>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> it is way more than that. >> comcast is fighting with 1000 community centers -- basic committing with 1000 community centers. >> comcast support c-span along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on "washington journal". after your calls and a look at the news, we will talk about the border rules and immigration policy. then we continued with my question policy institute. then the executive director of

-- talks about the push to establish supreme court code of ethics and a jury. drawing with your comments, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" starts now. host: this is the "washington journal." april 5. president biden calls for investigations of russian president of vladimir putin, considering considerations and reporting out of bucha. and other world leaders insisting on a response involving more sanctions. ukrainian president zelenskyy will appear before the united nations security council talk about the atrocities documented over the last couple of days. when it comes to the situation in bucha, our next half hour, we

want to get you to respond to how the u.s. and nato should respond in light of those russian atrocities in ukraine. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific time zones. if you want to text your thoughts this morning, (202) 748-8003. you can post on social media, facebook and twitter. you can also follow the show on instagram. a photograph in the washing -- washington post this morning, when it comes to the issue in bucha, president biden calling it a war crime or it should at least be looked at as a war crime. here is the president yesterday responding. [video clip] pres. biden: you may remember, i got criticized for calling putin a war criminal. the truth of the matter is he is

a war criminal. but we have to gather information and have to continue to provide ukraine with the weapons they need to continue to fight, and we have to gather all the details so we can actually have a war crime trial. this guy is brutal, and what is happening in bucha is outrageous, and everyone sees it. >> do you believe it is genocide? pres. biden: no, i think it is a war crime. host: that is president biden from yesterday responding after coming back from his weekend in delaware. nbc reporting that ukrainian president thought amir zelenskyy will address the united nations security council today -- ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy will address the united nations security council today. he said on monday at least 300 people were killed and tortured by russian forces in bucha and

kyiv before pulling out. you can find out more on c-span.org and at c-span now. several speakers addressed the security council. one person responding yesterday from the state department -- from the white house was jake sullivan, as far as the national security issues. we will show you that in a bit. there will also be a look at issues concerning the defense budget today. two top leaders at the defense department, dispense secretary -- the defense secretary and the general, talking issues of defense but also addressing issues coming out of ukraine. you can see that live at 9:30 this morning on c-span3, c-span.org, and our c-span now app. jake sullivan, national security advisor, at the white house talking about the issue and what is expected in the following

days when it comes to investigating. [video clip] >> the ukrainian people have held firm. a key and other cities still stand. the ukrainian military has performed exceptionally well. many ukrainian civilians have joined local militias, in addition to using nonviolent means to resist. valda -- vladimir putin also believed the west would not hold together in support of ukraine. russia was surprised that president biden and the united states were so effective in rallying the world to prepare for and respond to the invasion. and after president biden reinforced and reinvigorated in a series of summits and brussels just 11 days ago, the russians have now realized that the west will not break. at this juncture, we believe that russia is revising its war aims. russia is repositioning forces to concentrate its offensive operations in eastern and parts of southern ukraine, rather than

target most of the territory. all indications are that russia will seek to surround and overwhelm ukrainian forces in eastern ukraine. we anticipate that russian commanders are now executing the redeployment from northern ukraine to the region around the donbass in eastern ukraine. russian forces are already well on their way, retreating from kyiv to belarus, as russia likely prepares to deploy dozens of additional technical groups, concentrating tens of thousands of soldiers to the front line in ukraine's east. host: when it comes to united states and nato and a response on the atrocities, what should be responses? let us know. again, (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific time zones. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. responses from congress this

morning concerning the events of the last couple of days, representative jason crow, starting with democratic responses, saying ukrainians fight for democracy, a fight they must win. they can do it but will need some more support. he and colleagues asking for increased military support to ukraine, adding that this is a watershed moment in the battle for democracy and we must win. representative adam smith talks about preserving human life, weak leaders treat people with cruelty. vladimir putin has been exposed as a weak leader and must be held accountable. this one says the world is at an inflection point right now. putin thinks he can bully ukraine to get what he wants, but the united states and western allies will continue to stand together against his reign of terror. senator jeff merkley adding that these images out of bucha and

elsewhere are horrific in these groups of -- these gruesome war crimes cannot go unpunished. again, to your thoughts as far as response is concerned from the united states and nato, this is tom in lancaster, california. go ahead. caller: let's look at the big picture. we had hillary clinton delivering yellowcake uranium to russia so they could build their nuclear -- host: let's stick to the topic at hand. what do you think about the last couple of days, and what should be the response? caller: here is the big picture -- host: no, stick to the topic that hand. caller: ukraine is attacked during the biden-obama administration, we had mueller and hilary state department

yellowcake uranium -- host: ok, that was tom and california. we heard from some legislators some republicans responded to the events of the last couple of days. senator mitt romney of utah saying we are witnessing through these horrifying images or evidence that russia has no concern for protecting civilians or human rights. amid the war crimes and atrocities, the u.n. general must stripped russia of its position on the u.n. hrc immediately. this is representative brian fitzpatrick saying give ukraine exactly what they are asking for, genocide is happening right before our eyes. must be never again, actions, not words. enough with the economic half measures and military appeasement. those are some of the responses when it comes to members of congress. you can add yours to the mix, as well come over this next half-hour. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time

zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific time zones. if you want to text your thoughts this morning, (202) 748-8003. one of the people tracking what is going on when it comes to atrocities, one of the groups, the group known as human rights watch, usa today reported, atrocities allegedly committed by russian forces in ukraine have not only been witnessed by reporters but also documented by that nongovernmental organization. hrw says interviews with residents yielded amounts of several war crimes, including executions, rapes, and other forms of violence against civilians, goes on to quote a representative saying the cases we documented amount to deliberate cruelty and violence against ukrainian civilians. the europe and central asia director at human rights watch

says this should be investigated as war crimes. that is one of the groups helping and looking at investigating this. in ohio, we hear from don. go ahead, sir. caller: yeah, what happens over there is terrible. we give them tanks. just give them the mags and let them get it over with. my second comment is we do not have to hear this everyday, this tragedy that happens in another country, and they do nothing about the border. 100,000 people killed on drugs. host: back to your first point as far as the mags are concerned, why do you think that is the solution? caller: get it over with so so many people do not have to die. host: you think that will solve the issue without causing escalation? caller: yes, i do. we need to get rid of biden if

he cannot do it. host: next is cheryl in manassas, virginia. caller: i want to begin by thanking you for wading out these wacko callers of yours. it is a sad state of affairs. i think we need to give ukraine everything that they need. nato needs to step it up. we know what is coming ahead once mariupol, the videos coming out from there, so thank you for taking my call. host: when you say give them everything you need, what you mean by that specifically? caller: whatever they need specifically. if they need planes, give them the planes. they need more ammunition, give

them more ammunition. we cannot let this continue to happen when we see what came out over the weekend in bucha. we already know several other areas are a lot worse. host: when it comes to the planes, as far as concerns of escalation, especially from the vladimir putin and russia, are you concerned about that if planes are put into the mix? caller: i am more concerned about seeing dead babies on the side of the road. i am more worried about seeing mass graves. host: ok. caller: i am not a military person, so, you know, whatever they need, should be no question about it at this point. thank you for taking my call. host: let's hear from richard in new york. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been thinking about this

for a while, since the invasion began. and i really think that nato should declare ukraine a temporary member of nato and invoke article five and send 100,000 troops into ukraine to back up the ukrainians and call putin's bluff. host: what do you think of the consequences of calling the bluff, if that route were taken? caller: like i said, i think it is a bluff. i do not believe that he will use nuclear weapons. host: why not? caller: because he doesn't want to die. he and his buddies do not want to die. that will happen, yeah? the destruction thing at all. host: ok. timothy is next. he is in vermont. caller: yes, good morning,

pedro. yeah, regarding the nato response, i mean, there is a constant iteration of giving ukraine make 29 -- mig-29's, and i am just afraid that russia can take those 29's out like nobody's business. regarding aircraft's specifically, i think it appropriate plane would have to be the a-10 warthog, which has a 30 millimeter minigun on it, which is capable of shooting about 6000 rounds a minute. and i have seen a test firing in jericho, vermont, because of general electric, and i happened

to be working on the base one day and they did a test firing for us. and i can tell you, they shot 100 rounds and it took one second. they are low and slow and can go underneath the radar, arguably. host: the u.s. and other countries have downplayed the use of military. aside from that, what do you think is a response the u.s. and nato could do when it comes to the atrocities we have seen over the last few days? caller: ok, regarding the atrocities, i mean, because ukraine is not a nato country and our reticence to get involved, i think arguably that the best scenario that putin would like to see is for nato and the united states to get

involved into it. therefore, he can use it as a propaganda angle and then can escalate himself exponentially. host: ok. that is timothy in vermont. first guest joining us in about 15 minutes. if you want to comment on these atrocities that have been reported over the last couple of days, responding how the u.s. and nato should react to that. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific time zones. an uptick in sanctions, the topic of a story in the "wall street journal" this money, particularly when it comes from the eu, your plan to been that -- this morning, particularly when it comes from the you, phasing in oil and coal sanctions, european leaders could be called to discuss energy sanctions, and a

possibility of a significant tariff on oil and coal imports to encourage member states to rapidly reduce their use. germany, austria, and hungary's newly elected government have led opposition to import bands, but german officials have signaled wiggle room. there is a plan to phase out the use of russian coal by the summer, russian oil by the end of the year. willie in north carolina, hello. caller: good morning. my position is, first and foremost, the entire situation is ugly, and the situation we just saw in bucha is extremely ugly if all the details and all the facts we are getting can be 100% believed. war is ugly, and sometimes you have both sides that have their own aims. i sincerely believe just about

everything i have seen. at the same time, i think the u.s. and nato should take a look at how we got to this point. we get here by a man filling corners. i do not think that doing what we're doing alone, i do not think that that is the answer. i think that you have to have really, really important and intelligent leadership, not only from nato but from the u.s., from biden, in particular. he has to look at the situation realistically, not politically, not idealistically. everybody don't agree with us. if the man feels cornered. he has told nato years and years ago, look, you guys are steadily encroaching, steadily encroaching, steadily inviting everybody around me. i do not see you as a friend, i

see you as my enemy. and same way that nato, we see him as the enemy. this is real. these are real geopolitical things we have to live with not only in this decade but for decades to come, and we have to make smart decisions. host: so what is the smartest decision that can be made at this point then? caller: in my mind, zelenskyy and putin, not biden, not the you, zelenskyy and putin need to sit down, said this is my country, this is your country. host: thank you. watch your language when you make comments. that is some of the sampling over the last 20 minutes or so when it comes to u.s. and nato response. you can add yours to the mix over the next 10 minutes. you can give us a call before the first guest this morning. (202) 748-8000 for those of you

in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific time zones. it was the ukrainian president zelenskyy making remarks to the media when it comes to what is being reported out of bucha. it is translated, but here are some of those remarks from monday. [video clip] >> israel, genocide, what you have seen here today, when you can see what happens when thousands of people that were tortured and killed, was cut off hands and legs, extremities, and what they did to the women. our delegation was at a meeting in turkey. there was the negotiating group with the minister of foreign affairs, something did not quite work out there, but it was clear why. i would say that the longer the

russian federation will drag out the meeting process, the worse it will be for them, and in principle, for this situation, for this war. because with every day, when our army are moving into the occupied territory, you can see what is happening. it is very difficult to talk when you see what they have done here. and day by day, they find bodies in cellars, people tortured, people killed. so if they have something to think with, they have to think quick. host: here is diane from ann arbor, michigan. hello. caller: yes, hello. thank you. when i see president biden, world leaders, and nato, they had better get courage.

