in california democratic congressman brad sherman and a senior member of the foreign affairs committee, talks about rising tensions between the u.s. and russia over ukraine and the future of nato. "washington journal" is next. >> a threat to our democracy so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills, debate them, vote, that the majority prevail. and if that bare minimum is blocked we have no option but to change the senate rules including getting rid of the filibuster for this. [applause] host: president biden in atlanta, georgia yesterday urging the changing of filibuster rules for voting rights legislation. we will get your take on this debate this morning. [indiscernible] , -- democrats, 202-748-8001. or join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span or you can also send a tweet with the handle at c-span wj. good morning everyone on this january 12. we will begin in just a minute with your thoughts on changing the senate rules for voting rights legislation. >> sadly the united states senate designed to be the world's greatest deliberative body has been rendered a shell of its former self. he gives me no satisfaction in saying that as an institutionalist, as a man who was honored to serve in the senate. as an institutionalist i believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills, debate them, vote, let the majority prevail and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the senate rules including getting rid of the filibuster for this. host: president biden pushing for senate changes. the freedom to vote act which would require states to set event that 15 day minimum early voting day -- early voting window. it makes election day a federal holiday. it also mandates each state offer same-day voter registration at polling locations by 2024 ended bars states from drawing political boundaries that favor or disk paver any political party -- disfavor any political party. is also the john lewis voting rights act which fully restores the voting rights act of 1965. it identifies discriminatory voting patterns and states and localities in those entities would need the justice department approval for making further changes to elections. republicans led by mitch mcconnell according to the new york times are promising a scorched earth response. here's the leader on the floor yesterday. >> if my colleague tries to break the senate, we will make their voices heard in the chamber in ways that are more inconvenient for the majority. then what anybody has seen in living memory. last year the senate passed major bipartisan legislation on and for structure and hate crimes, on government funding, on competing with china. last year senators helped speed through a noncontroversial nomination. so what would a post nuclear senate look like? i assure you it would not be more efficient or more productive. i personally guarantee it. do my colleagues understand how money times per day the senate needs and gets unanimous consent for basic housekeeping? do they understand how many things would require a roll call votes. how the minority could demand lengthy debate. our colleagues who are itching for a procedural nuclear winter have not even begun to contemplate how it would look. our colleagues who are itching to drain every drop of -- from this judicial spot -- this ledge late body have not begun to consider how that would work. the democratic leader tries to shut minds of americans and entire states out of the business of governing, the operations of this body will change. oh yes. that much is true. but not in ways that reward the rule breakers. not in ways that advantage this president. this majority or their party. i guarantee it. host: from the senate floor yesterday. now it's your turn to tell washington lawmakers what you think they should do on this voting right legislation. should they change the filibuster rules? the new york times notes this in his piece, democrats are looking at multiple proposals to curb the filibuster but unless the changes and attract the 67 votes usually needed to sit just change senate rules, highly unlikely situation, of the only way to achieve that change is through what is known as the nuclear option. in that case democrats would stage a series of floor votes to overrule senate precedent on a strict lee partisan vote. that's our illuminated the 60 vote threshold on most nominees in 2013 and how republicans did the same on supreme court nominees in 2017. at least two democratic senators have said they would not take part in such an effort. arguing it would irreparably damage the senate. on tuesday, he reiterated his argument. [video clip] >> the filibuster is what we have in the rules. getting rid of the filibuster doesn't make things work better. what they know about the full of busters basically what they've educated over the years in the filibuster is what makes the senate hopefully work when it is supposed to work. we need some good rule changes and we can do that together. democrats and republicans changing to work better. getting rid of the filibuster does not make it work better. host: the new york times notes that senator joe manchin -- katie rogers reporting says back in washington there are multiple proposals to find ways to appease mr. manchin and ms. sinema. other possible bills are -- other possible rules are resurfacing prayed reducing the number of votes needed to break a filibuster and limiting its use altogether in some circumstances. let's go to calls. catherine, democratic caller. what do you say on this debate? caller: every american should have the right to vote. host: we are listening. caller: yes, every american has the right to vote. i think if the republicans can change the filibuster when they want to, the democrats should be allowed to do it as well. this is an issue that affects all americans. we know the united states of america has had a history where they didn't want black people to vote, they did not want women to vote. they did not want children to have the right to vote. because they were going to schools or college and they had to go back home to their state, whichever it was to vote. they didn't want them to have the right to vote. if you are a party and you don't have a majority, then you lose. it's that simple. you do not and have refused to see that we americans all have a right to vote and it may not be your way. but that's the way it is. i'm 73 years old and we have a constitution that said we should have a right to vote. and they are trying to take the vote away from us again. >> and independent, what's your take on this. caller: thank you for the chance. shout out to you on the washington journal staff for your coverage on january 6. hands down you had the best coverage. you had information i couldn't get anywhere else in real time. that was crackerjack work. i wanted to make sure you got some kudos for it. what i think chuck schumer needs to do is he needs to craft a very narrow piece of legislation that deals with just which after the votes are counted who gets to count the votes and which votes get counted and which ones do not. in georgia they have passed legislation that makes it possible for the state legislators to discount some votes and to count some and discard other ones. that is the area of greatest concern. i have no problem with people proving they are american citizens and are registered to vote if they are eligible to vote, they stand in lines, that is not the issue here. the problem is we are not focusing on the fact that state legislators are taking over the right of determining which votes count. that's what i think matters prayed host: so you think there needs to be some sort of federal standard. caller: i think what we need to do is make sure it is not state legislators who are determining parts of atlanta. we do not believe that these votes in this part of atlanta are valid and we state legislators or we appointed political people in positions which used to be nonpartisan are going to determine that those votes are valid. so that's what i'm worried about. that is what chuck schumer -- make joe manchin and kyrsten sinema and the rest of the republicans vote against something like that that the people of america can easily understand. they didn't focus on the key problem. i don't think the media or everyone, all of a sudden people are discovering that is the real issue. we will stand in line in the rain and snow and sleet. we will vote. but once we vote, make sure my vote is counted. host: front page of the new york times says the president waited, they report in the nine months since republicans in georgia went through host of new voting restrictions, 18 other states have enacted 33 such laws. more than 30 states have concluded the redistricting processes with extreme partisan gerrymandering, locking in republican control in the electoral battlegrounds of georgia, north carolina, ohio and texas for another 10 years. stephen pennsylvania, republican. what do you think? caller: i'm 75 and a couple of weeks. my main thing is everyone should have a voter id. in new york there are illegals that will be able to vote in the next election which is ridiculous. i'm afraid what the government is going to do, the federal government, they are going to take the rights of the states and have more power over that and that is dictatorial. eventually. that's what i'm concerned about. everybody has the right to vote. but they should have voter id. when you buy a house or a car, you have to prove you are who you are. this is what they should do in major elections in pennsylvania where i am. what is not fair, a party can take all the state but philadelphia and pittsburgh and here she lost. i'm afraid this country is going to end up taking more of our constitutional state rights away. host: let me ask you. you say this is state rights. how do you interpret the u.s. constitution article one section four. the time, places and manner of holding elections of senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof but the congress may at any time by law state or alter such regulations. caller: i don't see anything wrong with that. what i am concerned about is they want the power. but the people of america vote on what they want. i'm afraid what's going to happen is you have we the people are the government, not our representatives. our representative's are put there by us when we vote to follow what we want done and it's not been done. both parties don't care about the american people, all they care about is power to control what you can and cannot do. host: tim in rochester, new york, democratic caller. your opinion. caller: this is about the filibuster. i feel like they should leave joe manchin alone, let them do their thing there they have an election coming up so the democrats need to put up more candidates that can win in north carolina, ohio, wisconsin, pennsylvania. if they win those, joe manchin kyrsten sinema would be irrelevant. they have two put up candidates that can have a chance to win it. host: do you think the democrats are risking their majority with a possible rules change? caller: yes i think so. it's just get more people in office and you can win and do what you want to do. i feel like leave those two alone, put up better candidates and do what you have to do and take it from there. host: in other news on capitol hill yesterday there was the confirmation hearing for jerome powell to serve again as fed chair. powell ready to raise the grade but see supply woes easing. you can read more from the wall street journal and also look at his testimony on our website. you can simply go to the hit play on the video player and stars will show up from the key moments of the hearing and you can quickly go through to find out what he had to say. mark in new hampshire, republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i do have some comments. some of the callers so far have been spot on and some of them are pie in the sky hopeful thinkers. i don't understand the problem with voting. we all have the ability. what i saw on your screen i found disturbing. 15 days of early voting but then election day will be a national holiday. i don't understand. if it's a national holiday everybody's home from work. then there's plenty of time to vote. i used to live in the big cities, i live in rural new hampshire now. when i was a kid, schools were closed, everybody went to vote at the local school. here in my town we vote for the longest time at the local church. then we got too big and we had to move to the school. where is the problem in showing proper id, where is the problem of making sure dead people are not on the voter list. i do not understand any of this rhetoric and craziness that's going on. basically it seems to me like the democrats are trying to maintain power in any way, shape or form that they can and it is not fair to the average person. i just don't understand the thought process of so many of the people that call in. host: how do you think republicans should respond if democrats could convince senators joe manson and pearson cinema to go along with it? caller: in any way shape or form that weekend. we talk about fair and equal elections and other countries people get a stamp on their forehead, on their hand, we are doing the exact opposite on that with the mass mail-in ballots that can never ever be verified. and i don't care how many audits there are across the country and each individual state, if you continue to count in valid votes, you are going to continue coming up with the same number. we have to verify that the person voting is in fact alive, a citizen, and allowed to vote. in california they are going to let illegal immigrants vote, they give them driver's license, they can belly up to the bar and vote. i heard a caller this morning say they will do the same thing in new york where i spent most of my life growing up. i do not understand the course and the rhetoric of allowing anyone who lives in the country is entitled to vote. that's not fair and it's not true. host: i've got to get in some other voices. kurt in michigan, independent. caller: how are you today. i'm calling because i honestly feel the left in the right are so far apart there's just no compromising going on. they are just literally not doing it. to where it is for power. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result and that's what we are getting at. it's not about the people anymore. people lost their lives for us to have the right to vote. i think the government is having such a hard time, abraham lincoln once said a house divided cannot stand and we are literally watching it. host: james in wilson, north carolina. what do you say? caller: good morning. i'm calling this morning, i'm 81 years old black man. i had no right to vote in 1959. i went to vietnam, i came back, they sent me back to fort jackson, south carolina. i still had no rights. i do know where these people come from talking about rights. i had no rights at all. on my way to the grave -- i'm not dead, i'm 81. god has blessed me. i'm not worried about nobody else. god bless america. you have a blessed day. host: chris in maryland, republican. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: there's a lot of things going on out there that i think need to be pushed back and challenged a little bit. the rhetoric about not being able to bring somebody water in line and if people are just accepting that is what that sounds like, they need to peel back the liars a little bit and look at that. there are people going up to people in line saying they are bringing in water and are polling for their candidates and trying to convince people to vote for their candidate. so it's not about not bringing someone a bottle of water, that's absolutely ridiculous. it's about using that bottle of water to convey your candidates message and try to sway votes in the voting block. unless you are back that onion you will be very upset and say what you mean you can bring someone a bottle of water. that's not what it is. if you look back and say the republicans on one side basically just say have an id, show that id and vote. that was basically solve a lot of their publican problems. host: do you know what is in this legislation, the two bills the democrats are pushing for? so let me ask you this. if they added voter id to this provision, would you support the rest of it? caller: well. voter id, if that was the law of the land i think we could definitely negotiate the rest. the one thing i have a big problem with his having the states if they want to change their election laws having to go to the federal government. we get a little backwards there because the rights in our country are within the states, the federal government to oversee just a few things but not take the rights away from the states. if voter id was in their, that would definitely help but i could not give each individual state having to go through the federal government to amend their voting laws. host: got it chris. the president was in georgia pushing for change to the filibuster rules, in the senate, lawmakers were debating this idea on the floor. here is one moment yesterday in an exchange between senate -- senator john cornyn and majority leader chuck schumer. [video clip] >> let's have a look. do voters actually have a problem casting their ballot? during the last election. while following the 2020 election, the pew research center conducted a poll of the voting experience and it found that the vast majority of voters, 94%, 94% said that voting was easy. i don't think you could get 94% of the people to agree that the earth is round anymore. but here we have 94% of the voters who voted with ease in 2020. this is a stark contrast with the claim to solve voting rights that we've heard so much about from our colleagues on the left. despite what the radical left might lead you to believe there is no nationwide assault on voting rights. if there were, every person in this building would be lined up to defend the right to vote. not just democrats. mr. president this is a manufactured crisis designed to achieve a political outcome. >> mind if i borrow your chart? great, thank you. i will hold it. now my colleague -- now my good colleague from texas said 94% of voters said voting was easy in 2020. so why don't we keep it that way? isn't it true that all of the changes we are arguing about our post 2020. in the overwhelm and that these changes are allowed to go into effect will go way down. so yes we agree, keep the 2020 laws. maybe we should improve them, but right now what we are combating is a series of legislators, and 19. 33 laws that will make this number shirley go down. so we agree, 2020 was ok. i'm guess my friend is saying the big lie was false because donald trump said it was fraudulent. i would thank my colleague for his chart and we will be using it again. host: lawmakers in washington yesterday. now it's your turn to tell them what you think they should do on voting rights legislation. should they change the rules to have a 50 vote threshold to pass those voting rights bills. matt in maryland, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i want to let that individual no that in georgia it was indeed going to be made a law that you cannot bring any sort of food or drinks to someone in the line waiting to vote which is completely barbaric. other than that, what i called to say was i think it's time we had a national right for voting. make that a national issue. red states have proven to us all my life that they cannot be trusted to protect people's rights as far as voting is concerned. if you told them you need that kind of id to get a gun they would flip out. i think it is time. ethic it's time to start protecting people's rights. the right -- if the right thought they could win an election fairly with their policies, they would not be worried about this but that seems to be what they worry about. they seem to be worrying about elections years in advance and that's all they seem to work on. and they never offer -- they offer criticism for everything but never say how about doing it this way or that way. i don't think the right is looking for answers and i think these people realize the right survives by conflict. without conflict they would fall apart. thank you. host: don from tennessee, independent. caller: good morning. first point, i caught joe on video where he was saying it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's who counts the votes. and that is very contention point on this election is what went on at the counting places. second of all, joey needs to clean his own house in delaware. i've seen numerous times -- types of charts being held up showing georgia possible voting rules versus delaware's. and delaware is a whole lot more strict than georgia is. third point, the filibuster. i just saw something today we are in 1964, the democrats had a filibuster for 75 days in an attempt to block the civil rights act. and yet now they want to bellyache and say they need to get rid of the filibuster. host: what do you think? caller: i hope and pray for this country, that the best i can do. host: if they were to get rid of the filibuster for these two bills. caller: more of a power grab. appearance symbol. host: how do you think republicans would respond? caller: i don't want to sound radical hereby they would just be inviting another january 6. democrats would be inviting another january 6. host: ok let's not promote violence. back in 2005 when president biden was then senator biden, here is what he had to say during debate on the senate floor at the time about changing the filibuster. [video clip] >> republicans control the senate and have decided they will change the rule it out its core the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill it is about compromise and moderation. that's why the founders put unlimited debate in. when you have to -- and i've never conducted a filibuster. but if i did, the purpose would be you have to deal with me as one senator. it does not mean i get my way, it means you may have to compromise. you may have to see my side of the argument. that is what is is about. engendering compromise and moderation. ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear option to sing was the power of independent and moderates in the senate. that's it. they are done. moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. they are much less important if you need only 50 votes. i understand the frustration of my republican colleagues paid i've been here 32 years, most of the time in the majority. for strings to the other side blocked a bill or nominee you support. i've walked in your shoes and i get it. i get it so much that what brought me to the united states senate was to fight for civil rights. my state with great shame was segregated by law, was a slave state. i came here to fight it. even i understood all the passion i felt as a 29-year-old kid running for senate the purpose, the purpose of extended debate, getting rid of the filibuster has long-term consequence. if there is one thing i learned in my years here once you change the rules and surrender the senate's institutional power you never get it back. and we are about to break the rules to change the rules. host: then senator biden in two. yesterday president biden in georgia back to the idea of changing senate rules for filibuster for voting rights legislation. what do you think should be done? thomas in delray beach, republican. caller: thanks for having me on. a few things to say. to make it simple on filibuster issue i think it's a rather silly thing to have. i think if you have anything pertinent or relevant to say you shouldn't be able to go to the podium and senate and read an apple pie recipe. it has in fact happened before. but i do find the democratic rhetoric on the attack on democracy from republicans very hypocritical when you consider several things. did the democrats not try and undo the democratically held elections trying to impeach trump in 2018 on the russia collusion lie which we now know the russian collusion myth is just that. the mueller report emphatically clear it did not find evidence to press charges for collusion against trump. in the democrats knew the evidence was faulty going into the investigation but they did so anyway. i also find one of your callers a couple calls go saying how the right only exist with conflict. i think it's the other way around. i thing the democratic party -- are so willingly to incite people's fears of democracy under attack and republicans trying to subvert justice and democracy, it just feels it's very much one-sided or at least not one-sided but more on one side then the other. my proposal, i think it should be federalized, i think it should be nationalized and there should be a national standard. i think it's ridiculous how different states have different laws for voting for a federal election. i do support voter id, but i understand people might say voter id laws are unfair to those who can may be afforded id or economically disadvantaged. that's true. so make ids free. a national id free to all u.s. citizens. the process strictly regulated but easily accessible. host: yesterday on capitol hill, in addition to this debate over changing senate rules for the filibuster, there were also hearings happening with the fbi and other agencies on domestic terrorism threats. here's the headline from the washington post. another january 6 conspiracy theory suffers a reality inflicted below. senator ted cruz questioning of the fbi and the senate judiciary committee hearing made the -- went viral and is something that many of you have talked about on the show and it's a debate that's been happening on social media and other news networks as well. whether or not there was fbi involvement on january 6. take a look at this exchange. [video clip] >> i want to turn to the fbi. how many fbi agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of january 6? >> i'm sure you can appreciate that i cannot go into the specifics of sources and methods. >> did any fbi agent or confidential informants actively participate in the events of january 6 yes or no? >> i cannot answer that. >> did any fbi agent circumferential informants commit crimes of violence on january 6? >> i cannot answer that sir. >> did any fbi agent or fbi informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on january 6? >> sir i cannot answer that. >> who is ray apps? >> i am aware of the individual sir. i do not have the specific background of him. >> there are a lot of people who are understandably confused as concerned about him. on the night of january 5, 2021, he wandered around the crowd that had gathered and there is video of him chanting tomorrow we need to get into the capital. this is strange behavior. so strange that the crowd began chanting fed. was he a fed. >> sir i cannot answer that question. >> the next day on january 6, he is seen whispering to a person and five seconds later, that same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades. did he urge them to tear down the barricades. >> sir, similar to the other answers i cannot answer that. host: the washington post this morning notes this, of that the fbi official there said she couldn't answer the question which they say is very much what you would expect. federal law enforcement and intelligence officials do not confirm or deny such questions because even in denial potentially reveals confidential information. after all she says if he isn't a federal agents and asks if someone else. she declined to answer as would anyone else in her position. it also says that ted cruz then continued, cap going asking whether he urge people to tear down barricades to plant the idea that maybe this is what happened. she of course declined to answer. he also asked why the fbi isn't looking for him saying he is no longer on the list of people the fbi is looking for. but people have explained why he might not be arrested or even stop by federal investigators. here is ryan riley explaining why. there is no public evidence that ray epps entered the interior of the capitol building. like thousands of others he was unlawfully present but doj cannot possibly charge all of those cases. ryan riley has actively been looking at who entered the building. the available footage does not show epps. another dutch -- it says that as it turns out he had already been investigated by another body. a few hours after the performance, the house committee investigating the january 6 the tech a statement through a spokesperson. the committee had talked toewpp -- had talked to epps, who denied being a federal agent while offering testimony that could subject them to criminal prosecution if he lies. susan in south dakota, a democrats caller. after the conversation about changing senate rules for voting rights legislation. what do you say? caller: cruz is like a bully to those who are less than him or feels he can bully. he gets on fox and he gets very kneeling to what they have to say. for this legislation, south dakota i feel like our votes never really count a lot because the whole electoral votes ri guess really what matters. i've seen news last night of the electoral official documents that were sent to represent these states and they were false. it was like five states. and apparently the republicans, and let's just say trump because he is running the republicans right now, set these documents up. they were all the same format in the same document. the story showed how clearly each state has a very unique, their own separate seal and nothing like these fraudulent ones. so our voting should be the most basic easy thing. if our senate cannot stand up for what is right, what is true and right, and we have states that can send in fraudulent things. that don't agree with going along with that. this is our democracy at its worst point. i am so thankful biden is finally stepping up in a tone that matters. this has been going on way too long. i think mcconnell had very much a threat of a january 6 type event in his tone if we decide that we need to do what's right for the people of this country. we are losing our country. it is on all levels. this is not about voters. if they don't matter at a county point, at a point where the greatest of integrity should be there, we have people that have torn this country apart and taken up to lies. host: let me hear from matt. a republican. caller: good morning. first off i would like to say we are not a democracy. we are a democratic republic which protects the individual states. host: ok. we are listening. caller: also the left is really good with these names they give stuff like national organization for women which turns out you have to be a leftist woman for them to care about you. and now we are hearing voting rights. it has nothing to do with the voting rights. i'd like to show biden defending the filibuster there's also clips of my senator schumer doing that. a lot of the things right now that are in that bill we had here in the state of new york this past fall a referendum on changing voting and doing a lot of the things that were in that bill and it was defeated by a very large margin. which is driving the democrats nuts. also the illegal aliens vote is just for new york city and there's an estimated 850,000 illegals in new york city which would definitely permanently turn that city into just a single party system. it's basically that now, but once people get fed up with crime and stuff they will elect a rudy giuliani or somebody like that on the republican side. this whole thing and also am glad you did read the constitution because that first call from pasadena when he kept saying the state legislators shouldn't have anything to do with it, it's in the constitution, that's exactly who does it. and actually our first presidents that were elected were not elected by popular vote. they were elected by the legislatures. it wasn't till later that people were voting. this whole thing i think is a red herring. the first thing democrats years ago was old people are knocking to have social security and they will get kicked out of their homes and then the next big red herring was the war on women and now this red herring which is so-called voting rights which is a distraction from the disastrous policies of the past year that the democrats have polled. host: for you and others, listen to what the president and democrats are arguing about state law that they say are suppressing the right to vote. [video clip] >> what's been the reaction of republicans in georgia, choose the undemocratic way. to them, too many people voting in a democracy is a problem. obstacles. for example, voting by mail is a safe and convenient way to get more people to vote. but they are making it harder for you to vote by mail. the same way i might add in the 2020 election, president trump voted from behind the desk in the white house in florida -- of the house in florida. dropping your ballot off it is secure dropbox is safe and convenient and you get more people to vote. so they are limiting the number of drop boxes in the hours that you can use them. taking away the options has a predictable effect. longer lines at the polls, lines that can last for hours. you've seen it with your own eyes. people get tired, they get hungry. the bible teaches us to feed the hungry and give water to the thirsty. the new georgia law makes it illegal. it is now -- it makes it illegal to bring your neighbors and fellow voters food or water. while they wait in line to vote. what are we talking about? think about it. [applause] that is not america. that is what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote. here is how they plan. the georgia republican party, the state legislature has now given itself the power to make it easier for partisan actors, their cronies, to remove local election officials to read that. -- think about that. host: in washington, republican senator john thune responded to the criticisms of the president -- the president upon criticisms of george's voting laws. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> in 20 a number of states added to their voting laws partially because of the challenges in special circumstances that arose as a result of the pandemic. so democrats decided that these commonsense mainstream updates represented unprecedented attack on voting rights. in georgia, which is one of the first to enact voting legislation has become the poster child for democrats campaign to convince americans that voting rights are in danger. so what terrible voter suppression measures are states imposing? well one provision of the georgia law that has come in for a lot of democrat outrage is a measure for bidding partisan political organizations were providing individuals with food or water within 150 feet of a polling place. yes. apparently preventing partisan political organizations from providing lunch to voters threatens the very stability of our entire democracy. now nothing in georgia's law prevents outside groups from providing food and water to individuals outside of the 150 foot radius. in george's law especially allows nonpartisan election workers as opposed to political groups to make water available to voters. and of course, pretty sure any voter can bring his or her own food and water. but none of that has prevented democrats from suggesting the rules about food and water this tribute jeanette polling places -- represent a great threat to voting rights. in the state of new york, they have a civil provision in its election law preventing any refreshment or provision to a vote or a polling place. except if the retail value of what is given is less than one dollar and the person or entity providing it is not identified. yet i don't see the democrats traveling to new york to decry the threats to democracy up -- imposed by the new york legislature. host: that was senator john food yesterday. springfield, illinois, democratic caller. what do you say about changing senate rules for the voting rights legislation? caller: good morning, happy new year to you and everybody at c-span. i want to make several points and want to respond to a couple of comments made. senator john thune talked about giving food or water. these people take money from lobbyists. another thing the gentleman just before me mentioned about it's not a democracy it's a republic. 37 states do not have a filibuster. 13 do and 37 do not. the gentleman before that also mentioned if this passes there will be another january 6. this is the type of sentiment that's being responded to. you just put a clip from 2005 of joe biden against the replacement of the filibuster. it is a different world. after trump, after these legislators passing these laws making restrictions on minority and people of color to vote. they are not crying over that for nothing. a person has to wait for an hour for a vote. white people in suburbia and other places wait five minutes. i don't know how people are saying these types of things that's in response to fake elections. 66% of republicans say the election was stolen. 20 million people are saying if it doesn't go back to a republican administration and trump that they are going to take arms. this is not the same world we were living in. 2013 there was a filibuster done with harry reid with judicial nominations. i think we need to push more of that. the house has it. the house had it in 1848. they got rid of it in 1890. the longest filibuster that came up. this is something that we can do. we should amend it. if you think it is the wrong thing to do, when it is your turn and you have something you have issues, go ahead and use the filibuster rule then. nobody saying you can use it. we are saying this time for the fate of the republic, we need to amend it and if we don't we have a bunch of state legislatures that are passing laws. georgia, the secretary of state has the power to ratify the election results. they put pressure on that secretary of state saying i need 11,000 votes. if that would've passed it's a different country. republicans wake up. host: let me hear from david who is in massachusetts, republican. caller: good morning. what a show you have. i live here in massachusetts. unclearly active in politics. -- i am active in politics and i can tell you my own personal experience that voter suppression is alive and well and exercised in the massachusetts -- in the state of massachusetts. i will leave that alone for the rest of my citizens to evaluate. however we vote, we are going to have to live with the consequences. so i don't care if you're a liberal, a democrat, republican, if you want this vote then you better think about it when you go to vote. if you set the wrong stage we are all going to suffer. i want to remind a lot of people that trump got into office as a reaction to almost nine or 10 years of the economic -- we suffered as a result of the bad behavior of democrats in office. it wasn't the federal government or anybody else who pulled us out of that, it was people showing up for work every day and slowly but surely pulling us out of it. have a good day. host: declare in florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning and thank you for letting me call. there has been a lot of good discussion. i am distressed to hear people who do not seem to believe that the election was duly run and won by a democrat. excuse me, i'm a little bit nervous. living in the south, i have seen voter suppression my whole life. my sister moved years ago from florida to georgia. she would go down, she moved to atlanta. she would go down and stand in line and she could never get registered. she said the line never moved. what i'm thinking is, we have got -- we definitely need some legislation. if it takes the filibuster to get it going than i am all for it. host: getting rid of the filibuster for these bills. you are on board for that. caller: yes ma'am. host: i am going to go to carla in missouri, independent. carla, good morning in missouri. are you there? caller: yes. i'm here. i think both republicans and democrats are throwing a lot of red herrings into this. if everybody had voter id. the guy who called and said they ought to be free, that is a solution. only citizens should vote. i don't know what's going on in new york. it's in the constitution plain and simple. that takes care of that. host: we will return to this conversation with more of your viewpoints coming up here on "the washington journal." first, though, we're going to review yesterday's hearing on capitol hill with the white house covid response team and ariel cohen with roll call will join us for that conversation. and then turn our attention to the battle with the biden administration with the mandate over employers with kevin american of oklahoma. kevin hearn of oklahoma. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed, today a fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability and choice. now more than ever it all starts with great internet. >> wow. support c-span as a public service among with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat with democracy. >> what is your question or comment for rush? that's how james golden, better known for over 30 years as bo snurrdly would greet listeners to the radio practice. -- to the practice program. he's written a book about the official show observer and producer with the most popular talk show over 30 years. rush limbaugh died in 2021 and in his book golden said is a tribute to his former boss and friend and writes about his love of radio and how the limbaugh program came together behind the scenes. >> on this episode of booknotes +, available on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> download c-span's new mobile app and stay up to date with live video coverage of the day's political events of house and senate floor and key congressional hearings to white house events and supreme court oral arguments. even our live interactive morning program "washington journal" where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. >> "character journal" joins us now. host: joining us now is is ariel cohen from roll call. what were the takeaways from drd others. guest: it was a jam-packed hearing and the first time they brought in these public health officials to talk about the omicron variant really taking hold of the country nowadays. some of the main themes that came from the hearing is the centers are worried about the confusion of the guidance coming from the top health officials when can comes to covid-19 isolation and testing guidelines. another big theme was concern about the lack of readily available testing kits and high quality masks. host: there is a piece on rollcall.com quoting the lloyder hoyer, white house is to ask for more pandemic relief funds. what can you tell us? guest: yes, definitely something the house democrats are anticipating at this point, that the white house asked for more funds for masks, testing and other domestic international covid needs at this point in the pandemic and they're looking at the upcoming february 18c.r. deadline for that and at this point it's still something in the early stages but the house appropriators are starting to get that together. host: how did these health officials respond to questions about testing. what were they asked and how did they answer? guest: right now the guidelines surrounding testing and isolation are a little confusing. the c.d.c. said that if you test positive for covid-19, after five days and you're starting to feel better and you don't have symptoms anymore, can you leave isolation. and they don't recommend but encourage you to take a test which is sort of confusing, right? at this point in the pandemic it's not supereasy to find a shelf on -- a test on the shelves or anything like that. the biden administration said they planned to send out 500 million tests to menace the near future and will set up a way for americans to order those by online or phone and they're worried this system may not be ready until later in the month after the omicron surge died down a bit and isn't ready when needed which is right now. host: the questions on masking, we've seen c.d.c. and other health officials talk about the need to wear a better mask, that cloth masks aren't cutting it. guest: definitely. senator tammy baldwin was interested in that and asked about finding high quality masks like n-95 and k-95 the gold standard for masking. the c.d.c. doesn't necessarily recommend that all americans go out and find these masks because they should be prioritized for health care providers at this point in the pandemic. so the question is sort of why at this point should americans not be getting the best quality masks they can tolerate? and we know that the c.d.c. is considering updating their guidelines to better reflect how different masks offer different levels of protection. now today, senator bernie sanders is planning to introduce legislation that would make it so the government sends n-95 masks to every american household, and that's something senators are considering. but we'll have to see what the c.d.c. says in terms of masking. host: overall there are reports biden administration officials are calling for a new covid strategy, one where people are living with covid rather than trying to eradicate it, what does it mean? guest: i think what you're referring to is there were some letters and papers put out by former biden administration officials rethinking the whole covid-19 strategy because at some point the virus will become endemic like how we had the swine flu, the h-1 epidemic years ago and how it's a part of everyday life. the current public health officials are saying it's something that will happen eventually hopefully but we're not there yet. right now if you're vaccinated and boosted, you have very good protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death from covid but we're seeing the unvaccinated are really getting hit hard by the latest wave. we've had record hospitalizations this past weekend across the country with covid can -- with covid-19 which is something very concerning so not time to take the foot off the gas yet. host: the headlines in "the new york times" is over half europe could be infected soon according to the world health organization. you've seen dr. fauci say everybody could get covid and it will be widespread. this is what "the new york times" reports that while much of the public discussion has revolved around whether this was the moment when governments should shift policies and restrictions to treat the droved as a pandemic disease, allowing them to take risks like inflew endsa the w.h.o. said it was too early to call the virus a endemic. what are you hearing about when they'll make that call? guest: a lot of the sources we talked to say they look to make this call as soon as possible but it's hard to know where we are in this pandemic. right now hopefully we're seeing the peak of the omicron variant. the new york governor recently said she believes that the virus is peaking in new york city and cases are starting to go down and of course we know new york city was the first place that really got hit hard by this variant. right now we're still in the middle of a surge and have to see where things go from there and right now public health officials, the ones saying the viruses come in when they get the tests are looking for new variants constantly. i mean, optimistically we'd love to see the surge become endemic as soon as possible but it's really hard to say right now. you can't predict these things perfectly. host: talking about the covid-19 response, a health care reporter with "roll call." we want to take your questions and comments and divided the lines by region and they're on your screen. you can begin dialing in now. i also want to show ariel cohen one of the fiery moments from yesterday's hearing between, again, another heated exchange between senator rand paul and dr. fauci. >> you think anyone had more influence in a response than you have? you think it's a great success what happened so far. [the lockdown is good for our kids? you think we slowed down the death rate? more people died under president biden than did under president trump. you're the one responsible. you're the architect, the lead architect from the response from the government and now 800,000 people have died. do you think it's a winning success what you've advocated for government? dr. fauci: senator, first of all, if you look at everything that i said, you accuse me of in a monolithic way telling people what they need to do. everything that i said has been in support of the c.d.c. guidelines, wear a mask, get boosted, get vaccinated. >> and you made it coercive. and you advocated it be done by mandate and said the invaluable opinion be dictated by law. dr. fauci: madam chair, i'd like a couple minutes because it happens all the time. you personally attack me with absolutely not a sled of evidence of anything you say. i'd like to make something clear to the committee. he's doing this for political reasons. what you need to do is he said in front of this committee -- >> you think your takedown of epidemic -- >> that's what i was going to say. are re. >> at this point -- >> senator paul f you would please -- i'm going to allow dr. we have a number of senators who would like to ask questions and i'd like him to be able to respond. please do so. dr. fauci: the last time we had a committee before he was accusing me of being responsible for the death of 4 million to 5 million people which