steps the u.s. and its allies can take to support ukraine. you can watch our live coverage online at c-span.org, or on c-span now, our free video app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. and we never down. because of media, we are built to last. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat. coming up this morning on washington journal. supreme court blogger kimberly how.

the american public health association georges brown talks about covid-19. washington journal is next. >> good morning it is -- friday, march 20 fifth. we will discuss the confirmation hearings. we will also talk about the latest in the covid pandemic. but we will begin with president biden's trip to europe where he once against use of chemical weapons, and moving thousands of ukrainian refugees. phone lines are split by political parties with democrats

on (202) 748-8000, republicans on (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002 on you can catch us on social media on http://twitter.com/cspanwj. host: you can go ahead and start coming in now. president biden's trip will take them to the closest to the closest a war in ukraine. he has two warsaw to join with trips to visit with nato troops. this is what he had to say about the latest effort of that group. >> i am announcing that america commit to relieved to help with

the millions of americans affected by the war in ukraine. many refugees will stay in europe, closer to home. we also welcome one hundred thousand ukrainians to the united states with a focus on reuniting families. we will invest 320 million dollars to bolster democratic resilience and defend human rights in ukraine and bordering countries. we will also coordinate with the european union on food and energy concerns. we are announcing new sanctions of more than 400 individuals and entities in alignment with the european union. oligarchs and russian defense companies that fueled the regime. in addition to the troops in

europe to defendant of terror torrey -- territory,. we will reinforce the eastern front. putin was banging on nato being slipped. -- split. he did not think we can sustain this cohesion. nato has never been more united than it is today. putin is getting the opposite of what he intended to have with the consequence of going into ukraine. we built back unity in the european union and with the leading democracy of the g7. host: that was president biden yesterday. those meetings continue today and he is said to travel to poland at the end of the day today. already the united states announcing a new tax forced to

reduce european dependency on russian fossil fuel. that announcement already coming today. other efforts coming throughout the day. we want to hear from you. it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats, for republicans s. caller: before i make my statement can i ask you a question really quickly, when hunter biden gets arrested in a couple of weeks or months, what are you going to say then? you know he is about to be indicted. we will get to those today as

well. host: we are talking about president biden's trip overseas? caller: what are you going to do in biden -- hunter biden gets indicted? caller: thank you to c-span you are doing a nice job. there are millions of people fleeing ukraine. hundreds of thousands of dying and here we are talking about the president's son. let's talk about other children of the president. frankly it is ridiculous to be talking about the children of our presidents are former presidents. host: what are your thoughts

about what happened yesterday? caller: there was news that brazil, india and china supporting the russian economy. still have american company supporting the russian economy and i wound up talking to my secretary in my office and we were thinking about what we could do in the united states. we are healthy, happy and i feel like we can vote can -- boycott the products. there should be more attention paid to the companies that are still doing business with russia, putting money into the russian economy. i know china is a problem in

that they are supporting russia as their exchange, i don't know how the money exchange works. but they are supporting the russian economy and so maybe we have to -- are the collars like the one before that. are they not seen the hospitals, schools, and ukraine. maybe we should be looking at china in our business that we do with china. i noticed very entangled and difficult to try to boycott chinese products. we can improve, -- proof that china is backing this regime,

this murderous president putin then perhaps we need to boycotting companies in russia, india and brazil. we need to learn what countries are supporting this murderous dictator. host: that was rob from new york. now from michigan. caller: thank you for letting me talk. the reason russia is in ukraine and get support from china is because they oppose the global -- host: yes sir, go ahead. caller: war in ukraine is too

expensive and we need to save money. host: you do not think we should be doing anything right now? caller: no. host: that was raymond from michigan. one of the headlines from today's paper from president biden's leader yesterday. they have warned about chemical weapons and he was asked about what the nato response would be if russia used chemical weapons in ukraine here's what he had to say. >> you want to guess threat of chemical weapons being used. have you gathered intelligence that putin has moved these weapons into position and would you respond to the use of those

weapons? [video clip] we would respond if you use them. the response would be in proportion to the weapons that he used. >> he is getting some pushback from republican house members at their policy conference and this was senator mike turner responding to president biden. >> i was very disappointed in the president at nato. said linsky addressed nato -- president zelenskyy spoke with nato. and when asked about redlines he buckled -- president biden

buckled again. that harkens to his statement on how far he goes into ukraine. chemical weapons being used should be that redline. host: that was republican mike turner at that policy conference. we are talking about the warning about chemical weapons. the fact that the united states will be welcoming a hundred thousand ukrainian refugees. there is a lot happening at this trip over syria -- overseas. caller: as for taking in refugees, my wife and i would gladly take in the family.

we are not rich and we are on fixed incomes but we would let them squeeze them in. we would be glad to share our stuff with them because they have been hellacious in humanity. the one thing i want to say we could do that would really hurt putin if we could get their energy sector off the switch system and commit to creating an oil and natural gas glut as long as putin has troops in ukraine. they could come to the agreement with ukrainian agreement so they can leave. until we bring out the heavy

artillery which is making him truly believe that we are going to destroy his economy, i don't think he is going to take any of this stuff seriously and i think if we do that and president biden is committed to create an oil and gas glut. i think that would bring president putin to the table. host: there is a segment tomorrow focusing on energy issues on this news coming out today about weaning european off russian energy. that story it covers a lot of issues tomorrow morning and we will focus on all of that. gerard's next from louisiana.

caller: i think it president biden would just give the money that they got out of the ukraine they don't have to worry about jobs because they owe biden jobs. biden knows exactly what they are going to do. he was on a phone conversation with him for a couple of hours so he got everything worked out. host: this is vincent from maryland. an independent, good morning. caller: about six callers back. war is horrible.

c-span, has not squashed that story then the election could have turned out differently. if it had turned out differently all of this would not be going on because this would not be going on under president trump's watch. i hope everybody has a great day if they can. it all could have been avoided if the media did their share of die folding information. host: tim wrote in the

washington times that he feels that hunter biden's laptop acted as election interference. he said that he was intimately involved over hunter's laptop. he said the final two weeks of the campaign, we laid out the facts and said it was important him media did their job. if their concerns were genuine they would look at themselves first. that was a column in the washington teams -- times. this is joe out of hawaii. good morning. caller: good morning sir, how

are you? i served 24 years in the army. i spent time in afghanistan, guantanamo bay. and in no way should u.s. trips be -- troops be in this war in ukraine. president biden needs to make his cleared about what he is going to do if russia advances. a no-fly zone if they use chemical weapons. i would be with supplying ukraine to help them do whatever they need to win but in no way should u.s. troops boots hit the ground. host: the meeting with european leaders saying that we should

stop telling putin what we won't do. we should be more clear about what we will do in this conflict and some concern even for the conflict -- the idea of crushing sanctions. that sanctions would deter if he invaded ukraine. what are your thoughts about those criticisms about how this has been handled? caller: going back to what i said we should tell them what we would do if they do certain things. president putin has never cared in the past about what people think. i have no i doubt he would use chemical weapons or nuclear

weapons. if he does that we have to be ready to respond and that would throw us into a war because those are weapons that he can use without going unanswered. host: after his meeting yesterday, president biden taking questions about what you are talking about. >> what do you think president putin will alter course? >> i did not say that sanctions would deter him. sanctions never defer -- deter. the increasing pain of the demonstration of why i asked of this meeting today -- for this meaning today is that we sustain what we are doing but for the

remainder of this entire year. that is what will stop him. i think what happens is we have to demonstrate a purpose. the single most important thing is for us to stay unified and to prove who this guy is in all the innocent lives that are being lost and ruined. that is the important thing. if you are president putin and you think that europe is going to crack in a month, or six week s. we have to demonstrate. the reason i asked for the meeting as we have to remain united. host: that was president biden. we are taking your phone calls.

we will hear from brussels and poland today and he goes to warsaw to visit u.s. troops on the front line of the nato mission. this is victoria, a democrat. caller: being from ukraine, i want to say thank you to the americans who support ukrainian people. a lot of people don't even hear the truth here. he is trying to take over kia. -- take over kyiv. there are people saying

negotiate with putin but how can you negotiate with someone who is irrational? no one wants to see americans go to war. thank you everybody for supporting ukraine. host: do you have family still over there and what are your thoughts about the u.s. opening its door to up to a hundred thousand refugees at this point? caller: i still have family there. my father is now in poland. there are milli--- many

relatives still in ukraine. i did not hear the speech yesterday. i am trying to watch as much as possible but every time i watch it it tears your heart out. thank you every body for supporting ukraine. president biden is welcoming 100,000, but how do they find out how to come? and now that russia took over, now they are trying to go to mexico or south america but they do not know how to do it. they need to get out. they will look them out.

that's all i can say. just think you everybody. host: the lead editorial in today's washington's post is excepting a hundred thousand refugees. the scale of the refugee crisis is less -- is hard to fathom. in this century only the civil war in syria has pushed more people from its homeland. countries are reeling the chief among them is poland. the capital of warsaw, they are holding rust to a hundred thousand -- close to 100,000 refugees at the moment.

this is david from cuyahoga falls. caller: i would like to think of myself as a student of history. the sad thing about this situation is that i think it is a war between oligarchs. there are different oligarchic factions. they are in russia, united states and europe. and for me, i did not vote for -- i am an independent, i like bernie sanders. bernie would not take money so i thought he was the most independent and would look after the people.

ukrainian people want peace, the russian people want peace. it is the oligarchs who are fighting. anybody can do their own research. victoria nuland, the united states was involved in a coup. and when i say we, i don't mean the american people i mean the american oligarch class. the seat ia's job -- the cia's job is to make the world safe for the oligarchs investment. host: we are responding again was strength and unity of purpose and would never expect

these actions. the messages that we will defense freedom. some tweets and comments for you all. president biden needs to unify all of his members of his cabinet. and one more from philip, it feels like i am watching a clown in the circus when they speak about ukraine. not only is it not our responsibility to declare warp it they are holding the money rains. -- money reigns.