when i see them, i'm sorry, i see cowards. they make excuses. they don't have to act. nato treated ukraine like so, like a social club, and ukraine did everything they could to show their sincerity, got rid of the nukes, which probably was a mistake. what does nato do, just leave her out to dry. i am really surprised. host: so what is the appropriate action at this point? what is the appropriate action at this point then? caller: i think they should gather trained international group of peacekeepers to go into ukraine and show putin we are not going to take this. we are afraid of his nukes, he is always going to have his nukes, so that is his ticket to pummel as many countries as he feels like, and then we watch as our country reports all of the atrocities and say, oh, how terrible, and not do anything

about it? putin is not going to stop. he has not felt the pain of this. he still has his fancy apartment in the kremlin, still has his cancel, still has his jobs, still has his bank accounts, no doubt in american dollars per is no fool. host: a call from corpus christi, texas, you are next. you are on, sir. go ahead. caller: the thing i don't understand is i am going on 80 years old. i do not understand why other people cannot relate to the holocaust and this genocide going on in ukraine. why doesn't the whole world just condemn this russian thing? [indiscernible] host: as far as that last part, what do you mean, we are coming in, like it or not?

caller: we're going to come into ukraine, and you can stay there and get yourself killed or back off and get back in your own country, and that is basically enough. host: paul is next in illinois. caller: hiya, i am in favor of putting in a no-fly zone and then the nato nations moving troops into ukraine. i do not know what else we can do with the atrocities we cannot stand by and watch. host: why do you think 8 -- what do you think a no-fly zone and those troops will do? caller: i would hope they would stall some of the aggression going on and help defend the ukrainians and the rest of the free world. host: that is paul in illinois. we will take your calls for just a few more minutes before our first guest joins us new.

in other news, when it comes to matters of the supreme court, the ap reporting senate republican senators lisa murkowski and met romney say they will vote to confirm judge ketanji brown jackson, historic nomination to the supreme court. giving president biden bipartisan report, all but assuring she will be the first black female justice. democrats press to confirm judge jackson by the end of the week. republican senator susan collins of maine announced last week she would back jackson, noting her stellar qualifications as a federal judge, public defender. david is next in youngstown, ohio. hello. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i am wondering, why is it we can take out bin laden and saddam hussein with the germans and all this stuff, but this corrupt man that is doing all this shit to these people,

babies, women, people that do not even have nothing to do with war are getting killed? host: paula in maryland, good morning. you are next. caller: hi, i do not think it is just the u.s. the u.n. has to act, as well as nato. we must act and not allow russia just to vote and then they do not have action taken. but they do need to defend troops and help them out. air is an option, because i could cause putin -- i do not think air is an option because i could cause putin to do other things. but they need to act to do more than what they are doing, not just the u.s. but the whole world. host: do you mean nato troops are u.s. troops, what do you mean by troops? caller: nato, u.n., the u.n.

needs to go in like they did in korea and to action also. it is not just a matter of the u.s. they need to go in and help and be companions. host: the un security council meeting today to talk about recent events, and mocks them they will hear from ukraine's president, as well -- and amongst them they will hear from ukraine's president. secretary lloyd austin and press secretary john kirby yesterday relating what was -- relating what was said annexed steps for the defense department. --and steps for the defense department. [video clip] >> expressed outrage at the apparent atrocities committed by russian forces in bucha, across ukraine, and reiterated the u.s. commitment to using average will

available to hold accountable those responsible. they have stayed in close contact and will continue to stay in close contact. on the evidence front, i want to stress that this is an administration effort, not dod specifically, that we, in concert with so many other nations, will do what we can to make sure that clear evidence of these war crimes are documented and preserved for investigators to look at. do not have anything specific to speak to in terms of dod capabilities with respect to the collection. but there is an effort to make sure the war crimes are properly documented. host: secretary austin and joint chiefs chairman mark milley appearing today to talk about the 2023 defense budget request. you can see that on c-span3, c-span.org, and our c-span now app. cal in washington state. caller: good morning.

this is a little bit more from a humanitarian perspective. i would like to see all the allied nations undergo an airlift using, like, c-130's for humanitarian aid, and that would tell putin this is brought on by the evidence of what we have seen after you left some of these areas, and if you attack or, in any way, endure this airlift, the world will have to take it on and finish the job for you. my friend was part of the vietnam era what the c-130's, and he was describing the capacity they have to drop strictly humanitarian aid, clothing, pharmaceuticals, foods in different areas of the country, and if it was a worldwide effort, any countries that have this capability would participate. it is just atrocious what has

happened to these people. for a while, putin got away with taking out his war against the civilian population, but they brought it to a head itself and it is over now. host: one more call. mark in colorado. caller: good morning, sir. i would just like to say i served in iraq from 2003 to 2005. you have to fight. you have to stand up to people like this in the world. you have to. the reason this is going on is because we are just hoping that it is not going to happen again. and we have to stand up and be firm with these kind of people and these countries so this stuff doesn't happen. a life is a life, does not matter if it is american blood or ukrainian blood. a life is a life. we have to do what we have to do to save lives. host: that is marking the colorado finishing up this half-hour of calls. thanks to all of you who participated.

two guests joining us coming up in little bit. representative glenn grothman, republican from wisconsin, ranking republican on the house oversight and reform subcommittee, talking about national security issues, including title 42 an immigration policy. later on, we will learn more about title 42 from muzaffar chishti of the migration policy institute, and he will talk about the biden administration's decision to end pandemic border rules. those guests coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> all this month, watch the top 21 winning videos from our c-span studentcam video documentary competition. every morning before c-span's "washington journal," we will air one of the studentcam winners. you can watch all the winning studentcam documentaries in a tom online at studentcam.org.

at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of the conversations. in fact, they were the ones who make the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want and report of the number of people that assigned

to kennedy the day he died, the number assigned to me now. i promise you i will not go anywhere. i will just a right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings, find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest is representative glenn grothman, republican of wisconsin, a member of the oversight and reform subcommittee, ranking member of the subcommittee on national security and also a member of the budget committee. representative grothman, thanks for joining us. guest: glad to be on the show, as always. host: in recent days, there was the president's decision on may 23 to end title 42. can you briefly explain what it is and what you think about the decision by the administration? guest: it was begun to keep

people out of this country because of the covid epidemic. it kept down the number of people coming into the country, obviously. most months, we are allowing 70,000 up to 100,000 people coming in. if we repeal title 42, that number could shoot up from 80,000 to 500,000, and that is the administration's own number. i do not know what our country is going to do if we get as many as half a million people coming here every month. host: when it comes to the decision by the administration, they looked at the dropping of cases in the united states. do you think that will change things or is it justifiable when it comes to the decision to drop title 42? guest: no, the number with covid goes up and down. we still have more people dying of covid today than we did say last june or july. so no. in all sorts of other areas,

they do not feel this covid thing is over. not to mention, what are we going to do with all these people? a half a million people a month? host: one of the responses out of the department of homeland security came from alejandro mayorkas, saying that once the 42 order was in place, he said dhs would process people and pursuant to title eight proceedings, said the department was capable of doing that. what do think about that? guest: i do not know if they are capable of that or not. obviously, they are having a huge increase in the number of people coming. i do not know how you begin to process them. we are already in her problem right now where people are coming off the border, border patrol, and by the way, over the weekend, another horrible number came out that i was not aware of , traditionally over the last year, in general, in addition to the people being processed, about 30,000 people sneak in,

what they call got aways. border patrol estimated that in march, instead of 30,000, you had about 60,000 got aways coming into the country. we do not have enough people guarding the border. host: kevin mccarthy yesterday said he is planning another trip down to the border to look at these issues. are you going to be part of that trip or any republicans that you know of? guest: i will be down there last week. i do not know if it is the same trip, but i will be down there looking at the situation again. we will look at the california part of the border, as well as arizona. host: when you go down there, what are you looking for, and who do you talk to? guest: we talked to border patrol. you have got to talk to the people doing the work. i always try to get the border patrol up and find out what is really going on. host: our guest is with us until 8:00. if you want to ask questions about this new decision by -- by the biden administration when it

comes to title 42 or other topics, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independents (202) 748-8001, and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you probably heard the three states are suing the biden administration over this decision. that came up at the white house press briefing. i want to play a little bit of what jen psaki had to say. [video clip] >> title 42, some republicans suing the administration over them lifting it. what is the administration's response? >> on the lawsuit itself, the department of justice will be overseeing steps there. it is important note -- to note, for any lawsuits, that title 42 is a public health directive, not an immigration aggression

enforcement measure. and a decision on when to lift title 42 was made by the cdc. and our objective from here, and this is why we have the implementation period over the next several weeks, continues to be to ensure we are increasing our resources, serving personnel and resources to the border, and covid-19 mitigation measures, and working with other countries in the western hemisphere to manage migration and address root causes. this is a health-care measure, health measure determination, and not one on immigration policy. host: representative grothman, that is the white house justification of the action. what do you think? guest: like i said, we have more people dying of covid today than we did last june or july. so an easy way to say that is the reason we -- so does not make sense to say that is the reason we're getting rid of it

now. it is a way for them to dramatically increase the amount of illegal immigration and have the press not pay attention, because they are paying attention to ukraine. if they tried to do something like this a year ago when covid was not as big a deal, they would not have gotten away with it because the newspapers and news outlets would have been inundated with this stuff. but with ukraine, they think we can increase the number of people coming through here, factor of four, factor of three, something like that, and then nobody will notice. host: related to ukraine, the president's budget request, a top figure of $5.8 trillion. as a budget person, what do you think of the request? guest: overall on the budget, it is too great. the big thing is nondefense spending, which is up like 12%, which is obviously out of line, given that you look at inflation

caused by excessive spending, and when your code -- going nondefense discretionary over 12%, it is pouring gasoline on the fire. not to mention some of the things they are spending money on. the biden wants to -- the biden administration wants to hire more people for border patrol. the city of milwaukee, where i am from, you see a huge increase in murders, and then there is a huge increase of people coming across the border, in the biden administration says let's hire more people to make sure border patrol is not doing anything wrong. host: some critics of the national security figure. what do you think about the amount of spending when it comes to national security issues? guest: it is a very small increase compared to other parts of the budget. national security, i do not care if you're talking about the border or national defense, obviously we have a bigger

crisis at the border than any time in my lifetime, as far as national defense, i think it is tragic, our relations with both russia and china have never been worse. host: do you think that number will go up, and you think the budget for the defense department will go up because of those concerns, larger concerns of national security because of what we're seeing in russia and ukraine? guest: it will go up because, obviously, some american weapons have been sent to europe. so i would expect that as time goes on, works its way through the process, that number will go up. there are areas of national defense were money is spent that is not necessary. but overall, because what is going on in ukraine, we're going to have to buy more things like javelins, stingers, that sort of thing. host: what do you think about the money we're spending on

ukraine? i mentioned the defense budget. the president talking about it last week. what do you think about the overall spending on ukraine as far as the united states is concerned? guest: i think right now we're giving a lot of money to ukraine . as far as the initial amount of money that went to ukraine in last year's budget or going on to this bill, i thought it was adequate. host: let's hear from bill, athens, texas, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am from athens, texas. i am just wondering how you feel about the eastern european countries response to their refugees coming in, looked like they welcomed them in with open arms. guest: well, they did, but unlike the refugees we have coming in across our southern border, they anticipate the

