developments in the russia ukraine conflict -- join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, ♪ host: it is monday, april 4. the senate is back at 3:00 p.m. with committee action on judge ketanji brown jackson's supreme court confirmation. we will begin on the issue of immigration. on friday, of the cdc announced it will lift an emergency public health order and restricted immigration at u.s. land borders at the beginning of the pandemic paired that spark backlash from republicans and some moderate democrats and put immigration back in the spotlight with just

217 days to go until election day 2022. this morning we are asking how important the issue of immigration is in your midterm election vote. republicans can call in at 202-748-8001, democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text this morning at 202-748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. on social media, on twitter it's at c-span wj -- it is @cspanwj. we will begin with the latest from the pew research center on the 4 -- importance of immigration when it comes to voters in the midterm election. this is what they found from their recent reports came out before the announcement. 67% of republicans view immigration is a top priority compared to just 35% of democrats. about half of americans, 49% say

dealing with immigration should be a major priority for the president. that's up from a year ago. at that time identical shares of republicans and democrats said dealing with the issue of immigration should be a top priority. for those viewers who are more visual learners, the chart showing this issue of immigration importance over time from january of 2021, the biden administration to today, the red line of top republican saying it should be a top priority. the blue line, democrats saying it should be a top priority. it was this weekend yesterday on the sunday show in the wake of the announcement by the cdc on friday that white house chief of staff was asked about listing title 42 and what it means for immigration. [video clip]

>> we saw that cdc decision on friday to lift title 42 allows the government to expel migrants during the pandemic, getting a lot of pushback on that. senator joe manchin called it frightening. kyrsten sinema said it posed a threat to arizona. mitt romney said it will elect republicans in november. how worried are you about a possible surge at the border. >> let's be clear, title 42 is a public health law. it says you can exclude people who pose a public health risk. the centers for disease control decide how to apply that and they decided in late may the pandemic will be at a place where we can no longer exclude people on a public health rationale. we need to do more work at the border. the president sent a plan to congress and we've asked consistently for more resources. we put in place a new rule next month that will enable us to process asylum more clearly.

we will also need to be honest with what's happening at the border. we see people showing up from places like cuba, nicaragua, venezuela, people fleeing regimes where they are feeling persecution coming here to make asylum claims. i think the goal should be to make sure those asylum claims, people fleeing persecution, are heard in a proper way. those deserve protection from persecution and those who don't are promptly sent back to where they came from. host: this morning we are asking you how important the issue of immigration is in the 2022 vote and we are expecting to hear more on this issue of title 42 and immigration in general. a couple of tweets on the topic. kevin mccarthy saying while president biden is hell-bent on destructive border policies like ending title 42, house

republicans will continue to fight for secure border and that's why i will be leading of the trip to our southern border later this month. chadha fox news who noted that kevin mccarthy expected to speak more today on the issue of title 42 and immigration sometime after votes later today in the house. plenty more reaction from the sunday shows yesterday. we want to hear from you. how important is this issue of immigration in your midterm election vote. tari, a line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. are you listening? host: go ahead. caller: my wife told me not to call them terrorists so i won't. they're coming in, you give them a house, they tear it up, they

destroy everything, they don't pay rent. how can we keep taking in people that don't know or don't care of taking care of the people's stuff. host: do you know many immigrants? do you know many in cleveland, tennessee? caller: yes. they don't want to fill out the papers, become legal because they are afraid to be shipped back. host: are you ok with legal immigration and increasing legal immigration? caller: yes. if they are legal. i don't care who you are or what you are, as long as you come here legal. host: this is jack in new

jersey. independent, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i feel like title 42 has been out of existence already for this whole administration. more people coming over here, the more we are paying. they are not to be working and when they do work, they take jobs from the trades. the guys that are trying to make a living, support their family. after so many years they figured out $15 an hour was just enough to get by. we'll know more. as your grandfather said, we need some breathing room. host: that's jack in new jersey. title 42 will be out of existence as of may 23, 2022. the official announcement from the cdc on that public health order after considering current public health conditions increasing the availability of

tools to fight covid-19 such as highly effective vaccines. the cdc director determined suspending the right to immigrants to enter is no longer necessary putting may 23 as the data for that to officially be no longer the rule at u.s. land borders. this is mike in ohio, independent. caller: good day sarah, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i think what a lot of this problem is is our foreign policy. take the middle east for example , even south america, we impoverish, we sanction, we bomb poor villages, we overthrow governments and i think our immigration problem is -- since

they were trading machine guns for cocaine in south america. a lot of those people were poor who were caught in the crosshairs and i think of this is a lot of blowback from our foreign policy. host: is immigration one of the top two or three issues for you when it comes to the midterm election? caller: no, it is a sideshow. host: what is the main show? caller: the main show is our domestic policy. our foreign policy is a problem and it created a problem for domestic policy because they want to build up this huge military, they're sitting around and giving away like trump sold all the stuff to saudi arabia and those kind of deals there, it's like a disney production

wrapped around the twilight zone. no logic, no explanation, no reason. host: 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 free democrats. independence -- independents 202-748-8002. line for democrats, tennessee. good morning. caller: i'm not against any immigration, i think it should be proper and they should go through the proper channels, and i'm also sure that as many people as we need right now, workers and things, there's no way this country could be fed unless those people are working the crops and things of that nature. like i say, i'm sure it can

always be that way. referring to what your previous caller, i expect if they get donald trump back in this or be a wonderful country to live in. host: you are calling in on our line for democrats. are you a democrat? caller: certainly. host: a democrat who voted for donald trump in the past. caller: no. anybody in the right mind knows about donald trump. i was for referring to the fact that most of the people calling in say the democrats everything is wrong with the country in the world. host: gotcha. you bring up the need to fill jobs in the united states. and immigration policy analyst and washington, d.c. with a column in politico on title 42,

the issue at play when it comes to the cdc order and the larger issue of immigration policy. this is part of what he writes. almost everyone in this debate recognizes the necessity of title 42 to prevent covid transmission was a pretense. public health experts have long contended the rule is scientifically baseless. officials in the previous administration before enacting the policy before the pandemic by using flu into measles as justification. the benefits of repealing or leaving in place title 42 are not as straightforward as either border security or human rights advocates claim. with a surge of the border and a shortage of workers, maintaining title 42 has done nothing to solve either crisis aside from creating more jobs for human smugglers. the biden administration's right to rescind, but chaos at the border will continue to drive

headlines. mary out of new hampshire, republican. where does immigration stand when it comes to your midterm vote. caller: i would vote for the person that wants to have border security and having open borders is a very dangerous thing. every country in the world is concerned with their border and border security and we need to have a secure border. our southern border is bringing across all kinds of disease. we need to have security and having people that are criminals coming across is dangerous for our nation. and dangerous for our children. and i just want our borders secure. our southern border. host: that's mary in new

hampshire. the couple of callers already from tennessee. senator bill hagerty of tennessee has been on the border , was on the board of the past few days including when that announcement came from the cdc on their plan to lift title 42 next month. bill hagerty joining fox sunday morning to talk about reaction down on the border when that announcement came. [video clip] >> i was here friday. when they put together what they call the evening mush. thick came out to say the president of the united states decided to lift the title 42, that's the last tool that they have left to send people back across the border. there was just a complete cloud of depression that fell over the room. that's the last tool they are already overwhelmed. they are now getting 7000. this could go to 15,000, 18,000

overnight. with the president has done is send invitation to come to america. may 23, the border is going to collapse. it will be a title wave coming across this border. it will be a mass of drugs, illegal activity. there will be a title wave of humanity across the border at the same time. this will be a disaster of epic proportions. >> so right now border agents told me they are apprehending about 5000 to 7000 people a day. he said that in the last several weeks break he said another border agents have told us they are expecting that number to shoot up to 18,000 people a day. how are our border agents going to handle 18,000 apprehensions a day and that's not even including the gato ways, people we've seen on surveillance camera that are well into america at this point. >> here's what's going to happen, they won't be able to protect the border at all. they will spend the entirety of it processing paperwork. because without title 42 they

need to go through a different process that takes five times as many border agents to process the number of people coming across, it will be all paperwork, no border protection. i'm sure the chinese communist party is ramping up production in china, shipping it to mexico. mexican cartels are ramping up. there will be another flood of illegal drugs across the border. >> senator bill hagerty yesterday on the sunday show. we are asking you how important this issue of immigration is to your 2022 vote. more reactions to title 42 in the decision by the cdc on friday. this from ken buck of colorado calling it in one word a catastrophe. it republican from west virginia saying the fact the biden administration is willing to end title 42 while our country braces for an unprecedented surge of illegal crossings shows

why they aren't serious about border security. rick scott, the senator from florida saying the biden border crisis 100% caused by this administration's over -- open borders and and is the agenda. revoking title 42 will make this much worse. on the democratic side of the aisle, jamaal bowman of new york saying i'm glad title 42 is coming to an end. we will work to make this country safe place for asylum-seekers. he went on to say when i speak with immigration advocates new york, eradicating title 42 is first on their list of policy changes that has been needed. when i travel to guatemala and honduras, advocates talk but the danger on the safety of asylum seekers. defender saying i'm glad to say they are ending this tom barrack policy. i will continue my work to uphold the right of

asylum-seekers to seek safe refuge in the united states. elizabeth warren saying america ought to respect people's legal right to seek asylum and treat them with dignity. i'm glad title 42 is finally ending but it took far too long and the delay will continue. we must restore our asylum system. some reaction on both sides of the aisle. asking you for your reaction and your thoughts on immigration in the 2022 midterm issue. how much of a priority is it for you. redwood, city -- redwood city, california. democrat caller: glad to talk to -- democrat. caller: glad to talk to you today. i think the most important thing this year is about the gop wanting to make america another russia. they want to make trump another putin, they want to take our vote away, they want to give

money to the rich to protect them like the oligarchs do in russia and i think the gop is using immigration as a scare tactic. they want to associate crime with people of color as a racist tactic and they should all be ashamed of themselves. host: this is paul in kentucky. good morning. caller: it's good to be very important. i used to be a democrat. i wouldn't vote for a democrat for anything on this planet. host: so what are your thoughts on the issue of immigration? caller: i think they should seal the border up completely. a hundred thousand people died from fentanyl overdose. that was all because of joe biden. joe biden skilled more americans than putin has killed ukrainians. host: that's paul in kentucky. on the issue of immigration and where it stands, more these

polls you will see in the weeks and months to come as we creep closer to election day on the top issue for voters. this is a harvard harris poll that came out last week and immigration in the top three there. 32% of voters saying inflation is the most important issue. that was the topic that garnered the most responses followed by 27% that's at the top issue was the economy in general and jobs. 21% after that saying the third-highest thing immigration was the most important issue. asking you your thoughts. this is mike in ohio. independent. caller: it just amazes me how people are so misinformed and brainwashed. that woman from california, are you kidding me? the democrats have russia gate, everybody under investigation now from russia gate, it will come out to the sunshine

eventually. let's talk about this immigration. we are having small towns cross our border popping up every day. we are talking tens of thousands of people. what are we going to do. who is going to feed these people and take care of them? we the people that are ready to hit social security. if we were to tie immigration which is coming out of social security to their retirement you see how fast things change. these people of different laws are different methods then we the people. who was running this country? them or us. this isn't going to stop unless we put a stop to it. host: this is anthony in sierra vista, arizona. caller: good morning. it's been a while since i spoke but i thank the team members for all they do across the globe.