is really irresponsible. i say why is he doing that? there are two reasons why that's really bad. the first is it distracts from what we're all trying to do here today is get our arms around the epidemic and pandemic we're dealing with, not something imaginary. number two, what happens when he gets out and accuses me of things that are completely untrue is that all of a sudden that kindles the crazies out there and i have threats upon my life, harassments of my family and my children with obscene phone calls because people are lying about me. now, you know, i guess you could say well that's the way it goes, i can take the hit. well, it makes a difference because as some of you may know, just about three or four weeks ago on december 21, a person was arrested who was on their way from sacramento to washington, d.c., had a speed stop in iowa and the police asked him where he was going and he was going to washington, d.c. to kill dr. fauci. and they found in his car an ar-15 and multiple magazines of ammunition because he thinks that maybe i'm killing people. so i ask myself, why would the senator want to do this? so go to rand paul website and you see fire dr. fauci with a little box that says contribute here. you can do $5, $20, $100. so you are making a catastrophic epidemic for your political gain. host: ariel cohen, what was your reaction from senators from that exchange and did senator rand paul say anything after the hearing? guest: well, this is not the first time dr. fauci and senator rand paul have gotten into one of these tits in the senate meeting and seems to be a pattern here. the other senators in the committee were just really eager to get things back on track. the chairwoman patty murray, she let it go for a while and then basically said there are much more pressing issues than your personal disagreements here. we need to focus on what's going on in this country and how we can help the american people and she tried to sort of put a kabosh on this argument. senator mitt romney and other republicans also sort of called out rand paul and senator marshall also sort of hopped on the pilon ---pile on train and said these comments are inappropriate. it was funny, after the hearing senator rand paul blasted out a fundraising email to his supporters based off of the exchange. another fire dr. fauci contribute here sort of thing. it's obviously something paul is using to gen up support and do what fauci said he was doing right after with that email. host: let's get to calls. joe in maine, good morning to you, joe. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. if we're on the subject of rand paul, he also in d.c. sent a fake video to fox news about his wife not being protected. do you remember that? and he sent out fundraisers off of that, too. this is supposed to be one of the richest men in kentucky and does he do any policy, rand paul? you can look that up. my question is to all the republicans, ok. you just saw fauci call rand paul out for not having any facts, being a liar and rand paul sat there with no facts with the same bull crap he sends out every time. you said this then, you did this then, you're with the chinese communist party. that's what they accuse fauci who is doing nothing, he's not making money anywhere. they embarrassed him with his salary, did you see that? please comment on that, congressman, and he didn't even know it's public knowledge, fauci's salary. host: all right, joe. tom in new jersey. we'll go to you. caller: good morning. i'm an independent. what i think of the whole thing is i think dr. fauci lost his incredible follow the science thing. from the beginning he declared the u.s. has nothing to worry about, folks. he has flip-flopped numerous times. i just think he needs to take a back seat and this covid, i think we're all going to catch it. and that's it. i think we really need -- we don't need a tv star, we really need c.d.c. to tell us what to do and now they're telling us the kn-95 mask, i hope they can supply them to us because we can't find it. host: are they going to supply it for americans? guest: that's something on the table but has not been decided definitively yet. you raised a really good point. a lot of this messaging is sort of confusing and that's because the science is constantly evolving, right? this is a new virus. we've never experienced covid-19 and the many new variants before so things are constantly changing. janet woodcock said during the hearing we're at the point where everyone is going to probably end up getting covid in this country and whether or not you're vaccinated and boosted will depend on how severe it. what the goal is right now is to make sure people are protected and keep the hospital capacity down so our systems aren't overwhelmed. host: what did the officials say yesterday about hospitals now and in the coming weeks with this omicron surge? host: yes. public health officials are really concerned about hospital capacity right now. across the country we're seeing emergency rooms flooded and covid wards that were relatively empty over the summer are now full. so hospitals that are at capacity of which there are many, many across the country are going to have trouble serving people's other needs, which there are many, which are un-covid related and senators were very concerned about that and repeatedly said one of the main goals of the omicron surge is ensure hospitals are able to operate and health care workers aren't completely stretched to the limit. host: anderson, indiana. good morning, go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yes. i just want to say, i believe president biden's publicity about the mandatory thing we need it to be protected because of the covid vaccine and should press him harder because there's still a lot of people working around here, individuals and everybody, being respectful to nobody and that's very important. i got both my shots in prison and when i got out i got my booster to protect my family is very important. i'm just saying everybody definitely needs to take heed to that and get their covid injection. that's very important. host: are we seeing with this surge the vaccination rates are going up? guest: just slightly. right now i believe it's less than 70% of the country is fully vaccinated, of course that's including children and those under 5 who are unvaccinated. one thing that might drive up covid vaccinations in a big way are these new requirements for health care workers to be vaccinated which went into place at the start of the new year and of course those requirements are being litigated in court right now but when people are required to get vaccinations through their work, that's one way that can really drive up vaccination rates. host: harry in theory cross, georgia. caller: hey, how are you? i will say about covid. listen, anybody who doesn't get vaccinated, they're the ones who are putting themselves at risk. i've been vaccinated. i probably have underlying problems but the vaccination didn't hurt me, the booster didn't hurt me, i'm still alive. i just hope all those republicans out there will still be alive when it comes time to vote but i'm doubting it now. thank you, c-span. host: bob in arkansas. we'll go to you next. caller: am i on? host: you are, good morning. caller: thank you very much. ms. cohen, the thing i have issue with is whenever you talk about rand paul, i actually watched it yesterday, being retired i have the time. and what you failed to bring up is fauci had other epidemiologists who suggested that this thing may have very well come out of wuhan and he had emails going back and forth i think with mr. collins and then they talk about how to make the other well known epidemiologists to tarnish their reputation and what rand paul was very upset about. the way of using it in a political way instead of doing his job for the public was my gathering. host: ariel cohen. guest: that's an interesting point you bring up there. one thing that has come out of this exchange is that we know that the -- i'm sorry, i'm confused by your question. host: that's ok. we'll move on. marvin in minnesota. caller: good morning. everyone is calling in blaming each other. and i wish somebody could call in and give us the correct answer how to go about everything but my opinion on all this hassling going on, that certain politicians are going to try to drag this in to the next election just like it was done in the last election and for making it more difficult for certain people to vote, so a lot of it was done by mail, etc., etc., and that is my opinion. host: we're talking about the covid response by the biden administration. ray in litchfield, new hampshire. hi, ray. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. i have a couple questions, actually. a couple weeks ago dr. fauci was talking about the number of children in the hospital with covid but he was saying that really it's every child -- everybody goes in the hospital is tested for covid and a large percentage, i want to say 50% of the kids were there not because they had covid but because they had a broken leg or something like that. but they're counted as a covid patient. and i guess it could be the same and true with adults. what's the true number of that? the other thing was recently the c.d.c. came out with a study that children in the hospital with actually covid and over 60% of them were obese. and because of that, why aren't we hearing more from the c.d.c. about healthy lifestyles, taking care of yourself, eating better, and that would be more towards preventing serious results of covid and we're not hearing that from the c.d.c. why is that? guest: you raise a good point. the covid rates are rising quickly being hospitalized. as of january 9, an average of 861 kids were being hospitalized every week which is a lot. but as you mentioned, every kid is tested when they come in. so a portion of those are people entering with covid-19 and a portion of those who arrive for something else and then test positive for covid-19 because the virus is so widespread, right? many of the children who are hospitalized with severe covid-19 are unvaccinated because we know that vaccination protection prevents kids from getting the disease and kids ages 5 and up are eligible. a lot of the children being hospitalized are ages 4 and under, a higher percentage in our population because they are vaccine ineligible. now what you said about co-morbidities is also another good point. the c.d.c. has said that if you have these underlying conditions like obesity or a heart problem, asthma, you're most likely to contract severe covid. a lot of these things they can't say don't have asthma so we're not going to hear from the c.d.c. about, you know, don't have your underlying health care condition but we do know if you have an underlying health care condition and you're up to date on your vaccinations, you're much less likely to be hit with severe covid. that's why they're pushing vaccinations a lot. especially for children right now as they focus now on return to learning and keeping kids in the classroom throughout the surge. host: evansville, indiana, keith is watching there. good morning. caller: good morning. i really can't take anything that the democratic people say about anything because they're so worried about sticking our little bitty kids with this medicine. i took it myself, i'm 61 years old, you know. so i'm going to take it and i'm going to test. but this is a test they're giving everyone these shots. they don't know what's going to happen five years from now so they're so concerned about sticking all our kids but the border is wide open, all kinds of different strains are coming through from 60 different countries and if you're concerned, then show it. president, you're the lousiest president we've ever had. you disgust me. host: ariel cohen, let's talk with you about what you're watching for in the coming weeks on the white house changing their strategy or announcing new guidance. guest: if you don't mind, i'd love to respond to that last question really quick. something we know about vaccines and these mrna vaccines being used for covid is that they enter the body and the vaccine material is out within about 48 hours. they instruct the d.n.a., how to fight covid-19 and then the vaccine material, you metabolize it so it's not something that sticks around. and then in terms of what i'm looking for the next few weeks, you said, obviously we have to see how this omicron surge plays out. i'm very interested to see what the c.d.c. and white house decide to do with n-95 and k-95 mask. that's going to be a big game changer i think for this country. right now public health officials are saying whatever mask you can tolerate, any mask is better than no mask but we know omicron is so highly transmissible and acting commissioner janet woodcock says everyone will get covid at some point but these high quality masks can slow that and prevent hospital capacity from surging. so that's probably one of the biggest things on the radar. then of course as we talked about before, what's going to happen after omicron is really anybody's guess and the million dollar question here. host: thanks for the conversation. can you follow her reporting if you go to rollcall.com. guest: thank for you having me. host: up next week talk with republican congressman kevin hern from oklahoma about the vaccination mandate for private employers. later democratic congressman, brad sherman, top member of the foreign affairs committee will talk rising tensions with the u.s. and russia over ukraine and the future of nato. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including spark light. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. at spark light, it's our home, too. right now we're all facing our greatest challenge and why sparklight is working around the clock to keep you connected. we're doing our part so it's a little easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports c-span as a public service among these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> how exactly did america get up to its net in -- neck in debt? >> one of the best characteristics of america is we're striving to provide equal rights to everyone. >> students across the country are giving us a behind the scenes look as they work on their entries, using the #studentcam and if you're a middle or high school student join and enter the competition and create a 5-6 minute documentary using c-span video clip to answer the question how is the federal government impact your life? >> be passionate about what you're discussing to express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will receive it to be. and how that in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view does matter. >> to all the filmmakers out there, content is king. and just remember to be as neutral and impartial as possible in your portrayal of both sides of an issue. >> c-span awards $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for competition rules and tutorials or how to get started visit our website at studentcam. org. these six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's podcast, presidential recordings. >> season 1 focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the golf of tonkin incident, 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 conversations and they made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you'll also hear some blunt talk. >> jim? >> yes, sir. >> i want a report of the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died, the numbers assigned to me now and if mine are not less i want them less right quick. >> yes, sir. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise you i won't go anywhere and stay behind these black gates. >> presidential reporting, find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. >> a new mobile video app from c-span. c-span now, download today. "washington journal" continues. host: we're joined by congressman kevin hern, republican of oklahoma. he used to own several mcdonald's franchises so a business owner with a perspective on president biden's vaccine mandates for employers. you oppose it, sir, tell us why. guest: back in early september i came out against this. i spent my entire career across many and it's hard to walk the fine line of taking care of your employees, meeting their personal needs but also keeping them employed and then we have the administration come out and force a pandemic -- a mandate on more than a hundred employees to get vaccinated when these people not vaccinated are expressing their personal freedoms and individual liberties of saying that we don't want to be vaccinated. and now it's the business' job to go out and basically support the biden administration's job of putting out vaccinations and letting people make personal choices and all that is going to do, the people who don't want to get vaccinated will leave businesses that have more than a hundred employees and go work for somebody else. it's not going to achieve what the wild -- the biden administration is trying to achieve. he has no concept of what it's like to be in business and never had to create a job or spend his personal money in creating a business. that's what the people are telling me and i'm getting calls across the state and country asking for incredible help and why you continue to see the confidence in small business owners across america continuing to decline with any confidence of this administration. host: i want you to respond to the federal chairman jerome powell, testifying on capitol hill yesterday said vaccines are good for the economy. take a listen. >> do you expect inflation to subside as vaccinations increase and supply chains are repaired? >> over time, yes. the question is how fast and the risks we're running in the meantime that inflation psychology starts to get entrenched but certainly i believe that and you make a great point about vaccination. getting ahead of the pandemic, i don't think two years ago we thought we'd still be having record levels of cases. and even close to record levels of hospitalizations. getting past the pandemic is the i think isle most important thing we can do. host: the federal reserve chair on capitol hill. "the wall street journal" out with this headline, 2021 is expected to rank the biggest year for inflation in four decades. isn't what he is saying, can you respond to him that vaccinations are good because it keeps people out of the hospitals and keeps them working? guest: that's certainly been the narrative. i've been vaccinated, the majority of the republicans i talked to and heard speak and people on tv have have not said don't get vaccinated. that's not what this whole conversation is about. with the 100 plus employees but about people expressing their personal freedoms and the reality is that if you have a earn concern with vaccinations you should talk to your doctor, if there's something personal or a reason you're not doing it but there shouldn't an mask mandate by the president of the united states, the freest nation in the world, to tell employers to have their employees vaccinated or test them and spend money doing that and the reality is that much like obamacare that set a threshold of 50, this with 100, people will figure out how to get around this and that's unfortunate. again, we're continuing to politicize the vaccinations -- we heard president trump talk about being vaccinated but if there's a personal choice out there go talk to your doctor and get vaccinated. we also know being vaccinated is not stopping people from going to the hospital. this omicron is highly contagious as we all know and it's -- many people are going to the hospital that are vaccinated. the death rate prior to omicron was about 30% with the delta variant, today it's less than 2% and so a lot of people are having to make these personal choice. again, i don't think it's the employer and the businesses that should be executing the president's edict with osha mandates upwards of $130,000 fines. host: congressman, how do you respond when people say more people in the hospitals are unvaccinated? guest: we'll have to go with that being the fact. i'm certainly not there at the hospitals. but as i said, i've never personally, i've never told anyone not to get vaccinated. i'm saying -- i've been vaccinated and been very open about that. i've been vaccinated for a year and had the booster. that's been my personal choice to do so. there are others. i have family members that haven't been. i've known folks in my district and across the state personally that have not gotten vaccinated that lost their lives. that was their personal choice and it's unfortunate and sad but again, the only place in the world where we have the ability where leaders can just go tell everybody what to do and should do it or fear some fining or jailing is like china and russia and those are communist countries and we're not there yet. if some -- some of my colleague across the aisle would like us to be there and i believe it's the freest nation in the world and people can make their personal decisions and i'll support that as long as i'm in congress and a u.s. citizen. host: as a former business owner and entrepreneur, how would you -- or what would you do about inflation in this country? #. guest: well, again, it's -- you referenced chairman powell who i've spoken to many times on some of the committee work i do on ways and means and budget. i think he can a great job yesterday taking the politics out of the whole conversation. he said we do not need any more money into this economy. inflation is now in a dire situation. it's the highest it's been in some 40 years. it's expected to go even higher this year. that's why you're seeing the monetary policies he's trying to rapidly institute even though he's also the person that says last year don't worry about inflation about this time last year as he started seeing what was going on with inflation as president biden was coming in and they had the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that was put forth. then we started seeing in april and may federal chairman powell said it was transitory and temporary and made a statement around august it was going to be high until it became low and now we're in a dire space. he was shocked how many people were unemployed not trying to fill jobs. that's another reason inflation is high and labor costs are soaring across all different industries and we're also seeing the crippling of our supply chains, not just here but from across the world and i think what we also see during this covid pandemic is really going to take us an opportunity to pause is how much dependency we have on china, when we see some six containers come from china for every one we send back is going to set forth new policies, a new look at how we do business globally with our medicines and semi conductor industry. all these things are driving labor costs and driving costs in general. we're seeing shelves that are not stocked and for the biden administration to insinuate businesses like unshocked shelves is just an example of how naive they are about how the capitalist market works. host: let's get to aim why i in gray, georgia, democratic caller. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, amy. caller: first of all, you have a congressman on who did not vote to certify the 2020 election, so you have somebody on there who doesn't believe in the constitution, doesn't believe in the rule of law, doesn't believe in our democracy but he's there. so i do have a question for him. you're a businessperson, i would like to know how many business owners in oklahoma received money for the paycheck protection program that was started during covid? and when you did have your franchises of mcdonald's did you allow people to come in and smoke? i don't think so because there's a law against that because they are not allowed to cause other people to get sick with their smoke, the same thing is true with this virus. you're being disingenuous. you know better. host: let's get a response, amy. caller: i'm not sure on the v.p. conversation she's referencing, it's been a couple years ago now, i'd have to go back and check. again, it was a very bipartisanship issue, one of the most bipartisan thing that happened since i've been in congress since the start of covid because democrats and republicans alike in washington, d.c. knew it was important for employees to stay in jobs. because otherwise they were going to leave and get unemployment so we were going to pay for it one way or the other with federal dollars, either reimbursing the states through emergency unemployment dollars or doing it the way that it was done. and again, speaker pelosi and steny hoyer and kevin mccarthy and steve ask lease worked in a bipartisanship -- bipartisan way with the senate to get the law passed. as far as referencing the january 6, article 1, section 2 clearly states the time and place and manner of elections will be determined by state legislators, not by judges or the governors of the state or unelected secretaries of state. and in those states they didn't do that. and by the way, if you go back multiple elections including the election of president trump, democrats objected as well. it's one of our constitutional rights to do so. so the reality is that is the reality. as referencing the smoking, whatever the law is, you're right, we follow the law. the rule of law is very important. i wish we followed the rule of law at the border. that would be great as well and we wouldn't have the issue we're having at the border right now because same thing with voting rights. if we followed the constitutional mandate of when a election day is in november, we would know who our president and our state reps -- excuse me, our congressional members and our senate members would be on those days but states didn't do that either. so we don't need a lot of new laws in many cases we just need to follow the laws we have. host: gary in jacksonville, florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning, getta and congressman. i don't understand why so many republicans have politicized the idea of vaccinations. companies require drug testing as a mandate for employment, why can't they mandate vaccinations to protect themselves just as they would for people whom may be under the influence of drugs? i don't understand the difference. host: let's take that point. guest: that's a great point. and businesses have the right to do that. i did that when i was in business and didn't do it for condition of employment but for condition of accidents i did. many companies have different policies. i've never been against that. i'm not sitting here saying businesses can't have vaccination mandates. where my argument has been it's not the president of the united states job to tell businesses what to do. if businesses don't take care of their employees, this is a fact for all those listening out there, if you don't take care of your employees, you won't be in business. so for those businesses that know their employees and everybody's perfectly ok with working together, then they certainly are ok with that. but if not, then they will go out of business and that's what we have happen is people making decisions with their businesses and people will leave, meaning employees will leave if they feel unsafe and go to work for some place they feel safer. and again, back on the drug testing, i personally ok that if that's what a business wants to do. host: in louisville, kentucky, republican. caller: hello. yes. maxine waters didn't certify the election when donald trump was voted in so enough of that stuff. in 2021 in february, i got the first shot of moderna. 30 days later i got the second shot. and then i wore a mask everywhere i went. fauci said double mask, i'd double mask everywhere i went. in stores to the doctor's office, everywhere i went. if i went to another person's home, i wore a mask. i'm thinking what are these people doing that are working? i'll tell you what they're doing, they were having a very difficult time because they wasn't getting the right information about what to do. who was in charge of that? fauci, biden and the c.d.c. the c.d.c. couldn't find water if they were in a boat in the middle of the ocean. come the end of august, they come out and said well, we need to get a booster. i got in line and got my booster. guess what? christmas i got covid. so i went through the procedures and got tested again, it was a home test that my wife gave me and i was covid positive and i went to the i.c.c. and they said absolutely, you have covid. so now we're giving you antibodies. i have the antibiotics and now they tell me the mask isn't worth a darn and the biden administration is talking about getting k-95 masks, how come they don't already have them? nobody knows what's going on in this country. host: congressman, to that caller, in response to that caller, is it because the virus is unknown and things evolve and people learn more and more studies come out and more research comes out so then officials are bound to change as they know more. guest: the problem is it's sort of the old story of ready, fire, aim. everybody wants to be an expert in this including dr. fauci and quite frankly he's never seen anything like it so he was getting out on the tip of the spear a year ago saying we should wear masks and we shouldn't wear a mask -- it's two years now. we've seen the evolution and quite frankly the american people are just exhausted by misinformation. i would even say to all the listeners on here and people wanting to call in, democrats, republicans and independents. even the president of the united states is really tired of what the c.d.c. is saying. in fact, just a few days ago he said ignore what the c.d.c. is saying. so even they can't even agree. so the reality is just as the caller said, the vaccination is not 100% fullproof in preventing you from getting covid. it does lessen the severity in many cases, we've seen that. but it's not 100%. millions of americans take the flu virus, it has an efficacy of less than 50% but people do it anywhere. about half the americans take that and they're eligible to take the flu vaccine. nothing is going to be 100% foolproof and another reason why i'm against the vaccine mandate. if you talk to your doctor or a physician, a person nonpolitical, they'll tell you whether this will work for you or this is a suggestion you should do. again, we all now at this point in time two years in have had family members that have been ill and people who like myself have been vaccinated have been through multiple variants and have not contracted covid in two years. other people in my family, and i've traveled and been in washington, d.c. ever since covid started. it's unknown. there's so many unknowns. so take say everybody should be vaccinated00% is not something the federal government should be doing. host: lindsey in bloomington, indiana, democratic caller. caller: hello, c-span, thank you representative. guest: thanks, lindsey. caller: i have a question, you say people without convenience -- vaccines have a right to not have the vaccine but they are filling up our hospital because they're not receiving a vaccine. and the other thing is you're telling people it's only for a vaccine mandate when it's for testing, too, you need to put that in there with that. we need a mandate here in indiana because my granddaughter is being sent to school without a mask, her -- one of her parents is not vaccinated and they're not planning on it because it's a political thing. it's not about their health at all. and i tend to being maybe they just don't understand that the vaccine is good for our country and it would help our inflation if they would vaccine more people. host: ok, lindsey. congressman, your thoughts? guest: again, we go back to a bipartisan covid committee the congress has that was put in place early last year after president biden came to power. there was a recommendation starting in april to look at home testing kits in october, certainly in the fall. president biden refused to have the money spent to develop 750 million home testing kits and now what we're seeing is we have no testing kits. i've looked myself, in tulsa i went to walgreen's and they had signs up everywhere, no vaccine -- excuse me, no home kits available. i asked the pharmacist and they said walgreen's nowhere in the united states, which is one of the primary distribution points for the home testing kit has none in the united states. so we have no home testing kits. i did see an article yesterday we're going to start sending these out to schools sometime the next week or so. but all the experts, i was reading a couple epidemiology reports from the university of washington stating we're going to see a peak somewhere around the end of next week and a rapid decline in the omicron variant seeing what we're seeing in south africa and europe. so by the time the tests are getting here, we're not going to be -- we'll