refugees from poland -- coming to poland will wreak to -- will return to ukraine as soon as this war is over. unlike what is going on in our southern border, where almost everybody who comes here once to make it a permanent lifetime move. host: again, if you want to talk to our guest, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independents (202) --(202) 748-8002. a $10 billion figure for tests for covid spending in the works. what do you think about that effort, more spending for covid, the request from the white house. guest: it is interesting that they want to spend more on covid than already, and at the same time they say this is over and we can open up the border. that is my comment, it shows the hypocrisy of the biden administration, and it shows

even they themselves believe the covid pandemic is not over. if it is still big enough to have these new appropriations, why in the world are we opening the border too many people, many which probably have covid? host: if the money is reclaimed from other parts, do you think that is a good strategy? guest: absolutely, there is a lot of money put out there that has not been spent. absolutely, use the unspent money before appropriating brand-new money. host: back to the budget request for a second, a new proposal on a tax gain to wealthy individuals. what do you think about this proposal and what it will do as far as raising revenue? guest: in some ways, there are certainly people in our country who should be paying more taxes than they are. i think rather than having a whole new tax, which almost results and kind of a property tax, i think it would be better to look at tax exemptions right

now which allow corporations and wealthy individuals with these taxes. i think the interest deduction for hedge fund managers is an example of something that has been sitting there forever. i do not know why they don't go after it. i will say as far as the tax increases in this proposal, if you really wanted to get a tax increase, you do it through a process called reconciliation, which democrats used when they tried to get build back better through. they are not doing the tax increases there. this budget will have to go to the senate and get at least 10 republicans to vote for it, which means to me the tax increases here are not a serious proposal. if you want to see what the democrats really want to do, and some of it is good stuff, look at the build back better bill. host: you have a background as a tax preparer and estate planner,

so as far as this new tax proposal, can the wealthy get around that particularly? guest: i think they have to do more to close gaps. tax lawyers are very ingenious people. i haven't seen the individual language. i think there are a lot of ways that people are getting around the tax code. at the time congress passed those wills, they did not see it. but a lot of tax lawyers in new york, they find loopholes. host: let's hear from a viewer in the california, john on our republican line, for representative glenn grothman. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the representative a question. he has mentioned several times that he thought joe biden has made mistakes or wrong moves and why he does not understand the moves. what i would like to known from the congressman is, do you think

joe biden is being blackmailed because of hunter biden? that hunter biden's overseas dealings have caused china and russia into blackmailing joe biden into making bad decisions? guest: the president's decisions are so horrible, you wonder if he is doing this to survive. the completely out-of-control spending which puts the status of the dollar as the world reserve currency at risk, wild accusations of racism against this country in general and against police, in particular, clearly either he is being talked into something by the staffers around him or he himself wants to go at america. has to be one of those things. and also the will for system discouraging people from going to work, discouraging

traditional families, all these things are destroying america. obviously, hunter biden, given what they found on the laptop, perhaps joe biden himself, were benefiting from their situation, their relationships with foreign countries. why do foreign countries do this? because they think they can buy influence or blackmail people. i think it is something we seriously have to look at it i wish people in the democratic already would look at what happened with hunter biden and those issues. the american public should know if the president himself and certainly the son's, where they have done. host: next up is tony on the democrats line. caller: i am a longtime democrat, voted for obama, did not vote for trump, voted for biden. i have been watching the southern crisis for a while.

i guess now with the crisis, look, let's call it a crisis, but my thing is a couple years ago, i saw congressman aoc go down there and look at the dead bodies and babies floating in the river. where is my democrat people going down, and why aren't they going down there? where is kamala and where is joe? they spent time around the world, but down on the southern border, people are dying. they show them in the river. where are these people? it just -- is it just because they think trump did this? and what about the investigation about supposedly people getting whipped by the horsemen? i have a friend who said that was a lot of baloney. thank you. guest: that was not true. that is the type of thing that

you get on poorly run networks that are just concerned about making the border patrol look bad. it was very disappointing in the budget proposal of the build back better bill that president biden seems focused on making sure the border patrol does not get out of line, but not all of the illegal immigrants are you are right, in addition to the sea of people flowing into this country, people die, and you can prevent that with more border patrol. people die crossing the rio grande, others die in arizona. as long as you have an open border, people think they can get here. there will be people drowning in the rio grande and dehydrating in the desert. host: because of your background on national security issues, if you are asks, brat in indianapolis, asks about the department of defense and what you think of an annual audit of the dod. guest: very good idea.

when i was a child, i read a book talking about how some of the money going for defense was not taken did fence department wide, and there were departments in a district or maybe campaign contributions, that type of thing. i think they are spending a lot of money on things like aircraft carriers, for example, very expensive, but in a real war would not last long. i think having a separate audit, particularly on building munitions, but across the board, would be a very good thing, and an impartial person look to see where we can spend a little less. not just a matter of spending less, we're spending and appropriately. we have more for cyber attacks and that sort of thing now than building weapons that may have been more appropriate in world war ii. host: about nine more minutes

with our guests. ken in tampa, florida, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i would just like to understand from the congressman where everyone is talking about the southern border, and by congress being as equally divided as it has ever been, since there -- they are so upset about what is going on at the border, why isn't him and the republicans doing something to go and clean up the border instead of sitting and complaining and talking about what joe biden is doing or not doing, why can't they just go? also, when he talked about how racism is all overcome other countries, america is a racist country, meaning they quit displaying racism amongst their own people, than other people will view america as a better country. host: ok.

guest: i guess he brought up two things. as far as this racism charge against america, you are having people coming here from all over the world but we do not want having people come here illegally. i have been down there at the border and have seen young people sworn in. you get a lot of people from india, pakistan, from southeast and northeast asia, from latin america, from africa, all coming here and all succeeding, i might add. in my area, we have a lot of hmong folks who helped us fight in the vietnam war. they are doing a tremendous job, despite coming in not even knowing the language. i think rather than scream racism, racism, people should look at themselves, because people are coming from all over the world and succeeding. as far as what we can do other than complain, congress can appropriate funds, but as far as

how the border itself is being run, that is up to the executive branch. not to say the president has too much power, but i have about 14 staff here who answer questions and deal with what is going on in the sixth congressional district, but the purpose of my staff is not to go down to the border and tackled the people coming across. that is not what congress is for. hopefully we will get a majority in november and at that time we will be able to hire more border patrol agent spirit hopefully we can cut a deal with the biden administration. but half a million people come here -- coming here every month, we will be so far behind by the time the november election rolls around. even then, we have to cut a deal with the biden administration. unlimited people coming here is not viewed as a problem, it

seems. last time i was down there, there was a path that was littered with people coming here from around the world, chile, colombia, brazil, river, their photo id's. why do they throw them away? it is because they want to start a new life and they do not want border patrol to know their real names. to me, that gives you an idea of the problems we will have a some of these people once they get into america. host: we hear about workers and agricultural sectors, with that impact the dairy sector of wisconsin, as far as labor is concerned? guest: we have ways to get people here temporarily, more for california. dairy is a little different, we have to do something specific for dairy because it is year-round. a lot of people that come here on visas, they come here

temporarily, particularly in california, the fruits, vegetables, that sort of thing. dairy, our system is not really built to help dairy the way we help other farming. host: would you say non-documented labor is not an issue with the dairy industry? guest: well, you're getting people here who are not vetted. we should know the names of everyone coming here, know where they are, have them be fully vetted. the problem with the biden administration is not only letting so many people here, but we used to deploy four or five times as many people under trump, people who have committed crimes in the country, and a few are deported but not near as many as under donald trump -- we use to deport people. host: what is the transparency act? guest: we will try to accelerate those who buy and sell stocks

and let the public know. the allegations, which i share, a lot of congressmen are buying and selling stocks, more than appropriate. it raises suspicions. we're going to lower the seven days, the number of days at a congressman has when buying these stocks or selling stocks before it is made available to the public. we would like to see -- like to think by doing that, the congressman would pay more attention. i obviously have a 401(k), like so many people. i largely put my money and big mutual funds, the standards funds, which they will tell you is a better thing to put your money in, quite frankly. and he will not step into criticisms that you are doing something in such and such a way or you are buying such a start because of information learned in congress. host: patty in atlantic city, new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning and thank

you for taking my call. i am an independent voter, and have a, 10 question. my comment is -- i have a comment and a question. my comment is about when i, congressman and do not get a return phone call, so what i want to say is i feel that the republican congress, to me, and i am an independent voter, vote both democrat and republican, but i feel republican congress this day is a disgrace. the only goal you seem to have is to bash the biden administration, and it is very insulting. we just want you guys to get things done there, not the constantly fighting. and you have to work from the middle to get something done, and that is my comment. my question is, you mentioned hunter biden. first of all, i thought that adult children of presidents

were off-base, but i guess not for the republicans. but what about ivanka and jared trump who made millions and millions of dollars on their business and copyrights while they were working in the white house? don't you think that is a conflict of interest? host: thank you. guest: a variety of issues there. when people say we should just get along, i want you to look at the position of the biden administration and see whether there something happening there, when the biden administration openly talks about having hundreds of thousands of people coming into this country every month not vetted, i think that is an extreme position. we would be happy to work on some sort of immigration bill, but when your position is we're going to let parts of the new wall just rest or be stolen in the arizona desert, and on the

other hand, we are letting others people come here, that is not a moderate position. when you're are talking about new builds with trillions of dollars, like build back better, that is not something you negotiate off on the behalf of the biden administration. another 12% a year. that again does not lend itself to a moderate position. ok. we have a welfare system in this country that continues to attract more people. biden administration is to cut back instead of putting more money at it. again, there are ways to compromise. host: if we could represent one more call. this is alan, wisconsin.

democrats line for you. go ahead. caller: thank you, congressman. i just had a question. there are reports that give immigrants a spending card or give them room in ward national room and board, what exactly do we give immigrants and where does that money come from that the planes that are flying them and the buses that are contracted? thank you. guest: catholic services are a big one. it is obviously a problem. we talked about the build back better. joe biden a trying to give free college to illegal immigrants, i think that is out of control. we heard during the campaign's goal of giving free health care to illegal immigrants when

americans have big deductibles and are weighing if they should go to the doctor or should i not. immigrants do not have to go through that. the only reason i can think why joe biden does this and sign off on all of the spending. i mean, if you're sitting in venezuela where the medical system is where it is a down there and he wanted to talk about medical care, isn't that an inducement to come here? i think it is. if you and i are going to end -- getting on a airplane we have to show a full id. so, it is frustrating to the degree in which they are desperate for more illegal immigrants here. illegal immigrants -- the biden administration wants to give

them things that are not available to the average american. host: thanks for your time. guest: glad to be on the show. host: we will talk more with title 42. we will talk with muzaffar chishti:. he will talk to give his perspective on title 42. for the next half hour, open forum. if you want to call, call (202) 748-8001 four republicans. it (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independence. >> while the weekly uses audio

from our archive to look at how issues of the day develops over years. and our occasional series talking with features extensive conversations about historians and their lives. many of our television programs are also available with. you can find them now on the c-span now mobile app or whatever you get your podcast. >> now available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span 2022 congressional directory, go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory. this spiral contact for every member of congress, including committee assignments. preorder your copy today at c-spanshop.org or scan the cold with your --cod with your sp

mart phone. >> c-span is america's network appeared unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. it happens here, here, or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal continues. host: the hill reported that the pentagon will send a second batch of arms to ukraine as the country enters its second month under russian invasion. u.s. will send equipment to aid in requests, including drones.