i'm about 20 miles from the mexican border here in cochise county and we are having issues. cartels are using social media to recruit people from all across the country to make $1000 a day to pick up some folks and haul them to major cities and get them out of the county. those drivers are very dangerous to our community and we've got law enforcement and border patrol doing a great job here. of course they can always use more resources. but the previous caller mentioned something i think a lot of people may not really comprehend. i was listening to national public radio this weekend and it was referencing that unless we

recognize immigration as a national security issue, everybody thinks fenton dollinger rugs, actually it's the fact that if we do not have a workforce that's putting money in to our ability to have revenue for people to draw social security, than we are going to have initiative -- an issue. we have a declining population. families are having one or two children. the government doesn't support large families. immigrants have always revolutionized the united states through their creativity, through their hard work, so why

haven't our lawmakers, instead of making it a bolder issue, make it a national issue saying we need to recognize their opportunities to use labor to generate revenue 20, 30 years out to grow our numbers as a nation because we are declining in population braided host: -- pop billy -- population. host: both democratic senators from arizona criticizing the lifting of this title 42 order. mark kelly saying it is unacceptable to end title 42 without implementing a plan to ensure secure and orderly humane process at the border. kyrsten sinema, statement she released saying prematurely ending title 42 without a comprehensive workable plan will put at risk to health and safety of arizona communities.

thoughts on what this means for them. caller: well the best way i can describe that goes like this. we are just now coming out of the war, a covid war. any time you come back from a war time environment, your economy starts to pick up so that's why we have inflation. that's why people learn how to get along without going the rest , they learn how to cook. that's why people are changing careers because they found out they were not essential so they are moving into essential jobs. that's the same thing that will happen with my two democratic senators. they will find out they are not essential when they get voted out because they believe that

this 42 is going to end and all of a sudden everything is going to go crazy. but hasn't 2022 already been crazy? host: the headline of the story from the national review where that cinema quote came from, modern -- moderate democrats dousing -- sounding the alarm. this is allen in washington, d.c.. an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. absolutely illegal immigration is my number one concern with voting and has been for a few years and that's because it's the bottom line of a lot of other problems we are having. whether it's no affordable housing across the country, whether it is the fact, a look at the western part of the united states.

this isn't about americans not wanting our country to turn a different color. as far as i'm concerned it has nothing to do with that. it has to do with the fact we do not have enough freshwater to sustain the populations that are coming here. it has to do with the fact americans are very compassionate , but the media and politicians have blurred the lines between legal and illegal immigration. an the american people, everybody i know is really worried about where our country is going and it's not because we don't care for these people, we have to come up with policies to help them in their own nations. host: on legal immigration, several stories on the connection of this with the war in ukraine right now.

refugees crossing into new lives. the front-page story on usa today is from today's washington post. at the u.s. border with mexico a growing number of ukrainian refugees. committed to accepting as many 100,000 ukrainian refugees, or started to trickle in including at the southern border. are you ok with that we are giving to ukrainian refugees? caller: absolutely. i do feel the american people again, we are a compassionate people. i do believe we should let in and help as much as we can the afghan refugees, all those people that helped us. you bat. they are welcome here. but people who slide through our borders because they need a better life, our ancestors did

the same thing so that we could have a better life. we can't afford housing, i've been working 45 plus years and i can't afford anything where i live. it's a matter of people, please think about the environment. this land cannot continue to sustain the flood that is coming in to our country. i was are public in a one time, i was a registered democrat at one time, we can -- we have to stop this. host: this is loretta in ohio. democrat. caller: good morning. america needs a history lesson. i don't know where all these people come in and they come

with the us and that they and the them and all of that. nobody invited white people here to america. nobody told them people. nobody told them to expel the latino people. all of that land the latino it people are talking about his land and they used to live on. people calling in, talking about illegal. white people are the original illegal people. they come with the smallpox blankets, killing people. you need to learn your american history. host: that is loretta in ohio. just after 7:30 on the east coast, this first hour of the washington journal. in the wake of this announcement from the cdc and continued

conversations about immigration on capitol hill, we are asking how important immigration is to your midterm vote in 2022. 217 days away from election day 2022. keep calling in. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. the senate is in on the senate floor at 3:00 p.m. committee action this morning. the senate judiciary will be voted this morning on whether to send supreme court nominee ketanji brown jackson to the full senate for a vote. if confirmed, she would be the first african-american woman to serve on the supreme court. we will be heading there on c-span when that happens, probably a little bit before 10:00, we will show you the

room, the folks gathering for that. also on c-span.org, c-span now. we will also spend the last 20 minutes or so of this program getting your thoughts on judge ketanji brown jackson. senators sharing their thoughts over the past couple of weeks. we hear several of them giving their official position on whether they would vote to confirm her. on abc yesterday, roy blunt, republican from missouri, with his thoughts. [video clip] >> initially, my sense is the president had every good intention and every right in the campaign about talking about putting the first black woman on the court. i think it is time for that to happen. i was hoping i could be a part of that. i had a great conversation with her. there were two criteria so i had immediately, was the person qualified for the job, and what

is her judicial philosophy? she is qualified, has a great personality, will be a great colleague on the court. but the judicial philosophy seems to be not the philosophy of looking at what the law says and constitution says and applying that, but going through some method that allows you to look at the constitution as a more flexible document and even law. there are cases where it shows that is her view. i think she will be confirmed, it will be a high point for the country to see her be confirmed in take her unique perspective to the court, but i don't think she is the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that i think needs to be done by the court. i will not be supporting her but i'll be joining others in understanding the importance of this moment. >> if it is a high point for the country, why not support her? >> i think the lifetime appointments have a different

criteria than other appointments. i have supported a number of president biden's nominees to offices, their time will and while he is an office or when he leaves office. i think that is a different criteria than putting somebody on the court for life. i don't think i have supported any district judges he has supported up to now. court of appeals judges. she just doesn't meet the criteria that over and over again i have said in the last decade, the advise and consent part of the constitution gave the senate more responsibility than just saying she is qualified, you appointed her, we will approve her. that has clearly not been the role of the senate for a couple of decades now, certainly was not the role that democrats saw as their role in the last congress when three qualified judges had the same kind of view

that i think we have now, that you also have to agree with whether you think the judge will be a judge that thinks it is their job to rule on what they think the law and the constitution suited -- should say, or is it their job to rule on what the law and competition does say. i come down strongly on that side. host: that was yesterday. we are expecting a committee vote in the senate judiciary committee later this morning, floor vote, final vote later this week. stick with us on this topic all day long. coming back to the issue of immigration, that is where we begin the program, the question we are asking this morning, how important is the question of immigration in your midterm vote? janice in plymouth, michigan. republican. caller: good morning. i would say that is the top of

my list of requirements to move ever country forward and get out of this horrible slide we have entered into. immigration and that energy independence. immigration, i am all for legal immigration. i am against hordes of people rushing our border and overwhelming our border patrol workers and lying. people like kamala harris and joe biden and other democrats are lying about whipping immigrants -- that incident that happened several months ago. we still don't know the outcome of that. all i know is, in the last two years -- and i know we are all sick of covid -- that was the main issue. covid is waning.

a gentleman called earlier and said now that covid is retreating that we must concentrate on immigration. our nation is being overwhelmed and overrun. as for ukrainians coming to the southern border, i think that would be a rare issue. i am sure the general consensus in washington, d.c. is that ukrainians can fly here freely. same with those afghan helpers. the lady who called in about slavery in america -- dear, please get over yourself. host: that is janice in michigan. here is that story talking about ukrainian refugees on the southern border seeking entry

into the united states. the story noting a small encampment has sprouted about 1000 feet from the u.s. border in tijuana, mexico, where families are sleeping in tents and under tarps. the same tiny patch that has hosted refugees power around the world. central americans as part of the caravan, cubans and haitians who arrived in the pandemic, mexicans who fled violence this year. but they say few refugees have arrived in tijuana after such a secured us -- circuitous journey. upon arriving at the border, ukrainians are granted communitarian parole for one year. telling the stories of several of those ukrainian refugees. that is in today's washington post. this is john, cleveland, ohio. independent. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am 87 years old, came as a graduate student in 1959. the founding fathers were not stupid. they never wanted to have two types of parties like now, have been messing around with immigration for years. the human spirit has no borders, that is why the founding fathers came here. what we do not understand is, law in order is one thing, borders is one thing, but don't forget, with poverty, disease, anything else, over the years, people have migrated historically. i am not saying that everybody should come here. under president johnson, each country had its own quota system. i am not for open borders, but these two parties have messed up

the hall during -- the whole thing through piecemeal things just to get elected. they pick the people to work for them. host: this is edward and washington, d.c. democrat. good morning. caller: the people complaining about controlling the borders, losing the borders, they estimated one million people or something trying to cross the borders in the united states last year for the whole year. you don't hear people about complaining about losing control of the borders, almost 4 million people in eastern europe trying to get into those countries. you don't hear people complaining about eastern europe losing control of their borders, and they are not coming through the legal process either. even though they are refugees, they are not coming legally.

they talk about getting rid of these measures for covid. this measure that biden is trying to get rid of. it was a covid measure, like getting rid of all the other covid measures. host: a measure instituted during covid that has locked 1.7 million border crossing attempts since instituted in the spring of 2020. title 42 set to be lifted next month, that from the cdc on friday. immigration very much back in the spotlight. this in the washington times. more immigration expected to flood the u.s. pandemic policy ends hunter biden. this is jeff in nebraska. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. it certainly is the most important thing to me, immigration. i have to tell you, if congress

passes some type of legislation or whatever to say that any person that comes across that border illegally, for whatever reason, if they come across illegally, they are never ever allowed to vote in this country, period. that is the only reason the democrats are allowing it to happen. they know what they are doing. they are passing these people off into the middle of the country. eventually, they will migrate to the blue states, where they get everything free and end up like california, oregon, washington. make it illegal to vote. host: you think they'll become citizens and get the right to vote? caller: they don't get the right

to vote, period. i am telling you now, the democrats, that is their whole issue. host: this is scott in seattle, washington. good morning. caller: good morning. i am here in the most populous county, king county, and we have horrible homeless problems. there are people in tents south of the city. there is another town that is just unrecognizable these days. just all of these people living on the streets and stuff. a lot of them are not illegal aliens. what gets me, if i'm a moderate democrat, i can also point to the republicans wanting to kick the can down the road as far as never approving the e-verify. they have been talking about that for 20 years.

if they were serious, start with that. at least we would know where people are coming from, know more about them. we need more interior enforcement of our immigration laws. they just fly in through the airports, they overstay their visitor visas. anyways, it is just a mess. it has caused a lot of sprawl, huge population increases, having to build new schools every year to accommodate this new population. they have also had to hire a bunch of teachers who don't speak english because there is no english criteria. they are here buying minivans -- host: how do you square that with the need of so many companies right now looking for workers, desperate for workers? caller: all it does is a hard downward pressure on wages.

