme court currently to have attended an ivy league law school. she has clerked for a supreme court justice. she served as a public defender. she served on the sentencing commission and she served as a u.s. district court judge and served as u.s. court of appeals judge. if you look at the qualifications for a supreme court justice, she is more than qualified. and i will say my one last statement is i don't think she should have answered that question about defining a woman. it is a ridiculous question and it was a trick question and she is smart enough to have seen that and avoided it. have a great day everybody and let's get this lady confirmed and move forward with the business of the american people. host: that is terry in georgia.

this is steve in tampa, florida via text message talking about the qualifications. on the issue of supreme court being packed, it is packed with prosecutors and corporate lawyers. let's confirm her. one other tweet from another viewer saying, republicans are using these hearings to set up their talking points for the upcoming elections. unfortunately, it is already working because people are coming out of this with disinformation. emmanuel, washington, d.c. for the line for those who say no. caller: thank you for letting me in. i support her nomination. this is the first time i have seen a regular to be appointed justice of the supreme court. she is normal, regular.

secondly, the question on how to define a woman? it is uncalled for. i mean, people should be real. please allow this woman to come and show what woman looks like in the court. someone who can reason with ordinary human beings. that is the person they are appointing in the supreme court. host: that is emmanuel in washington, d.c. that is our last caller in this segment. stick around, plenty more to talk about in the final hour including up next we turn our attention to the russia-ukraine conflict in president biden upcoming nato meeting. brett bruen, former obama white house director of global engagement and later joined by retired army major general john ferrari from the american enterprise institute. we will talk about the defense

budget and changes in the wake of the russian invasion of ukraine. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> on march 19th, 1979 americans for the first timer able to watch live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives on c-span and to celebrate this occasion, visit our c-span anniversary sale going on right now at c-spanshop.org. save 15% on all of our products. accessories, home decor, and books. use the code at checkout. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop the anniversary sale now through thursday. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in

office. hear those conversations on c-span's new podcast, "presidential recordings." >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were taxed with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were take as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and bears. >> you will hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people that signed to kennedy the day he died right quick. if i can ever go to the bathroom, i will not go. i will stay right behind these

gates. >> presidential recordings, on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we return now to the russian invasion of ukraine. our guest, brett bruen, former director of global engagement. explain what your role was as director of global engagement from 2013 to 2015 and how often your efforts crossed paths with vladimir putin and russia. guest: i was on the national security council responsible for some of the strategic communications initiatives and it coincided with putin's invasion of crimea as we have all come to know those names in eastern ukraine. what accompanied it at the time

was a massive information invasion, both of ukraine, but also of our global debate and we started an effort to push back against some of that disinformation. this was early days before we really became familiar with terms like bots and trolls and the power of propaganda. we stood up a task force ultimately where we were somewhat successful in pushing ukraine through to the elections that led to the advent of a democratic era there and pushing russia back. unfortunately, they did not stay away for long and obviously here in our country, we have come to know all too well the power of disinformation. host: what are your thoughts on the disinformation campaign amid the russian invasion of ukraine? anything that has surprised you? guest: i have to say president zelensky has offered a case

study in how you can effectively counter russian disinformation. for so long, we stayed on the terrain of trying to disprove every lie and what zelensky has done so well is to set his own narrative, to define this conflict and what he and his people are fighting for in such powerful terms. it really has diluted and diminished the effectiveness of russia's propaganda efforts. host: on information for those of us watching this on twitter, why does it seem easier to find out more about russian casualties and russian losses than ukrainian casualties and ukrainian losses? guest: always, you are going to have a certain sensitivity including here in the united states around the impact, the effect on troops as well as on

your own equipment. the ukrainians have been working very aggressively to get information out about what is happening on the rushed inside of the battlefield -- the russian side of the battlefield and that has proven effective in showing that their efforts at defense, which much of the world has discounted, have actually been quite effective. what we are seeing from their side is an effort to show the impact on russia. they are less forthcoming with their own casualties, less transparent about some of the impacts it is having on their own military. nonetheless, we are getting third-party assassins from the united states, from the u.k., and other nato members, which gives us a much clearer picture than we have had in past conflicts in real time. host: you were a foreign service officer for a dozen years.