we're going to support ukraine's ability to defend itself. were going to do as much as we can and as fast as we can. that was john kirby talking about the decision at the pentagon press briefing on monday. you can find more online. you can go to our website at c-span.org or on our c-span. now app. also, a piece about vladimir putin being convicted by war crime. it says it could be a difficult task. is this one of the main challenges is determining who is responsible. according to him, he is a visiting professor there, a prosecutor office in the hague, adding that high-profile leaders --. the main challenge for investigators is determining who

is responsible and how high the command of responsibility goes. previously called remarks unacceptable. let us issues when it comes to ukraine. -- those are issues when it comes to ukraine. let's stop -- start with bob in pennsylvania. guest: i just wanted to comment on the congress part on there. caller: specifically asked about the money that trumps the kids made, he never touched that question. it is just a comment i would like to make. thank you. host: on a republican line we will hear from james in south carolina. go ahead, you are next. caller: yes.

i will like to say i guess the biden story came out to be true after all. now all we know that most of everything was accurate. of course, as far as the rest of the ghost coming to see what happens to the country. -- as far as the rest of that goes, you can see what happens to the country. as far as nato nations, you have to have secure borders and we do not. what does that tell you? host: when it comes to supplemental funding and covert response, white house making a response for more money. on monday senate negotiators provided 10 billion in supplemental funding to the department of health and human services. the package which is unlike an earlier agreement is fully

offset by repurchasing 10 billion in unspent funds to prior pandemic relief. the parties reached last week on $10 billion in overall spending. you can see more of that in roll call this morning. we will hear from karen in connecticut, independent line. caller: i really love the independent woman had mentioned that they had to put down the other democrats in some way. you know, why can't they go on their own policies? because they lack policies for people, that is why. they are not for healthiness. i mean, how many americans would like to do away with our socialist or when you get your benefits when you're late office -- off. do you really want that when we

do not get them? you are putting control into corporate, it is ridiculous. our health-care system, it has devastated my family. you know, the cost of everything. we worked hard all of our lives. it is crazy. if we had health care for all, we could choose our doctor again . we used to be able to do that. you know, it just upsets me we are going towards fascism. republicans have so much power. they have 23 trifecta's why don't people just go about how there are going to do things to help us. host: when it comes to medical health care, president obama expected to visit the white house today with the president biden to sign legislation to fix portions of a favorable -- affordable. the immediate reason for today is set for president obama to

witness president biden assigning that executive order that will strengthen the affordable care act. obama's domestic achievement. it will also take place as the backdrop of a low poll numbers for president biden. republic reintroduction of the leader may not be a coincidence, it could signal a higher profile for president obama coming as president biden and democrats need to focus on their efforts to help ordinary americans. look out for that today and stay close to our website on c-span now. let's -- i think we took charleston west virginia. democrats line. caller: my name is rodrick robinson. i am a activist. america is a racist country.

all you have to do is google my name, google interview with rodrick p robinson x, turns prison rights activist. then you will see a hand written note from af ei agent -- a hand written note from a fbi agent. i followed his directives. that was around 2004. they have never done anything about the murders of mayhem of american inmates. they are pulling the teeth that they serve in the jails and prisons. they are robbing them. host: that is roger in order. george in trenton, michigan. democrats. caller: i just had a comment about the ukraine thing. it is hilarious that what

president -- when president trump was in office he did not come down hard on russia at all. now look what russia is doing, committing atrocities. no republicans are mentioning that today. what option do we have -- russia has nuclear capabilities so what can we really do to turn off the violence in ukraine question mark it is a sad thing for the entire world. thank you. host: this is from a viewer in missouri. arnold, missouri. democrats line. caller: good morning. i will like to ask about judge holly. does he need a vote this coming election? i would like to be able to vote for that guy.

because i do not think he would get my vote, just like the lady said before. the republican party in the united states is a sham. they are acting like a gained ng. the crips and the bloods. they just do anything they want to and they just complain. host: we have open forum for about 10 minutes. (202) 748-8001, for republicans. independent (202) 748-8002. republican of south carolina. [video clip] >> the only reason that is true

because my democratic colleagues but in 2005, filibustered for two years, 2003. janice rogers brown, a supreme court justice from the state of california was picked by president. in for two years there was a wholesale filibuster of her. they got to be possible for her to be on the supreme court, any possibility biden said she would be filibustered. senator durbin, senator schumer all filibustered her and told his body that if you pick her, she is likely to be filibustered. that is why judge jackson is the first african-american nominee to come aboard those bodies to be on the supreme court. because she made it that way.

because when you had a chance to support an african-american conservative, you used her ideology blocked her from being considered by this committee. we are supposed to be like trained seals over here flopping when you uphold a liberal. that is not going to work. we live in america where your ideology is held against you if you're a conservative. when you are a liberal, we're supposed to embrace everything about you and not ask hard questions. that is not the world we're going to live in. i will say this, i forget back the senate and we are in charge of this body, there judicial voting's -- if we are in charge she would have not been for this committee. you would've had somebody more moderate than this. host: you can see that on our website at c-span.org or also on our app. this is joe in new jersey. republican line. caller: how are you doing?

i am just wanting to call in and say they had all of these liberals coming over the border and they are not required to get a vaccine. they want to continue to attack on americans and have them continue to wear masks for their children in the hospitals, or when you go to the doctor's appointment. i just think that it is over everything. everything that is involved in politics. they are just treating republicans and independents differently than democrats. we see that everyday when we see a gentleman out there with no mask on,. and when we see them with no mask on.

it is all a big game. host: we will go to jose in oklahoma. democrats mine. caller: good morning. i just wanted to call --. host: let's go to paula. paula, republican line. caller: i just wanted to call and wonder why we have 6000 people wanting to drill and they can't because they have not signed the order to let them drove. we have people -- we also have -- we used to have pipelines and stuff so we could get the oil to the factories. they were coming to where they

clear the oil. why are we tying this all up? why aren't we helping them do it? why aren't we shipping the money to them instead of to a foreign country our -- or places where they do not like this at all. host: the united nations people look at nash looking at issues of climate change put out a new report as worthy world is in reaching a certain goal. the country is not on track to limit global warming. that is according to the latest report by the human intergovernmental government on climate change released yesterday. the report also warns considerable fossil infrastructure will need to be abandoned to sufficiently --.

that is assessment from the human secretary-general. there is more on the abc report. if you want to hear the news on the climate change. this is cindy on the independent mind. new mexico. caller: good morning. i was calling because i was having trouble to identify a way to get an extension. maybe you could help to enlighten me as far as the powers that be and what the limitations are as are as what people who are working with the government. what happened to me, i am a professional and i was all a meeting. if there was political motivation to bring up my child sexual abuse in a very public way. it was public for me because it was in front of a group of my peers at school, allegedly the

fbi was on the phone, allegedly donald trump was on the. they said there were pictures with me with epstein and they brought up child sexual abuse. host: let's go to patricia in illinois. democrats line. go ahead. caller: this is patricia from chicago. i am thinking that for some time now that our fiscal policy needs to be reconstructed. we have like 23 million. that equals like $1.3 trillion. if we reconstruct our fiscal policy and establish a gambling usa gambling establishment per se, proceed bring money back to

our nation so our debt would not be so high and we will be able to manage our budget. i will like that to be taken in consideration, that we reconstruct our fiscal policy. it should also include proceeds. host: are you saying like setting up a federal establishments for gambling? caller: yes. the proceeds. we need the proceeds to go to the debt we are in. we are in chileans. family establishments proceeds are in the trillions. it only makes sense to me if we are going to get out of debt. host: you like to gamble yourself if i may ask. caller: my father is a gambler. i do use my leisure time to gamble, it was a past time of my

father's and i enjoyed it too. when i look at debt.org, a reference, there are 23 million people, that is about 10% of our whole nation that loves to gamble. that is a lot of people. it can do a lot for the gambling establishment. if we were to make a profit off of gambling, then we would close our national debt and the debts would be easier to manage. host: did you put this up with their legislators or any people in the chicago area? caller: not at this point in time. when i read that national debt.org policy, i considered it . it just will not change enough. host: ok.

gotcha. that is patricia in illinois. this is a gene in illinois. republican line. caller: two quick points. i hope that the members of the united nations and human rights council will kick rush off and send them packing. number two, what many do not know that there are american human remains from more time still in vietnam, laos, cambodia. they are still need to be tended to. god bless our troops and we need to stay saf. e. host: a variety of figures, including the ukrainian president to speak on issues in the last few days occurring in ukraine. look for that on c-span.org. also, our app. about six more minutes, five more minutes of this open forum. beverly, cleveland, ohio.

caller: i would like to talk about the nash. you know, everybody say we are a racist country -- and we search start like that. you know, get out and vote for different parties and stuff like that. they do never keep their -- they do not ever keep their promises on what they are supposed to do. a lot of things are going on in this world. and all across america. i think they should keep their promises on what they are going to do. i do not think a lot of people are going to get out and vote in the next election because they did not keep their promises.

that is all have to say. host: you plan to vote in the next election? caller: i do. host: it impacts you? caller: yes. a lot of young people in my families and friends they do not want to vote because all of the promises they are saying they are not keeping. we have to vote. that is all i got to say. host: beverly in ohio. one of the only people speaking about the president nominees at the senate judiciary committee. that was senator cory booker, democrat of new jersey. here is his remarks before the committee. [video clip] how could they treat these exaggerations, how could they disrespect a person like her who

has done everything right in her life and, her journey. >> how? how qualified he have to be. double harvard. qualified he have to be working at all levels of the judiciary. how qualified you have to be, three times confirmed by the senate in a bipartisan matter. today, is the birthday of a great poet named mile angelo. i'm just going to and with those words. why does this poem struck a chord with so many americans, so they fill it to their bones. this is a form to the next supreme justice of the united states of america. happy birthday, maia. you may try to write me down in history with your bitter twisted lies. you may drag me down in the very dirt, but still like dust i

rise. rise sister jackson, arise judge jackson all the way to the highest court in the land. one we have the final vote, i will rejoice. ancestors will rejoice. we will say, lord this is a day that you have made. thank you. host: philip is in tennessee. independent line. caller: amen for what i just heard on tv or cory booker. my problem is, why is the january 6 committee dragging their feet on turning trump in jail. he has shown 100 million people

how stupid psp or how he abuse the united states constitution. then he gets on tv and tell putin he is a genus. i am not knocking c-span, but we have this other network owned by the murdochs, dated the same thing that tom does. host: let us philip in texas. you may see a story that was posted on polito april 4. it is a question that they have with no practical effect. some panel members of the committee are increasingly skeptical, after all as multiple members --.

the evidence got under last week when a federal judge ruled that the formal president more than likely committed felonies to try to overturn the election. he could send a criminal referral outlining his recommendations appeared it will have no substantial value lawmakers noted. if you want to read it for yourself. let's hear from pat, baltimore, maryland. you are on. caller: my comment is for the democrats, republicans, independents and the news media. please just tell the truth. host: ok. that is the last call for this open form. next to all of you who has participated. joining us for the remainder of the show, we are want to learn more about title 42, which we talked about with the last guest. joining us next, muzaffar chishti.