this from mitt romney, it is been one month since the russian attack and they still lack air attack. it is our job to provide them with the advanced weaponry that they require. we will share you more -- share with you more comments as they appear. it continues today from brussels to warsaw and president biden coming as close as he will come to the front line of the conflict about a hundred miles or so from the border. this is eddie from ohio. caller: how are you doing this morning? i relate with the last guy

calling from ohio. he calls them oligarchs and i call them cabals. what is taking over there is human traffickers and as far as it us taking in a hundred thousand refugees. that is nothing to what is happening in our country in the past year, the last year alone we took in 2.3 million people. what is 100,000 more people going to do? host: do you think we should be accepting more? caller: no, we need to take control of our own border before we start worrying about other people's orders. you have poland who is scared.

nato was once -- nato is all one, so why are they afraid to send over those migs. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i believe president putin needs to have, or i pray, that he has a road to damascus experience like saul who persecuted other people who heard the voice of the lord. i believe this is a spiritual

war and this is why the entire country should pray, the creator because president putin is doing the work of the adversary and only god can intervene. this war has gone on too long and it is killing innocent people and people have done absolutely nothing to bring on this destruction. host: so it was saul who became paul? caller: he also wrote the books of the new testament. he had a spiritual conversion because his heart was hardened and he thought he was right. host: and you pray for a spiritual conversion for vladimir putin? why should we do while we wait for that to happen? caller: i believe the united

states and the members of nato are doing all they can do that is possible. to avoid world war iii. we do not need to be drug into putin's war because that is what it is. it is diabolical. we need to have our eyes open, our hearts and hands clean in our hearts true. host: this is dean out of louisville, kentucky. we will go to don in california. caller: what i want to speak to

is that irresponsibility in believing your own propaganda throughout the years. there is no proof that vladimir putin is insane. he is been running russia for years and the people he is running are just as dangerous as him. to say that he is mentally unstable, what universe has he even threatened to usenet clear -- to use nuclear or chemical weapons. quit putting that light out there. let's start hitting serious about this war. where is biden standing up and

saying russia, kagan for these refugee -- kick in for these refugees. we don't hear a word of it. he is the evil devil over there and we are the great guys who will pay everybody's way. host: the issue that you bring up on the potential of russia using chemical and biological weapons is from the issues conference. this comes from mike mccall, he is on the foreign affairs committee reacting to those stated discussions about what the next steps would be if the used chemical weapons hears what he had to say. >> they have to have these discussions. if he is in europe with nato,

then need to be talking about what the red lines would be if he throws a chemical weapons because his military is not doing well. that is the biggest surprise in this whole thing is how he overestimated the russian military and underestimated the ukrainian military. they have put up a very good fight. what are the redlines on chemical weapons and short range tactical nukes. to me, that is a game changer. the administration needs to set arrived line that if this happens, there will be consequences. there will be a discussion about those consequences. we don't want an escalation into world war iii but it is hard to sit back idly and watch weapons

of mass destruction being thrown into this country after all of the horrific images we have already seen. host: that was mike mccall at that house republican leaders and issues summit. the president is traveling overseas and we will be covering his activities that yield more press conferences today. he will be meeting with the president of latvia. here is the -- that coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. on c-span.org. caller: good morning, i wanted to make a couple of statements.

i really want to believe in president biden. i really do but is really hard for me that anything he is saying because he drug his feet. he should've said something at the very beginning. his financial interest with russia and china and the laptop situation with him and his son. the mainstream media is not talking about that. we are supposed to be investigating this. no one ever says a thing about that and i don't know why ac span doesn't carry something on this. i would like to believe that. the other thing i was surprised about is when biden said that

general milley and they want to his calls. i was surprised that the general was still there, i thought he was fired over the afghan is dan situation. -- afghanistan situation. this general has done a poor job and i can't understand why he was not fired for it and why is the general calling instead of president biden or the vice president. host: that effort to try and prevent unintended actions with each other on a military level, a similar type of thing was set

up during the syrian conflict as well. a lot of talk about escalation and what could lead to escalation at this point. a lot of criticism about what biden should or should not be saying about the conflict in ukraine. this conversation has been ongoing for about 20 minutes. this is neil from pennsylvania. caller: this situation is because of one man, president putin. they need to put a price on his head hoping someone will take you up on it. someone on the fringes of thing will put a bullet in his head. host: that is neil from

pennsylvania. we have been showing clips from president biden's news conference yesterday. this is from today, here's what president biden had to say earlier this morning. >> today i am proud again to announce a ground breaking union. we are coming together to lessen europe's dependence on russian products. making it clear that the american people would not be part of subsidizing rut -- putin

severed in -- efforts in ukraine. the united students welcomed the powerful statement this morning committing to rapidly reducing its dependence on russian gas. today we agree on the joint game plan on that goal while accelerating our products to clear, clean energy produce -- production. reducing europe's demand for gas overall. to address russian dependency, we will work to ensure that additional 15 billion cubic meters natural gas for europe

this year and as the discontinues buying russian gas. it will also ensure eu market demand for 15 billion cubic unions of natural gas from the u.s. by 2030. by doing this they can increase the efficiency of gas. this buildout will occur in a way that consistent with the net zero climate goals we are shooting for. it is going to take some time to build the infrastructure. we are going to have to make sure that the families in europe can get through this winter in the next while we are building

the infrastructure for a diversified, and clean energy future. host: that was president biden from earlier today as we have been tracking his travel across europe from brussels to poland. this is dave, a republican. how do you think he has done overseas? caller: i have not been following it. what is nato and the eu trying to dictate to us? what in the world do we do? we have held up nato in the you -- eu for years. host: are you saying that we are often seen as the most important member of nato militarily and economically. caller: we are the biggest

contributors to nato. host: what do you not like about what they are saying? if it wasn't for us they would be speaking russia. and as far as the gas shortage, that is their fault for getting into bed with russia in the first place. they have been trying to get gas free from russia for years to develop their own plans. host: do you think it is time for nato to act? caller: the cart in front of the horses with the europeans have done. i am kind of getting sick of it. host: this is tim from rochester, new york. a democrat. caller: yes, how are you doing?

you have to be careful here. there are nukes involved. when they start flowing -- flying it will be a problem. all we can do a supply them, help them out. give them what they need. one more thing, think about a show with people 40 and under because these people sound like they are insane. host: on giving them what they need, when president zelenskyy spoke to congress he said at the end the words on this screen should close the skies over ukraine. basically saying a no-fly zone, do you support that? caller: yes, give it to them. host: and you are not worried about the escalation of that?

caller: no-fly zone. giving them plans, and giving them migs. i think russia is bluffing a little bit. host: this is polly from florida. , and independent. caller: i am over 40. i thought that wasn't a just remark. we have already got a situation,

what about cybersecurity that has been all over the news. the problem is that nobody wants to take to report or investigate it. they can manipulate people and really screw things up with relationships with people. host: we talked about the cyber war as it release of this conflict and it how it is been around the world. if you want to watch that 40 minute segment you can do so at c-span.org. this is rick from

sioux city, iowa. caller: i am still trying to get over the 40 remark. i wish god's wisdom would rain down on all of these leaders and they would listen. the other thing is, i would be more ambiguous about what we are going to do. if i was talking to the joint chiefs of staff, you know what send them everything. everything we can. host: what does that mean, send them everything? does that mean u.s. troops, u.s. planes with u.s. pilots? caller: no pilots, no boots but

give them equipment to shove them back to the belarus border. you have to be clear with president zelenskyy. you have to stop there. you can't go over the border because that gives them every right to start world war iii. right now, it is a sovereign country. we are not there and we are just supplying the equipment, i think we can stand with that. host: in your scenario does it consider taking back crimea? caller: honestly, i don't know that i have an answer for that. there are a lot smarter folks that should be thinking about that exact question.

host: jason in maine, independent. caller: thank you for hearing my opinion. i think the only real truth in the world is method that is what we need to fall back on. there is a division in this country that is wrong. there used to be a movement for the 99% of people who have no money in this country and the 1% that do have money. it is the same in russia. these billionaires, the path for a guy like me when i see so much people suffering and the people that have billions of dollars don't help. math is going to show greed and greed is not always going to cut it in this world.

back to the topic of what we are talking about. i am proud of president biden. the only way i want people to deal with russia for the world to be together on that is part of nato. host: on the math issue, before this conflict before the second invasion of ukraine at the end of february. the math does the stock up well on their side when you look at the amount of troops, planes, artillery. are you surprised that math is not worked out as a russia seem to have hoped it would one month into this conflict? caller: the math i am talking about is more to do with the

oligarchs. prudent himself having billions of dollars. i don't think we would have a problem with russia because they are being ripped off by their rich people the same we are being ripped off by our rich people. caller: he does have a point. if we keep the things on putin we can do away with russia and send ukraine the planes they need and get rid of the nukes. everybody wants to think about where they're going to be buried. they are wanting everybody to

start inking about -- thinking about letting the fly, but not me. caller: i believe that the united states government is doing exactly what it should as a superpower. step back, and watch things happen and negotiate for a better outcome but let president putin play out his game. put sanctions that are everlasting so that he will never try to do that again. in closing, somewhere down the line north korea is going to be involved with russia. thank you for having me. host: on the issue of north korea, there is a lot of international news this is from

the washington times today. the biden administration joining its asian allies and condemning the latest missile attacks. they had a ballistic missile which may the largest that north korea has launched this year. the japanese prime minister called that test flight and active unforgivable recklessness. the test is a reminder to the japanese prime minister that the isolated nuclear arms regime and kim jong-un does not want to be ignoring even though most of the world's attention is focused elsewhere. this is richard out of north carolina, republican. caller: can i say something that

will improve washington journal? host: yes. caller: i think you should have an evening show because most of the people who are calling our elderly. number two i would like to say as far as the refugee situation is concerned. the way we treat the haitian refugees that we just whipped up on them and arrested them and sent them back and all of a sudden europe has the white world talking about giving these europeans millions of dollars in sanctuary. what is wrong with our country?