see rapid declines and this goes back to even president biden denying the fact that this was going to continue to be an issue. so we can talk about republicans but the administration who has access to the administration, the c.d.c., n.i.h. and dr. fauci and everybody were misleading the country saying it was going to get better. if you look at the polling for president biden early last year who was doing a better job with the virus, his numbers were in 60% plus and today they're around 40% and declining rapidly. he came into office a year ago with three convenience -- three convenience and with therapeutics and a ton of knowledge and now what we've seen unfortunately for america because of the politicization and because of the promises that have not come through, we've seen over 100,000 more people lose their lives to covid than what happened under president trump in the same amount of time. it's very unfortunate to the caller that we politicize this. again, if we go back as i said since day one, let the people go talk to their doctors and determine whether this should be something they do or not will determine how we move forward and we probably would have had more people vaccinated. but to your point and to some of the callers' points it's been so politicized now that people are really frustrated with what's going on. host: robin in columbia falls, maine, republican. caller: hi, i'm not calling in just as a republican but for all americans. you need to do your own research on this covid. i certainly agree with representative hern. i'm against any federal mandate so people can be vaccinated. i did have a vaccination, i had the johnson & johnson way back in march. and my husband didn't and we've been doing research since on our own and i would not do it again, kid tell you that and i will not get boosted but that's my own personal take from things i looked up. i think most of the people have not done any research, have taken c.d.c.'s word for everything and dr. fauci's word for everything and you need to go and look up the people he silenced and do your own research and take from that what you get, even your doctors in some cases are not -- i know my particular doctor and who i trust on everything else is definitely for vaccine. he pushes the vaccine which is something i don't. i think you need to make your own decisions on this and frankly, my decision came from looking at research done by virologists and epidemiologists, not tv personalities or somebody trying to get ahead who have a different version of what this covid is than dr. fauci. and i think a lot of people are saying oh, there's more people in the hospitals because of covid. well, there's more people in the hospitals, maybe, i don't know but i would think it's because when they come down with it or if they take a test and test positive, they call their doctors and the doctors don't have any therapeutics to give these people so unless they get better on their own, if it progresses and gets worse they end up in the hospital but there's nothing they can do in between time, the doctors just say well, stay home. host: robin, i'll jump in and have the congressman respond to you. guest: thanks, robin, i appreciate that. even the c.d.c.'s own numbers are saying now higher percentage of people are going to the hospital for other reasons than earlier in covid and in discovering once they get there because of mandated testing at the hospitals that they have covid, tested positive for covid and they went there because they had broken a finger or have a cold or the flu likesymptoms and go there not knowing they had covid but get tested because the hospitals have testing kits and find they have covid. i think the number is roughly 54% where prior to this it was 27% when they went to the hospital they went there specifically because they had covid. so there's a lot of fear out in the communities across america because of all this information. i think half of america thought president biden said when he was running he was going to destroy the virus and so now they've been disappointed. if you look at his polling numbers now in the 30's, clearly the republicans never gave him high marks and his erosion, his 20 +points erosion and continue to decline are coming from democrats and republicans, so the reporters who got him elected are losing confidence in his leadership in less than a year now. so what he has found is that the misinformation and allowing dr. fauci to continue to be the point on this has been really detrimental to his presidency in less than a year. so it will be interesting to see what happens with the supreme court case that we should be hearing from any day now on this mandate based on indications we saw friday that they're very reluctant in supporting and allowing this to go through, meaning the osha enforcement of convenience -- vaccines at the employer level, so again, based on my position on this in september, my supporting the job creators network lawsuit against the federal government on this issue, i still believe it's tremendous government overreach that's unconstitutional. host: don self in indiana, democratic caller, you're next for democrat kevin hern. caller: congressman, when you first got on the show you said you didn't know any republicans that were for mandate or want to do mandates or anything and people should follow their own conscience and own rights and you're going against the constitution making people do this because of their employers are making them do it. first of all, the employer went to the white house, all those people were telling him to do this and he went through osha to do this because they can't keep their employees healthy at the job. second, you said no republicans did this? come on, desantis in florida mandated schools and hospitals and mandated cruise ships what they can do. look at abbott, abbott did the same thing. and you're saying that these people should have the right to choose and do what they want to do and if they go to their doctor they find out what they should do and everything else. you know, if republicans are against mandates, why are you suppressing these women out there for their own safety and their own will for their own bodies, why are you mandating what they have to do? could you respond to that, please? thank you. guest: my position has been the constitutional position and not my personal beliefs. i said it's unconstitutional for the president to create an executive order to go out and force employers to do vaccination mandates on their employees. again, regarding that issue about abbott and ron desantis, i'd have to go check on that to see but again, also what i've said is it employers want to force mandates on their employees, that is their purview. they actually run the companies, they own the companies. if they lose employees and they go out of business, then they have figured out they didn't understand their employee base. but again, that's been my position from day one as far as the president doing the executive order, not congressional action or creating a law but using osha, which is been known -- steel toed boots and hardhats and safety glasses to know go out and force vaccination mandates on employers who have employee bases of 100 or more. and what we find interesting in all this, does it mean businesses with less than 100 employees don't matter? if he really cared and it's something that was really about the employees, why didn't he do this on all businesses in america? it's really something of an interesting -- that the president has done to an executive order. if a business as 105 employees and five of them do not want to get vaccinated or are sick, this is not going to change their vaccination status. they will go to work for companies that have less than 100 employees. did not change the vaccination status. all it did was punitive for the businesses and the employer that actually had this threshold in place. host: congressman, republican of oklahoma, we always appreciate you coming onto the show. guest: thanks, greta. have host: a great day. host:when we come back -- host: when we come back, do you support changing senate rules for voting rights legislation? there are the lines on your screen. start dialing in. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these telecommuting -- these companies and more. >> charter has invested billions building infrastructure, it -- upgrading technology, empowering technology in communities big and small. >> charter communication supports giving you a front row to democracy. many presidents recorded conversations while in office. here those. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on semi, and the war on vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretaries knew, because they were tasked with recording those conversations. they were the ones who make sure 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. pres. johnson: i want a report of the number of people signed to kennedy on the day he died and the number assigned to me now, and if there are less, i want it quick. i promise i will not go anywhere. i will stay behind these black gates. >> find it on the c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, and deliver new podcasts all for free. host: we are back. yesterday, president biden in atlanta, georgia publicly called for changing the senate rules to pass voting rights legislation. here he is talking about those bills. pres. biden: we call on congress to get done what history will judge. pass the freedom to vote act. pass it now. here in georgia, there is full access to voting by mail. people can bring food and water to those waiting in line. the freedom to vote act takes on election subversion to protect nonpartisan electors, officials who are doing their jobs, from intimidation and interference. it would get rid of partisan gerrymandering. look, it is also time to pass the john lewis voting rights advancement act. i have been having these quiet conversations with members of congress for the last two months. i'm tired of being quiet. it would restore the strength of the voting rights act of 1965, the one president johnson signed after john lewis was beaten, nearly killed, on bloody sunday. then, the supreme court weakened it multiple times over the past decade. restoring the voting rights act would mean the justice department can stop discriminatory laws before they go into effect. host: president biden in georgia yesterday. the specifics of the two bills that he was talking about, the freedom to vote act would require states to set a 15 day minimum early voting window, and make election day a federal holiday. it would also mandate that each state offer same-day voting registration, all pulling locations, and bars states from drawing political boundaries that favor or disfavor any political party. this is a proposal that was crafted as a negotiation with senator joe manchin after the "for the people" act was passed in the house several times, was scuttled. the john lewis voting rights act restores full protection of the voting rights act of 1965, expands the formula the doj can use to identify discriminatory voting patterns and states and localities, and those entities would need justice department approval before making further changes to elections. we have paul allen in newbury park, california, democratic color. we will go to you. caller: thank you. i am 74 years old and living in terror of having to live in a dig tighter ship -- in a dictatorship. i think we need to change the rules. they came from the jim crow era to begin with. if we don't, we are going to lose our democracy. i don't think the democrats will be able to win another election after the midterms if the current states' cheating continues, and i don't know what happened to our senate. they just caved. they were honest right after the interaction, several of them, and then something happened. i have no idea what. i am a guy who is retired and living in terror of having to live in a dictatorship the rest of my years. i don't like it. host: tracy in arizona, republican. good morning to you. we lost tracy. darrell, simpsonville, south carolina, democratic caller. caller: how you doing? host: good morning. what do you think should happen here? change the rules for voting rights legislation? caller: i think they need to get rid of the filibuster. i have seen video clips of going back to when biden supported it, but times have changed. that was back in the early 2000's. the political world has changed. we had a dictator that tried to steal the election last year. we had an insurrection. it about turned over the government. thankfully, it did not happen, but who is to say it won't happen the next time? all because his ego was bruised and he could not accept the fact. then come to find out he lost by even more points or votes in arizona when they did the recount. and he won by less than the margin against hillary and all those swing states than biden won and all those swing states he lost. it was a landslide victory when he wins, but somebody stole something from him when he loses. host: darrell says change the rules. republicans, according to the new york times, are saying they will respond to any change in the senate rules with a scorched earth response. here is the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, on the floor yesterday. sen. mcconnell: if my colleague tries to break the senate to silence those millions of americans, we will make their voices heard in this chamber in ways that are more inconvenient for the majority in this white house than what anybody has seen him living memory. last year, the senate passed major bipartisan adulation on infrastructure, on hate crimes, on government funding, on competing with china. last year, the senators helped speed through noncontroversial nominations. what would a post nuclear senate look like? i assure you it would not look more efficient or more productive. i personally guarantee it. do my colleagues understand how many times per day the senate needs and gets unanimous consent for basic housekeeping? do they understand how many things would recall roll call votes, how often the minority could demand debate? our colleagues who are itching for a procedural nuclear winter have not even begun to contemplate how it would look, our colleagues who are itching to drain every drop of collegiality from this body have not even begun to consider how that would work. if the democratic leader tries to shut millions of americans and entire states out of the business of governing, the operations of this body will change. that much is true. but not in ways that reward the rule breakers, this majority, or their party. i guarantee it. host: how would they change the rules? "the new york times" reports that unless the changes can attract the 67 votes usually needed to change senate rules, a highly unlikely situation, given strident republican opposition, the only way to achieve that change is through what is known as the nuclear option. in that case, democrats would stage a series of floor votes to overrule senate president on a strict the partisan vote. that is how democrats eliminated the 60 vote threshold on most nominees in 2013, and her republicans did the same on supreme court nominees in 2017. at least two democratic senators, kyrsten sinema and joe manchin, have said they would not take part in such an effort. listen to senator joe manchin yesterday, when reporters caught up with him. sen. mansion we need rule -- >> do you get pressure from your constituents back home on that issue? sen. manchin: they know what bob byrd has educated people on over the years, and the filibuster is what makes the senate hopefully work when it is supposed to work. we need good rules changes. we can do that together. but you change the rules with two thirds of the people present. it is democrats and republicans changing rules to make the place work better. host: that is what senator joe manchin thanks. frank in bayside, new york. independent. what do you think? caller: i think it is a necessary thing to change the rules, and i think the reason behind my comment that is necessary is i am thinking of 30 years of gridlock. to me, it is very simple. whoever takes control of the senate, whether it be the democratic or republican, let them have their way as far as pass their agenda. if you don't like their agenda, or their agenda does not work, you vote them out next time, and you switch. host: samuel, hello. caller: hello. so, i am inclined to agree with joe manchin, that