microsoft is in washington, one of the biggest abusers. they abuse the system and bring in all of these people. there are tons of american citizen graduates of our own state schools, to the south, oregon, still pretty good public college system in california. it used to be world-class. there are some smart people coming out of these places every day, but of course, they would not hire an american. they like to hold us over the immigrant's head, threaten to take away their protective status away or whatever. host: scott in washington. more reaction with about 50 minutes left in the segment with the folks that work in the building behind me. this is democratic congressman

frederica wilson on friday after the announcement from the cdc that the biden administration announced the long-awaited rollback of title 42 which has been used to expel hundreds of haitian migrants. yesterday she said she was joined by advocates to celebrate the overdue decision. congresswoman ayanna pressley saying i am relieved the biden administration heated our cause to end title 42. this will save lives and move us closer to building a fair and effective asylum system in this country but only the first step. ayanna pressley with her statement yesterday. senator john cornyn, the republican of texas, the senior republican senator out of the lone star state, was on fox news sunday, was asked about title 42. [video clip] >> really, the point is, if you eliminate title 42, this is the

last tool available to border patrol to maintain some semblance of order on the border. if you eliminate title 42, the border patrol tells me they will lose control and the people that will benefit the most are the drug cartels who will have a free way into the country with which to funnel the drugs that took 100,000 american lives last year alone. >> senator hagerty of tennessee has suggested title 42 could also apply as a public health measure to keep it in place, to keep people out because of all the drugs crossing the border that are killing so many americans. do you support that? >> i think he has a good point. what we need to do is also enforce our immigration laws. the administration considers it a success when they place migrants come to the border in a location somewhere in the united states and they await for a year

or more there immigration court hearing for asylum. many of them, this will not surprise you, don't show up. this is a catch and release policy. it will not work now. we need to enforce our existing immigration laws and do it aggressively but the biden administration shows no interest in doing so. host: senator john cornyn of texas, republican. another republican from texas, kay granger, this is her column in today's washington times, "crisis to catastrophe at the border." if you want to read that from kay granger. this is pascal from san diego. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to start by commenting on that woman's salvation i guess about slavery and that whites

were the first to enslave. if she knew her own history, her own people enslaved their people and sold them to the brits. host: bring us to 2022 and talk about immigration. caller: i live on the border in san diego and i see it firsthand. it is a total mess. the border patrol guys, ice agents, their hands are tied. it's terrible. i am italian, all of my grandparents came from italy, and they did it the legal way. that is why my family is here. host: what did title 42 mean over the past two years? caller: it was an extra tool for them to control the border. host: do you think it was working? caller: why are you going to take a tool away? it is one of the last that they have.

it is not foolproof, but it helps. to me, it is crazy what goes on. host: 1.7 million border crossing attempts block using title 42 over the past two years since it was implemented. this is rick and philadelphia. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to commend you and your guests on a very positive conversation. i wish they would have similar conversations in congress, but that has not happened. to go back a little bit, i think president biden is on track to do the best he can do with his limited ability. what made me want to call you, they were talking about some of the past attempts. now you see others trying to not

allow certain education in schools. it reminds me, being an afro-american, that we were not allowed to read, to limit our education. i am well educated but others may not be. and i were limited ability to know our history, our names, know how to speak our language. when the pilgrims first came to these shores, it was because they could not do what they wanted to do the way they wanted to do it in their foreign land. if the native americans did not allow immigrants for different reasons -- and some of them did not want to have them -- a lot of people would not be here. europeans would not be here. host: bring us to 2022. midterm elections, is immigration a key issue in this election or do you think people will be focused more on inflation?

caller: i am concerned about all the places where america is at right now. all of it needs to go to the table, needs to go to the floor, be discussed in open sessions in congress. the bad thing about it, sir, none of it will. we will make decisions based on our own personal experiences in our communities, but we need more information, we need more openness, more discussion. host: kevin mccarthy expected to hold a press conference later this evening after speaking with border control advocates, expected at the capital, focusing on the ending of title 42. fox news with that tweet. we will see what he has to say. he already had plenty to say in reaction to the cdc announcing it would end title 42.

kevin mccarthy expected to lead a delegation to the border, he says later this month, to focus on border issues. this is james in collins, mississippi. good morning. caller: how are you doing, sir? host: i am doing well. go ahead. caller: getting back to your topic, do you notice how the republican party always waits to a certain point to start bringing up immigration? they always do this, they always bring up immigration when they feel like the country is trying to come together about ukraine. as long as you are talking about the drugs and the violence coming from over there -- i remember january 6. i remember january 6. i remember the republican party

protecting every last bit of january 6. but they have the audacity, the gall to talk about people running from another country to try to rescue themselves and their families, when they tried to take this country down, and they were not on drugs when they did it. they try to put the fear of god about the people coming over here and they don't even want to protect their own country, and then they criticize ms. cheney for exposing them and being criminals, backing and insurrection. but they are blaming these people. immigration. they are coming with the drugs and guns, they are going to destroy our country. brother, when you do wrong to poor people, people in stress, that is our problem. the problem is you had a democrat, manchin talking about immigration, when president

biden wanted to pay back the build back better with the money and the funds for all of these problems, they send the budget. host: you bring up joe manchin. moderate democrats sounding the alarm as biden repeals title 42. senator joe manchin, the decision to lift title 42 frightening. we are already facing unprecedented increase in migrants this year, and that will only get worse if the administration and title 42. we are not prepared to deal with the influx. until we have bipartisan reform that commits our borders and provides a pathway to citizenship, title 42 must stay in place. that is what joe manchin had to say. this is roy in austin, texas. republican. good morning. caller: i hope you're having a great day so far.

first off, let me say it, if we lived in a perfect world, we would not need to title 42. but we don't. let me make this point. joe biden has done a number of things in office, and it is like he did not think about the repercussions of what he did. i think with title 42, he is doing the same. i live in texas, not that far from the border. if people don't live in a state on the border, they don't understand what we deal with a in and day out with the influx. i don't know how they can speak intelligently about it. a while back, new york gave voting rights to illegal immigrants. so we can see you with the democrats want to do. host: you are talking about in local races, that sort of thing? caller: yes. i just wish joe would think things through a little bit more

thoroughly. host: the white house is saying this was a health decision made by the centers for disease control and prevention, that this is based on the science and the state of the pandemic. this was a pandemic tool. the cdc determines the tool is no longer needed. considering the current health conditions and the tools available to fight covid-19, the cdc director determined the order suspending the right to introduce migrants in the u.s. is no longer necessary. caller: i understand that, but when we are looking at the influx we are looking at, it was a tool, the last tool to help us maintain some sort of proficiency in what we are trying to do, bringing in proper, vetted immigrants. host: time for a couple more calls in this first segment.

this is greg. chicago, democrat. good morning. caller: when the brown people flee drug lords, it is a crisis and we need to build a wall. when the white people flee a warlord, it's a refugee crisis and the world opens its arms. terrified people are not refugees or immigrants, they are terrified people. democrats are not doing this foreboding, that is a ridiculous talking point fabricated by some k street think tank. democrats are doing this because we learned a lesson from st. louis. when you turn people away because they are terrified, you regret it for the rest of your life. host: greg in chicago. last call is ed. pleasant valley, new york. republican. caller: good morning. i am in the state that allows illegals to vote. we have probably over a million now. i live in a rural area, my wife

and i are retired, we are here our whole life. we are struggling to pay our taxes. if you put another 500 in our school district, it will change the dynamics for senior citizens in the area because we cannot afford what is going on, let alone the way the economy is. i have nothing against immigrants. bottom line is we are allowing them to vote in new york state. as a taxpaying citizen all my life, now will be behind the eight ball. people can vote for whoever they want whenever they want, even not for the federal level, but at the state level. this state is controlled by democrats. the people that are here are stuck. we either have to move south or move to a state that will allow us to afford to live our lives out. host: is this your top issue in the midterm elections? caller: it has been my top issue since the last election.

i have seen it for the last three or four elections. in my state, it is overwhelmed. host: stick around. plenty more to talk about, including a busy week in washington. we will be joined by political reporter marianne levine and bloomberg reporter josh wingrove to preview the week ahead in washington. later, historian, former department official michael kimmitt joins us to talk about the latest from russia and ukraine, the conflict there. ♪ >> this week on the c-span

networks, both chambers of congress are in session. the house voted to hold former trump aide peter navarro indians give you know in contempt for failing to i bye-bye subpoenas. the senate judiciary committee must vote on judge jackson's nomination. we will have that live today at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span2. members of the president's cabinet begin testifying before congress on their departments budget request. we will have two of those hearings on tuesday. defense secretary lloyd austin and the chair of the joint chiefs of staff mark milley testified before the armed services committee at 9:30 a.m. eastern live on c-span3. health and human services secretary have your becerra presents his departments 2023 but it to the finance committee at 10:00 eastern. that will be live on c-span.org and the c-span now video app.

wednesday, janet yellen testified before the house financial services committee and international financial system, live at 10:00 eastern on c-span.org and the c-span now free video app. also wednesday at 10:30 a.m. on c-span3, presidents and ceos of six oil companies testify before the house oil and energy congress committee on rising prices. watch this week on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. also head over to c-span.org for schedule information or to stream video, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> now available for preorder in the c-span shop, the 2022 congressional directory. order a copy of the congressional directory. this compact book is your guide to the federal government with

contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments, contacts for state governors, and the biden administration cabinet. preorder your copy today or scan the code with your smartphone. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, state department, and congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks, the c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org. you can want the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> there are a lot of places to

get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: on mondays we like to take a look at the week ahead in washington. to do that, we are joined by josh wingrove, white house reporter for bloomberg news. marianne levine, congressional reporter for politico. let's start in the senate you judiciary committee. what will happen today and the

confirmation process for ketanji brown jackson? guest: the committee is set to meet at 10:00 this morning to vote on whether to report jackson's nomination to the senate floor. what we expect is for the committee to tie. that basically means chuck schumer has to take an additional procedural step likely this afternoon for the senate to vote to move jackson out of committee. that process basically sets her up for a final confirmation vote thursday or friday of this week. host: any surprises left at this point now that we know that she will get at least one republican vote in her confirmation? what are you watching for? guest: at this point, we are waiting on what senators lisa murkowski and mitt romney decide to do on jackson. jackson doesn't need their votes for confirmation, she looks like she is on a glide path to the supreme court right now. but we are waiting to see how much bipartisan support she gets.

murkowski and romney appeared to be the holdouts of potential republican senators who will back jackson. host: josh wingrove, what are you watching on the confirmation front? guest: i think they breathed a huge sigh of relief when senator collins expressed her support. there has been frustration building in the administration, bordering on indignation, the attacks from some of the senators were off-base, low blows. judge jackson was not getting the fair shake from republicans the white house wanted her to get. of course, hanging in the air were a couple of certainties on the democratic side. it all the republican line up on one side, they have themselves a problem. you felt the blood pressure come down a little bit after senator collins came forward. there are still some question marks around it but they will

lean big into this. joe biden took office during four concurrent crises, covid, economic fallout, racial injustice, climate change. black voters, in particular, who biting credits heavily in winning the nomination in the first place, have been wondering, where is the agenda for america broadly, black america in particular? judge jackson's historic nomination and confirmation will be something that the administration will lean heavily into. host: that committee hearing beginning at 10:00 eastern. you can watch it on the c-span networks. we will be talking about it in our last half-hour of the program, will show you shots of the room as they begin to gather. the president's schedule for the week. what do we expect? guest: they are at a trucking event today, supply chains are still important.