first of all, the nazi next-door. the cia, the fbi made spaces after the war to get not see sanctuary and this whole thing is wrapping around a new world order that the old world order of racism, bigotry is going out with the people of the world. we are seeing a lot of things that we see here in america. caller: just a couple of quick

points. all these people calling in, i would like to ask if you are willing to inhumanity to find a country -- and humanity to defend a country you can't find on a map. what about the outrage of the united states invasion of iraqi? why don't you ask a real accurate question should the u.s. do anything? caller: is the u.s. -- should the u.s. do anything to help ukraine? caller: no.

you are talking about ending with global, nuclear annihilation. they are insane, we have thousands of troops in iraq. it is the ultimate racism that we are willing to kill millions of muslims and we are all up in arms to protect the country know nothing about. host: if a nato country were attacked, should the u.s. do anything if that nato countries attacked? caller: my answer would be no but we are bound by treaties. that is a totally different story. nato is at the root of all of

this conflict. we are under a treaty. host: there was a treaty signed with ukraine after the end of the ussr with the new ukrainian country if they gave up the weapons -- nuclear weapons that were still there after the ussr broke up that the united states, great britain and russia would ensure the integrity of ukraine. it would ensure its borders. we signed that to you back in the early 90's. caller: you are confusing nato was something totally different. host: that was a separate treaty, i'm just saying you mention treaties, is that a treaty the matters to you? caller: that is not any attack on the ukraine is an attack on

the u.s.. there all of these gentlemen to agreements we are talking about. it is not the same. everyone wants to do that, but it is not the same. our invasion of a rack was in violation of international law as well. international laws are violated all the time but we are talking about the end of humanity here as stalin said, one murder is a tragedy. one million murders is a statistic. picture a person in your life, a daughter, son, parent, friend. that person will be dead with the conflict in russia and if nothing else, research the

horrors of hiroshima and nagasaki. people take these things so lightly. we want to stop it, the occupation, focus on iraq. host: that is wrong, -- ron in virginia. up next, we will be joined by veterans supreme court watcher amy howe to look at the key moments from judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court confirmation. later, george benjamin of the american public health association will give us the latest on covid-19. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv,

saturdays on c-span2, exploring the events that tell the american story. at 1:00 p.m., craig shirley looks at the events of april 1945 which included the final days of world war ii, the death of president roosevelt and adolf hitler and that war effort. at 2:00 p.m., part four of our series "first ladies." we will look at the role of the first lady, their time in the white house, and the issues important to them. this week, we will feature nancy reagan. >> let me state clearly, i do not believe the american people will ever allow the legalization of drugs in our country. the consensus against drugs in the united states has never been stronger. we clearly understand that drugs must remain illegal at every

step in the chain. >> exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest books. at 8:00 p.m., the founder and executive director of the danish think tank and the host of the podcast "clear and present danger" talks about his book "free speech." at 10 of 5 p.m. eastern, former u.s. ambassador ukraine, maria voss edition effects on her career. and congressional testimony

during the impeachment hearings of president trump. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: our focus on this week's supreme court confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson. we are joined by amy howe, editor of "howe on the court."

after three days before the committee and the senate, the key questions are she do anything to gain or lose votes and issue on track to get to 51? guest: the answer to your first question, did she gain or lose senate votes, we do not really know. we do not know what is happening outside the committee, is the short answer. when she was confirmed to the u.s. court of appeals, which everyone regards as the second highest court in the land, she got three republican votes. senator susan collins of maine, senator lisa murkowski of alaska, and senator lindsey graham of south carolina. senator graham is the only one who is on the judiciary committee and it seemed pretty plain after the hearings that he is unlikely to vote for judge jackson this time around. but we do not know about the other two republican senators.

as far as whether she is on track to be confirmed, it seems likely that she is. it is going to be a very narrow margin. it will be a very polarized vote along party lines but even some republican senators like senator ben sasse of nebraska who did not suggest that he was going to vote for her, but really talked about her confirmation as if it was inevitable. there was a line at one point where he was questioning her where he said, you are going to be a hero. host: in the history of confirmation hearings, how often does it happen that something comes up that derails a nominee after the nominee just before the committee -- sits before the committee? is there something that could happen that could change dramatically? guest: there is. we saw that with justice brett kavanaugh.

we had the initial set of confirmation hearings and then it reconvened after the allegations by christine ford became public. we had another day of hearings and the vote went forward and he was eventually confirmed, largely along a partyline vote. we certainly have not had any indication that there is anything that is going to come out that might derail her confirmation. she has already been confirmed to various federal positions as a sentencing commissioner, a district court judge, and quite recently, as a court of appeals judge. so three times, including quite recently. in addition to the fact that she is highly qualified, many people thought that that was one of the reasons why she was such a front runner for the nomination all along. the biden administration is keenly aware that the democrats could lose control of the senate

in the 2022 elections in november and they wanted to be sure that they could get someone confirmed. and she has been confirmed very recently and they wanted to make sure that there were no surprises. host: in terms of how much time is left, just take us through the schedule for her confirmation. guest: my understanding is that they are going to have to move forward starting april 4. they will be back in committee. it is a little unusual because justice stephen breyer has already said that he would like to remain on the supreme court through the end of the supreme court's turn. the justices are still hearing oral argument. they just finished up an argument session this week. they will hear another set in april and they will issue all of their decisions for the current term by the end of june. briar said he would like to remain on the bench until the end of june and then he would step down and if she were

confirmed, then justice jackson would replace him presumably in late june or early july. the senate democrats have said they would like to have the vote happen by easter, before the senators go away for their easter break. she will be waiting in the wings and all that would be left to do would be for the president to sign her commission so that as soon as justice breyer steps down in late june or early july, she could step in. they did not want to leave anything to chance in case something were to happen with some of the senators that would jeopardize their really to get her confirmed. host: amy howe with us for the next 35 minutes on "washington journal." taking your calls as we wrap up four days of supreme court confirmation hearings. judge jackson before that committee for the first three of those days. yesterday's panel featuring outside witnesses, friends of the nominee, and a panel of

republican witnesses. the phone lines are open for you to talk about all of this. if you support her confirmation, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you oppose the nomination of judge jackson, it is (202) 748-8001 go ahead and start calling in. i want to get your view on the confirmation hearings as a whole and maybe not just this one, but the past couple. is this process still a good way of figuring out the motivations of a justice for the public finding out about the history of a potential justice? are they still working? guest: that is a good question. it depends on the perspective from which you are coming at it. on the one hand, in recent years, there has been a trend toward nominees telling us

relatively little about how they would vote on a particular issue. we did not hear the phrase during his confirmation hearing. we herded a lot during the hearing for justice amy coney barrett and some of the earlier confirmation hearings, the ginsburg rule, the idea that a nominee for the supreme court is not going to weigh in on issues that could come before the be fuzz -- because that might make them seem biased if they were confirmed to the supreme court and the issue were to come up. it would seem that they had already prejudged the issue and that dates back to justice ruth bader ginsburg during her confirmation hearing in 1993 when she said she would give no forecast, no preview. there are a couple of journalists who have done stories on this. justice ginsburg during her confirmation hearing said quite a bit against -- about some substantive issues including the right to an abortion.

in any event, you have to separate how they might vote on particular issues and what we learn about them more broadly, what comes out of the process. even if they are not giving forecast and previews about how they might vote on a particular issue, what senators and journalists and people who are going into the hearing have spent a lot of time reading, in the case of judge jackson, all of their opinions. in the case of justice kavanaugh, reading all of his emails and opinions as a court of appeals judge versus what the public -- it does not necessarily have time to read all of these things. what the public learns about a nominee, they do learn a lot more about the issues facing the court, how this nominee has decided these issues in the past , about the candidate's demeanor. in this case, judge jackson sat

there, pretty implacable, sometimes during a roller coaster of senators asking her questions and sometimes speaking quite strongly. even if you are not learning how she feels about gun rights or abortion, you do still learn quite a bit about her. i think your view on whether or not the hearings serve their function kind of depends on what you think their function is. host: taking viewers back to monday to judge jackson's opening statement. this is just one minute of her explaining her role as a judge and her role and view of the law. judge jackson. [video clip] judge jackson: members of this committee, if i am confirmed, i commit to you that i will work productively to support and

defend the constitution and this grand experiment of american democracy that has endured over these past 246 years. i have been a judge for nearly a decade now and i take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. i decide cases from a neutral pasture. i evaluate the facts and i interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial opus. i know that my role as a judge is a limited one, but the constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented and i know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.