we will talk about title 42 in the biden administration to end it. we are focusing on the push to establish a supreme court code of ethics, the week of the thomas story. that discussion with the game roth. both are coming up. ♪ >> watch the videos from our c-span documentary competition. one of our studentcam winners and how the federal government impacted their lives. >> here many of those conversations on c-span new

podcast. see the one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act. the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson secretary snow because they were passed -- taxed with transcribing many of the conversations. there were the ones who make sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want to report the number of people who signed on the day he died. i promise you i will not go anywhere. >> presidential recordings

appeared finding on the c-span now, mobile app or wherever you . "washington journal" continues. host: the migration policy institute. here to talk about the decision by the biden administration on title 42, muzaffar chishti. thank you for giving your time today. host: what isn't and who financially backslid? ? guest: it focuses on immigration. we also have people who look at european migration. we follow migrations or latin america.

it is exclusively dedicated to immigration. we are almost exclusively funded by a foundation of --. host: when it comes to policy, you talked about title 42 be rescinded by the biden administration. at least he decision to do that in the next couple of weeks. what do you think about that decision? guest: it is a decision which was coming for a long time. it was becoming forgot to justify -- it was becoming difficult to justify with title 42, which essentially brought anyone from entering the government. government have the ability to expunge people. --. the policy was put in place since may of 2020.

the arguments for it are now becoming increasingly defensible because of the way the country has changed. we also changed the rules of engagement with people who are traveling all parts of the country, like from the airports and border crossings. we have now decided anyone who is vaccinated can enter the u.s.. even vaccinated people are not allowed at the border. host: what is one of the problems that you could not apply title 42 formally to people at the border or reference they are coming from? -- or wherever they are coming from? guest: yes. it applies to those areas of the border. host: now that it was in place and rescinded, how many

explosions took place under the policy? guest: 1.7 million people got expelled. or 1.7 x functions took place. expunctions took place. 1.2 million of those happen in the biden administration. one point five happened during the trump administration. host: where these families, ? how would you break down those who were? guest: that is a good question. neither the trump are the biden administration expelled children. it expelled some families but not all. frequently, it applies to single

adults, whether they are from mexico or central america, a system other countries. it also applies to families. host: when it comes to those who were expelled, where these mainly people from mexico? were they outside of saccone? what would be the breakdown -- where they outside of new mexico? guest: it was mexicans and central americans. and other countries like guatemala, hunter is. and we talk about countries and a. it can apply to haiti and ecuador.

it frequently dependent on citizens would expect back when they were expelled. unless we have the ability to expel those people to countries of their origin by train, ride was harder to send them to mexico, unless you were mexican or central american. host: our guest until 9:00 to talk about title 42. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8001, for republicans. (202) 748-8002, for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you probably heard now that title 42 being removed, what happens as far as searching at the order where people are coming there. are these legitimate concerns? guest: of course they are concerned. we have had significant migrants

coming to the border for the last many years. even during the pandemic obviously people kept on coming. there's going to be an increased flow at the border. this policy is not going to go into effect. that means it is not going to be formally defendant on till the end of may. they are giving us two months to put it into place into the system, which will respond to some aspect of loss. aws. also, putting -- which will take off some of the pressure that is expected. when the policy is fully lifted. host: this came from a senator from arizona. he wrote this in a press release. saying this is the wrong position. it is not assessable to end title 42 without a plan.

my numerous visits to the southern border and conversations with law enforcement, it is clear that this administration's lack of a plan to deal with this crisis will further strain our border of communities. this is a democratic senator from arizona. where do you think -- what do you think about those concerns he is laying out? guest: i think it is valid. i do not think it is fair to say that the administration does not have a plan. actually it is with respect to the engagement of other countries. we can go more into that. it is putting in place a more systematic response in terms of a more coordinated multi-agency response. including, fema with planning on how to receive people if there is a big surge. then there is working with

mexico and other parties in the region, like costa rica and canada. so, there certainly a much more systematic plan in place then the administration gives credit for. but how effective that is going to be? we do not know. i do not want to say there is no plan. host: the homeland security executive said once it is lifted, title eight still will continue. if that is the case, what is the course of action under that of those who are wanting entry into the country? guest: title is the traditional immigration framework under which nash. --. they can be just a room in a

very short time if they have no basis to enter the united states. in that regard, it will take longer, 90 minutes. but they can still make a u-turn for people to return to mexico. the difference is people expect fear of prosecution upon return to their country. they have to be under title eight. we call that credible fear determination. that then goes -- if they passed the test, they are scheduled for a hearing for the immigration judge. that is what is going to happen under title eight. host: we have a guest with us. if you want to ask questions, do so up until 9:00.

we will start with brian, brian in michigan. independent line. you are on with our guest. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: thanks. you can hear me, pedro? we never know at this end. here are go. united states is a sovereign nation and we help the world. we are also a nation on loss. here's the deal, we do not want anyone coming here that is breaking our laws. they need to go back to their own home and fix their country. this is about respect. i respect all countries including new mexico and brazil did all of them. they all have the capacity to fix their own country. when i hear u.n. initiative, this, that and the other, the united states worried about any poor square-mile. we as a american, i wish to remain near those numbers.

i do not need mexico numbers, 140 per square mile. why can't we just stay with sovereign nations? if you're going to come here, you're going to have to come here illegally. we keep dealing with the same things from the 70's. the united states is a sovereign nation. host: you made your point. we will let our guest respond. guest: part of the sovereignty is to defend and protect our law. you're absolutely right. we are a nation of law. we operate under the law. it is also part of our law that anyone has expect the fear of persecution in their country of origin, they have to be given a hearing that they cannot be removed to that country to later face persecution.

it is part of our domestic law, it is also part of the international law. this screening that happens at the border is basically consistent with our obligation under both the domestic law and international law. people who do not meet the criteria of this law are removed. that is how the system is supposed to work. the point where our color made that people should come legally, most people would want to come legally. people do not choose to come in illegally. immigration laws have not been changed for a good 25 years. because of that, the legal channels for people to enter the united states have become narrower and narrower. we may need more workers in certain sections of our label market. they legal parts face is so narrow that -- space is so

narrow that they do not meet the demands of the label market. people choose to come legally -- illegally. that needs to be fixed. unfortunately, only congress can fix that. president trump cannot fix that and president biden cannot fix it either. it is strictly to congress. host: we will hear from stephanie in tennessee. independent line. caller: hello. how are you this morning? can y'all hear me? i have one question supporting this 42 immigration policy. i am not big on politics. i am just studying. now if they come in, like the border is wide open now, why

aren't we getting rid of the wants to hear, instead of letting more in? that is my question. host: ok. thank you. guest: again, the people who are here illegally, 11 million people in the country who have stayed here either who entered the country illegally are entered illegally and stayed on beyond their authorization. this is what we call it unauthorized. to say that we can deport 11 million people is much easier said than done. we certainly do not have the moral will because it is x skating people from their homes who have had long residences, kids and working in parts of the economy where we meet the labor. it is not easy to stay let's

just pick up 11 million people and remove them from the country. we do have the moral will, political will and we certainly do not have the resources to deport 11 million people. what we do is we have a certain amount of prosecutor discretion. the people who have committed crimes are picked up. in many cases, they are put in proceedings. at the end of that, if they do not they are removed. we are not actually shielding people from removal. we just cannot remove all of them at the same time. these people that are coming to the border today, we also do not let them stay unless they are under an existing law are that they are facing persecution in

their countries. we have an obligation to give them a hearing because we are a country of laws appeared host: we heard that about those hearings. has anything been done substantially to reduce the backlog? guest: yes. the administration is doing a couple of things. very close to 1.7 people in the backlog. this again is a part of our system. that does not make any sense. we now have these clogged arteries of all parts of our immigration system. 1.7 million people. that does not make sense. we obviously have to do better. it is establishing periodically even among those 1.7 million people. see which cases really deserve to be heard quickly and which

really do not deserve to be heard as quickly. put them in the back of the line. put the cases that really deserve to be heard more quickly. second, i think the whole system of asylum and the border is going to change. this is a new asylum role. the interim role went into effect in death march. it will be effective two months from then. it will take away asylum cases from immigration judges, which is clocking clock in the 1.7 million cases. we think that is a huge improvement because it is much less labor intensive. so, it is a combination of these two things.

we need to begin to address some of these issues. host: let's hear from cheryl. caller: good morning. i want to say i disagree that we cannot afford to send them back. if we can afford to in our nation. we can afford to send them back. secondly, i think that the reason that there are -- they are allowing all of these illegals in the fact that they want to change our constitution and make it allow the illegals to vote. the fact that the democrats are letting them in, they are hoping that they will not all vote democrat. host: thank you. i appreciate it. guest: there are a number of questions. they are all valid. first of all, democrats or

republicans are letting them in. this is a bipartisan issue. the trump administration as probably all of us know was one of the administrations strongest on immigration. you can say that president trump actually campaigned on the issue of immigration. then he kept his promise about having immigration as the hallmark of his presidency. but the fact is, we have the highest number of apprehension at the border during the trump administration in the fiscal year 19 and 20. we have had surges of immigration in all administration. we had a big surge in 2014. we had a big surge in 2019 we are about to have a big surge now. this is not a republican versus democratic administration issue. the border is a very complicated

phenomenal. there is too many forces that lead people to come. so, both democrats and republicans have struggled with it. on the issue of do we have resources to pick up 11 million people? not really. it is not, you just can't physically pick up 11 million people and deport them. we have to go through a process. we have to apprehend them. we have to know where they are. we have to put them in a proceeding. those things are time-consuming. you know, they are expensive. not to mention, these are some of the people who are important members contributing to our communities, both as family members and as workforce. that has a cost. just imagine the kind of

essential workers, people who are harvesting our food, people who are making our food, people who are delivering our food. people who are taking care of us in the hospitals. people who are doing eldercare these days. in large number of these immigrant workers. our society as we know it as a understand today will have a huge impact if we expelled all 11 million people. then we make a decision about expelling people. another point your color made is about the constitution. there's absolutely no pretense to any believe that the democrats want to make the constitution to allow illegals to vote. that is not possible. that is not possible under our laws. it is not possible under our

constitution. one has heard no whimper of that democrats are interested in wanting illegals to continue. i think some people are emotional about these things. but the rational analysis suggest that that is not what is happening in terms of motivation of people entering, and in terms of the motivation of lawmakers and the administration. host: this is victor in massachusetts. it democrats mine. caller: good morning. my question is, i am part american because the united states as so. my question, what is the definition of a immigrant? my understanding is a person who

comes out of the country. right? meaning that whites, blacks, hispanics, everybody was not from the united states. i do not understand why we have to treat people different based on their color, not where they came from or where they say they are from? can you answer my definition of immigrant to me. question mark we are ruled by colonizers if we look at it. can you give me the definition please? host: that is victor in massachusetts. guest: that is a real good question lawmakers spent a lot of time debating. strangely use the word alien. we refer to people who enter the country illegally as aliens. your caller is absolutely right.