president obama will return tomorrow, talking about the affordable care act, biden talking about some new measures. sort of like a greatest hits week. we are kind of wondering what will maybe pop up, be announced later in the week. in particular today, they have been trying to deflect the criticism of inflation, gas prices, by talking about the steps they are taking to ease the supply chain. hoping the rate of inflation cools. host: marianne levine, the house and senate schedule, ketanji brown jackson confirmation is something that will be watched. what else is happening on the floor? guest: the other issue we are watching is whether the senate can get together a covid a bill that they are discussing. there are negotiations going on between senator mitt romney,

chuck schumer, roy blunt, as well as senator chris coons. there is a small bipartisan group seeing if they can get a $10 billion covid aid package that would basically have money for therapeutics, testing, vaccines, to address the possibility of another covid variant. the level of urgency depends on what side of the aisle you are talking to, but we expect to see a real push for the bill. it is hard to say whether that comes together. there are issues with the offsets. it is not clear that they can pull it together by the end of the week. also, the senate gets antsy on thursdays, has been in session six weeks already, so it's hard to know what will get done other than the jackson nomination. covid aid is a topic that senate democratic leaders will be talking about. host: we saw the president use the bully pulpit last week on

this issue, expecting more of that this week. will the administration be ok with a $10 billion package down from the original ask? guest: it has come down a lot, over 20 when it collapsed. now they are at 10 with offsets. they are warning the coverage is there. monoclonal antibodies, they will stop ordering those next month. those are a treatment that you get if you have got covid. preexposure treatments for those that are immunocompromised. they will run out of money very soon for that. testing. they shut down a lot of lines last summer. and the antiviral pills. the pfizer one in particular, in september, those deliveries will stop. a lot of moving parts that they

say will run dry. as of last week, 50 plus and get a second mrna booster. president biden, vice president harris got theirs last week, they are calling people to do that. if they open it up for the broader adult population. this is what the money is needed for. joe biden has signaled openness. they will say basically we will take what we can get. host: let me open this up to the callers. a busy week in washington, two guests in studio. happy to be here. taking your questions about the weekend in washington. republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

marianne levine, the first hour of the program we spent talking about the reaction over the weekend to the cdc announcing they would be lifting title 42 come may. republicans already signal and they will talk about that this week. we heard kevin mccarthy has some sort of an event today after talking with border agents. the reaction that you have seen over the weekend and how that issue plays out, how republicans want to see that issue play out this week? guest: republicans are talking about the rising number of people crossing the border as a top issue throughout the biden administration. that is something we can expect more discussion about as we get closer to the midterm elections. republicans clearly see this as an issue that is a winning issue for them in terms of their messaging to voters. i think it's also interesting to see how the senate democrats have also reacted to biden's

decision on title 42. some concern from senator mark kelly, who has a tough reelection in november in arizona. i think we will see -- it will be interesting to see how some of the moderate democrats, the democrats in swing states will react to this in the coming weeks. i think that is a topic. a consistent theme we have seen from the biden administration, something that we will continue to see in the coming weeks. host: you mentioned mark kelly from arizona saying it is unacceptable to end title 42 without first implementing a plan to secure an orderly process at the border. is there a plan to ensure a secure, orderly, and humane process once title 42 goes away? guest: the administration says there is a plan for it. the rollout last week was the

cdc announcement, but with it announcements of the steps they will take to process claims quickly, remove folksy don't meet the criteria. there is almost no way to avoid an influx of folks that had been turned away repeatedly under this policy from now, knocking on the door again. you can tell the administration is trying to triage that, potentially bracing for the event and political fallout from it. host: if something is put in place, are we too late in the political season for some sort of grand immigration deal to come together? how many legislative days are left? we know 217 until midterm election day. guest: it is hard to see any immigration propose a

bipartisan basis which is why democrats try to do it with reconciliation. bipartisan reform has been a struggle for the senate since 2013. i don't see a lot of appetite on the health a bipartisan bill at the moment. host: we have talked about covid, ketanji brown jackson. what is left for congress before these folks get out of here and really get into campaign mode and election season? guest: among the issues that democrats are talking about, and republicans, they are trying to get this bill that would address competition with china. that is legislation that has moved slowly through congress comparatively, given the senate passed the initial version of the bill about a year ago. have been issues between what the house wants and senate wants.

we expect that legislation to move forward, addressing the semiconductor manufacturing, a big issue for corporations, big issue for schumer. we can expect some discussions about the u.s.-china competitiveness bill. it has gone through some different names, but that is a priority through leadership. we will see democrats talk about whether they can actually get some type of legislation that has been rebranded as lowering cost. instead of the build back better bill, because there is opposition from joe manchin, there has been an effort to rebrand some partyline efforts, whether it is prescription drugs, long the cost of insulin, we will see some effort to address inflation. whether or not that succeeds is an open question. i think the senate democratic leadership and house leadership wants to get something like that done before the midterm elections. host: anything else the biden

administration would like to add to that list? guest: they will take anything they can get on that reconciliation effort. we have noticed them in particular, in addition to all the things that we have laid out here, senator manchin in particular, joe biden is also jazzed to be talking about the deficit going down. they would love to be able to do something to talk to democrats, particularly those in vulnerable swing districts, the way they can maximize their chances. people are not so bullish on holding house in particular. being able to say that we did x, y, z, and republicans did not want to do x, y, z, and that is the argument they want to run on. pretty much whatever they can get, they'll be happy with. host: this is john out of west

lafayette, indiana. independent. john, good morning. caller: good morning, john. first time getting through. one question for you, and then one question for the guests, although they have addressed some of it. my question for you, what is the building in the background of mr. levine? host: union station, right down louisiana avenue from the capitol. that is josh wingrove sitting on that side. is that the shot? caller: yes. host: the sun comes up over union station in the morning. it is nice. now that you are getting a second guest shot, i understand why you're asking, we haven't had too many over the year. caller: ok. for the guests, and i think you addressed a little bit of this,

i was wondering what would happen with the build back better plan? are they going to try to get smaller parts of it done, or are they going to try to bring it back again? guest: i think that we will see an effort in the coming weeks to revive the build back better plan. of course, they will not call it build back better, but there will be an effort likely centered around the eye at lowndes of what senator joe manchin of west virginia has given to his colleagues. it is not clear, however, whether they will get anything over the finish line, but what a potential packet could look like is something that lowers the cost upward tradition drugs -- prescription drugs, lowers the cost of insulin, potentially climate funding. also as josh mentioned, some deficit reduction, branding this as a bill to address inflation

and reduce the deficit. i think these talks are in the early stages from what we are gathering. i think we will see an effort to revive the biden agenda especially on the domestic front in this area. but whether or not it succeeds is unclear. host: josh wingrove? guest: they don't need to rip it to pieces, it has been ripped to pieces already. it is dead in its current form, at least it's last seen in public form, since senator manchin announced he would pull his support for it. i agree with everything said. there are little elements there. one thing i would note, senator manchin has talked about the corporate tax rate, president biden has wanted to bring that up, maybe not to pre-trump levels but something close to it. senator sinema has been cooler to that notion.

senator manchin and senator sinema, they have been the most vocal objectors in this process. they don't object to the same things, in some cases object to each other. sticking the landing on that is tricky. some of the things that will get sinema to the table is a nonstarter for manchin and vice versa. host: democrats, (202) 748-8000 even republicans, (202) 748-8001 . (202) 748-8002, independent. marianne levine and josh wingrove to your question for the next 25 minutes or so. we are talking about the midterm elections coming up. in terms of, you mentioned barack obama coming back to the white house this week, ahead of the midterm elections that he was a part of. a lot of discussion about where he would go, where barack obama

played well for democrats and where he didn't. let's have a conversation about joe biden. do you see him hitting the campaign trail much in these midterm elections? where does joe biden standing up for a member of congress help or hurt? guest: he has wanted to. you could tell that they have been holding him back. i think covid changed the calculus. i don't know about you guys, but it feels like a lot of people are getting covid lately. until recently, joe biden had been really restricted. if he was unmasked, he was distanced. they have done away with that. you can tell that he enjoys it. joe biden loves working a crowd. he has alluded to in his public statements that he thinks the rut they are in in terms of polling is part of his inability to get out and talk about these things, talk about the infrastructure bill. i think we will see him do that.

where does he go other than delaware? he loves going to delaware. host: and the philly area, eastern pennsylvania. guest: the food is so good. he will go to all of these swing districts, a large part, they are moderate districts. kind of joe biden democrats, scranton boy, pretty important senate race, particularly later in the cycle. if we see democrats go from abandoning any offense and going more defensive, if there is one holdout type of race in the senate in particular, it may be pennsylvania. host: mary levine, are there members of congress ramming for president biden to campaign with them? guest: if you ask democratic senators if they want president biden to come, they are not clamoring, but of course they would welcome him to their state. i think they are taking a double

medic approach to president biden. they are very much with him in their voting records. almost all of the senate incumbents who face competitive elections this fall, their record is pretty much with biden most of the time. if you ask if they are open to biden come to campaign with them, no one will say no, despite the fact that biden does have pretty low approval ratings right now. but i think democrats are hoping the summer, they are hoping that they can go out there and explain the infrastructure bill, explain what biden has done. i think a lot of what they see as their accomplishments is also what biden sees as his accomplishments. we will see some alignment there. host: pulling up the approval ratings for president biden, underwater by 13 points. real clear politics has this change over time, the point at

which joe biden's approval ratings went underwater, right around the time of the pullout from afghanistan. you can see the disapproval numbers ticking up over the course of his presidency. ray in fayetteville, north carolina. you are next. a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span audience, good morning to your guests. you had a segment on about the most important thing in the mid-turns, -- midterms, immigration. i think you are missing the point. i think it is attorney general garland proving that a number of the republican senators and house of representatives were involved in this coup. that is the elephant in the room. that is going to determine the midterms. host: ray in north carolina.

the latest on january 6, when do we expect to get a report from this committee? is that going to happen before the midterms? guest: we expect a report before the midterms. right now, we see the january 6 committee bringing in more witnesses. they had a big win recently in court, the possibility that criminal charges could be brought against the former president. how that plays out is unclear. host: i think kermit is waiting on the phone. we will turn down his sound. guest: waiting to see what the committee comes up with. there will be a lot of pressure on attorney general merrick garland to see what he actually does but the committee's findings, if he decides to pursue charges against the former president. host: josh wingrove, on that point, calls for merrick garland

to be more active in pursuing january 6 cases. guest: it is sort of simmering up, politico having a store that democrats wish he was more of a bulldog, for lack of a better phrase. on the flipside, those that worked with biden in the campaign. the independence of the department of justice was so blown apart in the trump era, they needed to patch it back together, church and state separation between the white house and doj. that has left them with the situation where you are getting these signals that democrats wish there was maybe less of a separation, that he was more of a go get them bulldog. but that is not who he has been. i will say, though, joe biden does not seem all that keen to talk about january 6. if you read the tea leaves, it seems like they don't think this

is all that much of a politically potent thing for them. they want to talk about other things. there are signs that a lot of swing voters don't. host: now, kermit in shaws bill, virginia. republican. good morning. what is your question or comment for the panel? caller: i was just going to make a comment on this build back better and this junk they are trying to do up there. if they keep going, they will bankrupt this country. obama ran the debt up to $20 trillion, and this guy is running it out of sight. if they keep this stuff up, we will all have to go on welfare to live. food and gas and everything, a lot of people cannot afford to drive to work now. they try to blame it on russia and it was not russia's fault. host: what are prices in charlottesville right now? caller: over four dollars and

something. host: what does that mean for you, what is your job? caller: i am retired. if i go anywhere, move around, it cost me $20 just to do that one day a week maybe. two days a week, i'm looking at over $40. host: marianne levine, gas prices, efforts on that front? guest: house democrats were talking about potentially some type of legislation that would address gas prices. what that actually looks like is pretty unclear at the moment. i think it goes to the broader push that democrats are aware of, americans are broadly seeing higher costs due to inflation, also due to higher gas prices. that is something the party knows they need to address as the midterm elections approach.