[end video clip] host: judge jackson from monday. amy howe, we heard a lot from republicans about her judicial philosophy. is that her judicial philosophy? guest: she said it was more of a methodology and that was frustrating for republicans, but she stuck to that answer and some democrats said, maybe that is better than a judicial philosophy. it tells us how she will decide cases. host: this is mark. good morning. caller: i do not feel she should be confirmed for many reasons. she lied to the committee several times. there was one case she decided when trump was president about immigration and it was unrepeatable that she should not have taken the case and also that she should not decide on it. she is a political activist and

what happened in the case issue but a nationwide injunction on the trump administration and she was overturned in the next court because it was such a bad decision. she should not have taken the case because the statute was so clear that there was no review of the actions of the secretary that did it. that shows that she will not follow the law. she will not follow the statutes. she will not follow the cost of fusion with separation of powers. -- follow the constitution with separation of powers. not to mention the fact that she lied and she does not even follow her own faith. host: let's focus on the cases that you bring up and her case history. amy howe, on that case and her record in general and how it was explored during the hearings. guest: this is the case called make the road versus natalie involving a copy or policy that was overturned by the u.s. court of appeals. this was a case that she decided

that she was a district judge. i actually thought this was an example of a substantive discussion of one of her cases. the hearings were a roller coaster. the democrats focused often, -- senator cory booker focused on the historic nature of her opponent -- her appointment. republicans focused on portraying her as soft on crime. a couple of senators did bring up this case but i thought it was a substantive discussion. it was a case where she was overturned. the democratic senators response to the discussion of this case would be that she was overturned relatively rarely. there are points to be made on both sides. i am not sure that being overturned in one case disqualifies you as a report justice. reasonable minds can differ.

host: oldies, detroit, michigan. -- otis, detroit, michigan. good morning. caller: you need to get some 40 and under time. host: we appreciate callers of all ages. caller: i am 57-years-old so i understand what the other two were talking about. with the judge, i am an african-american. i'm a black male, 67 years old. from my generation of the baby boomers, we have to be 110% better than white people if we want to be qualified, which is sad because it seems like it is still happening today with the judge. just listening to her, and i have listened to a few of these confirmation hearings in my life

, you can tell she is 100%, 110%, 120% better because the charts that seized input of the other day shows that all the other sitting supreme court judges, that she is way above the heads of them. also, when they talk about the porno pictures case, she kept telling congress it was up to you. i feel like people missed that. you have to set these laws. some of the senators were saying we have dropped the ball on that because it is a hot issue. the republicans constantly would not pick up the issue, would not help create a law that almost 80% of the judges, they even

mentioned a few of the republicans, supported judges in their state are within the norm of the 80%. host: we take your point. you bring up a couple of issues. amy howe, which one do you want to focus on? guest: for the listeners, there was a lot of focus even before the hearing started, senator josh hawley of missouri had a long twitter thread in which he announced that he was going to focus on judge jackson's record in sentencing people who have been convicted of possessing child pornography. he said he was disturbed by the low sentences that she had given to these offenders. experts and fact checkers even before the hearings began look at the issue and said that judge jackson's citizens for these offenders were well within the mainstream for federal judges.

as otis suggests, the way visiting guidelines were set up, they were set up really before the advent of the internet when pornography was circulated by mail through magazines and pictures. with computers, people are now unfortunately able to download large amounts of pornography including child pornography with the click of a button. the guidelines do not account for that. judges have tried to account for that in their sentences so that the sentences are not as harsh as they would otherwise be under the guidelines, which judges field and not take account of this change -- feel do not take account of this change in technology. some of the democrats poked fun at republican senators saying i

have not seen your bill to change the guidelines. some of the republican senators said that they actually think that is appropriate if you are downloading large amounts of child pornography, you should be subject to harsher penalties than someone who gets a magazine in the mail. that is a debate that congress can have but perhaps they should have that debate, was what many people were saying. host: we were doing lines on this topic but the phone lines are split up as usual. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. those are the phone lines for this segment. you can keep calling in to talk with amy howe of "howe on the court" blog. switching from this confirmation as viewers continue to call it to other news out of court this week, do we have an update on

justice clarence thomas's health condition? guest: we do not. justice thomas was hospitalized on friday evening with what the office called flulike symptoms. he was admitted to the hospital just inside the washington, dc line and was deceiving antibiotics through an iv for an infection. we receive this announcement on sunday night. the court said on sunday night that it expected justice thomas to be released within a day or two. the issue of transparency with regard to the justice's health is something that reporters have complained about. we do not know whether we would have learned about justice thomas's admission to the hospital had the supreme court not been scheduled to hear oral arguments on monday morning. so it would have been obvious that something was wrong had he not been on the bench when the

justices took the bids for oral arguments on monday morning -- took the bench for oral arguments on monday morning. it has been several days past the day or two with which the courts expected him to be released. the news yesterday, the questions were not answered. we do not know anything at all. host: speaking of justice thomas, this news broken by "the washington post" and cbs, this on the front page. virginia thomas, a conservative activist married to supreme court justice clarence thomas repeatedly pressed mark meadows to pursue extreme efforts to overturn the 2020 election in a series of urgent text exchanges in the critical weeks after the vote according to copies of those messages obtained by "the washington post" the messages reveal an extraordinary pipeline between virginia thomas and

president trump's top aide during a period in which trump and his allies were vowing to go to the subpoena court in an effort to negate the election. text messages that "the washington post" obtained and cbs obtained. your thoughts on that story? guest: it is a big story. ginni thomas has long been a conservative activist and there has been criticism of her role as a conservative activist in light of her husband's job on the subpoena court and it is a fine line. should a spouse have to stay out of politics because they are married to someone who is on the supreme court? in this case, it becomes a lot less murky and much more problematic because this is an issue of talking to the white house chief of staff at the time about efforts to overturn the 2020 election when trump is

vowing to go to the subpoena court. there were at the supreme court cases related to the 2020 election and document related to the 2020 election. we know that the thomases are an extremely close couple. the fact that justice thomas was voting on these cases raises serious concerns. there has also long been calls for a code of ethics for supreme court justice is because right now, the supreme court justices are not bound by -- this is once again going to raise that issue. host: back to the phone. this is why nita -- juanita out of south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to express my opinion. i support judge jackson.

my main concern, i thought that during the questioning for the senate she was treated so badly. i thought that they were unnecessarily harsh and brutal and i particularly take issue with our own senator, senator lindsey graham. he comes on very strong, paying lip service to things that are harmful in south carolina. but south carolina is at the very top of the list in incidents of domestic violence. we lead the nation in that. we are near the bottom with our educational system. if senator graham is so concerned about the families of south carolina, why doesn't he look at his own backyard and use his influence to make things better? south carolina people are wonderful and they deserve much better representation from their elected officials. host: amy howe, brings up the

subject of not just the nominee being in the spotlight, but senators on the judiciary committee being in the spotlight as well. guest: i want to start by saying south carolina people are wonderful. my husband went to high school there. we have a lot of family there. senator lindsey graham has covered a lot of confirmation hearings. it is an interesting one to watch. it has been a while since we have had a supreme court nominee from a democratic president. but when we did, the nominations of elena kagan and sonia sotomayor, lindsay graham supported those nominations. he had this speech he used to give about how elections matter and i can hear it in my head, lindsey graham talking to elana kagan about elections matter. you are not the candidate i would have shows about president obama won the election and you see and qualify so i'm going to

support you. that all went out the window. he has had some real grievances at this hearing, one of the related to judge j michelle childs who is a federal district judge in south carolina who lindsey graham and jim clyburn, the democrat from south carolina , had supported as a potential nominee to replace justice breyer. lindsey graham attributed the fact that judge jackson, rather than judge childs, had been the nominee to campaign by progressive groups against judge childs. he also brought of past confirmation hearings, in particular, the hearings of justice kavanaugh and justice barrett. but also going back to some of the judges on the d.c. circuit judge and someone who was

nominated for the d.c. circuit judge, but not confirmed. he is going back in history and talking about what he perceived as a very poor treatment of republican nominees at the hands of democrats. host: to florida, this is jesse on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, i was pleased with the lady. i think she did a great job. the thing that i really liked about her is she did not seem to hide behind, i may have to woo. she answered the questions. i disagree with the lady who talked about the senator's behavior. although i am of republican, i was ashamed of lindsey graham, ted cruz, and hawley. the way they acted, it is too

political. host: that is jesse in florida. amy, you talked about lindsey graham. what about ted cruz and josh hawley? guest: we actually have this debate with some journalists. on the one hand, he was bringing up the kavanaugh hearings and i know he was bringing that up perhaps to appeal to the republican base. on the other hand, i am not really sure that if you are trying to appeal to suburban women, reminding them of the kavanaugh hearings is necessarily an astute political move because it provokes this sort of reaction. senator josh hawley and senator ted cruz, i'm trying to think -- there was no sense that either of them was ever going to

vote for judge jackson to be confirmed. there definitely was a performative quality about it. certainly, they have the rights to raise their concerns, but the manner in which they did it suggested that their audience was not inside the hearing room, but outside the hearing room. again, it plays both ways. it can get you attention with the republican base, but it can also turn off voters. it is a question of the cost benefit. as your caller suggests, there are certainly costs with some of the voters. host: marcia, pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i thought it was so sad, the republicans behavior overall. i would like to hear comments on the positive side, comments like booker and klobuchar made. and you too, ms. howe. host: amy howe, do you want to

talk about your role on your blog? guest: i did not take a position. i am just a reporter, not a pundit. i do not take a position on whether judge jackson should be confirmed. it is unfortunate and all members of the press probably are equally guilty of it, this sort of fireworks are what tend to get the airtime or the ink, cover nomination hearings. there were the more contentious moments in the hearings but there were moments like cory booker, alex padilla. but there were substantive discussions of the law from senators on both sides of the aisle. as the caller mentioned, amy klobuchar often asks nominees from both sides of the aisle, republican nominees, democratic nominees, about issues like antitrust benefit -- and freedom

of the press. senator charles grassley often asks nominees about the false claims act and whether or not they favor cameras in the courtroom. senator ben sasse of nebraska had a substantive exchange with the nominee. it is unfortunate that those substantive exchanges do not get as much airtime as the fireworks. host: as you mentioned, cory booker's statement getting a lot of attention. there was one moment in which judge jackson showed a little bit of emotion. this is about a minute of senator cory booker talking on wednesday to judge jackson. [video clip] sen. booker: your family and you speak to service, service, service. i am telling you right now, i am not letting anybody in the senate steal my joy. i told you this at the beginning. i am embarrassed. it happened earlier today.