what is your view about a double medic solution -- a diplomatic solution? guest: there is always a diplomatic solution to be found and what we have started to hear from those in moscow, kyiv, is an effort to find the common ground. it is a question on what terms. putin is saying i will settle this but you essentially have to agree to all of the terms that i put down at the outset. i do not think that zelensky, i do not think that nato is going to go along with those rather unreasonable demands from putin. the question becomes where could some common ground be found. ultimately what we are likely to see is some sort of stalemate where there is a recognition that the territory russia holds will not be returning to ukraine anytime soon.

at the same time, ukraine comes forward and says we are not going to pursue nato membership in the foreseeable future and that gives putin something to say for justifying his efforts to pursue this campaign. host: what you think about those who are concerned that vladimir putin is using diplomatic talks to buy time to reorganize, refit his military for another push? guest: it should be extraordinarily careful with putin. we have seen numerous efforts including the minsk agreement, which were there to resolve the conflict in luhansk regions that were repeatedly violated. it is not just an immediate issue of resupplying, reinforcing some of his battle lines. putin has used these agreements in the past two try to continue

manipulate, destabilize countries not just in ukraine, but across eastern europe and around the world. host: let me get the phone lines for viewers to join the conversation. brett bruen with us for the next 20 minutes, former director of global engagement from 2013 to 2015. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's go back to 2014. what was the strategy for managing the first russian invasion of ukraine, the invasion that took crimea? guest: what you heard then and what we are certainly hearing now are efforts to offer putin a roadmap out of this, an off-ramp away from further escalation of the conflict. my concern is it did not work then and i am not certain that putin necessarily wants that

off-ramp every time we have provided that possibility. he has only accelerated faster, farther down the highway. i think what we have to do, and you are starting to see the beginnings of this, is to set our own terms, our own timeline and try to seize control of this trajectory of this crisis. we are not always negotiating on his terms and instead, we are starting to put in place some of our own deadlines, starting to impose some of our own costs and conditions. host: if you can go back is what he 14, would you have advocated for a different path? guest: i do then and i do still now. we have underestimated both the aggressiveness of putin's for policy and we have not resourced appropriately both our efforts and those of our allies.

we did not have enough imagination to envision what putin was capable of in ukraine. let's not forget that biden has repeated this phrase that the u.s. will defend every inch of nato territory. this is a vast and quite complex challenge and one that is going to require a whole lot more than we have at the ground -- on the ground at the moment. host: dave, michigan, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is to brett. i am interested in what type of other sanctions on material goods such as rubber. do they get rubber or any of the resources they desperately need? i will take my answer off the air other than, i cannot believe that russia could actually steal

property and not have to pay for it. host: did you get that? guest: i did. there are a couple of effects of sanctions. just in the last day or so, we saw that russia's largest tank manufacturer had to stop production because they did not have access to some of those essential materials that go into making tanks. there is an immediate effect we are seeing with some of these sanctions. at the same time, we are overly dependent on sanctions. you have heard repeatedly from the president and the administration a response to this military invasion of ukraine is essentially to impose more and more sanctions. there are apparently additional sanctions that are coming out as the president heads to europe. we have to look at other tools. as you mentioned, i served as a diplomat for a number of years. we have a lot of other ways that

we can help to apply pressure. one of them, and it is an important one to raise, is the power of our own public diplomacy. we need to be out there both amongst our allies, but also in europe and particularly in russia providing the transparency about what is happening on the ground to the russian people so they can see the cost of this conflict and also see the corruption, the mismanagement at the kremlin. that is what ultimately will concern putin because up until now, he has been able to establish a pretty iron information curtain around his country. host: you mentioned the president's trip overseas. this is jake sullivan, the national security divisor outlining the trip yesterday. [video clip] >> he will attend an emergency nato summit joined by the leaders of the other 29 allies. he will join the g7 leaders and

he will address the 27 leaders of the european union at a session of the european council. he will have the opportunity to coordinate on the next phase of military assistance to ukraine. he will join our partners in imposing further sections on russia and tightening the existing sanctions to crack down on invasion and ensure robust enforcement. he will work with allies on longer-term adjustment to nato force posture on the eastern flank. he will announce joint action on enhancing european energy security and reducing europe's dependence on russian gas. he will announce further american contributions to a coordinated humanitarian response to ease the suffering of civilians inside ukraine and to respond to the growing flow of refugees. from brussels, president biden will travel to poland where he will engage with u.s. troops who are now helping to defend nato territory and he will meet with experts involved in the humanitarian response. he will hold a bilateral meeting