without actually looks like is unclear legislatively at the moment. guest: some actions by governors to reduce or eliminate state-level gas taxes in response to this. some of those, particular moderate democrats, have called for similar action on the federal gas tax. the white house has said it is on the table. they said last friday in the briefing that it is on the table, but you have not really gotten the impression that it is all that much on the table. the concern is that you need legislation so you would have to have bipartisan support, and suspending the gas tax, that money goes to maintaining highways and stuff, so they are worried if they take that money away, they've got themselves a new problem. so i don't know there's a lot of momentum right now to suspend the gas tax that early. guest: i think that is a great point. a sign of how much of an issue this is, the senators who did

introduce the gas tax suspension, i think four of them are incumbents in 2022 who have tough races, so this is something clearly on the minds of democrats facing tough reelections. as you mention, it is not clear whether this is getting seen. guest: is a huge problem for incumbents. republican governors, democratic governors, the price of gas is a huge problem for them right now. one of the problems come of the overall debt, the deficit has been, it soared under president trump, it soared under covid. it is not as bad as it used to be in that interest rates were so low, with the cost of servicing it coming up so much. so that is why the congress aren't as worried about the u.s. debt as a lot of voters sometimes are. but joe biden is like to talk

about it. the deficit went down. i'm sure he would love to talk about it going down again in 2022. host: 18.4 cents per gallon come of the federal gas tax. the average state gas tax, $.39. chuck in michigan, independent, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to comment about taxes in this country. i just paid $60,000 in income tax, and i do not make anywhere near $400,000. so they can stop lying about who pays taxes in this country. it is the middle class who pays taxes. host: want line of work are you in, chuck? caller: i am a mechanical

contractor. i do heating and refrigeration. the real problem i have right now is trying to supply my trucks with fossil fuels at this price. i am going to have to lay people off now because of this government and the people who don't understand how businesses work. host: we talked about the gas tax little bit. i wonder, the biden administration focusing on supply chain issues and doing it again this week, has that affected your work, the ability to get the parts you need? caller: not only can't we get the parts, but our suppliers now have been eaten up by foreign intervention in the price of our goods and services has skyrocketed. host: thanks for the call. just when grove which we will -- josh wingrove, we will let you

take chuck. guest: the middle-class is the core of the tax base in this country, i think the line he was referring to, 400 thousand dollars, president biden has said the build back better package will not raise taxes on people making under that threshold, in particular to the point that they pulled things out of it, anything that would have, like one penny on that, so that is the president's pledge come of the people under that threshold will not see more taxes, not that they are paying no taxes already. . the fairness thing, joe biden likes to talk about donald trump in a different way. we think tax fairness is a problem. major multibillion-dollar companies who are able to write down their tax obligation to zero, billionaires being able to come deductions average folks cannot so that they pay a rate

lower than a teacher or a firefighter would pay. joe biden has talked a lot about that and i think we will continues as you president biden talk about that as well. i think republicans in some cases have talked about that. right now it does not look like all of that is going to change. in other words, if you are upset that too much of the burden is on the middle class, i don't know that washington is coming to the rescue on that ain't time soon to shift it to higher earning folks. host: marianne levine, let's give you mary in -- give you ruby in the buckeye state. caller: i have been was in charge of roads and bridges. he was an elected official. the gas tax is really important. in the state of ohio, we have really nasty winters. if there is no gas tax, there's nobody to plow the roads when it snows or to take care of the

ice. so he never objected to paying our taxes. our taxes is to make our united states the best it can be. our roads are very important. i know that his budget for roads and bridges had not increased. the price for asphalt had gone up and up, and his budget did not. so saying we are not going to pay the gas taxes, people are just going to have to pay their taxes when they drive because otherwise, the roads are not going to be built. in the wintertime, people would be very upset if they were trying to go to work and there's six inches of snow on the roads because there's nobody to plow them. so paying the gas tax is a very important thing to do. you cannot do away with gas tax. host: we will take the point. guest: i think the concern

ruby he's raising is the concerns that other democrats raised when 2022 democrats put out the guest suspension -- the gas suspension. one of biden bigot compass means last year was passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill, so i think some senate democrats said that while they could understand the potentially good politics in the short term of suspending the gas tax for some of the incumbents up in 2022, interment -- in terms of telling the voters they want to lower costs, some of the democrats who worked on the infrastructure bill made the same point that ruby made, basically this would affect how infrastructure funding proceeds. i think those too much as it -- those two messages can kinda be in contention. guest: the risk if you don't pay for it somehow, you're cannibalizing the thing you want to talk about. you want to talk about infrastructure, but unique cap

existing infrastructure by suspending the gas tax. if any move gives momentum on this, it will be a move that somehow suspends the tax, may pairing with another revenue stream to find a way to lower the gas tax but still fun the highway program. host: judy, texas, republican. good morning. caller: yes, all i want to say is bided is responsible for everything since he got the white house. second thing, pelosi had the option to have 10,000 national guard at the capitol and she refused it. that is all i want to say. thank you. host: that is judy in bishop, texas. to her first point, are there issues in which the biden administration is still blaming the trump administration for? at what point does this become bidens economy, bidens policies, and by does america -- and bidens america?

host: any president in power is going to take the ups and the downs they have. the next level down of that is that the administration will say that they are still, in their view, unwinding some of the stuff that president trump's administration did. in particular, for instance, immigration would be a good example of that. they say they are still sort of dealing with some of this stuff, but it is true that any president is going to bear the ups and downs. that is why the gas price is more than a political talking point issue. you can often track the president's approval rating by how people feel about the price of gas. people polled think the economy is doing really badly right now, which is revealing, because they are seeing high prices and places that can find workers,

but any economist will tell you the u.s. economy is roaring, and that the reason inflation is so high is because the economy is overheated, if anything. so it is funny that voters don't perceive that. a lot of the problems we are having stem from that. host: i appreciate a panel that promotes other reporters' good work. mark, jacksonville, florida, independent. good morning. caller: thanks for having me. i have two questions for the guests. the first one is both outlets you guys work for, and i don't know about u.s. reporters, but both outlets push the lie and gas like the american public about parents rights and education, they don't say gay bill, where it doesn't say anything about saying gay. it just says you can't groomed kindergartners through third grade about sexuality and sex.

i am curious what both of you think about how your outlets lied about that bill and said that it had something to do with punishing gay couples or making sure teachers who are homosexual couldn't talk about their families and stuff, which are all lies, and why this is the hill that democrats are willing to die on, grooming children. seems like such a weird -- 10 years ago if you told me that the democrat platform would be grooming children, i would have never believed you. my second question is do either of you actually believe the things you say about biden going out and campaigning? most americans watch him and know that he is barely cognitively there. host: mark come are used to with us? go ahead. caller: he's clearly in the early stages of dementia. i am curious if either of you actually believe he's really there or if he just seems to be reading the teleprompter. host: that your point.

marianne levine. guest: i am just going to stand by my publication's work. host: josh? guest: i haven't covered that bill. i know a lot of lgbt rights groups have a lot of problems with the bill. governor desantis obviously stood by that bill and pointed out that its provisions were named -- were aimed at younger students or high school students. but i don't do that. on the other side, i don't know what to say other than the president's health had a detailed review, as did president trump's. i go off that, and it is what it is. if the question is do i really think joe biden is going to go out and talk to people, yes i do.

i appreciate that the caller is not for number one of the media writ large, and we take all questions, but joe biden does like getting out and talking to people. host: a financial question for bloomberg. instead of raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, why not close some of the loopholes? a discussion on that topic, especially in the wake of the president's budget. guest: this is where the talk of the minim tax comes in, the sense that you have a floor so companies can do right downs and bring their obligations down to zero for you joe biden likes the idea of that. there was momentum at the g7, countries agreeing that they would all set this tax so countries cannot jurisdiction shop and say i will go to the lowest tax one. there will always be a lower tax jurisdiction, so that only goes so far. president biden's administration

and many lawmakers, there's a lot of support for closing loopholes mainly on corporations , so big companies, the biggest in america, can reduce their obligation to literally zero. guest: i think that is a proposal that would probably get support from all democrats. i think we are going to see that any discussion of where that is headed would likely be in the discussion around reconciliation. host: one more call. sean, columbus ohio, democrat. caller: good morning. my question is based around the tax on gasoline. why is gasoline taxed a flat rate? last year, when gas was to something a gallon, it was the same as when it is now four dollars a gallon. so is that tax free profit for the gas companies?

host: thanks for the call. guest: the rate that consumers pay is flat, so with gas where it is now, the government is getting the same cut as if it is two dollars or four dollars a gallon. the rest of that four dollars is going down the line. refiners, transport, production. i know people's eyes glaze over when you see spr, but we've got four underground salt caverns were restore oil for emergencies, and they are releasing 180 euros of it that's 180 barrels of it -- 180 barrels of it. it's underground storage. it's very cool. but they are going to release it and feed it into the system. it should get to the fall when they expect production to increase. it takes a while to turn these

on. biden and his administration have been hammering oil companies to increase production. oil companies have taken it on the chin and now they are saying we are finally making money, give us a break. so it is an interesting tension there. joe biden has sort of learned to love big oil and a little way in the last week or two. he has gone from talking about the need to beg natural gas producers to produce more so we can ship more to europe to wean them off of russian gas, so that these colors are paying under four dollars and not over. host: what did we not get to this week on capitol hill? guest: i think one area that is going to get a little bit of coverage, maybe not as much as the supreme court or covid aid, is looking at whether the senate and come to agreement on stripping russia away from preferred trade status. that is something that has vexed the senate for a few weeks now. this is a bill that passed the house overwhelmingly a few weeks

ago. schumer thought he had a deal on this, but senator rand paul has raised some objections related to provisions of the magnitsky act in this bill. so i think that is one area of the senate would like to move forward on before the end of the week, but it is hard to say with that, and potential he trying to get covid aid through. host: you can follow them on twitter, congressional reporter at politico and josh wingrove, bloomberg news white house reporter. thank you both. up next, a little bit of time here for our open forum, where we let you lead the discussion, and we will let you call in on any public policy issue you want to talk about. phone lines for republicans, democrats, and independents on your screen. start calling and now, and the little bit later we will be

joined by historian and former state department official michael commit -- michael commit . we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, and the state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks come of c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org/ukraine. our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine.