i just look at you and i start getting full of emotion. i'm jogging this morning and at the end of the block i live on because i put my music on loud when i'm jogging trying to block out the noise of the heart attack i am having. and this woman comes upon me and tackles me, an african-american woman. and the look on her eye, she just wanted to touch me because i am sitting so close to you, and tell me what it meant to her to watch you sitting where you are sitting. and you did not get there because of some left-wing agenda. you did not get here because of some dark money groups. you got here however he black woman in america who got anywhere has done. by being, like ginger rodgers

said, i did everything fred astaire did, but backwards in heels. [end video clip] host: amy howe on that moment that went viral. guest: it was a moment that i think everyone is going to remember from the confirmation hearings. it came after it was pretty far into the day and it came after judge jackson had had a relatively long and contentious set of questions from senator tom cotton of arkansas. his comments -- senator booker's comments were already fairly emotional, but i also think she was probably feeling maybe a little bit vulnerable, was ready to take a little bit of a break and senator booker wanted to talk about the historic nature of her appointment and also sensed that she needed a break at that point. it was quite a moving moment. if you could see judge jackson

becoming emotional, you could see staffers sitting behind senator booker getting emotional. at the end of the day when the hearings were over and senator dick durbin, the chairman of the committee gaveled hearings to a close, judge jackson got up and left quickly, but her husband, dr. patrick jackson, stayed around for a few minutes to talk to people. one of the first things he did was he went over to senator booker, gave him a big hug, they spoke for a few minutes, and gave him another hug before he moved on to talk to somebody else. host: santa fe, this is tony, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to comment that i feel she is more qualified than at least five on the supreme court now. thomas, the fact that his wife, he refuses to recuse himself.

one of the first opinions he's wrote was a monsanto opinion giving them unlimited power just about. from that point on, he has lost my respect as a judge or a justice. susan united was another thing that -- citizen united was another thing that lost my faith in certain members of the supreme court that are still on there today. at least some of the senators focused on the dark money, which was good. but what i appreciated was her responses to what she thought about the constitution. she is going to be out there deciding what is constitutional and what is not. i do not believe that those justices on the supreme court right now have ever read the constitution or the declaration of independence because they do not realize -- they claim to be originalists. you cannot do that.

that was written at that time for those people and what they were going through. host: amy howe? guest: i will not weigh in on whether she is more qualified, but certainly by the measures we currently use to determine whether justices are qualified, she is well-qualified. she went to harvard college, harvard law school, she clerked for justice breyer. one thing that often gets left out when we talk about her qualifications is that she was on the shortlist back in 2016 when president obama was looking for a nominee to fill the vacancy left by the death of justice antonin scalia. he ended up choosing judge merrick garland who did not get a hearing because of the posture that mitch mcconnell said at the time, there is the tradition of not confirming nominee in a

presidential election year. but she was on the shortlist. clearly when president obama was looking at the entire field of potential candidates, thought enough of her at the time to include her on the shortlist. host: what about the other issue that the caller brings out on faith in the court? the caller expressing his own views on specific members. but this idea about the public space and the severe court to do its job? guest: it is something that is very important. it is something that at least some of the justices are very cognizant of. remember that the supreme court, they do not have an army. they do not have a police force. when they issue a decision, people obey it because they believe in the authority of the supreme court. it is certainly something that chief justice john roberts is very concerned about, that all the court has is the court's institutional authority. it is a corollary to this,

something that came up often at the confirmation hearings, senators tried to get judge jackson to weigh in on the notion of court expansion because this has been a major theme for progressive groups. they want to add feeds to the supreme court to balance out both the seat that was lost. they say that the seat was stolen when senator mitch mcconnell did not allow merrick garland to get a hearing and be put up for a vote and allowed the seeds to be filled by justice neil gorsuch instead. even though seven out of the eight last presidential elections, the popular was won by democrats, the court is now dominated by conservatives. they tried over and over again

to get judge jackson to weigh in on this notion of court packing. she said it would not be appropriate for her to weigh in on that. it was the same thing judge amy barrett said during her confirmation hearing. as another matter, this is not something that the supreme court would decide. this is a question for congress to decide. this is something that justice stephen breyer has addressed and he said the supreme court should not be expanded because people will view the court as political and it will sap the supreme court's authority. host: the supreme court is 20 years old, is that correct? guest: it will turn 20 this fall. host: how cognizant were the justices about this idea of faith in the court? guest: it was something that at that time they were quite cognizant of because bush v gore

was not that far in their rearview mirrors. that was certainly something that that many -- that led many members of the public to question the extent to which the court was politicized. along conservative liberal lines , ruling on the outcome of the presidential election. the supreme court stayed in and out of the public consciousness over time depending on what is going on and the nature of the court's ruling. for the last few years, it has been more at the forefront because we have had so many confirmation hearings and because the supreme court has been weighing in on so many important issues. this term, they are about to issue decisions on issues like abortion.

they are deciding whether or not to overrule roe v. wade, gun rights, and in the fall with potentially just as jackson on the court, they will weigh in on affirmative action and the extent to which lgbtq rights and religious rights are balanced. there are so many important issues that are before the supreme court and the public is paying close attention. host: last call, barbara, oklahoma city, democrat. good morning. caller: hi. i do not even know where to start. i do not understand why we never ever did you have questions like this when trump was in there. we never got to speak on what he did. every morning now, it is what you think about biden doing this? what do you think about biden doing that? our supreme court justices, this

one is so awesome. it is insane. she made lindsey graham and them look like the fools that they are because she is so well read. she is amazing. host: that is barbara's view from oklahoma city. before we go, the final minute. what did we miss this week across the street at the actual supreme court while we were all focused on the confirmation hearings? guest: it was a busy week at the supreme court as well. the oral argument, the cases in which they were hearing oral arguments were low-key. the supreme court issued rulings on the shadow docket, which is a topic that came up a couple of times at the confirmation hearings. the supreme court throughout a ruling. it is complicated so i will talk slowly. throughout a ruling by the wisconsin supreme court that adopted a map drawn by the

state's democratic governor for the state legislature that had drawn an additional majority black district for the legislature. this is after the 2020 census. all the states have to go back to the drawing board and draw new legislative district. the supreme court throughout this ruling that adopted a map drawn by the state's democratic governor. the state also issued a decision involving the religious rights of a death row inmate. they said that he does have the right to have his spiritual advisor in the execution chamber, putting his hand on him, and praying out loud. there has been a battle for couple of years over having your spiritual advisor in the execution chamber and now what the spiritual advisor can do. there will be a little bit of

frustration in the supreme court's opinion about do we really have to do this. texas, can't you figure this out without having to come to us? and then there was a decision involving a houston community college and a member of the board of trustees and whether or not do you think committed the college violated the trustees first amendment rights when it censored him for complaining about what the board was doing and the answer is no. host: think of the very best places you can go on the internet to learn about the ends announced in the case is about the supreme court, scotus blog.com. amy howe, thanks for joining us on "washington journal." one hour and 15 minutes left. later, will be joined by george benjamin of the american public health association to give us an update on the latest on the covid-19 pandemic.

but first, 425 or 30 minutes, we have time for open forum. any political issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours. democrats, republicans, and independents, those numbers are on your screen. go ahead and start calling right now. we will be right back. ♪ >> republicans participated in a debate in cleveland for the nomination for a november u.s. senate election. the candidates are trying to replace retiring senator rob portman. there is a primary schedule for may. watch this debate tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span, online, or full coverage on c-span now, the free video app. ♪ >> if judge ketanji brown

jackson is confirmed, the nation will have the most diverse supreme court in u.s. history. sunday on q&a, university of tennessee law professor benjamin, author, argues that while this is true, closer look suggests that there is a similarity among the justices, especially when considering their career paths. >> wednesday continue this trend -- when they continue this trend, they have spent more time living in washington, dc than any previous justices and the reason why is this, career path of his hyper elite meritocracy. after the clerk of the supreme court, they stay in town, they work on a big law firm, they work with the senate. there is a great study in what this type of lawyer does over the course of their careers. it does tend to cluster geographically around washington, dc and especially geographically around the appellate court.

you started at harvard in boston and go down to d.c. and you will capture years of life experience for these folks. >> benjamin barton with his book, "the credentialed court," sunday night on q&a. listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. now available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there to order your copy. it is your guide to the federal government with contact information to every member of congress. also, contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. preorder your copy today or scan the code with your smart quote -- smart phone. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: it is our open forum. any public policy issue, any political issue, this is when we turn the phone lines over to you. letting you lead the discussion. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. amy, independent. you are up first. caller: i want to mention a couple of things about the supreme court nomination. i really appreciate your show and how you stay very neutral. host: i appreciate that. what are your thoughts on the confirmation? caller: i think she is going to go through and i think she is highly qualified. seems like a really nice person. the one thing i wanted to bring up is i watched this show in the morning and evening.

i flip around the other channels and everyone is saying a lot about how badly she is being treated. lindsey graham is tried for political reasons to bring up the past and other confirmation hearings. he probably should not have done that. the others have a legitimate reason for asking about her record. they ask it in a tough way sometimes. but i think that was ok and we do need to look back and remember how badly some of the republicans retreated about personal things, not their judicial philosophies and stuff like that. i think she will go through and i think she will be great. that is the end. host: before you go, what did you think about that question on the second day at the hearings from senator marsha blackburn, the question asking her for the definition of a woman? there is a lot of focus after she asked about that question and judge jackson not answer to

that question? caller: i do not know that that was the appropriate question for the hearing, but it is important to a lot of us independents and i really consider myself a conservative, not a republican. i do not know if that was the right place, but it was a setback that she could not have given a definition but maybe she thought that was not the right place as well. host: thanks for the call. tell me the county or from -- you are from? caller: siloed springs. host: democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think judge jackson is highly qualified and she also demonstrates throughout the hearings grace under fire. she is very respectful of all

senators and she answers their questions as best she can. i regret some of these republican senators asking her questions about things that are before the supreme court or will be before the supreme court that she cannot answer. she would have to recuse herself. i think the supreme court will benefit from having someone like her on it. and yes, she is going to get confirmed. and it can be strictly a part -- across party lines. thank mitch mcconnell for that. host: springfield, massachusetts, nelson, republican. you are next. caller: you should thank harry reid for changing rules first. i wonder about hunter biden's laptop and miranda divine. we know that hunter's laptop was real and we hear nothing about

it from the mainstream media. the big guy got 10%. all of his dirty dealings, all of his cocaine, how he lied about doing drugs so he could get a gun license. it is ridiculous. if any journalistic integrity exists at all, could you have her on, could we look at her book? it is all real now. can we ever talk about it? host: in pages of "the washington times," they have been talking about it for the past several days ever since "the new york times" brought this back into discussion. media suppression of hunter biden's laptop with election interference. "i served as communications director for the former president in his campaign. i was involved over the battle of coverage for the laptop. we held various conference calls