with president duda of poland. i leave further details on the schedule and program for each of these aspects of the trip to our trustee's medications and press team. let me close with this. there will be hard days ahead in ukraine the hardest for the troops on the front lines in the civilians under russian bombardment. this war will not end easily or rapidly. for the past few months, the west has been united. the president is traveling to europe to ensure we stay united. [end video clip] host: a trip that will be very closely watched. is there a most important woman in your mind -- most important moment in your mind? guest: we have to look closely at that statement that comes out of the nato meeting. is there alignment on some of these response mechanisms? one is obviously sanctions. secondly, it will be interesting

to see what additional defense investments european countries are willing to make. we have seen signs already over the course of the last four weeks. countries like germany are changing their policy or willing to provide lethal weapons to the ukrainians in defense of their country. how does that get codified and put into the broader nato structure and strategy? it will be interesting to see those kinds of changes. i will also mention what we did not hear from jake sullivan there is the strategy of the administration for how this conflict ends. i think it is important that we start to talk about both what is the path out of this and what are we going to do to rebuild ukraine? as the ukrainians so bravely fight in the trenches across their country, it is important that we paint a picture both for them, for the russians, and for the world of what a post-wa

r ukraine can look like. host: are you saying they do not have that strategy yet? guest: i certainly have not heard it. if it is under discussion, it is a well guarded secret. we have seen this in multiple occasions over the last several decades through various administrations, a lack of forward planning and certainly at the moment, the priority has to be on how we bring this conflict to an end. i think it is important both for the rebuilding of ukraine, but just for the resolution of this period of time and that we are going to provide the ukrainians, we are going to show the russians what our commitment can look like. that gives them something to fight for. that gives the russians something to realize in terms of

how long and how serious our commitment is to democracy. host: alabaster, alabama. this is karen on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. just a couple of questions. the bio research labs and ukraine. i am not sure why the u.s. government is so adamant about that there is none there but they have been there since 2005 and victoria nuland admitted under oath that they were there and she was worried that the russians went get access to those -- that the russians would get access to those. if they are not dangerous, why was she worried about that? number two, i read the other day that zelensky shut down tv channels that did not agree with him and opposition parties. if he is so worried and fighting for his life, how does he have time to do that? there is a lot of u.s. troop buildup on the polish border and they had a media blackout. i am not sure what is going on over there but as americans, we

have a right to know that. host: you bring up a lot of things. brett bruen, what do you want to touch on? guest: a lot of these accusations, whether it is on labs or efforts to try and attack zelensky, emanates from those russian disinformation operations. we have to be really careful when we start to toss around some of this information because we have seen not just in this conflict, but in our own elections as well as in the early days of when russia invaded ukraine in 2014 that there are very aggressive efforts by the russians to try and sew doubts, disinformation, and division. a lot of those accusations fall into that category. it is important that before we are talking about some of these terms, these issues that we see floating around social media,

that we look back to the origin, that we ensure that they are fact checked because it is still to this moment a very active effort from the russians to try and spread some of that misinformation. host: independence, oregon, dan, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is why would nato trust as when we made an agreement with ukraine and now we are not keeping our agreement with ukraine so why would anyone trust us? it is not seem like there is any reason to anymore. host: brett bruen do you want to take us back to the history? guest: that raises a valid point. the u.s. alongside russia among the united kingdom, did back when the soviet union fell, come to an agreement that ukraine which was in possession of the former soviet union's nuclear weapons on its territory, we

give those back to russia and in exchange, both russia as well as the u.s. and our european allies would agree to the territorial integrity of ukraine. clearly, that has not held and the point that you make is an important one that in the future when we sign these agreements, whether it is with iran, north korea, or allies, how can they take that agreement to the bank? how can they rest assured that years or even decades from now we are going to honor our commitment? i think it was another issue that was raised during the trump administration around the iran deal. the american word is not as strong, our credibility is not as powerful as it once was and we have to take a number of steps to try and shore up the commitment and to show -- we used to have this phrase that

politics ends at the waters edge. it is important for both parties to look at how we can come to an agreement, a commitment that we will honor some of those commitments that we make. host: new hampshire, catherine, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment. i think wars are stupid. did christ take a sword and kill romans? did christ are his disciples with swords? did christ preached to his followers death to the romans? no. any war bringing death and injury and rubble and sorrow, humans, let's put down our swords and live in a world of no war. we can do it. how grand a world of no wars. how grand for humanity. thank you. host: that is catherine.