>> all this month, watch the top 21 videos from our c-span studentcam video campaign. one of our winners -- we will -- you can watch all of the winning documentaries online anytime at studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is time for our open forum, the time where we let you lead the discussion. any public policy issue, political issue, any state issue you want to talk about, phone livens -- phone lines are open for you to do it. republicans, it is (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. coming up in about an hour and 10 minutes, we will be taking

you to the senate judiciary committee. this morning, the committee will vote on whether to send supreme court nominee ketanji brown jackson's confirmation to the full senate for a vote. if she is confirmed, she would be the first african-american woman to serve on the high court. that is beginning at 10:00 a.m., and you can watch that on the c-span networks. the senate not officially end until 3:00 p.m. today. the house also back in today. ponte of stories in today's papers on the confirmation hearings and final confirmation vote expected to happen this week for judge jackson. this is from "the wall street journal." "the court vote reflects the senate split right now. meager support for judge jackson's nomination furthers a partisan trend. taking a look at some of the recent nominations that have drawn little backing from the opposing party, you can see the split almost even over judge

barrett's confirmation, judge brett kavanaugh's nomination, and gorsuch, the three trump abilities -- three trump appointees having much tighter confirmations then the past." this from "usa today," "there is no good reason for a no vote on jackson," taking a look not just at the qualifications, but at some of the politics surrounding. here is some of what russ baker writes this morning. "the vote consequential for a handful of republican senators who have been known to break ranks with their party, including bill cassidy, ben sasse, mitt romney, lisa murkowski." the story noting that senator susan collins has already announced she will be voting in support of judge jackson, making

it at least by one vote a bipartisan vote whenever it does happen. we are expecting all democrats to vote for judge jackson, susan collins, and we will see if others join her. we have your phone calls. we have about 10 minutes for it. steve in florida, a republican. good morning. steve, are you with us this morning? caller: yes. good morning. i was listening to a couple of people you had on before, and they were talking about suspending the gas tax. i don't agree with that. the country is in trouble because the democrats and people in power and the new green deal and all of these people want to go ahead and not drill for oil. the democrats are in very serious trouble because it has been proved in the past under president trump that this country is rich with oil. they are going to run around

like over the weekend and claim everything is great. hillary clinton is running around saying that we have great policies. it is a disaster. it is a train wreck what is going on. it is a shame, and it is at the cost of the american people. the war in ukraine was totally useless. he could have done something before. the ukrainians are begging for everything and joe biden is sitting on it because he wants to make deals with iran. the reason they are having a slow walk on the tanks and the missile shields and every thing is because he has a deal with the russians and the chinese to negotiate for iranian oil. why are we getting iranian oil? host: stephen florida. this is roseann in michigan, and and dependent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to send a message to the white house. i think biden's mistake is he spent so much time focusing on global issues and not enough time focusing on mystic issues, especially issues that needed

immediate attention. we had the pandemic, and he focused on climate change, but there was no real focus on inflation, on rising housing prices, on rising crime rates. that is where i think his mistake was. host: a lot of attention focus on infrastructure, the bipartisan intra-structure bill as one of his signature achievements here in his first two years in office. what do you thing about that? caller: those are great long-term achievements, but you can't focus on long-term achievements when you've got so many things going on that need immediate attention. i think you could've put those at the back burner to concentrate on things happening now. host: this is lori out of montgomery, new york, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering if anyone

else is seeing a parallel between donald trump and putin. i also want to make a comment that the money we received during covid, not to mention all of our vaccines were covered, there's a lot of money that went out. it's got to come from someplace. thank you. host: lori in new york. this is marion, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. just going back to your earlier session regarding immigration, i'm against it. i would like to see them come in legally. is this administration thinking of the radical change that is about to take place in this country with millions and millions of illegal immigrants

flooding our borders? your children and my grandchildren, there's no housing now. how are they going to support themselves working in jobs, low-paying jobs? then they will have to get on state services such as welfare, paying for housing, food. i think it is a real crisis, and i think the people out there that are for it, god love these people, but i just don't think we are in a position we can do it. maybe they will open up their homes and bring in some people and let them live with them for a few years. host: this is sylvia in coachella, california, democrat. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.

caller: well, i am calling for this reason. i am listening to all of the commentary. i am going to talk about immigration. i would like to make reference to the amnesty program that republican president ronald reagan instituted back in the 1980's. at that time, i was working for charities. i worked with the amnesty program. more than 3 million people at that time were able to gain legal residency in the united states, and that is very important. legal residency area because then they will contribute to the system, which is they pay into the irs, social security, and right now we know we need

contributors to social security. who are the contributors? of course, the young people who work. that is very important. at the amnesty program, i truly wish that the republican party would look at the success of president reagan's amnesty program. very beneficial, not any reason why it should not be instituted again. now, why are people flooding our borders? let us take a good look at what we as americans come up with the united states has done to central america. remember that we invaded central america fighting communism, but we did not go back and reconstruct what we destroyed. that happens everywhere where the united states goes to war. however, with central america, they have had terrible weather, some areas are drought stricken where they don't have enough

irrigation to grow their food to eat, american and foreign companies like to establish in those areas. they do not pay the workers fair wages. they are incredibly poor. they do not have housing, potable water, wastewater treatment, and all of the other things we enjoy here in the united states. host: one question before you go. you talk about the 3 million, the amnesty for 3 million, and you would like to see it again. the estimates at this point, 11 million illegal immigrants in this country or more. would you be ok with a blanket amnesty for 11 million people at this point? caller: of course. and the undocumented in the united states are not just people from south of the border. they are from all over the world. even canadians. we have lots of undocumented people here.

what we need to do is give them legal residency and let them become and participate in the american system. it is very important. host: that is sylvia in host: good morning. caller: good morning. it's open forum and i have an idea that i think would solve a lot of the problems. you will always have corruption to a certain degree and corruption usually comes from money and people loving money too much. i think we need to do a full-blown audit with bipartisan people, not democrat or republican to find some people and start at the top with people making all the money and these politicians and everything. host: an audit of the entire federal government? caller: of all the top people.

we are voting and the number dess and the money is not there and it's ours. we are voting people into expect them to be good stewards of our money. even on local levels, they start spending money in areas you don't want them to and everybody will need fresh water and sewers and stuff like that and fix the roads. i think we just need to do a full-blown audit on everybody, what these people are doing because i was telling some you the other day that here in ohio, we only had one side of a ticket when we vote posta there's no sense in voting because it's just the republican side. it really makes no sense and i think we need to audit everybody , all these people in authority that are spending our money that we are trusting to be good stewards of our money and find out if they've ever been in trouble, where they went to college, we are voting for people we don't know anything about. host: that's mark in ohio.

this is from arkansas, the line for democrats. we got about a minute left. caller: i'm calling about the ukraine-russia war. what is it that ukraine did to russia to cause russia to attack them? host: stick around for our next segment because we will talk more about the russian invasion of ukraine. we will be joined by a historian and former state official. he will take your questions right after this break. we will be right back. ♪

♪ >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events on in american history tv. on sunday, book tv bring to the latest nonfiction books and authors, it's television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span2. >> the list is long and too many people very confusing. we are talking about the language of money. how would you do if you had to define the following, stocks, bonds, private equity, index funds, leveraged buyouts, venture capital, fiduciaries, junk bonds, the dow, nasdaq, the s&p 500, public pension plans,

sovereign wealth funds, institutional investors, marked to market prices, securities and exchange commission and the mortgage-backed securities just to name a few. we asked jeffrey hook to give us some help what often appears to be a somewhat secret world. he is a senior lecturer at johns hopkins business school and has spent all of his adult life in and around the world of money. >> author jeffrey hook on this episode of book notes plus on the free c-span now apple or wherever you get your podcast. >> "washington journal" continues. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] michael host: michael kimmage joins us now. he is also the co-author of this

piece in foreign policy, what if russia makes it feel how to end a war that no one is likely to win. he writes that if that deal comes, there will be no munich, nuremberg work bursae. >> bursae was the end of the first world war and that was a clear victory for one side were harsh terms were imposed on the other. munich was appeasement and i don't think we see that in the works as well and nuremberg was the trials that were put on after the war against the nazis. we wanted justice to be done to the many victims of ukraine but that's only possible in human rights trials of vladimir putin and his cronies. host: the banner headline reports of atrocities stirring outrage. your thoughts on whether russia

would be willing to make a deal, are they changed by what's being discovered as the russian forces have been moving away from these key suburbs? guest: i think ukraine is more difficult when you see the scale of the atrocities. what we saw over the weekend is just one piece of the story and we will see more of that in days and weeks to come. it's much more difficult to compromise morally. it's difficult to see pruden remain in power but they don't have the ability to move just to remove him from power. i think the politics will become more difficult than they were even a week ago. i think this will become a war of attrition in which there are many vulnerabilities in -- on the russian side but each day the work goes on, it's a day the ukrainians pay in blood for what's happening. there are incentives to come to the table on both sides but it

seems in the distant future to me. host: explain what the minsk agreement was and why it failed? guest: we can think of the war as the second installment of an older story. in 2014, there were a number of battles between ukrainian and russian military and they ended in russian battlefield victory which brought about the minsk agreement. this was signed by france, germany ukraine and russia. the russians were supposed to get out of the occupied territories and ukraine was supposed to return to normalcy and that's why the u.s. and the europeans impose sanctions on russia. all of these deals were made in 2014 and 2015 and none of them came to fruition so was a depressing backdrop to the current escalation of the wall. host: was our best chance at being the intermediary?

who has the best ability to bring these two sides together? guest: the decisions really lie with the president of ukraine so he has to make a decision whether to scale back the military phase and make certain concessions to get the russians to stop or to keep going and to press for advantage. israel is a possible candidate and turkey is a plausible candidate. it looks like either turkey or is ruble -- were israel might be able to supply that. host: these smaller truces that are called the humanitarian truces, there are concerns about russia using this to redeploy their forces to change strategies. we have already seen these humanitarian ventures is being broken and people killed as they move through these core doors that are supposed to be safe.