this is a fundamental procedural question, so it ought to garner a simple majority in order to get changed. changing the rules of the filibuster requires a large amount of consensus. the democrats are overselling the claim that voting rights restrictions in the south are on the order of jim crow. it is kind of theatrics not really helpful. host: why do you say that? caller: well, i believe that jim crow laws were ones where racists were -- races were explicitly targeted for voting suppression, whereas nowadays it is a rather race-neutral rules being in place. so calling it jim crow is not helpful because it is not true. host: what do you think democrats are doing, then? caller: they are just trying to paint a worse picture than is actually going on. host: ok. samuel, listen to this, republican senator lindsey graham on tuesday, responding to charges that republican changes to election rules are racist. sen. graham: states under constitutions are supposed to run elections. in my state, i think we do a pretty good job. there are efforts as more and more people vote for male -- mail. it is incumbent you have the same requirements voting and mail and voting in person. it would be so easy to manipulate that system. the bottom line is this is an effort by democratic leaders to basically say that republicans at our heart are a bunch of racists when it comes to voting. the reason they are having to do this is that states are changing laws to disenfranchise people. let me know into more minutes. disenfranchise people of color and minorities. isn't that offensive, just beyond offensive? in my state, which is 30% plus african-american, we have robust opportunity to vote. all these laws that are being changed to implement voter integrity i think are necessary in the times in which we live. but the bill coming before the body, whatever it is, is a federalization of the election process. it is not about a the voter. it is about an franchising the ability of the left to take over the electoral process to skew it to their favor. i think almost all of us see it that way over here. as a republican, particularly from the south, you sort of get used to being called a racist. never pleasant, but you sort of get used to it. it is the cheapest form of politics, and very unsavory. people might say i went through that process in 2020. i hope i convinced reasonable people that ever flaws i have, being a racist is not one of them. and to close this exercise here is some kind of moral imperative, that if we don't do this bill, then people throughout the country will lose the right to vote, because republicans at the end of the day don't want people of color to vote, is beyond offensive. i hope it fails. host: senator lindsey graham on the floor yesterday in the senate. also happening in the senate today, excuse me, in congress, the late former senator harry reid, leader of the democratic party for many years in the senate, he will be arriving at the u.s. capitol at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. at 11:00 a.m. eastern time, there will be congressional tributes to him. he will lie in state in the capital. you can watch coverage of this right here on c-span, on c-span.org, and you can download the free video app. c-span now is what it is called. you can get it on any local device. if you miss this this morning, you can hear it anytime on c-span. john in lake geneva, wisconsin. independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i can look up anybody in my state, and i actually do it. i have done it with friends and relatives and my deceased parents, to check their voting record. i can see if they have been voting illegally. i can look up records to see how many times they have voted. that was my first point. my second point is that i think the photo i.d. thing needs to be strengthened more than just a photo i.d., because like people said earlier today, there are people -- new york just passed a law where they are allowing illegals to vote in full elections. if all i need is a drivers license, new york state could issue them drivers licenses. that could come up and transfer over into federal elections. why third and final point would be last night was watching a program were senator cory booker actually said that -- falsely claimed mitch mcconnell change the filibuster rules to get supreme court justices. harry reid, you just brought him up, coming to lie in state. he was the one that originally change the rules in 2013 and invoked the nuclear option, in order to let president obama have nominations, judicial nominations, except the supreme court. at the time, they said they would change the filibuster for this and it would come back and bite you, and it did. the same thing might happen here. the only difference here is, i think if they change the filibuster now and get enough democratic votes by changing it, they will make washington a state and puerto rico a state, and then they will have former senators, and there probably will never be another republican to be in charge of anything. they will have a four vote majority minimum, i would think, in perpetuity. thank you for taking my call. host: in anchorage, alaska, republican. good morning. go ahead with your comment. caller: i am in favor of them ensuring that every american has the right to vote. i hate to have to actually express that. that should be a given. this is a country that based itself on being able to take care of all americans. i'm ashamed of my party of trying to change that, because they have no plan. they have no forward thinking at this moment. all they know to do is follow the former president in his ways, which i tell you -- keeping a criminal empower is just beyond me. anyway, if that is what the republicans are doing, it is a silly thing to do. we should be allowing every american to vote. and i have to say it with mitch mcconnell talking, threatening the democrats that nothing is going to get past if these rules get put in place, causing a nuclear winter -- we are already in a nuclear winter. nothing is happening. the republican party is keeping the democrats from getting anything through at this point. i'm ashamed at my party, and i certainly hope that somewhere they find what washington originally wanted, which was both sides could find compromise. thank you for taking my call. host: alexandria, virginia. democratic caller. caller: there is a lot to unpack so i will just create bullets to drop down. number one, mitch mcconnell, the grim reaper, threatening harsh things, is actually laughable. number two is if voting was fair there would be no need for gerrymandering. cinema and mansion aren't really democrats because no one goes -- kyrsten sinema and joe manchin are not really democrats because no one goes to fox news to talk to their base about anything. they have already weaponized the filibuster. for those who say we need voter i.d., they are the same people arguing we should not have to walk around with vaccination cards. it is really laughable to hear that democrats should play nice with republicans, when republicans have been blocking everything throughout the obama era, and use the rules to their advantage, and they constantly deny, deny, deny, and cry, until they are in power, and then they want to ram things through. emma kratz are usually for the people. republicans are usually for big business. we saw that with the previous administration. i hope that gets through to people and they look at what is going on. voting should be fair and legal for every citizen without this fear of worrying about illegals voting, and worrying about all this -- the false stories going on. that is my comment. host: steve, alabama, republican. steve, it is your turn. go ahead. caller: i hope i don't take up too much of your time. i would like to state this. i was raised in middle-class america. my grandfather was a research scientist, and i thought i knew a lot about things, and found out how naive i was. i spent eight years in the long beach area, went out there with $50 in my pocket. i spent a year and a half being very poor. the streets were around me because it was run down at that time, so i learned a little bit about street life, which was the best education i ever had. i have been in the hoods because i had black friends, and they did not all live in the hoods, and i have even been to compton. i learned a lot. i learned how to think a lot better, ok? i would like to say to everybody, republican or democrat, don't let the news dictate your life. look at things clearly. host: ok, steve. tie this to voting rights. caller: to get to the voting rights is this. the bottom line as far as it being racist or anything like that -- living out there, you have to have a drivers license if you come to a pawn shop and upon things, and most people, black or white, tent upon things. you had to have a drivers license. if you went to rent to own, you have to have a drivers license. if you went to a car lot, you had to have a drivers license. so this notion that poor people, black people, whatever, don't have the drivers license -- you can throw that out the window. believe me. host: bradley, prince george, virginia, independent. caller: good morning, c-span audience. let's see, voting rights. like senator lindsey graham, i agree that everybody, regardless of color, gender, sexual orientation, everyone, should have a right to vote as long as they meet the minimum requirement of age, and if your states require i.d. that is fine. perhaps we should have a national voter i.d.. i'm not entirely opposed to that. however, i would like to say that i think our institutions seem to be terribly -- we need to hit a reset button and try to improve our democracy. i would love to elaborate. but i could spend hours doing that. thank you, greta. have a great day. host: virginia, democratic caller. caller: i live in norton, virginia now. i am originally from kansas. kris kobach in kansas began to use these voter identification laws to try to stop people voting. they kicked 30,000 people off the voting logs in kansas. that went to court. it was basically laughed out of court. the judge made him take remedial classes on how to present a case, because he found out he'd lied when he talked about undocumented immigrants trying to vote. the people he was prosecuting for voting rights violations were actually elderly republicans who had voted in colorado and kansas, mistakenly. they basically dismissed the case. we see these voter rights laws and suppression laws actually occurring after african and people of color began to come to the polls. it did not happen before. now 19, a number of states, put in these laws, because black and brown folks went to the polls in numbers, so they figure they now need these voter suppression laws to stop all this, black and brown people from voting. host: heard your point. i believe it there for now. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will be joined by democratic congressional and brad sherman. we will talk about rising tensions between the u.s. and russia over ukraine, and the future of nato. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. ♪ midco support c-span as a public service, giving you a front row seat to democracy. book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:20 p.m. eastern, the former new jersey governor and presidential candidate chris christie provides his blueprint for how the republican party can win elections in republican areas. the book the congressional experience. he provides his perspective on congress, how it has changed over time, and how the legislative body can function better. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at book tv.org. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse apparel, books, and accessories. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop anytime at c-spanshop.org. washington unfiltered. c-span in your pocket. download c-span today. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by the democrat chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. to start with, the russian military buildup on the ukraine border and the talks that are happening this week between u.s. and russian officials -- tell our audience in your opinion why the security of ukraine matters. guest: the world order, particularly peace in europe, russia has already seized some ukrainian territory. that was a while ago. we need peace and security in europe. it is hard to say there is any part of the world that is totally unnecessary or totally not of concern to the united states, but europe has always been a place that we have been greatly concerned since the days of world war i. having grown up during the cold war between the united states and the soviet union, i see a real need to put a lot of democratic effort into making sure that the two nuclear super superpowers, the two that have enough nuclear weapons to really destroy life on earth, are kept peaceful. host: how should the u.s. responded vladimir putin, the russian president, decides to strike against ukraine? guest: by far, the biggest response will be the ukrainian response, and the biggest response america will make is what we have already done in arming the ukrainians and training their military. the number one reason we have not invaded is we would suffer significant casualties. i remember a decade or so ago when our policy was not to provide ukraine with lethal military assistance. we provide jeeps, but not -- i remember arguing that guns are not lethal. it is a bullet that is lethal. i think the ukrainian military is far better equipped and trained today than they were 10 or 15 years ago, and far better than when the russians seized the crimea, and that is the number one reason putin has not invaded. in addition to that, he will suffer substantial -- substantial economic sanctions. we have been timid in imposing economic sanctions on putin when he does other things. he interfered in our 2016 election, and we did almost nothing. now and then, our state department will exaggerate what we did, but basically our main sanction was to tell some actors in st. petersburg that they are not going to get tourist visas. they are not going to see disneyland. they are going to have to settle for euro disney. i realized seeing mickey mouse in france is no substitute. in terms of sanctions that really hit the russian state, we almost gave them a pass on 2016. host: what should the u.s. do on sanctions? guest: i think we do need to keep our powder dry, but it has to be playing to russia that the north stream pipeline is over, and their access to western capital markets is done if they invade the ukraine. but as i said, the number one deterrent is the ukrainian military. we have to be providing them with weapons and assistance now, not with americans anywhere near the front lines. it is that military. not that russia could not defeat them, what will the russian populace accept the kind of casualties the ukrainian military can impose? as of yet, i don't think so. host: how do you respond to the russian president when he argues support of the west for ukraine is nato expansion, and something he sees as a threat to his country? guest: well, i do think we have to have understandings of not having missiles right up against the russian border. we reacted rather intensely when we saw nuclear missiles based in cuba, 90 miles, separated by an ocean, away from us. ukraine is even closer to russia. so i do think that an understanding on force deployments is appropriate, and i think that some assurance that there is no -- that for many decades, we would expect that the ukraine would not be joining nato. if you look at the nato treaty, it really does not allow the ukraine to join because of article five. it says that the russian occupation of ukrainian territory would trigger a war between the united states and russia the day ukraine joined nato. in article 10 says that ukraine can't join nato unless it makes the other countries in nato, such as the united states, more secure. i would not feel more secure if my country was in a technical state of war with russia tomorrow or the next day, so the nato packed requires that new applicants demonstrate that by joining they make the entire collective body more secure, and that is not the condition on the ground, neither for the country of georgia nor the country of the ukraine. so i don't think that ukraine or georgia will be joining anytime soon. the way that nato treaty is designed now, it in effect gives russia a veto. if you occupy part of