brett bruen, on no wars, before this invasion of ukraine, there was hope by many that threats of the toughest sanctions ever to be put on a country would keep russia from invading. do you think that hope was ever realistic? guest: i don't. and a couple of things that karen raises. as a recovering diplomat, i believe we need to put more resources into diplomacy and when you compare it to what we spend on the military, there was an old phrase when i was in the state department, there are more members of military than diplomats serving around the world. i think we need to have more peacemakers, more negotiators, more folks who can help to avoid some of these conflicts. certainly to your point, we have to look at trying to move up our

efforts when it comes to these kinds of conflicts. we ended up doing too little, too late and we allowed poo in -- we allowed putin to set the terms. one of the interesting things is there is a power of momentum. when things get moving, when he gets to a point of no return, it is very difficult to try and walk back from the edge. for years and decades, i am sure this conflict will be studied, but i believe it is important that we look at what could have been done earlier. how could we have avoided not just with the threats of sanctions, but perhaps some of the other steps that i mentioned about how we would put pressure, how we would show potent that we were willing to bring that pressure to the halls of power in moscow because ultimately whether it is putin, xi jinping,

or other leaders, their weakest point is at home. their weakest point is propped up by a lot of propaganda and mirrors and smoke and if we say, you invade another country, we will come at you with transparency and the power of information. that is a scary thought for leaders like putin. host: sheila is waiting in oklahoma, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. we are always going to have wars. we have always had wars and that lady talking about no wars, over in israel, david had to fight to protect the country. talk about the nuclear war and my take on it nuclear war will not be here. it will be in jerusalem and there you have it. in china is over there already and russia is already over there

so it is setting up for that. thank you. host: brett bruen, i will give you the final minute. guest: the prospect of nuclear war is a scary one. we have to look very closely. obviously the biden administration's position has been we are not going to put u.s. troops in harm's way. unfortunately, we are playing with a very combustible conflict in ukraine and we need to do more to contain that effort to avoid it spilling over into a nuclear conflict because we could find ourselves by accident, by one misstep, engaged in that conflict. more efforts on the military and diplomatic front should be made to avoid it host: brett bruen, former director of global engagement. thanks for your time. we will continue the discussion

about the russian invasion of ukraine and also look at u.s. efforts and u.s. military spending. we will be joined by retired army general john ferrari for that discussion of the american enterprise institute. stick around for that after the break. in 35 minutes, we will take you to capitol hill for day 3 bank of judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court hearing. here on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span radio app. we will be right back.. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the founder and executive director of the danish think tank and the host of the podcast "clear and

present danger" talks about his book. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch and author of "lessons from the edge: a memoir" reflects on her career and her congressional testimony during the impeachment hearings of former president trump. she is interviewed by susan brassard. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> with the historic confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson to serve as the next justice on the u.s. supreme court, c-span in partnership with analytics conducted a survey on public attitudes toward the u.s. supreme court. our new survey of more than 1000 voters assesses america's knowledge about the court and

its cases, its place in the governing process, and the issues important to c-span, whether the public wants cameras in the courtroom during oral argument. use the results of the survey on our website, c-span.org/survey 2022. you can watch unfiltered coverage of the supreme court confirmation hearing this week starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span or anytime on demand on our, c-span.org or on the free mobile app, c-span now. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast "presidential recordings." >> you will hear about the 1954 civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the goal.