. we laid out the facts and employed -- implored the media to do their jobs. we have a news media that is always worrying about election interference. if their concerns were genuine, they would look at themselves first." that is tim murtaugh in today's "washington times." this is francis in midway park, north carolina. good morning. francis, go ahead. caller: ok. i started with angie -- without you. i'm calling about ketanji. as much as cruz and hawley harped on her sentencing, she sat on the sentencing committee here she cochaired it. none of them mentioned that.

i think they are fake. good day. host: steve in oak ridge, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i have several comments. before i do, what i want to call about his ukraine. bill barr on his way out the door said, "there is nothing on ." let's go back to ukraine. you have a lot of callers saying if trump was in office, this would not happen. that is pure speculation. we do not know what would happen . redlines, the gop is special for that. why? it is a lose lose regardless. there was a movie that came out in 1971 and one of the lines was

if everybody went outside the family, what you think they would get? i think that biden is keeping his cards close to his chest. somebody mentioned old people calling it. i am 73 years old. i watch every day. my question would be if you want to get involved, you want boots on the ground, is he going to be your kids or grandkids -- is it going to be your kids or grandkids? think about that. the last thing is the draft. if we got involved in this, people are going to say it is my personal freedom not to get drafted. the whole thing is -- start looking at the big picture instead of your narrow view. john, thanks so much and i love you all. take care out there. host: greg, an independent out of the bluegrass. good morning. caller: i was just calling about

the raises in congress before i got cut off. they were making $171,000 per year for being in congress and they got a 21% increase. they got an extra almost $37,000. but the american people pay for it. i am all for term limits. i thought it was no more than eight years. host: when was the increase voted for? i know that the way the law is set up, that they have to vote for the increase. but i am not sure about the numbers on what you are saying. but i can check in on

i don't have no complaints about the lady for supreme court. we need diversity. that keeps everybody on the up and up. congress got a 21% increase, $36,000. i've been a licensed plumber for a long time and i barely make that. i work my butt off. host: this is andy in kentucky. andy is on the republican line. good morning. caller: thank you. how what i know if i'm right or wrong. with this miss jackson on the supreme court, when a judge is on the supreme court, i could be

wrong, she is supposed to deal with what the constitution says and how it applies to the laws and the laws are written made by the congress of the united states. what they were showing was if i'm not mistaken the law that she was saying with the abuse of with children is she did not go by the law with the sentencing guidelines of the congress. she went away from what she was ordered and told to do as a judge. you think she is going to follow the law that has been put before her and how the constitution is interpreted? that's what they were showing about this lady. she is going to make laws herself. congress is supposed to make laws. she is going to make these laws

herself as to what she interprets them to be instead of what the constitution says. am i right or wrong? host: a lot of discussion about whether she is right or wrong of those issues by members of congress. this is derek in chicago. good morning. caller: the guy that was just on, the supreme court is trying to turn over precedent with the abortion law. i would like to say that i lost faith in the supreme court after mitch mcconnell did what he did to president obama. not only did he not get merrick garland hearing it, he stopped over 100 of obama's federal court appointees. that's why trump had so many.

people need to see what this is all about. the court is already political. i have no faith in it whatsoever. host: joe is in west virginia. good morning. caller: i've been interested in how many people thought mr. jackson, that she's qualified. i go back to where common core came into education. a lot of people that were educated hundred got no education. they lost all of their common sense. people can't see what's in front of their face anymore. if you can have a baby, you are a woman. if you can donate's berm, you are a man. it blows me away. anybody that can try to protect the pedophiles, even animals protect their babies.

i don't know what somebody said about older people, thank god some of us were educated by true educators who appreciated common sense and knowledge. and understanding and reasoning. it's just like with the president, he thinks he's done good with the economy. we have nothing but inflation from overspending and devaluing the dollar. it's just blowing me away. host: on the definition that you talk about, we've had some of those discussions before surrounding some of these transgender issues, you say if you can have a baby you are a woman, it's been pointed out that there are plenty of women out there who have fertility issues and can't have babies. caller: but they still have

eggs. they do not have spur. some people might think it's proof. i heard somebody on the tv say look down your britches. you have to get to that place. it is just so absurd. i think that schools have just confused the younger generation. they don't appreciate true knowledge, true learning. i don't know what the answer is. it seems like the people in charge don't care. when they talk about how she was treated, what about kavanaugh and clarence thomas? they tore them to shreds. i don't know. it's like people can't see what is right in front of them. host: we've got about 10 minutes left in this open forum. a caller asked why there has not

been more coverage of veranda divine in relation to the book blacktop from hell. it was back on february 24 that book tv covered an event with her. you can watch that in its entirety on our website if you want to search her name in the search bar at the top of the page. you can watch the event that we covered. this is destiny in ohio. good morning. caller: thank you for allowing me to place my opinion. i would like to start off with -- i know people have their own opinions what they get off the media. just do your own research without relying what people are telling you.

i am in favor of her. she is one of the most well-rounded considerations. my problem with what's been going on, i've been watching the hearings. the republicans ask questions about irrelevant things like her middle school history about being on debate team. she was 14 years old. there was deviation on what was important. judge jackson is a woman who believes in the law. she hasor room to consider her own opinions and feelings in her actual job. it's already hard as it is. she has no room for that. she only goes by facts. i appreciate that. i think we should look at the

facts and see her past contributions and what that will leave us. host: frank is next out of florida. good morning. caller: thank you very much, the last caller said something about judge jackson following the guidelines, following the law. that's not right. during her testimony, she was asked about her cases involving child pornography. she did not follow the federal guidelines on that. a person convicted of child pornography, the federal guidelines are imprisonment for 90-120 days. months. and she sentenced a criminal to

three months. she does not follow the guidelines. she will not follow the constitution. this woman claims she believes in moral truths. she is in favor of -- she supports killing unborn children. including black children. her own people. host: when asked questions about the abortion issue, she declined to answer saying it's an issue that come -- could come before a supreme court. she did not give her opinion on that. caller: she's a democrat. all democrats support abortion. that's in their party platform. host: that is rain in maryland. good morning. caller: i am a republican. i am calling in reference to the

investigation. i am a retired parole in probation agent from maryland. we are dealing with the psi, that has so much detrimental information in it. no one other than the judge should be allowed to see that. i am looking at judge jackson as a person, not as a black woman, white woman, or anything else. looking at her qualifications, they are outstanding. host: can i ask you about the presentencing investigations? this was part of the debate at one point. judge action saying that she

based her sentencing guidelines in part on information that was in those member saying we didn't have access to those. we disagree with how you ruled or sentenced somebody in the case before you. they asked for access to those documents and chairman durbin said he wasn't going to go there, he wasn't going to open those up. what kinds of information are in there that are so sensitive? caller: when you look at the psi, you are delving into that individual defendant's total life. when you're dealing with that, you are asking questions of people in the community that have knowledge of that person.

sometimes, you want to truthful answer. you are not going to get that. it can be very hurting for the community. when you are given that information out, you're just not going to do it. you're looking at the family life, you are looking at the persons they have looked -- worked with. nobody wants to tell you anything. if they know someone else will know it. the way washington, d.c. is, nobody is going to want to talk to you. host: even when republicans said let's take these documents to a secure location and view them in that secure location, that was

something they would agree to if there was some concern about confidentiality. you don't think that is a safe way of doing this? caller: no. not feasible. you can take it anywhere you want. there is always someone that will leak it. we know how washington, d.c. works. there is so much confidential information that we as the public know, not because of it not being given in a classified area, the information just gets out. i don't know if it's the person is paid to talk or what. we know this information does get out. it would have -- it could really have a detrimental effect on the person that gave that information. host: you said you were a parole

officer? caller: a parole and probation agent. host: how many years did you do that? caller: i am retired. i did that for seven years. i ended up retiring because of disability. they retired me from it. i fell down a flight of steps and messed up my neck. it was like a broken neck. if you can't run, that is your best defense. you are out meeting persons that have done serious offenses or even lesser offenses. you've got to be able to run. that is your best defense. host: i hope you are doing better now, thanks for the explanation. caller: thank you for speaking

with me. host: this is the last call in this open forum. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having this subject on it. it's one of the things that we've got to accept in this democracy, when you go in for an interview you need to be prepared. i think she has the temperament. i want to thank the senator from louisiana, kennedy for pausing a question for her. she was prepared for whatever. i don't say it's racist. it's an interview. those questions, she answered within the right mindset of not

over exerting herself. we need to take one thing from this. we went from one generation of being jim crow. we missed the big element in the room. we are in a democracy that is developing. we are doing better. she is an example not only to america around the world, if you do all of the things that are right, it will pay off. one thing about being ministers, before you get your license as a referent, they probe you to see if you can defend the faith. she could defend the constitution. she said she did what was right. i think i love her because she

is a prime example of what america is about. it's not about us looking at each other individually. it is saying to america i applied myself and prepared myself. i want to thank the senator from louisiana, i think this is the elephant in the room. this party is going to benefit from this. this is going to get african-americans to go out and vote. i think this is a good thing for america. this is what america is about. host: we've got your point. we are going to have to end there because we are running out of time. stick around, in our final 45 minutes, we return to the topic of the pandemic. we are joined by georges

benjamin. that conversation right after the break. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine. bringing the latest from the president and other officials. we also have international perspectives from the united nations. that is all on the c-span networks. our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos. you can follow tweets from journalists on the ground. >> first ladies in their own words, our series looking at the

role of the first lady, their time in the white house and the issues important to them. >> education is such an important issue for a governor and also for president. >> using material from the biography series. >> i'm very much the kind of person who believes you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> we will feature lady bird johnson, betty ford, rosalynn carter, laura bush, michelle obama, melania trump. watch first ladies in their own words. listen to the series as a podcast on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get

your podcasts. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of 4 -- floor proceedings. all that your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find a schedule he information for c-span tv network and radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. your front row seat for washington, anytime or anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: we return to the covid pandemic. we are joined by dr. georges benjamin.