the history of that and other conflicts that russia has been involved in, is there a strategy they use when they need to call a timeout? guest: we can go back to syria and the bombing of aleppo. that bears a similarity. there were gestures toward diplomacy there and they allow the russian and syrian military to regroup in that conflict i think something similar is happening here. russia has done nothing in this were in good faith and that's a variable. host: michael kimmage is with us for another half hour. here are the phone lines. start calling in. we mentioned your work as a former state department policy

planning staff member during the obama administration. what did you do there? guest: this goes back to the creation of the office of 1947. a policy planners post a look into the future, and provide the secretary of state with things he might do differently, new ideas, new agendas and less bureaucratic than the state department, sometimes engage in critical thinking and questioning of existing policies. supposed to be the big idea shop of the state department. host: what should we have done differently after the first russian invasion of ukraine taking crimea? guest: i think there was no silver just silver bullet missed in those years. the obama administration to the best it could in the circumstances but where i would be critical as the longer arc of experience from 2014 to the

past. we made these agreements to get russia out of ukraine. the conditions were not met and we that that stand. this is a high-stakes situation and we should've put more resources into it and should've made our work more credible and we are paying the price for that at the moment. host: what's the difference between an agreement and a memorandum. the budapest memorandum is something we are familiar with in the past six weeks. what was that and is that different than what we are seeking? guest: it's important to ukraine but not as well-known in the u.s.. it was he was priority get nuclear weapons from the ussr. u.s. pushed hard and in return, the ukrainians agreed to get rid of nuclear weapons and they got a guarantee of their security

from russia and the u.s. in the form of a memorandum. in diplomatic terms, a memorandum is different from a treaty, it's more like promise, a gentleman's agreement. ukraine has been frustrated that that agreement has not lasted. it's not a security guarantee or a treaty. that's what ukraine has had to wrestle with for the last 20 years. host: what more do you get with a treaty. the minsk agreement was broken. explain what these things mean in actuality. guest: the comparison would be within the nato alliance where you have article five which is a formal commitment on the members that have one is attacked, the rest will come to the defense. our nato allies came to the defense of the u.s. on the native of -- on the nature of article five which is a real

security guarantee. if ukraine had had that prior to the war, the u.s. would be sending troops into ukraine. it's a formal, explicit commitment to defend another country. these other trees and memorandums are less formal and less binding. host: what could ukraine get in terms of commit and's desk of commitments -- commitments. it seems like nato membership is off the table so what else is out there? guest: the most interesting variable in the negotiations is that president zelinski is pressing for security guarantees from europe and ideally from the united states and this wouldn't be in the form of nato membership and everybody knows that that's a distant prospect for ukraine but the u.s. could decide to give ukraine a treaty commitment as it does to countries around the world.

if there would be future aggression, the u.s. would be directly on the side of ukraine and that would be a big step for the u.s. you would think this would be done with some consultation with russia. it's very complicated at the moment but this potentially resolution to the whole conflict down the road. host: this is jimbo from bakersfield, california, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. the knowledge of your guest is great. this is why you watch "washington journal" for this kind of expertise. could i ask whether the guest thanks with the genocide with -- we now have taken place in ukraine done by the russians and under putin, isn't it time now to open up the floodgates of military hardware? i mean all forms of aircraft, all technologies, drones and

also, shouldn't we ratchet up the sanctions against a country like china who is beginning to actually supplied military hardware to them? shouldn't we begin to look at countries being lukewarm rather than sitting and not making up their mind as to whether they will support democracy or stand with autocrats? thank you for your time and thank you for this opportunity. guest: thank you for the question. i think the biden administration is doing a great deal when it comes to weapons sharing with ukraine and the flow of intelligence and targeting. i think it's a robust commitment all ready and many of the limits in terms of what the biden administration is providing our practical so as not that they don't want to provide more weapons but they are working out the logistics. i think they are on the same page as far as the urgency.

it's equally important is to tell the story. that's something the biden ministration can do and other countries can do as well and make sure the information is well-known and make sure the public is well-informed and if possible, try to get accurate information inside the russian information space. i would not personally advocate sanctioning china and others recognize that the sanctions they have now are probably the biggest sanctions ever made against one of the world's major economies. it would be a huge shock to the system in terms of inflation but i think there has to be a limit. the sanctions program will cause no shockwaves as it is but there may be good cause for sanctioning russia further because of atrocities and war crimes. host: fence sitting is a topic

we have explored much on this program. who is an interesting fence sitter? >> the most important one is india because the member of the u.s. led group of four alliance in the indo pacific. it's an important piece of american strategy when it comes to dealing with china. it's one of the world's great democracies. we've had a great relationship with the united states over the last 10 or 15 years with them and india buys a lot of its weapons from russia. the government doesn't see the conflict in ukraine the same as the u.s. government. it has practical reasons to do fence sitting. ukraine is further from india in imagination than the united

states but they are an ally and a partner and a friend but they are not on board with the sanctions and u.s. policy on ukraine and russia. host: what about triangulating that rush -- that relationship and how does india feel about china? guest: india has great worries and fears about china. united states is a crucially important ally for india. from an american perspective, the value added of indian sanctions would be meaningful but maybe not fundamental in the situation so the -- i'm sure the u.s. is pressuring india but not a topline effort. host: on twitter -- guest: nato was smaller than it

is. it had been just extended into eastern germany before 1991. that was a work in progress were nato was moving but it was far from ukraine at that time. for the u.s. government, the treaty commitment and the security going more towards czechoslovakia and poland, they hadn't gotten to ukraine yet. that was where the thinking was and it was difficult to imagine the kind of conflict we are having at the moment. host: about another 20 minutes this morning. what's your last book about? guest: it's called the

abandonment of the west in the history of an idea in american foreign-policy this came out in 2020 that looks the notion of the west in american foreign-policy and some of the core ideals american foreign policy going back to the 1890's. if i were to rewrite the book are put in a new chapter, i would have one on ukraine because part of this continuum. host: and rewrite this title? guest: absolutely. host: republican, good morning. caller: yes, the question is, why do we let this happen and are stuck with what's going on in ukraine right now? how could this have been prevented?

our leadership in washington is not doing their job whether is the president or the senate stop this should have never happened in a country like ours. guest: thank you very much. let me agree and disagree a little bit. the biden administration and before that the trump administration had done significant things on behalf of ukraine. the trump administration provided lethal weapons. the biden administration has a good relationship with ukraine government specially since the war began on the 24th of february. they have provided weapons in all -- and all kinds of intelligence support. i don't think ukraine would be where is the moment militarily

if not for u.s. support and the work that u.s. allies have done in this regard stop in that sense, most administrations have done a great deal. i think you are right that there have been a lot of mistakes. going back to the budapest memorandum and the politics of the 1990's, we put ukraine in between. we thought of it as a partner and friend and had decent relations with the government and we made certain commitments and sanction russia but we did not bring ukraine into our security world. they were always waiting at the date for some decision on this and president zelinski has been critical of the u.s. and european countries for this ambivalence. i think it's right and necessary to be radical of that and bubbling over the last couple of decades. caller: tony is asking --

guest: that's a fair point. i wonder how people will get food to the hague. i think all of us feel he deserves to be and that's hot emotionally. on the one hand, it may be extravagant or overconfident this kind of rhetoric but i doubt it will change putin's outlook which at the moment, he inks is at war with the united states and europe, not just ukraine stop regardless of what we say, i think putin will have that mindset stop i wouldn't place to much emphasis on the

wording of things over one year. that will not change putin's mind. he thinks he is at work with us. host: we heard last week that u.s. officials say they believe putin has been misled by some of his closest advisors. do you think that's likely? guest: sure, u.s. intelligence has been superb so far on russia. in general, i would trust with the u.s. government guns with them -- with the country says in general but maybe there's already a good track record of them being right. putin is an autocrat and as become a dip -- a dictator. there is lots of incentive in the russian system to pass the news up the chain or just to say

what the boss wants to hear. i don't think the russian advance is going as badly as it has gone. you have to wonder how well-informed he is? he may believe he's winning the war when our version is different. host: what should people know about lever off? guest:guest: he's the face of russian diplomacy. he's got a mortensen's of humor and is an intelligent man but he is a figurehead and he's not a decision-maker. apart from maybe certain signals, that's not such a core attentional. host: port charlotte, florida, democrat, good morning. caller: how are you this morning? my question is, why the trump

administration didn't do anything to prevent what's going on now? guest: i mentioned that the trump administration provided lethal military assistance to ukraine that has proven to be important. if you think more broadly about europe, there are two countries that entered the nato alliance under the truck watch and u.s. military spending does not go down under truck, it goes up so he provided some of the fundamentals of the u.s. position for the present moment. i regret four years of wasting time in the trump administration . there was a lot of smoke and commotion and not a lot of real diplomatic process on the ground and then you have the impeachment trial and the way

domestic policy got tangled up with foreign policy wasn't helpful for american policy for us or russia. it was wasted time and there was a lot of domestic confusion around these issues. the fundamentals were not that bad. host: greg in philly, independent, good morning. caller: i didn't hear anybody complaining in those nato countries that there was an illegal act united states also he committed some any crimes and i didn't hear anybody screaming out about war crimes. guest: i don't think the u.s. was involved in anything

resembling a coup. like many countries at the time, it was more or less a bystander when a chemist to the -- when it came to the maid-on protests. there is no credible evidence that the u.s. staged a coup. host: rachel, independent. good morning. caller: they are talking about leadership. in 2018 in syria, russian troops were firing on our military soldiers when they asked trump about it, he said he asked pruden and he did not have anything to do with it. trump himself came out and said putin talked about it during their conversations.

he never mentioned that, he said the reason why putin attacked ukraine was because of the fraud election. he was savvy and a genius. he came out and said he was taking the land. i do not think that is leadership. not at all. host: michael kimmage. guest: i share your assessment of all of the citations from trump. i think from the beginning, the 2016 campaign, he was strangely uncritical of trump and had a long record of admiring mints -- statements about vladimir putin. i do not share those views. i think it has become especially at odds with reality in the last couple months, it is very hard to label putin even a strategic genius in his own terms, but certainly from an american point of view. i do not see any reason to say that. i agree with you, they are off

the mark. host: just about 10 minutes left with you this morning, if you want to follow him on twitter it is @mkimmich. how concerned are you about escalation, it has been the big pushback of establishing a no-fly zone or being more involved. do not want to escalate the conflict. are you more concerned about putin's reaction to escalation then concerned about escalating tensions with nato? guest: there are multiple aspects. i am less concerned, the war has not gone well for russia. they cannot manage to take the city of kharkiv on the border, they retreated from kyiv. the idea they are going to rush into the baltic states, they cannot do it. they may have the aspirations, it is beyond their means at the moment. that is good news, something to feel confident about.

there are ways in which accidents could drop russia into a larger conflict or drawn nato into a larger conflict with russia. we have to be careful about that and make sure lines of communication still exist and things do not get misinterpreted. where the danger lies now, this goes to the earlier point about putin being a war criminal, if he feels existential he threatened as though the west is coming to get him -- to a degree he already does -- if that escalates in his mind, i am not quite sure what options he would take. we have to bear that in mind as a calculus, we do not want this to become a war between the u.s. and russia. that is not what the biden administration wants. we have to be disciplined in that regard and hopefully that will keep putin in the box he put himself into. host: does the reality of the russian military performance in ukraine so far, should that be changing our calculation of nato force deployment? how we strategize about the

wargames that happened with russia with the assumptions we should be making in the future? guest: there is a short-term and long-term with nato, the short term it is crucial for washington to reassure allies. they feel in a state of great anxiety for the baltic republics and poland primarily, part of this is the refugee situation. part of it is uncertainty about russia. the u.s. should be bringing forces into those regions for the sake of reassurance, not because the russians are at the doorstep, but because we want countries to feel stable and safe. long-term, it is possible russia will materially destroy itself in ukraine. that does not mean nato can spike the football and say it is game over and there is no threat anymore. but it may good news for nato in the sense they could redeploy assets elsewhere and think more about global threats and challenges in the russia may have reduced itself to the war in ukraine. we are not there yet, but it seems possible, perhaps likely. host: tim from tulsa,

republican. good morning. caller: good morning. the issue of putin starting the war based on his financial ability to do so is a really interesting discussion i would like to get comments on it. but let me make my point. the trump administration dropped energy prices low, increase production. biden administration came in and every action was to decrease energy production area therefore -- production. therefore, the price of oil went up dramatically long before putin invaded due to the biden administration's actions. biden were in ukraine -- biden's war in ukraine was caused by financial empowerment of putin to support this. putin could not support a war. $100 oil, putin could support.