the incident, the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's -- theirs. >> you all for -- you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people that signed to kennedy the day he died right quick. if i can ever go to the bathroom, i will not go. i will stay right behind these gates. >> presidential recordings, on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: retired army general john

ferrari joins us now. he serves as a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. his work focusing on the defense department budget. it was an op-ed that you wrote recently that is titled "the ukraine invasion shows why america needs to get a defense budget in order." what did you mean? guest: thank you for having me. what we have is a mismatch between the reality of what exists in the world, the strategy of our defense department, and the resources provided. right now, the strategy is under resourced as it exists today, but the strategy calls for only having one war at a time and we see china and russia getting together to split our efforts. it calls for emphasizing procurement in the future in the 20 30's over buying things today such as weapons systems and bombs and javelins and drones. it also calls for stationing

u.s. forces more at home than abroad. when an emergency happens, we have to push people off to the far-flung frontiers of nato and east asia. we need to adjust the resourcing to meet the strategy we need. host: amid this invasion of ukraine, congress passes a fiscal 2022 defense budget. the total is $785 billion, $119 billion directed to research and development and testing and evaluation funding. $145 million for procurement. what do you like and what don't you like about that budget? guest: the president's that was sent over to congress, congress had to add a fair amount of money to procurement. they had to add $12 billion for procurement. the administration sent over a budget that did not buy enough bombs and weapons systems. the fact that congress and that money is good -- the fact that

congress added that money is good. but it was six months late. $3 billion a month is wasted when you have a six months resolution. anywhere from $15 billion to $20 billion was gone to inefficiencies. now what we have, but we liked about the bill was it was bipartisan. we have a template and a solution but if the administration ask, it has not sent this budget over congress yet. it will do so next week. but if it does that, perhaps we can get the budget on time to signal to our adversaries that we can fund our pentagon on time , to signal to the american people that the government can function, and thirdly, we are now under high inflation and the department needs the money on time in order to cope with inflation. host:, come back to procurement. you talked about bombs, javelins, and weapons systems. are we talking more f-22's, combat ships that have gotten so much attention in procurement

when we look at the pentagon budget? guest: procurement, there are a couple of things. you saw the testimonies yesterday. procurement factories are running at low rates of production. they need to be expanded for things like bombs, javelins, missiles to do two wars at once because right now we are sizing our stockpile in our defense industrial base for either russia or china, but not both. and we see them getting together and they can exploit that weakness. we need to be buying munitions. we need to be buying munitions at a wartime rate in order to build a stockpile on both sides. we also need more tanks. we need to pre-position forward. we need two more brigades of tanks. you can see the army struggling to deploy tank formations forward and keep the rotation going. but we also need probably to fully resource the navy's shipbuilding modernization plan

for the shipyards. we talked a lot about building more ships, but we cannot do it right now because the shipyards are ancient and they need $25 billion of construction. that needs to be funded right away, not incrementally come as a signal to china that we will put our navy back to get it again -- navy back together again. host: general for our he is in charge of capping the budget. what is the top line number look like? guest: somewhere in the neighborhood of $18 billion is what it would take to get the defense strategy moving in the right direction. host: $30 billion more than what was just passed? guest: yes. on top of that, we probably need an emergency supplemental. we did one for ukraine so that was good. to bridge the gap between now and when the budget comes out to get the wartime production levels up of munitions and

tanks, everybody is focused on what to do with ukraine today and everybody says we can buy more of that stuff, but it will not be ready for six months or a year or two years. the world will still be a dangerous place two years from now and the best time to start production is today. we need probably about $45 billion in an emergency supplemental to get the navy back on its feet with a shipbuilding plan, to start the production of tanks, and more bombs for the air force so that they can have stockpiles in europe and the pacific. host: retired army general john ferrari with us for just about the next 15 or 20 minutes. call in if you have your questions. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. a special line for former and current members of the military, (202) 748-8003.

a reminder, we will be going to the senate judiciary committee hearing room a little before 9:00 a.m. eastern to let you see the sights and sounds right before judge jackson is expected to arrive around 9:00 a.m. that is what looks like, reporters and staff starting to arrive. until then, your phone calls. sergio is out of florida, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am well. you are on with general ferrari. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: i am fine. caller: what is the potential budget for the air force or the marines to cover in basic production of weapons and so forth and how can we make it accurate? guest: the marine corps are

interesting. they are suffering from shrink-flation. they have divested tanks and planes. they are focused on their mission so they will need additional funds and resources and manpower to bring a lot of the artillery needed to do two wars at once. the air force is suffering from the fact that they have a lack of pilots. they are short 1000 pilots. what we need to do is increase the size of the air force quickly in their capacity to train pilots because if we lose pilots in a war, we have to be able to replace them and we are short already. the second thing the air force needs is two stockpiles of munitions. right now, we saw in the syria operation, the air force nearly ran out of its munitions. the types of munitions we need to minimize civilian casualties. that was just fighting the

syrians and isis. we need to really ramp up the production of munitions for the united states air force. host: bradley, michigan, democrat. good morning. caller: general, i agree we need a strong defense but i am 71 years old and there has never been enough money for people like you. we continue waging war with whoever we are supporting, the soviets, the russians, supplying the other side with arms. we kill so many people that is like trench warfare. it is just ridiculous. i do not know if elderly, once we die, it will be a different look. i hope so. it is disgusting and there are so many ways is that money. not that way. guest: i will agree, war is terrific. but what we want to do -- i will agree, war is horrific. we want to spend enough money to deter war.