he is the former maryland state health secretary. good morning to you. and we talk about this latest variant of concern, the ba.2 variant? caller: thank you very much for having me this morning. what we know about this new variant, it's a subvariant of omicron. the big surge we saw was from the subvariant of ba.1. this is another variant, ba.2. we have watched it substantially go across europe and cause more outbreaks in those countries. we are now seeing this place ba.1 as something in our country. it is impacting people who have not been vaccinated before. it is hitting some people who have been vaccinated, but it is not as severe. it is much more infectious.

it turns out it is not any more serious. i want to be caulk it -- cautious. we know that getting it covid is a really bad idea. people who have not been vaccinated get very sick and some of them die from it. if you have an infection, it infects more people easier. more people are going to get sick and more people die. that's just how the numbers work. it may not be as severe than we've seen the past. i think that's the thing that gets missed. it is something to be worrisome. we are watching it very carefully. the good news i think is we do anticipate a rise in infections from this variant. i don't think anyone is

projecting it will look like the big increase we had from the first omicron variant over the holidays and into the first partly year. host: you said it will primarily infect people who are not the accident. how many aren't vaccinated? guest: right now, about 69% of the population has had their full vaccinations. the two doses and another j&j. about 26% of them have gotten their boosters. i think the challenge we have is we still have substantive numbers of people out there who are not vaccinated. that's like 217 million people who had the full shot series. that's the challenge.

we still have a fair number of people out there. they are not located in any one place. they are all over the country. we are going to see over the next several months many outbreaks. we are going to have five people here or there, there will be an exposure in a restaurant or sports stadium or out with a bunch of friends who got together. we are going to need to address that when we see that. if it turns out they are highly vaccinated, then even if some of them get infected, the evidence is they will not get very sick. there are people that for a variety of underlying medical reasons and of small number of them have died. host: we will get to the phone

lines if you want to join this conversation. it is regional lines. (202) 748-8000 in the eastern or central kind zones -- time zones. (202) 748-8001 in the amount nor pacific time zones. how would you describe the state of our state and federal response posture? are we ready for this next variant? caller: we are not ready for the next variant. my concern is we don't have strong memories. we have had a tragic two years. we have had some remarkable things on the science side. we are letting our guard down. as i told many of my friends, we are not finishing the job.

we are not putting the resources or focus on it to really get it squashed so we have it totally under control. we are not really prepared for the next that hits us a year from now or two years from now. it will be soon. it won't be another 100 years. host: where are we with our stockpile of vaccines and antibodies? that ties into the request the white house made at the beginning of the month for an additional $22 billion in it covid response. that was not included in what was passed as part of the funding bill that went through congress. this is what the white house has said that lack of funding will mean. no more free covid tests or

treatments for those that are uninsured as of today. vaccinated covers for the uninsured is ending in early april. that is going to reduce the treatments by states by 30%. it requires a scaling back of purchases of preventative treatments for immunocompromised people. your thoughts on those projections and that funding bill. guest: i want to reassure the public that if you need to get a test today, you can get a test today. there are people who have the test. hopefully you got your free test from the government. you can still get those. this week, next week you can get the test. there is enough vaccine out there. for you to get vaccinated.

the federal government is assured us that they have enough vaccine and reserve for that subsegment of people who have really bad autoimmune diseases, chronic diseases, heart disease, lung disease that might need a fourth dose. there are people we have said are eligible for a fourth dose. they are fine with that. if we decide to improve -- approve vaccines in kids under five, they can probably get enough for that first dose with kids. having said that, there are many things that are going to go away. funding for people who are uninsured, there are many of these tests we have, therapies we have that are in short supply. the raw materials are in short

supply. we don't have big stock piles. there is only one that works well on the second variant. we don't have enough of that supply. host: which one is that? guest: i will have to read the name of the thing. it is one of these words that -- i will spell it. host: i didn't mean to put you on the spot. guest: it's the one monoclonal that seems to work on the subvariant. all of the others don't. we also have two antiviral agents. those two are agents. they are good at producing the

risk of people getting really sick and dying. you've got to catch it really early. i think the way to think about this is while we have enough for the next test and treatment for the next few weeks, we are not building up any kind of stockpile for any surge we might have. we are not ready for the fall. what we've learned is the need to have the money to build the stockpile. if we don't buy it, someone else will buy it. we will be at the back of the line. the administration's request is a logical request. i think it's really a shame congress hasn't delivered.

host: james is in texas. good morning. caller: we've been doing well on the vaccinations. we need to get to vaccines, testing, everything to everyone, including third world countries. guest: thank you very much. you are correct. part of that request is additional vaccines. the united states is been a leader in putting our money there and getting vaccines. we can always do more. we need to help these other nations, especially lower income and countries, help them build

basic health infrastructure. covid is killing people in those countries. they are also dying of malaria, severe diarrhea, other diseases that are also prevalent in those communities. host: the other topic the caller brought up, vaccines for children under five. guest: the fda is getting the data. let me just step back. if we do these studies, they are trying to make sure they get the dose right. kids are not little adults. the dose is important. they're not giving them a full dose, it's a much smaller dose. in doing so, they are looking to make sure that smaller dose is as effective.

the early evidence is from the reports -- i've not seen this -- for all of those reports, the lower dose is very effective. it will protect kids from getting sick and dying. what we don't know for sure is how effective it is in terms of transmission. it appears also to be safe. the safety data as reported through the various leaks we've had is there able to tolerate it quite well. it's a safe and effective vaccine. the short answer is i hope the fda will get a chance to review that data and begin to approve it at some level. most likely, they will do something like kids six-month

through three maybe. they could use the same dose, they could approve it in two droops of kids. -- groups of kids. host: this is richard in montreal, canada. caller: good morning. the fda recently went to a federal judge and asked to delay the release of the safety profile of the pfizer vaccine during the clinical trials. why should i feel confident in taking the vaccine myself when the fda wants to cover up the safety profile until 2096. i haven't heard one doctor promoting these vaccine calling that corrupt.

i know for people who have died taking that vaccine. thank you. guest: thank you for your concern for all of us. i'm not aware of that court issue. i will look it up. i can say that the safety data i have reviewed -- i've seen this in the online system that we have for vaccine safety. i've read the reports of the been submitted by the drug companies. i am pretty comfortable with the safety and efficacy. i am fully vaccinated. i've done quite well from that. all of us know what the risks are for this vaccine that we've seen for 2.5 years.

i can't tell you what the risk of any medicine is 20 years from now. what i can tell you right now, if i have to balance getting covid versus getting the vaccine and getting a sore arm or feeling fatigued or having a fever, i would take the vaccine any day. host: a question from twitter, my friend returned from the u.k. she was positive for omicron. all others use tracing. why our international airports wide open? guest: we decided to do a risk-based approach and have people tested before they come here and document that. that was the mechanism we chose to try and do that.

this sounds like somebody -- i don't know the exact case. it sounds like someone who is probably negative on a test before they got here. somehow they got infected on the route or their test became positive because they had enough virus in their system that their test became positive. that does happen. that is a particular risk, which is why we tell people you should retest. the reason is it's a large investment. it doesn't give people the opportunity to retest or test should they get symptoms.

host: we have just about 20 minutes left. the phone lines are regional for you to call in. (202) 748-8000 in the eastern or central time zones. (202) 748-8001 in the mountain or pacific time zones. after those 20 minutes, around 10:00 we are expecting the washington post to begin their briefing with the president of latvia on the russian invasion of ukraine. we will be carrying that live. the if you stay with us after this conversation, this is linda in connecticut. good morning. caller: i have a couple of questions. i'm just curious why

therapeutics have not been ramped up more. that would seem to be a case where you would almost solve the problem. i'm just wondering about a fourth shot. as far as if somebody has to vaccines and the booster. i'm wondering in my case, my first vaccine i thought was iffy. it's always bothered me, did it work. i would feel better personally if i could just get the fourth shot and have that added insurance. i'm wondering about that. at this point, i am putting off some surgery because i'm nervous about that. i'm just wondering if it is safe to have those things right now. the two basics are therapeutics

and the fourth shot. guest: let me try to refocus everyone. therapeutics are very important if you get infected. if you get sick, they mitigate your illness. i practice emergency medicine. it's much better to prevent something from happening in the first place. getting vaccinated and boosted is important. i'm glad that you are. having those therapeutics is important. it's raw material. it is money to buy them. it is stockpiling. it is teaching people how to use them. they have this new test to treat program. there are controversies about how they want to implement it. that is the effort to do what

you are suggesting to get more therapeutics out there. they've got to have the money to buy it. congress needs to write the check. in terms of the fourth dose, even though other countries are recommending that fourth dose for selective populations, some are looking at 65 and older, everyone agrees that if you are immunocompromised and you have an underlying health problem, the fourth dose is the way to go. this country has not recommended the fourth dose for everyone. we don't have enough money to buy a fourth dose for everyone, even if we wanted one. the fda is going to review the issue of boosters.

that debate will happen at that meeting. we will get a sense of what the fda thinks about that. that makes a great case for us to wait. for you personally, i don't know your medical situation. i would sit down with your doctor, talk about what your needs are. they may be able to decide whether or not having additional shots would be useful for you. in most cases, after six or seven months, regardless of which dose you take, the levels begin to fall somewhat. it's not a matter of just getting the test, a reassurance shot. you really need to talk to your doctor about whether it is in your best interest. host: the fda recommends that

fourth round if the vaccine is approved and recommended for children. if we want to have all of those therapeutics you are talking about, does $22.5 billion cover that? guest: that's not going to cover that. the way to think about this, this is federal money. the president is going to roll out his budget requests for next year. i hope there is an increase in that. this is really money to fill the gap between now and then. the administration may very well have to come back and ask for

additional dollars. we are going to have to figure out how we transition these dollars away from the direct taxpayer payments into other revenue streams, insurance dollars and other things so that we can make sure that we have mobilized reimbursement for this disease, for these therapeutics as we go forward. host: we've got about 15 minutes left. one other update because we been following resident biden across europe this week, some news out of poland. the airplane today that was carrying the polish president to meet with president biden in eastern poland, that plane his main and emergency landing after returning to warsaw. that's according to an advisor cited by the state run news agency.