i would like to get your comments on how the biden administration's actions cause -- host: got your point. guest: i do not share your assessment of the war itself in terms of the origins. i think they lie in putin's understanding of russian security, where ukraine fits. to gain influence or dominance over ukraine. it also has a lot to do with putin's understanding of political culture, you can label it russian imperialism, a view of strong connection, civilization connection to ukraine, entitlement to run the show. the origins of the war in putin 's reading of the situation and the relation to national security, which has little to do with russian finances or oil. the role that oil places very much in the aftermath of the war and midst of the war. european countries trying to reduce their dependence on russian oil, the u.s. is part of that project with alternative

sources of energy. the biden reading is this is a long-term opportunity to move the world off of fossil fuels in general and more toward greener sources of energy. the war in ukraine could be a catalyst in that. i do not see oil prices or energy as remotely involved in the origins of this war. host: from georgia, democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. before i asked the question about ukraine, let me say this. for the democrats, for the next election. in the war in afghanistan, bush got us in. biden got us out. that will be with the history books are going to write. back to ukraine. i am hoping your guest seems to have a lot of knowledge, i want to understand. we, as americans, have been incredibly tight with israel.

we give billions of dollars every year to them, because they are considered our ally, just like countries in europe. so why is it that israel has been so reluctant to be part of our allies, the allies in the ukraine conflict? it concerns me we are giving my tax dollars to them and they basically said, we kind of want to stand off on this ukraine thing. putin we seeputin -- we see putin's side, it bothers me. guest: there is a tangible reason. you can see from the israeli government they would prefer to be on the side of ukraine, they would prefer all things being equal to endorse u.s. policy. but russia, when it entered syria, took control of the syrian airspace. israel made strikes in syria on iranian assets and entities that

ceased to be directly threatening israeli security. it needs to work with russia to do so to get permission to fly in syria airspace. you seen a change in israeli foreign policy toward russia, it has become either friendlier or more neutral. they have not reversed the policy since the war began. i would not expect them to do so in the next couple of months. theoretically, you are right. they are definitely a u.s. ally in practice, they've a difference of opinion with washington. host: colorado, independent. good morning. caller: hi. i am taking a different view of the entire conflict. no one ever says or mentions for eight years, since 2014, when the u.s. went in and the government was installed, the

warring factions within the boundaries of ukraine. our president here dealt with a russian lie, the russia hoax, which was based on ally -- a lie. it targeted to world leaders, trump and putin. putin is a very proud man and a very national, loves into spread of his heritage. -- and is proud of his heritage. he knew there were u.s. bioweapon labs within ukraine, he also knew ukraine had become a hub for child trafficking -- host: let me let michael kimmage respond. guest: let me politely disagree with each of your points. i think you are right, there are different political factions and groups within ukraine.

i do not think that makes the basic u.s. support for ukraine sovereignty and independence in 2014 wrongheaded or illegitimate. i think that was the right thing to do for ukraine's sake, but also europe's sake. to have a country's borders kept intact, to support the principal is a very significant commitment on the part of the u.s. i believe the russians meddled in the 2016 election, evidence for that is pretty clear. we can have a debate about what the consequences were and why they did it, but the fact the meddling is clear and the biolab story, i will politely disagree. there are facilities that have been there since soviet times, when the u.s. was working with ukrainian government to maintain or keep an eye on these facilities. but they are not buy's labs the u.s. was in cahoots with ukraine on creating. that is inaccurate.

host: julie, from rhode island. independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i have been watching all my life. bush did get us into the god-awful war. this country, there are so many people in this world, trump, trump. [indiscernible] listen. this is the thing. [indiscernible] they had to walk it back. it happened in afghanistan. so many people had to die because this guy in the white house does not know what he is doing. host: i will give him the final minute. guest: i did not quite get the

question. host: i was trying to tell her she was going in and out. guest: for technical reasons. by did catch was trump did not start a war during his presidency, which is correct. maybe we can end on this note. biden did not either. this war in ukraine is a war the biden administration did not want to see. they came into office wanting to work on china come on climate change, on recovering from the pandemic. the war came almost out of the blue. why putin pushed at this moment is hard to say. perhaps we can say this, by way of inclusion -- i am afraid it is not a good it's to the question i did not quite catch, but this will be the defining issue of the biden presidency, not the one they campaigned on, but the one that will define everything else they do with an event of that magnitude. i'm delighted to have the chance to speak with you about it today and speak with the public about this. we should all try to get as

smart as possible on russia and ukraine, because it looms large in our foreign policy. host: we will do it again, michael kimmage, professor of history and department chair, you can follow him on twitter. up next, and u.s. 20 minutes of our program, -- in the last 20 units of our program, we focus on judge jackson's committee confirmation vote, the senate judiciary committee gathering to consider advancing her nomination out of the judiciary committee to a full floor vote. give us a call, let us know if you think she should be confirmed to the supreme court. republicans, democrats and independents, numbers are on the screen. we will get your calls after the break. ♪ >> spring has sprung, it is time for the c-span spring sale. now through tuesday at

c-spanshop.org. save 20% on accessories and home to core. there is something for every c-span fan, every purchase helps to support nonprofit operations. c-span spring sale now through tuesday only at c-span shop.org. scan the code at the left to start shopping now. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span, do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable.

>> washington journal continues. host: the senate judiciary committee is gathering this morning to consider the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to the supreme court, a key step before the nomination goes before the senate that starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern, just over 15 minutes. you can watch it here on c-span. c-span.org and on the free c-span now video app. for the rest of the schedule, the houses is in at noon. the full senate and at 3:00 p.m., so c-span and c-span2 is where you can go to watch gavel-to-gavel coverage. if you want to watch the judiciary committee vote, sit by your screen for about 15 more minutes. in that time, we are asking, do you think judge jackson should be confirmed to the supreme court? (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

independence, (202) 748-8002. we begin on the line for independence -- independents. caller: i believe she needs to be confirmed, confirmed quickly and bipartisan way, she has the credentials, she is well-qualified. she is replacing a more liberal justice on the court, i do not see there being any change in the mix of the ideology on the court. she does need to be confirmed, those republicans that voted for her need to vote for her again. host: one of those definitely is, senator collins saying she will vote to confirm judge jackson. it will be a bipartisan vote when it does happen. the other senators that are being watched, another one of those who voted to confirm her to her circuit court confirmation was senator

murkowski of alaska and mitt romney being watched as a potential key republican in the final confirmation vote. we will see what happens this week. maryland, democrat. do you think judge jackson should be confirmed? caller: yes, i think she should be confirmed. she is well-qualified, the guy before me stole my thunder. that is exactly what i was going to say. it needs to be a bipartisan vote , because it is not going to change the makeup of the courts. i think she is the most qualified person i have ever seen come up for the supreme court area i think she is magnificent, just well-qualified. i cannot say anymore. host: what qualification has most interested you? what specifically do you like about this nominee? caller: i think because she has been a prosecutor and she has been a defense attorney.

she has been a trial lawyer. she has seen the ins and outs and roundabouts of everything has to do with the courts, i think she is well-qualified and is one of the best we are ever going to have. host: pennsylvania, linda, republican. good morning, you are next. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say, as far as her nomination, getting confirmed, she will be confirmed because of the democrats -- democratic vote. but i wanted to point out i thought it was interesting, she cannot answer the question about what is a woman? that shows you where we are headed with this. so anyway, i am sure she will be confirmed. but i did wonder also about --

they were saying about her voting record, she gave sentences to convicted child pornographers, i find that disturbing. host: senator ted cruz this morning, a member of the judiciary committee, he will be in that room for this vote, tweeting this out. no area of ketanji brown jackson's record is more troubling than her record on crime. the chairman of that committee, dick durbin, will be running the hearing. the ranking member is chuck grassley. the senators will start filing into the room pretty soon. the room filling up with what looks like media and staff members right now, the senate judiciary committee holding this hearing today to advance judge jackson's nomination to the floor for a final vote. this is darlene out of west virginia, independent. good morning.

darlene, go ahead. caller: i would like to say i do not want to see her confirmed. she is not the right person to be a supreme justice. host: who is the right person or what are the qualities of the right person? caller: i want somebody that understands our constitution and votes for the people, not for liberal reasons. host: what specifically most concerns you? did you watch the confirmation hearings? caller: i did. she did not want to answer. she sort of let things go, like when people asked her questions and all. she did not -- to me, she did not give a good answer. host: darlene in west virginia, this is cheryl out of san diego. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i am calling to say yes,

i think judge jackson should be confirmed. she seemed like she is a very well educated judge. my question is -- i think she should be confirmed -- the reason she did not ask the question, i think, what is a woman -- who answer question, what is a woman? we know what a woman is, we do not have to answer questions. i think that is the reasons she did not say anything. she should be confirmed, thank you. host: larry and iowa, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yes, i do not think she should be confirmed. i watched some of the hearings when she was answering questions , i think she was trying to

evade some of the questions that were being asked. i think she is highly qualified, i think she is very intelligent. i do not think she has the right viewpoints. she does not want to define what a woman is and i think some of the democrat stuff -- i just do not believe in it. that is my comment, thank you. host: usa today with a wrap up of what is going to be happening today in the committee hearing room, senators will each have an unlimited amount of time to share their view on jackson, explain their stance on the nomination. democrats expected to reiterate support for the nominee, republicans likely to resurrect their arguments they made during the confirmation committee hearings. following the debate, senators will vote on the nomination. it is expected to be an 11-11 tied.

in the case of a tie, the committee will send jackson's name to the full senate without a recommendation, still allowing her to get a final floor vote. philadelphia, independent. good morning. caller: she should be confirmed. number one, she knows more about the law than half the people on the supreme court. she started from the bottom to the top. she didn't jump out of ivy league schools and get into the supreme court. she did the whole job. when you talk about the stupid thing who was a woman, who is a man, you all are not finding out. republicans always vote against her, have a good day. host: on your screen is dick durbin, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. in his seat, he will lead today's proceedings in the committee. this is eric out of lexington,

kentucky. democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i am wholeheartedly supporting judge jackson. for supreme court. i think she should be nominated. i think she should be confirmed. judge jackson's resume is impeccable. one thing -- i have watched the confirmation hearings from start up until today. she has already been confirmed by this body, twice. so, if what they are alleging now -- why do that outcome up in the first two hearings? if they are so against her? the other confirmations, they confirmed her too, were lifetime appointments. to me, is just a bashing hate to

throw this out there, it is because she is a black woman. but she has more qualifications to sit on the supreme court then many of the present senators that are sitting in the senate. so yes, i believe she should be confirmed. her resume speaks for itself. her stance and ability to stay under control through heated accusations thrown at her lets you know that she does have the temperament to sit on the supreme court. host: eric and kentucky, the last caller of today's washington journal. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. we will take you now to the senate judiciary committee hearing room and let you see some of the sights and sounds ahead of the hearing, expected to begin in five and a half minutes.

[overlapping chatter]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]