the british empire treated everybody who was not on a british soil who was not subject to the british empire as aliens because they thought they do not own allegiance to the country. that is obviously -- feared the word alien should be removed from our law. i think president biden has indicated that is one of his goals. right now, an immigrant is anyone talking, publicly speaking, and immigrant is someone who is not born in the united states. so, a foreign-born person is an immigrant. that person ceases to be immigrant under our law that they naturalize to become u.s. citizens. so, unless you are naturalized and you are foreign-born, your

considered a immigrant in the united states. host: let's take one more call. caller: my question is in regards to you, he has repeatedly said 11 million illegals in the country. i have been hearing 11 million illegals in the country for 20 years. my question is, you obviously believe there is only 11 million people because there has got to be like 111 million. they do not fill out the census form so we do not know. so, how can you say there is 11 million? can you answer me that? guest: i am not a demographer but i speak to demographer as a law. how can you tell us there are 11 million? there are actually very

sophisticated analysis to, with an estimate of the unauthorized population. it is actually the number of unauthorized in the country now for a couple of years. people do -- have stopped coming at the number they have come before. the number can remain static. countries. then they subtract from that the number of people who have made legal entry into the united states from natural citizens, to people here on nonimmigrant visas like torah students. the remainder is what they estimate to be unauthorized

population. it is a formula, a methodology that has been tested by many demographers and i think the numbers between many demographers are slim. it may be quarter million to half-million on estimates. i have seen no estimates to 200 million. that would be highly noticeable and i think people should not be concerned about that. all rational demographers put it somewhere between 11 to 12 million people. host: the website is migration policy.org -- migrationpolicy.org. we have the senior fellow with the institute and we thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me and listening to callers. host: we are taking a look at the issue between clarence thomas and ginni thomas of the emails of ginni thomas and a larger call for a code of

conduct at the supreme court. joining us for that discussion is the courts executive director . we will take the calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ ♪ >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital. every week, book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works while the weekly uses audio from our immense archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years. and our occasional series talking with features extensive conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> now available for preorder in

the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory. go there today to order a copy of the directory. this compact book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios and committee assignments. also contact information for state governors and the bided administration cabinet. preorder your copy today at c-spanshop.org or scan your code with your smart phone. every c-span shop purchase alps support -- helps support c-span's nonprofit organization. >> 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's watching on c-span. powered by cable.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is gabe roth serving as executive director. thank you for giving us your time. guest: thanks for having me on. host: tell the audience a little bit about your organization, what your mission is as you would describe it and how you are financially backed if you would. guest: so it is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that advocates for greater accountability and transparency. -- transparency in all federal courts, primarily the supreme court. we are funded by average americans who have given us funds and think we are doing a good job. host: do you take a certain point of view when it comes to issues with the supreme court? as it -- is it a partisan take? guest: we have always been nonpartisan. going on 7.5 years we have been around. we do not believe ethics or transparency in the government

has a part -- individuals from certain parties may think one way or another but we work with republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals everyday to try to bring the supreme court and other federal courts kicking and screaming in it -- into that when he first century. host: with your title, what is the part that needs to be fixed? guest: do you have more than 30 minutes? i think we have six main fixes, one is median broadcast, thinking also bring court hearings should be livestreamed. we want life tenure on the supreme court, we think the supreme court should have a code of conduct, we think the justices public appearances should be livestreamed as well, we think their financial books, disclosures they have to fill out every year should be posted online, and we think they should be more forthcoming about what stocks they own and when they recuse. host: i suppose several of those bullet points would fall into

the news or stories that have been coming up between justice thomas, emails and texts by his wife jenny. guest: yes. it has been a busy few weeks. we hope that it spurs the koran congress to action. guest: with that specific story, what is your organization's take on what transpired over the last couple weeks since we found out about this? guest: it is a unique story in american history. january 6 and the coup attempt is unique to begin with but the fact the supreme court justices wife was involved in planning the efforts to subvert our democracy is very concerning given how close clarence and janine are. it was likely that jenny was referring to clarence in her text messages talking about her best friend, that is how they talk about each other. the fact the purple strategy, h.e.r., mark meadows, and the election subvert servers, if that is a word, were trying to

reach the supreme court. the goal was to get to the supreme court and justice thomas for hearing election cases, many who reach the super in court. there is a case texas brought, one in pennsylvania, and it was a case about january 6 two. clarence was the lone vote against allowing congress to subpoena former president trump's documents related to that investigation by the congressional committee. there are a lot of touch points if you will where the work of jenny and clarence has been intersected and we want to separate out that vent diagram as much as possible and restore the integrity of the court. host: i suppose critics would say that as far as the bend diagram illustration, if there are straight lines between the texts and clarence thomas's decision-making that he makes, would you say those exist or would you say you have to look

at those things as you look at them as far as curiosities or at least suspicions but not necessarily something that ties the two together? guest: i just look at the federal law. federal law says all justices shall disqualify themselves in any case in which they -- which their impartiality might be questioned. maybe some of the viewers out there don't think i'm being reasonable but i think if you talk to legal ethics scholars, read the editorial pages, i'm getting text messages from my friends i never hear from about what is going on at the supreme court. i think the reasonable person believes there is some sort of ethical issue that we are seeing. the fact i'm talking to you now about this clearly is a reasonable person that thinks there's an ethical issue with clarence thomas due to these texts. i think he should step aside from any january 6 related cases

at the supreme court, all 2020 election cases. the fact there are some percolating still is crazy but that is the case. and the supreme court should proactively say these will be our ethic guide rails. it is weird we are the only court in america that does not have a binding code of ethics that lets us take the leap and join everyone else to say this is what an ethics code is and what it should be and we will follow it to restore public faith in our institution. host: our guest is with us until 9:30. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. one of those people that were asked about these kinds of things related to the last question i asked was senator josh hawley on the senate, walking in the senate core doors, asked about the relationship between clarence thomas and his wife and the texts. i want to play his response and then i want to to respond to it.

[video clip] >> what is the implication the justice is signing off on her text messages? >> she was texting mark meadows to overturn the election. >> i get that, but, listen, she is an independent adult woman. it seems strange to me all of these calls for her husband to be watch, minding her better? frankly i think it is misogynistic. it is like ginni thomas is out there saying stuff, you better go get her under control. you are responsible for what she says. she is an independent person, you know? she has got her own political views and have been doing this for a long time. if you want to take issue with her that is fine but she is not on the bench. to me it seems like wow. host: so that a senator hawley's take, what do you think? guest: it does not hold water.

this is a strategy ginni thomas was a part of that would lead to somehow the supreme court itself overturning the election results. if you cannot see how the integrity of the justice would be impugned there, i don't know what to tell you. i think there is an unfortunate partisan makeup of some of these calls for recusal. there's a bill with the supreme court ethics act and is all democrats and no republicans have supported it yet. never mind four years ago pretty soon after justice ginsburg made her comment calling trump a faker and a liar, there was a bipartisan agreement and house judiciary committee to impose a code of conduct on the supreme court. just like with so many things in washington, these issues, it is difficult for folks including senator hawley to take out --

step away from retreating to one partisan corner. clarence thomas is under attack it, it's gotta be some democratic plot. i'm saying respectfully, senator, this is not some plot, this -- obviously jenny has been doing this a long time, to quote what he said, but when you are working in circles that lead directly to your husband's court , the recusal law is fairly clear and it says of your white has any interest -- your spouse as an interest that could come before you as a federal judge, it is your duty to not participate in that issue or case. i think that is where i land and hopefully more republicans land as well. host: it was back earlier this year where your organization asked the chief justice for development of a code of ethics for the supreme court. what came of that and what do you envision that would look like?

guest: so two things, i was sitting behind justice kagan in 2019 when she told the house appropriations kid maybe that the chief justice was working on a code of conduct. i followed up and have other folks followed up with supreme court sources and looks like there has not been any work on it since 2019, which is sad. and i work with legal ethics scholars, about two dozen of them, that before the text message stories came out, back february 3, they sent a letter to the chief justice saying we need a binding code of conduct and believe the justices should write it on themselves. now we move to a point where congress is taking a serious look at this. there will be hearings in the house, hearings in the senate, house and senate members have also written a letter to the supreme court. somehow in 2022, it's the way that things get done but about

two dozen house and senate democrats wrote a letter to the chief justice asking for binding code of conduct. things are moving. i think the focus on the hill right now is -- at least from the majority side -- is to get judge jackson confirmed and then come back from easter recess and have some of these hearings. these issues are not going away. we know things are going to come out as the january 6 committee gets more documents. i would expect a constant drumbeat and may be a subpoena for ginni thomas in the coming weeks. host: gabe roth of fixt hecourt joining us. caller: thank you for taking my call. i hope gabe will continue to do what he is doing, start at the top, which is the supreme court, and maybe come on down. we will come on down to all of them, government, and get it straightened out because all of it is ms as far as i'm concerned. host: is that your comment or do

you have a question for our guest? caller: yes. husband and wife, no. the things they are doing is ridiculous. it really is. then he's going to descend on whether or not to take the january 6 thing? no. because he know his wife was involved. do you hear a pillow talk? host: that is mary in ohio. guest: again it is just an unprecedented case. you never even list -- justice ginsburg husband was involved in the law, jane roberts was involved in the law and chief justice roberts's wife, and they were political. we knew marty was in politics but they were never involved to this extent. to give one example, senator sherrod brown of ohio, his wife accomplished journalist was in the gallery and went up to chief

justice's roberts wife during the trump impeachment that chief justice presided over and asked how do you think things are going? what is she say back? can't talk about it. so there's a way to be ethical and marty ginsburg gave up his law practice when justice ginsburg became justice ginsburg. there are ways to be above suspicion and the thomases are not doing that. host: a viewer asked this question of you, who would enforce engines on violations of the so-called code of ethics? enforcement would imply the court is subordinate to the other branches. guest: that's the 64 million dollar question, how would you enforce? two answers, one is there is always the option of impeachment and removal. i do not think we have met that far or we are really anywhere close to that far in this case

but there is always -- that is always an enforcement mechanism that congress has an order to keep judges and justices in line. there have been a dozen federal judges impeached in american history and only once up in court justice and he was not removed. that was about 200 years ago. that is always an option, maybe not in this case, but and potential future cases because things could always get worse. the second thing i would say is there is value in having a code, whether it be court of public opinion or peer pressure saying chief justice roberts or justice breyer, however, saying we are supposed to uphold this cold and abide by the scriptures and you are not doing it and it is imputing the integrity of the core. the supreme court is at its lowest popular approval ever i think. it behooves the justices to take proactive steps to improve that trust and the binding code of conduct would be one step.

my organization released a 10 point plan in the last week saying how we could fix this scandal and code of conduct was only one of them. we want stronger recusal standards, we want to be a -- to be easier to file a recuse, we want the judicial conference to explain what political activity justices and just -- and judges can participate in. a code of conduct is easy shorthand to say there are a lot of ethical shortcomings. we definitely need that. i think it is step one in a more comprehensive, real overhaul of how we look at the ethics and transparency of our highest court. host: this may not surprise you but we did the survey this year on the supreme court in one of the questions we asked about it is the code of ethics for the court needed 72% of those responding saying yes, 15% no, 14% not sure. guest: consistent with what our organization has polled often

times using the same polestar. we have gotten usually in the 70% to 85% range and it is across-the-board. it is the same number, at least in our polling, and we have been tracking this before the court was created back when it was called the coalition for court transparency in 2013. democrats, independents, and republicans say the same thing. it's not like 80% are democrats and when he percent are republicans. it is consistent across partisan lines. i think it's important to say may be in washington, the josh hawley's on the world -- of the world are not on board but when you explain that the supreme court is the only court in the country that does not have a binding code of ethics, that's really inexcusable and does not touch any of the partisan touch points it doesn't washington. host: there's a lot more to that court survey that we did if you want to check it out on our website. we have a special section for if you want to read the responses. let's hear from john in

washington state, republican line. hi. caller: how are you this morning? guest: good, thanks. caller: i wonder what gives you the right to comment on somebody's free speech? you don't do anything that amounts to anything? guest: thank you for your assessment of my work. i think there is value to having nonpartisan watchdogs in any form of government. the president, when the president issues -- says things which he can say via his rights to free speech, lots of folks respond. when the members of congress go out and say certain things, folks have the right to respond. that is also part of their free speech in my free speech. i think i have a track record of being balanced, and when justice sotomayor -- i'm just as

critical of justice sotomayor when she flies first class to rhode island to give a talk and is not reported on her financial disclosures as i am to justice scalia when he flies on a private plane to texas to hunt and does not reported on his disclosures. so i think there are naturally organizations -- we are a lean, small organization. it is not like we are taking any tax money or anything. i think there are plenty of like-minded folks throughout the country that really want to be sure that we have the highest court in the land, which by the way 20 years ago was not having such an impact on our lives. just in the last 20 years we have had the supreme court decide two presidential elections. they alter the decisions of life and death, every voting law, abortion law, health care law, anything major happening in the united states, the final word has been the supreme court. it used to be the supreme court would say part or all of the law

is unconstitutional and then congress would go back and rewrite the law. so congress or the president would redo the executive order, but the executive branch and congress itself are still gridlocked. the supreme court employers a vacuum in washington implores a vacuum. i thing we want nonpartisan watchdogs insuring the nine judges making those life-and-death decisions are above core ethically. that is what we see our job to be. host: you talked about the recusal standards, talked about that, what is the standard and what should change about the standard? guest: so right now, it is anytime a justice's impartiality is impugned, they have to step aside. they say if they have a financial stake in the case or their spouse does or if they know facts of the case, worked on the case in a previous job, they have to recuse.