it is very expensive to fight a war and to win a war. it is more expensive to have war waged upon you and to lose that war. if we look at the poor people in ukraine, they failed to deter the war with russia. russia invaded them and now they are paying an enormous price, 44 million people with 10 million displaced, maternity awards bombed -- maternity wards b ombed. we need to deter the aggressive dictators of the world like vladimir putin and others in china and syria and you do that through strength. host: is there a better way to spend the money we are -- a better way to spend the money we are already giving the pentagon? guest: mccusker has pointed out there are several million dollars for nondefense plated items such as medical research.

certainly, you could take that out of there. but lots of people have tried to pare back with efficiencies. one of the reasons the general accounting office has stated that our navy is undermanned, undertrained, and the crews on the ships, there are not enough people because people have tried to take efficiencies. the houses on fire and we can sit around and try to find more efficiencies, but what we need to do is put the money into the system so that if war comes to nato or the pacific, we are ready because if we are not ready and we do not have the munitions, that bill will be much higher. host: ohio, larry, republican. good morning. caller: yes, i want to talk to the general about the budget in hawaii. we had waited so long when we knew that russia was building up military along the border and i

also think that the military needs more spending and we need less work in the programs that we already have and most of that has gone to waste as far as i'm concerned. that is my biggest comment. i am 87-years-old. i have been through quite a few presidents in my time. so far, i am not very pleased with what is going on in our country right now. guest: over the past 20 years, we have made a number of miscalculations. we remember back in time and we said europe is at peace. we took most of the united states army and armed forces out of there. we said we were going to get out of the central command area of operation in the middle east. we will focus on china, china, china. you hear that all the time across several different

administrations. clearly our adversaries have listened to us and heard, the united states can only do one war. it is going to focus on preparing for war in the 20 30's. it will take a risk in the 2020's we can take advantage of that. russia and china have gotten together. they will probably create problems in the middle east for us so we need a more aggressive defense strategy and with that comes the resources needed in order to carry that out. host: should we have left afghanistan? guest: that is a decision the president may. you can make good arguments both ways whether we should have stayed or left. how we left was a problem and it was a signal to the russians and perhaps a signal to them that the united states was continuing with its isolationist policies. it is hard to know what is inside the russian and chinese leaders heads and what signals they take or do not take.

we can leave the middle east but the middle east will pull us back in and we need the resources to deal with defending the frontier of nato, defending in east asia against chinese aggression and expansionism in the south china sea and are energy supplies and global energy supplies are coming out of the middle east. if we think we will cut off russian oil and the russians will not try to mess with the oil coming out of the middle east, we will have another surprise. we need to be viable as a fighting force on 2.5 fronts. host: the line for former members of the military, this is cynthia in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask about the appropriations for starcom space force and if they have increased in order to fund those. also, regarding the budget for

ukraine, the idea that zelensky is leading a democratic government seems contrary to the actions he is taking in shutting down election competition in his own country and suppressing media coverage. also, there is a question about how are we going to replace those trained military personnel that the covid-19 noncompliance vaccine orders have dismissed from service. guest: thank you for the question. on the space force appropriations and funding, it is increasing. what you are seeing play out is a tipping point and a revolution in low-earth orbit satellites and commercial imagery. it is amazing what the average person has at their fingertips on the internet for imagery,

what was once available only to the most exquisite intelligence agencies in the world. that low-earth orbit tipping point shows that the commercialization of space and low-earth orbit is where the space force will have a very large impact in synchronizing and coordinating that. it may be the fact that the space force does not actually have to put a lot of satellites into orbit. it needs to synchronize, coordinate all of the commercial efforts to our end. host: bob, rhode island, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am doing well. caller: i listen every morning and as many have said, this is one of the most informative programs on television. i do not like to call with the story because this is the world and this is what we are going through right now.