if there's more information on that for our program, we will let you know. back to your phone calls on the topic of covid-19. this is jeff in new york. good morning. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. thank you dr. benjamin for everything you're doing. you made references about the funding as being the bottleneck to increasing public health and preventable death. i would like to point out that when covid it's in the rearview mirror, we are not going to have any impetus for funding pandemic preparedness and response. you see what happens in the lull. we can't get the next round of vaccination. what's going to happen when the next pandemic comes in a few

years. we know they are increasing in their frequency. i sent a proposal to congress to solve the problem. it is repurposed seen a solution we've already had in the past. we create the federal reserve system. it was this crisis that arose. infectious disease has replaced that threat that arises suddenly. it was necessary to do that then and it's necessary now. you are making the point by seeing how difficult it is to get funding in the short term and certainly in the long term. if it's ok with you, i would love to send this to you to get a response and what you think

could help the public health. thank. host: have you gotten a response from the white house or congress? i think jeff stepped off the line. go ahead. guest: my email address is on the website. you can find it there. i am happy to take a look at it. the answer is we do need creative solutions to build a sustainable public health system. this happens every time it whether it's west nile virus or ebola or h1n1, which is basically an influenza vent demo. sars one was a significant disease outbreak. it's very different from this one. we managed that one.

this one got away from us. the important thing is the caller is right. we need to build a system in our country that can determine when a new disease spreads in the community, putting in the place the measures to mitigate it and prevent it from happening. we have not done that. we have let the public health system eroded in such a state that we are unprepared. if we did that to our military, it would be a severe security threat. i would argue not having a robust public health system is a health and security threat for us all. host: let me go back to earlier this week. this is the response coordinator , talking about the lack of funding for some of these efforts. >> we've made tremendous

progress in our fight against covid. nearly 220 million americans are fully vaccinated. two out of three adults including over 80% of seniors have received a booster shot. dr. fauci said we have highly effective treatments, free tests and high-quality masks. bipartisan support has been key to making this progress. the president and the doctors have made it clear that we still have more work to do. as dr. wilensky just explained, we are seeing ba rise in europe. we know cases will fluctuate here at home. if we maintain our preparedness, it does not need to be a cause for alarm. we know what tools we need to fight the virus. unfortunately, we are at risk

for not having these tools available. this should be unacceptable to every american. for months, we've made it clear to congress on a bipartisan basis that funding for medical supplies including vaccines, treatments, tests was running out. congress has failed to act, they have failed to provide the funding. we are already seeing the consequences. host: you can hear some of the same response as were giving earlier, dr. benjamin. we mentioned the outgoing coordinator. what are your thoughts on the incoming response coordinator? what are his priorities as he takes over the position? guest: i am a fan of his. i was with him the night before

the announcement. he wasn't going to get ahead of the president. he's a smart guy. i think messaging it, making the case to congress coordinates a whole of government response. that's going to be on top of his list of priorities. he is such a smart person who is very accomplished at bringing people together, coming to consensus and moving forward. the response has been quite competent from the administration. i think he will continue in that way. host: this is tim in st. louis. caller: thank you for this call in program. it's really helpful for a lot of people. a caller earlier mentioned some

people that received the vaccination and all of them dived come which i don't believe. -- died, which i don't believe. do you have any statistics of people who received the vaccination and passed away from whatever reason? do you have any knowledge of that? thank you. guest: i don't have an exact number. what we do know is the biggest complications from the vaccine has been allergies. there are people who have severe allergies to a range of things. we have seen people who have had allergic reactions. the number is very small. most of the time, people know

they have allergic reactions to a range of things. we've always suggested to people that if you had concerns about any reaction you may have had two prior medications, to consult your health provider before you get vaccinated. we know there are people who have died of other underlying diseases, they were also positive for covid. the difference of dying because of a vaccine or dying from an underlying other disease after having gotten your vaccination are to different things. there is no evidence that there is a very high mortality or dying from the vaccine. this vaccine is safe and effective overall.

by all modern standards of what we consider to be safe and effective. that is the right answer to your question. host: good morning. caller: hi. i had to laugh a little bit when i heard dr. benjamin, he had four friends that died after taking the vaccine. my son got the johnson & johnson shot. he realized he'd made a huge mistake. i took him to the er to times. they said there is nothing wrong with you. when the doctors doing something like that, they don't put you in the database. i don't know how they can keep

track of the reactions. guest: that's a very important point. the truth of the matter is every action that happens with the therapeutic, vaccine or whatever, they don't all one her percent get in the system. the way those are analyzed is using statistical analysis. this is a good way to determine relative risk. we do that for just about everything, including people who die from using tobacco, people who are in automobile crashes, people who take a range of other medications, people who get sick and then fallen in the other thing you do in life.

it's based on a statistical analysis. please understand, very rare events when they do happen may not get picked up. because they are rare, if they are rare, the relative risk of them happening is also extremely small. for the vast majority of the population, it's ok for people taking that medication. people have to look at it from that perspective. the risk of getting covid and getting very sick is pretty good if you are not vaccinated. it is pretty high. i think the one thing we have not gotten a sense of is long

covid. we know that people who are unvaccinated have a much higher risk of getting this long chronic syndrome. there is a group of people for whom this is debilitating. we don't know if it will be lifelong. some people are sick for months, some are sick for just a few weeks. long covid is a significant problem. that is greatly diminished. host: we've got about five minutes before we go over to the washington post event. the topic is the soviet -- russian invasion of ukraine. your view on masking right now in this country? when should we be masking? guest: when this thing first started, we talked about if this

was a mask wearing country. just like the rest of many other countries, we are going to see people wearing their masks on planes. i think we should follow the cdc guidelines. if you are in a yellow or green community, you don't have to wear your mask. you are welcome to do so. a red community, you will wear your mask with some regularity. if you are in agreement community, green tells you there is more prevalence of disease. if you're not sure of the vaccine status, wear the mask. it won't hurt. it can only help. we know they are a safe and effective adjunct to being vaccinated and boosted.

the mask is not a solution, though it will help. there are people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. there are people who've chosen for various reasons. if you really want to have the best protection, if you are uncomfortable, wear the mask. i do. that's my advice to you. by the way, no mask is not a great idea. a cloth mask gives you more protection. the n95 mask properly worn, tied along the face, gives you the best protection a mask can provide. i recommend that n95 if you want the best protection.

some people, the transition mask is available. host: it's easy to find on the cdc website. this is the mask as it stood last night. this is the latest update, you can see the county level map with most of the country in green, pockets of yellow. good morning, you're next. caller: yes. i have a question for dr. benjamin. can you tell us why the c.d.c. is treating airline passengers different from cruise ships and land crossings? if americans go out the country and then when they come back, they are not allowed back in until they get a negative test. but if you had covid, you are exempt. but, you know, we've been blessed, been vaccinated,

boosted. do you think it will change or the thinking, why do they treat airline passengers different before they allow them to come back home? thank you. guest: i think you have a better sense when you are on a cruise ship. to get on the cruise ship you have to be 100% vaccinated, validated, before you get on that boat. when you do get off the boat at the various places where the boat goes, those exposures are relatively brief. you, therefore -- generally seven to 10 days but it can be shorter or longer for sure. and in general, that was the way they set that process up. airline passengers can come from anywhere, and we don't have the sense of that. now, also, as you know, as i mentioned earlier, they're testing you. you have to be negative before you get on that plane. and so that's been the process they set up. again, it's a risk-based strategy. you may have just recently saw

that the airlines have asked now to let the mask mandate expire, which is set to expire about mid next month. i don't know what they'll do. i suspect that will be honored, that request. i don't know what's going to happen with the testing strategy. many of the other nations in the world are not necessarily doing the same thing that the u.s. is doing, but i think the test is a reasonable -- particularly, you know, the fact you can get self-tests now. although they have to be proctored and people know their result is valid. i do think we will see relaxation of masks in the near future. and probably some adjustment of that testing strategy. but not yet. not yet. host: as we weight for this

"washington post live" to start, another caller. caller: i'd like to talk about the money for covid. i read that $800 billion has not yet been spent, that they already indicated for covid. they're being spent on paying off state debt, paying ski resorts, hotels. use that money instead of writing a new check to fund whatever you need to fund for covid. thank you. guest: well, thank you for that important point. first, dollars went out of the federal coffers, our tax dollars, for a variety of reasons. some went to offset state debt. some went for infrastructure. some went to provide supports to keep the economy in those states

and local communities going. and some for welfare dollars and the h.h.s. is for health care. they fully accounted for where those dollars are. one of the things that's important to know is that the federal reconciliation process is probably like your checking account. sometimes you write a check that hasn't been cashed yet. as far as your bank knows, you have more money than you really do. federal banking process is exactly the same way. and the feds have dollars out that has been obligated and not yet spent. dollars that have been technically spent but they have not drawn down the money to pay the individual. but they have gone through and they sat down with congress and shown congress the books. and they still believe that now they've shown congress the books there is still a need for $22 --

i forgot the number now. host: $22 -- $32.5 billion. guest: thank you. remind you, that was a modification from the $30 billion that they originally asked for. so i think that they got the number probably right right now. again, that is -- we recognize $22.5 billion to prevent what could potentially be a multitrillion-dollar problem if we don't manage it right. host: dr. georges benjamin is the executive director of the american health organization. we always do appreciate your time, sir. host: thank you, john. -- guest: thank you, john. host: that will be it for "washington journal." we're back tomorrow. we now take you