i do not think that is good enough. i think the federal judiciary and federal judges are sort of taking advantage of that position and the lax enforcement in punishment standards. and are being flown around the country by political donors and are getting lavish gifts and are able to do that and sometimes they reported on their annual disclosures and sometimes they do not because of personal hospitality exemption. so just to use a recent example, judge jackson is a member of the harvard board of overseers, and there is a -- consuming -- assuming judge jackson does confirms, she would be on the board. she already said she would recuse, but to me it is almost less about being on some harvard board to needs to recuse and over the course the

last decade, judge jackson has been flown to boston and put up in a nice hotel and give nice meals by harvard university, something like 40 or 50 times. so similarly, justice scalia on the trip in which he passed away in texas, he was flown out there by this guy john who had previously had a case before the supreme court. i do not know if that was the only time justice scalia had been flown out to john's hunting ranch, but i thing there should be a little cooling off period that if you are getting a free flight by whoever and that whoever finds themselves before the supreme court, there needs to be a little break between when you can hear the case. similar that she wasn't perfect when he did this but similar to how judge thurgood marshall -- justice thurgood marshall accused from ncaa and naacp cases -- thinking of basketball, ncaa. naacp cases for his first 15 years on the court because he used to work at the naacp.

that has been disproven and there have been a few naacp cases over the years that he did serve on but generally recused from most of the naacp cases. there has to be some sort a standard that says you have given me this benefit or i used to work for you, let there be a cooling-off period. kind of like how there is supposed to be for congress. if you are a member of congress, you are not supposed to lobby for a year. no one follows that but the law says there is a year cooling-off period. i would like to see a cooling-off period for judges on the supreme court and times in which they recuse. host: let's go to our independent line, north carolina, this is marcy. good morning. caller: hey there. yes, you started off with saying you are nonpartisan but then you turn around and january 6 is a coup attempt. that has not been proven. it is not a coup attempt. i would like to know what cases

should our bg recused herself from, what cases should justice sotomayor have recuse herself from? guest: sure. justice sotomayor has a very lucrative publishing contract with -- they emerged so many times, i think it is now penguin random house but the time it came to the supreme court it was just random house and that his wearable contract was. there was a petition brought against random house in 2013 and 2013 and she did not recused from the case. to me it was clear justice ginsburg had an immense toward president trump so i think there's an argument to be made that any case in which president trump was the named litigant or party, justice ginsburg should recuse herself. because some of the cases, most of them, our official capacity cases like as president or trump

personally, i would have to double check to see which specific cases because when you are the president, you are sued a lot and there are a lot of cases that reach the supreme court when you are trump versus x or biden versus y. it is not republican or democrat or conservative or liberal the call to nori six they could attempt. somebody won the election, that some but he was president biden, and it's unfortunate people are still not open to that. host: when it comes to the emails of ginni thomas, fixed court apparently filed a freedom of information act for those? guest: yeah, we want to see who else she was emailing. we do this for a lot of different instances. the justice sotomayor example, she gave a speech at the university of rhode island, a public university, and did not report it -- or travel -- on her financial disclosure report. we sent a request to rhode island saying did you all pay for her trip and hotel and it

turned out they did. so that is something you need to put on your financial disclosure report. she is working on fixing it. similarly for all of the supreme court nominees, both republican and democratic, we sent information reports for kavanaugh, for gorsuch, for the chief judge who just became it in the fourth circuit. virginia thomas, it is not only likely she sent tax messages any most of the white house but it is possible she sent text messages and emails to doj officials. we know that the department of justice officials, jeff clark is the guy's name, specifically was also involved in this attempt to overturn the election. we want to see how deep that conspiracy ran and potentially she mentioned or her husband on

that, i think it is due diligence to see to what extent ginny was in touch with members of the trump administration in this unprecedented attempt to overturn the election results. host: in massachusetts, republican line, go ahead. caller: hi. you are saying justice, should recuse himself from the january 6 thing. would that mean that the new justice that may be confirmed should recuse herself from anything that happens to donald trump because in some of her writings she wrote about donald trump i think she should also recuse herself from everything that has to do with donald trump , including january 6. guest: so i'm not familiar with those writings. i think you potentially are referring to the don mcgahn case that she wrote -- the opinion

she wrote as a judge and yes, if that opinion were appealed, i think the timing is off but let's presume that case were appealed to the supreme court, there is a rule that if you rule on a case as a lower court judge and then you become a justice, you have to recuse from that case if it shows up on your docket on the supreme court docket. that happens all of the time. that still happens. justice toledo had not been a lower court judge in 15 to 16 years and he still recusing from cases that were going through the third circuit when he was lower court judge. he is still recusing from supreme court cases 16 years later somehow showing up in his office. john roberts still does that, sotomayor, all of them still do it. it was gorsuch, kavanaugh, and baratz, the newer justices so it is more likely cases they heard on lower courts are going to be headed up, but justice kennedy

recused from a case three years ago that he participated in in 1985. to the extent that anything judge jackson wrote about trump as a federal judge in that official capacity, she is required to recuse should the same case be headed to scotus. i am confident she will because everyone else on the court has done the same thing. host: you talked about some of the code of ethics would look like. what else would you like to see? guest: if you look at the code of conduct for u.s. judges which applies to every federal judge in our system besides the supreme court, it is fairly good in terms of what it would cover for the supreme court justice. it would say -- currently says judges should uphold the integrity of the office, maintain impartiality, treat all litigants and parties and lawyers with respect. these are good, ethical can

ons to follow. recently, a lot of justices have been speaking at events. there was one that breyer spoke at in texas, another spoke at an florida, thomas spoke out in -- justices should not be lending their names or anything like that to fundraisers. i would like to see it more clear that not only are we refraining as justices from political activity, we are also refraining from partisan activity. to use the breyer example, i think he was at the university of texas at arlington. there is no way a $500 for the meal it ate that -- he ate that night. number 2, 3 years from now if they say they our great university because we have the justice come, it should not be $500 per had to listen to a supreme court justice. the thomas ones were under $200, so those are less likely to be

fundraising events. we all know how expensive party planning, anyone that is likely recently planning a wedding knows how expensive party planning can be. overall, just being careful about not letting the prestige of the office to fundraising is something i would add to the code. i think the headline here is the current code of conduct for u.s. judges is very well written and would not take a lot to move that from the lower court up to scotus. host: this is from roseanne in wisconsin, democrats line. caller: first of all, i would like to say thank you, mr. roth, for what you do. i think your job is relevant, especially in this political climate in this day and age. i think that what is going on here is nothing but a complete sour grape that they fed mr. trump -- that they said mr.

trump lost the election and now they will go after the integrity of how we vote. never in the history of our country have i seen anything like this, to spin things like absentee voting and mail-in voting are different. you can go back to when president bush won against al gore. that went all the way to the supreme court. they threw it back down to florida and it ended up being catherine harris's decision to shut the whole thing down. so we never got to know the exact total vote in that situation, but you cannot go after the integrity of the voters and voting system that we have just because you lost the election. host: thank you. mr. roth, anything from that? guest: i'm good. host: finish it off with dean on

the republican line. caller: hi. from what i understand you want him to recuse himself from something his wife said. guest: no. i'll explain but continue question. caller: i thought it was about a text his wife made and that is why you wanted him to recuse himself. my point was any married couple out there knows that just because your wife or husband has a point of view does not mean that is not necessarily your point of view. it is a matter of freedom of speech. she is allowed to say whatever she wants and express her opinion, and why should that affect how he makes a judgment? he has been a great justice and he does not make decisions based on what some one else says.

he makes it based on the facts presented an constitution. host: have to leave it there. mr. roth, go ahead. guest: i think there are three reasons why he should recuse. one is there is the reasonable belief that ginny and clarence spoke about what was going on as this coup effort was unraveling. the reference to her best friend in the text message is not good, does not bode well. that is probably justice thomas. the second reason is the recusal said -- and we did not talk about this yet -- the recusal statute has one last section that says if you are your spouse's interests can be implicated in a case -- what does interests mean? typically financial interest. so if ginny was being paid somehow by the coup doers, that

them legates this part of the law, but she was clearly interested in getting selection overturned and it had been in her interest generally and in her financial interest. so if you have these interests implicated, you as a justice, your spouse's interest are replicated, you as a justice per federal law are required to recuse. that is the second thing. the third thing is we are talking about reasonable people here. i've been doing this for years and i cannot think of a single supreme court ethics scandal that has been this big in my time doing this, maybe when one was taking side payments in the 1960's. for me, this has broken through any reasonable person would believe, for all the reasons we discussed, that best friend, the interests, the fact i said earlier this would -- this coup attempt would by necessity reach the supreme court where a spouse

would be asked to rule, for all these reasons, a reasonable person could think the justice's integrity was impugned, that he was not partially and has a bias in this case and that is what the standard is. maybe it is not the best standard, i will grant you it is vague, but the current standard in federal law as it has been for 50 years is a justice shall disqualify if his impartiality is reasonably questioned. i think most of us here are trying to be reasonable people and we believe that -- we are not saying recuse from all 5000 petitions that come before the supreme court, because justice thomas is compromised. that is ridiculous. it's just saying in these very finite discrete amount of cases, bowel out and let the other -- bow out and let the other justices handle it. host: thank you for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will have one more open

forum until the house comes in. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for, and independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ ♪ >> all this month watch the top 21 videos from our c-span studentcam video documentary season. every morning, one of our studentcam winners who documentary told us how the federal government impacted their lives will be shown. you can watch all of the documentaries anytime online at studentcan.org -- s tudentcam.org. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon

johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the 19 six before presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> you will also hear blunt talk. >> yes or? >> i want a report of the number of people signed to kennedy the day he died, the numbers assigned to me now and if mine -- if i cannot ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will just a right behind these black digs.