a nation's territory, it is very difficult for that country to join nato. obviously, that treaty could be revised in light of these circumstances, but i don't think -- the biden administration is certainly not thinking of being the administration to be in the white house when the ukraine or any other former part of the soviet union became a new member of nato. host: let's get to calls. michael, democratic caller. caller: good morning, representative sherman. i think there is one issue the republicans and democrats could really get together on. we've got russia. we've got put in. he took crimea, ukraine, kazakhstan. we've got xi jinping, who is going to take taiwan, i think. i was hoping that if the democrats and republicans cannot get together over this issue -- we have mad men out there, in my opinion, and what are your thoughts on that, representative? thank you. guest: i think that the lines are different on some of these issues of foreign policy. they are not strictly democrat and republican. there is more bipartisanship, perhaps. but there is not necessarily agreement. there are those who think that we should spend tens of billions of dollars more enhancing our navy's ability to repulse any effort to retake taiwan, or to take taiwan. and there are those who don't think we should do that. there are the doves and the hawks, and increasingly although you associate the republican party with the hawks, it is not quite that simple, and you get to the libertarian, the rand paul wing of the republican party, and you find republicans who come up well will certainly denounce xi in china and putin in russia, they are very reluctant -- and i think all americans are at least somewhat reluctant -- to see our troops get involved. if putin could be deterred only with the risk of economic sanctions, and only with international law, harsh condemnation, i think everybody in this country could unite behind that, but when you start talking about americans on the frontline, that scares some democrats and some republicans. host: what does the unrest in kazakhstan due to this? guest: it was not summing putin was planning on. i think he may be removing his troops relatively soon. it is a terrible shame that the cause of people do not have the democracy that they deserve. this government has no legitimacy. and while the dictator of many decades is theoretically gone, his regime remains. and was not able to kill enough demonstrators without russian help, enough demonstrators to achieve their thuggish purpose of remaining in power without making any concessions to the people. so i think that it is certainly a tragedy for democracy that we are not seeing the government of kazakhstan forced to make at least some concessions to their own people. host: kelly is the first democratic caller. caller: congressman, i wish senator mccain was here. he was on top of all of this years and years ago. it is just unbelievable to me that we have allowed russia to penetrate as much as they already have. but my concern, greatest concern, is why aren't there standards for withdrawing our troops in emergency situations that are automatically done at a time, whether it is with the airlines, or if it is destroying guns so that the enemy does not get those guns. i just don't understand why there is not an automatic standard, and i hope that you all will consider that and put that in place. guest: from ancient times, retreats have been the most difficult military maneuver. i think your question is really focused on afghanistan. we pulled some troops out of syria. we have shifted our situation, and i would say we do not have a combat role in iraq. obviously, though, when you look at vietnam, we are all haunted by the sites of the helicopter taking off, the embassy. we had withdrawn, but we left billions -- and that was back when billions was a big number -- of weapons in the hands of the south vietnamese military, because we wanted to give that military a chance to fight the north vietnamese. as it turned out, they did a terrible job. they folded quickly. there are some that will say we should have given them more air support or this or that it we fought and we died by the tens of thousands to try to support that regime. and you cannot disarm your ally and say you want your ally to survive on their own. likewise, in afghanistan, imagine how many americans would have died if we had deployed our troops all around afghanistan, saying we are collecting the weapons. we have decided you are losers. give us back the guns. the plan was for the afghan military to fight the taliban to a draw at least, and to negotiate a settlement. obviously, that failed. obviously, it had only a slight chance of success, but imagine the reaction toward the world and in the united states if we had disarmed the afghan government rather than give them a chance to survive, a chance that they were not able -- so i don't think we could have taken back the weapons. as to the withdrawal itself, the people -- what we saw from afghanistan was that the people who had friends and an understanding of the united states, the people who spoke english, were making those videos for their friends to see, not saying please give us some guns's and some shovels so we can fight and defend couple from the taliban. the knowledgeable people, the insiders in afghanistan, all were demanding on those videos that we saw in english, "get me out of here." this place is going to fall. they are going to kill us." and once the insiders are saying that, we should not have been surprised that that causes a panic, when the most knowledgeable people are panicked, and the idea that the afghan army was going to fight for months so that there would be an orderly withdrawal -- what ordinary afghan soldier who does not speak english, does not have american friends, wants to be the last to die once it is certain that the americans are leaving and their best friends are leaving, and that the insiders are interested in getting out rather than fighting? so once you have a panicked withdrawal, it is very difficult to have an orderly panicked withdrawal. there is no book on how to have a country in which all of the insiders are desperate and fleeing, and it is done in an orderly way. host: carolyn in rockaway, new jersey, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. mr. sherman, i had a feeling from the time i started seeing the headlines regarding russia and the ukraine that this was all about the nordic stream tw o, which as you indicated several times -- there is a relationship here. the nordic stream 2 was a siberian oil dig. it was engaged in by the two national oil companies of russia, gazprom and president of, -- and raznev, but it was also coupled with exxon and mobil and british petroleum, and so on and so forth. and they have, by the results of the dig -- they have acquired a stream of gas and oil to supply western germany and all of our patrons that used to purchase the american oil and gas. so the situation is always a little deeper if you scratch the surface, and what politicians like yourself want to indicate to the pit -- to the public. host: congressman, your response? guest: i don't think that putin is putting his forces around the ukraine in an effort to help or hurt american or british oil companies. on stream 2 -- nord stream 2 is part of the overall picture. he very much wants that pipeline completed. we are opposed to it in part because it will create an infrastructure where germany in particular, and other western european countries, will be dependent for their natural gas on russia. he who supplies the natural gas can turn off the natural gas, and that creates a certain dependency. russia could impose economic hardship on germany, instead of the west imposing sanctions on russia. but i don't -- i think the caller has a strong distrust of the institutions of the united states, and especially of international oil companies, and i'm not going to say there are not reasons to investigate, but i don't see how those dots connect, except to say that they germany dependent on russia is not good for germany's security. it is not good for american security. and it is probably the first thing that is stopped if putin invades ukraine. host: we learned yesterday from european free radio that the pipeline is done. it is ready to deliver natural gas, according to the operator. if you put sanctions on it, what would happen? guest: according to that new story, completed. according to the latest i saw, almost completed pipeline. it would not have any use for a while. and it would be prohibited from operation. i hope very much that putin does not invade the ukraine. i don't think he will, so in all likelihood, putin will extract only some minor concessions, will decide not to invade, and will get the economic and geostrategic advantages of that pipeline. but there are other scenarios. there is the possibility that he invades, and that creates a worse world, and it probably useless pipeline. host: dave in spokane, washington, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. i have an image for congressman sherman. thinking about russian propaganda, just visualize a great big poster of uncle sam wants you to protect the biden business interests, the family business interests in the ukraine. that will come out at some point in time, and how are we going to respond? thank you very much. guest: i would say the entire congress and all of those involved in foreign policy for the last three decades have been in favor of an independent ukraine, a democratic ukraine, and that biden is no more in favor of an independent ukraine than his predecessors, including his immediate predecessor, and no more in favor of an independent ukraine than the consensus in both the house and the senate, not only this decade, but last decade, and the decade before that. so to ascribe this to business interests that i don't exist, and seem to be invented by those looking for a conspiracy, it does not explain why, for 30 years, america has had pretty much the same interests in the same objectives in the ukraine that we have today. host: john, santa paula, california, republican. caller: good morning, america. good morning, congressman sherman. my question or my feeling is i have been watching the ukraine situation over the last month or so, and to me it is the most important issue of the day. filibuster, january 6, it is all noise compared to this. what i am seeing is president biden slow walking us into a confrontation with russia, which could be catastrophic. and he is making some mistakes. i think one big mistake was to announce what his sanctions would be, not realizing that if he imposes sanctions, the price of gas in america will probably triple, and so what is he thinking when he is going to put hardships on the american people to combat russia? i just think he is making blunder after blunder. he is going to back himself into a corner, and what has he got to do except fight? i am just really concerned about the ukraine issue, and i just don't see president biden doing anything positive right now to avoid it. host: congressman sherman? guest: biden did not wake up one day and say "let's have a crisis in the ukraine. putin woke up. those trips on the border are not biden's idea. that is putin's forces. biden very much does not want international distractions. his focus is on domestic policy. this is a crisis biden does not want. second, the idea that the gentleman mentions gas -- i assume he is talking about natural gas, because that is what we were talking about before. we don't import any natural gas from russia. in fact, the united states exports natural gas. and natural gas is a complicated and expensive thing to move from one continent to another. so -- it has to be liquefied, and that is an expensive process. so to think that we would ever import natural gas from russia, when we have so much natural gas in the united states that we are liquefying it and exporting it to asia, is -- now i will say this. if russia invades the ukraine -- that is not biden's idea. that is putin's idea. america has to respond. the least of responses, we have talked about. but if we did not talk about them, putin knows what they are. anybody who looks at international economics could make pretty much the same list. and if you say biden should not be mentioning that we are going to take tough action, that would be an invitation to putin to invade the ukraine. you can say it is bad for biden to give a speech saying, putin, if you invade, we are going to hit your economy -- imagine if biden had given the other speech and said, putin, if you invade, we are not going to do anything at all, economically. we are certainly not going to lose our soldiers. we are not going to do anything militarily and we are not going to do anything economically. but you will get a strongly worded letter. i would say that that would increase the likelihood that putin would invade. of course, the ukrainians themselves give putin plenty of reasons not to invade. but at the margin, the ability of the united states to organize not just american but a worldwide economic sanctions response is something that may keep peace, and a fragile peace, on the ukrainian border. i think putin has created this crisis. i think biden is handling it as well as we can under these circumstances. and i don't think that sanctioning russia would have a significant effect on our economy, but given what we have done in the world, the costs we have imposed on our soldiers, our sailors, our marines, in afghanistan and iraq -- to say that the american people are willing to endure any cost to achieve an international objective i think belies history. host: we only have a couple of minutes left, so let me ask you, what other areas in the world, as one of the top democrats in the foreign affairs committee -- what other areas of the world concerning? guest: obviously, china. taiwan. i do not think that xi will invade at this time. also for similar reasons on the ukraine. the taiwanese would impose great costs on him. i think the economic relationship with china is a very unfair one in which they are able to use their capricious granting or denying of access to u.s. businesses in order to control our policies and our companies. for example, they only allow about 40 movies into china, so if you are in hollywood and that is your second-biggest market, if you make a movie about two bit, that movie will never be shown in china. not only that. none of your other movies will either. so china, by rationing access to its market, can control what every studio in hollywood makes, by making sure they never make a movie that is hostile to beijing, that is about the uighurs, that is about the two battens, -- tibetans. if just one executive in the nba says something nice about taiwan , they threaten a billion-dollar revenue stream. we don't do the same thing. we don't say we are going to stop all chinese toys from coming to the united states, or only the toy companies that declare that they respect the rights of the taiwanese people will be allowed to bring in toys. we don't do that. their control over their market for political purposes gives them a control in our society that is very pernicious. host: congressman brad sherman of california, thank you as always for the conversation. we appreciate it. that does it for today. we will be back tomorrow, 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thanks for watching. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ we're funded by these companies and more, including cox. >> cox is able to provide eligible families through the connect to compete program. bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged student at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service. along with these other

Related Keywords

United States , Delray Beach , Florida , China , Delaware , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , Ukraine , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Rochester , New York , Georgia , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Texas , Missouri , Atlanta , Washington , Vietnam , Republic Of , Illinois , Wisconsin , Michigan , Oklahoma , Tennessee , Springfield , New Georgia , South Dakota , Maryland , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Capitol Hill , Americans , America , Russian , American , Kevin Hearn , Chuck Schumer , Harry Reid , Brad Sherman , Katie Rogers , Joe Manson , Kevin Hearne , John Thune , John Lewis , Ryan Riley , Joe Manchin , Ted Cruz , John Cornyn ,