the reason i called is the initial commentary by the general. i highly respect the people in the military and what they do. but what triggered my call was this continual dialogue about war and what we need to do and the idea of spending on bullets and rockets and drones and you can go on and on and on, these destructive items that i feel eisenhower had it and we did not listen and i do not think we learn from history and all. we like to talk about history, but we do not seem to learn because the fact of the matter is body bags are coming back,

maybe not to the u.s. now, but they are coming back to russia and they are coming back to the ukrainian people and if they cannot find the time for body bags, they are using the trenches and they are just burying people. here is my point. it is so difficult, there is so much going on not only domestically, but the entire world. so many problems that we have and we are not addressing them very well. yet, we can talk about war and producing and producing and producing more weapons. host: i think we got your point. let me get general ferrari to respond. guest: nobody abhors war more than soldiers. nobody abhors war more than the people in ukraine. in the 3200 years of recorded history of mankind, strong

nations have attacked weak nations. i think what we are saying is that we cannot be narcissistic enough to think that if we disarm and we project weakness that war will be over across the world. that will not happen. what we see happening in ukraine is perhaps what will happen. it is much less expensive to prepare for war so that others are afraid to fight you and then we can project our values as americans of human dignity and respect for others and prosperity across the globe. you need that global security to do that. i agree that war is abhorrent. we should not have to prepare for it. it is better to prepare and not fight than to have war brought to your territory. host: one last call before we head to the senate judiciary committee for the three of judge ketanji brown jackson's hearings.

richard in massachusetts, a republican. caller: i just wanted to say that we are preparing for war, but the war has started. we have entered the electronic war phase and this is going on as we speak. it is unfortunate that the general, good to see you, i was in the third infantry division. i did two tours. war is not nice. the american people are calling for war but when it happens, they are not ready. we are already in a war. it started electronically. it is going to get connecticut and it will happen really fast and hard and i do not think america is ready. if you look at what has gone on, does it look like we have been unified as a people, as americans? absolutely not. it is disgusting and disgraceful and that is why the world is the way it is right now because of how america is portraying itself across the world. host: general ferrari, i will give you the final minute. guest: he is correct in that we

are not ready for other existential threats. i recently put a paper out that looks at a new defense triad. but the paper suggests is perhaps the 1950's defense strategy, what we need is a new triad to focus on cyber and information warfare because if we look at the colonial pipeline, that can take us to our knees. biologics and chemicals and we look at the threat of chemical weapons and what covid has done an advanced weaponry. that is another discussion that we need to have to prepare for what this caller talked about. host: john ferrari is a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. check out his work at aei.org. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: that will do it for us on the "washington journal." we will take you live to the hearing room for the three of judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court confirmation hearings. members of the price and staff

are starting to arrive. 22 members sets to ask their questions today and it all gets underway in a few minutes and you can watch it here on c-span.

>> this is day 3 of the ketanji brown jackson confirmation hearing. two senators were postponed until today. yesterday's session lasted 13 hours. we will hear from senators t illis and oslov and the judiciary committee will start a second round of questioning. all 22 senators will have 20 minutes for follow-up and it is all excited to get underway shortly at 9:00 eastern here on c-span.

>> the confirmation hearing for ketanji brown jackson to be an associate justice on the u.s. supreme court expected to get underway shortly. we see the committee chair and cochair in the room so we could see the first break in 90 minutes. committee members will be heading over to the senate chamber for both at 10:30 eastern. yesterday chair dick durbin recessed the confirmation hearing a couple of times for votes and we will see if that happens again today. the senate is in session. the senate is working on efforts to increase u.s. competitiveness with china, focusing on the microchip industry. you can watch the senate as they debate that bill live on our companion network, c-span2.

>> as we said earlier, senator dick durbin presiding over the hearings. he serves as the majority whip. you saw him in the picture. that is the second highest position among senate democrats. the top ranking republican, iowa senator chuck grassley, i mistakenly said he was cochair. he is the top ranking republican on the committee. he was first elected to the

senate in 1981. grassley says he is a farmer and his website says his son currently runs the family farm. this hearing is expected to get underway in a couple of minutes. live coverage on c-span.