>> c-span's podcast, find it wherever you get your podcasts >> "washington journal" continues. host: open form until the house comes in at 10:00, you can call us on the phone lines and also text us if you wish at (202) 748-8003. the hill reporting today the biden administration proposing a role change to the affordable care act to fix the family glitch that blocks millions of people who receive health care from qualifying from assistance. for coverage it was during a press conference tuesday staying they will release -- allowing individuals and house holes that spend more than 10% of their incomes on health insurance to qualify for financial assistance. that at the white house today not only will feature the current president, joe biden, it can also feature former president barack obama. if you want to see that take place around 1:30 this afternoon, stay close to our website at @cspanwj.

our seat -- at c-span.org. the defense department budget will also be a topic of consideration in a hearing that will feature not only the defense secretary but also the joint chiefs of staff chair. you can see that at 9:30. it just started a few minutes ago if you want to follow that on c-span3, c-span.org, or the c-span now have too with the defense department hearing, especially in light of increasing the defense department budget. open form until the time the house comes in. we start with mike in california, independent line, go ahead you are on. caller: good morning. i have a rhetorical question. why was a constitutional meant required for alcohol prohibition but none was required for drug prohibition? host: how would you answer your own question? caller: i think the answer is that the target for alcohol

prohibition where italian and irish americans who are politically connected whereas black or brown americans have been targeted for drug prohibition not so much. host: what brought you to that conclusion? caller: the arrests and convictions under drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition before and after alcohol prohibition was enacted. host: that is the caller from california. let's hear from maxine in pennsylvania, republican line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to maybe address the guy before me said. i think there are two differences. with alcohol prohibition we saw it spurred by women and the religious community. host: this is brian in ohio, independent line. caller: hi. i want to know, i have a question like back i got on there and ran and raved.

i'm not knocking democrats or republicans or anybody but how my spouse to believe anybody on tv anymore? anything anybody says, anywhere you turn there is fake news everywhere. whom i supposed to believe and who am i supposed to vote for? do i gotta go to a dusty library and day out every file and every vote and everything that ever happened with every single person on tv so that i can believe in them? host: how do you inform yourself currently for issues you're passionate about? caller: until social media got so big and the pandemic happened, i watched the news and i did not just watch one news channel, i watched a lot and i try to research things about peer-reviewed. now i feel like i can believe nobody. i feel like every supreme court justice needs a whistleblowing on them and i need to know who they are, what they've done, and everything they have ever done.

then i can go i support them. but finding the truth is so hard now i do not believe in anybody or anything. host: let's go to rebecca in ohio, republican line. caller: hi. i have a question. i was listening to the gentleman with the ethics and everything and i wonder if the ethics committee and they are looking into the ethics of hunter biden using his father's name to make money. do they look into that also and do they put it on the news? host: ok. why do you think that is important? caller: because i think that the government is compromised with the name to different places, china, russia, a lot of different places the money was taken from. host: that's rebecca in ohio. the previous caller mentioned the influence of social media in

the news of the last couple days. the new york times reporting elon musk is joining the board of twitter having disclose the news today, one day after mr. mosk revealed he bought 9.2% of stake in the social media giant, a purchase that appeared to make him the largest shareholder. it sent twitter shares skyrocketing more than 20%. esther musk had been quite on his intentions for the purchase before it was disclosed but it has risen sharply in value since purchase. a 13 g filing said he planned for the investments and did not intend to pursue a larger role in the company. twitter's announcement tuesday said there were no arrangements or understandings between mr. musk and twitter that led to his director role. let's go to carlton in newport news, virginia. democrat line. carlton in virginia, hello. caller: hello, pedro. good morning.

host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i believe we should do all we can for the people of ukraine, either that or be prepared to watch them die because it is getting to that. we are either going to do what we can, not only the united states, the other european countries should help too. i think if we are not prepared to do that, we should be prepared to watch them die. host: did you make these assessments in light of the news of recent how to boot try or did you -- had you had thought this for a while? caller: i have thought this for a while because i knew this was going to be the outcome. putin will do what he wants to do. he has one game plan and that is to rule as much as he can. i hate to say it but we are going to have to fight sooner or later, one way or another. the people of ukraine are suffering. host: the issues of the last

couple days of news printed a response from the president yesterday, particularly when it pointed statements toward vladimir putin. here is part of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> you may remember i got criticized for calling putin a war criminal. the truth of the matter, you saw what happened in bucha. we have together the information , we have to continue to provide ukraine with weapons they need and continue the fight, and we have to gather all of the details so this can be having an actual war crimes trial. this guy is brutal and what is happening in bucha is outrageous. everyone has seen it. >> [indiscernible] >> i think it is a war crime. >> are you going to do more sections on russia? >> i'm thinking more sanctions, yes. host: united nations security

council meeting today to receive a briefing. president zelenskyy is expecting to announce -- address that counsel. that is set to take place at 10:00, about less than 15 minutes before the house of representatives comes in. we go to thomas in michigan, dependent line -- detroit lakes, minnesota, i apologize. caller: i have a solution for all problems, have charlie dent and john garamendi, republican and democrat, run for president the next time. the way they should do it is flip a coin to see who goes first and both of them go to a one term deal and at the end of the first four years, either democrat or republican, they began the president and vice president -- become the

president and vice president and the other takes over for the next four years. both of those men seem reasonable and levelheaded. host: what lead you to that conclusion specifically? caller: just from watching interviews of them. they seem to be very calm and deliberate and smart in the way they speak. they do not sound so partisan either one of them. host: that is a viewer from minnesota. we will hear from richard in tennessee, republican line. go ahead. caller: i just want to comment on this ethics you are talking about and that i've seen in the supreme court hearing the other day and with this man that was just talking on your program, ethics. when an attorney the something wrong, he goes in front of an ethics court. why wasn't raskin berg and the rest of them lawyers that impeached president trump not

taken in front of the ethics board for changing evidence -- for altering evidence? then we start doing that in congress, making them be responsible, that kind of stuff will not be happening no more and it irritates me nobody wants to talk about it. but they changed evidence and that is not ethical. thank you very much. host: that is richard. you heard about elon musk's story out of starbucks, new york times reporting they are halting the process of stock buybacks aiming to put more profit into people as the headline, and he said they will do that saying it is the only way to create long-term value for all of the stakeholders. the story goes on to say when they come use his funds to retire its own stock, the share prices often rise, rewarding investors and executives who hold large amount of stock. during the last stint of chief executive between 2008 and 2016,

starbucks spent more than $6 billion on buybacks. now starbucks is under pressure from a growing effort to unionize its stores, which is resisted as workers push for better wages, hours, and benefits. starting late last year, a handful of workers unionized for the first in the company's history out of nearly 9000 company-owned stores planning to hold elections. there is more into this. if you want to read it at the "new york times." anthony is next. anthony in detroit, michigan. independent line. caller: good morning. i cannot believe they want to spend 813 billion dollars this year on the military. that is probably just what we know about and does not seem like accounts in the nukes and the v.a. and all of the after costs. it is crazy. we have homeless. not everyone has health care, we can't afford education, housing, we have debt, so they want to spend $800 billion on the

military just to bring death and destruction. host: secretary austen is speaking right now to this issue if you want after this program to see what is going on, go to c-span now, our app, or c-span.org for more testimony from the budget request on the defense department. we go to brenda on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i'm calling you because i'm trying to figure out about putin. how would we go into [indiscernible] president biden said he would like to charge him with war atrocities. it would be hard to go into his country and get him. i'm curious how that would be done. because he is really crucifying those people and i think it is a shame. anytime you kill women and babies and old people, and just leaving bodies laying there in the street, this guy has a

serious problem and he can get away with doing that. god forbid how much further will he go? you have to think about that. i've been watching this everyday and i'm curious, how would we go about it? host: i would advise if you go to our website and you type in not only what is going on in ukraine but the topic of war crimes, segment on this program recently on the topic of war crimes, how the process goes about, go to the website for more information when it comes to the topics. it may not give you the specific answer you are looking for but it talks about the process and you can do that at c-span.org. from david in florida, republican line, go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to remind folks that think we should not be helping the ukrainians' fight

for independence, our own fight for independence in 1776, if it was not for the french were helping us, we would never be able to defeat the british to gain our own independence. it probably would have been another 100 years before we would have gotten our independence like canada did. another thing i would like to say, putin is an old heartless, god less communist sitting in stalin's chair with the same life-and-death powers that stalin had. now he is bringing in muslim terrorist fighters from chechnya and syria to kill christians in ukraine. this is very disturbing to the judeo-christian world. we must do everything we can to stop that son of a gun from killing more people. host: that is david in florida. the senate agreeing to a package of $10 billion, a coronavirus

aid package, monday providing vaccination and treatment efforts. after dropping a push to include billions for global vaccination efforts, the agreement requires $5 billion to be sent for therapeutics, 50 million dollars for research and clinical trial and to prepare for future variants, and the remaining funds used for vaccine testings. it does not include $5 billion in funding on the global vaccination effort previously proposed after talking over money congress previously appropriated. the next caller is from the democrats line. caller: hi, pedro. first of all, i don't know if i will get criticized about this but i'm a long time directv subscriber and i was really happy this morning to see that oann is off the air. it is just a good thing for democracy. these type of right-wing stations that just push

propaganda, it is ridiculous. another thing i want to talk about is a lot of callers call in and they always complain about this administration's policies and their agendas and things. 193 republicans just last week voted against bringing down the cost of insulin, maxing it at $35. what is wrong with that? i do not understand it? rick scott, the senator from florida, he came out in february with this 11 point america first agenda plan to sunset social security, medicare, medicaid, raise taxes on middle and lower wage earners. another thing, i do not understand. my final thing is, in march and april of 2020, we lost 22 million jobs in this country because of trump and his administration's incompetence to

handle this pandemic. all of those jobs are back. unemployment is down to 3.6%. there are great things happening in this country and all of the republicans, a lot of them, not all of them, because there is a split in the republican party. host: i've gotta leave you there only because i have to get a couple more calls in before the house comes in. don on the independent line. hi. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a quick comment on may be a suggestion for a show. i do not want to gripe and complain, there is enough of that going on and i've done that before. i wonder if soon you guys might be able to get something to do with some type of family law court type of episode because i know a lot of people that are dealing with that and i know we are talking about supreme court and you are talking a little bit about the lower courts, but i was wondering if you could bring someone on there at some point

to shine the light on a lot of the family civil court stuff that seems to be a gigantic mess for a lot of americans and families and kids. if you guys get a chance to do that, i have been a long time listener and i do not hear much about it on you guys but i would greatly appreciate it. you have a great day. host: don in washington state, thank you for the suggestion. let's go to connie in tennessee, democrats line, hello. caller: hey, pedro. just since it is an open forum, just to make a quick request, to see if we can get marsha blackburn, a representative from tennessee, to give us her definition of a woman. it seems like she really kept asking the supreme court nomination that question without marsha ever saying what i woman was, what she thought a woman

was. and it would be great if she could do that for her constituents. that is all i have to say. i appreciate your program and i do watch you. host: thank you for that suggestion. we make a lot of calls to a lot of members of congress to get them to appear on this program and carve out time for us on the house and senate side. we appreciate any suggestions though. this is from don in georgia, independent line. the house is about to come in but go ahead. caller: yes. i am so upset that directv took down oan american news. when you take out a network, we are not free anymore. my high school's yearbook teacher and newspaper made us go to a journalism class at a college before we could even write for the high school newspaper because he did not want us to use yellow journalism.

this is disgusting that you can do what you can do to take out a network. this is the biggest travesty that has happened since the ukraine war. host: that is don in georgia on our independent line. that will be the last call for this program. thank you for all of you who participated this morning, another edition of "washington journal" coming your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we now taking you to the house of represe the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 5, 2022. i hereby appoint the honorable donald m. payne jr. to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives.