infrastructure. with the senate returns live coverage here on cspan2. tuesday morning transportation secretary pete buddha judge commerce secretary, hud secretary and epa administrator michael regan testify on president biden infrastructure planned before the senate appropriations committee. life coverage begins at 10:30 eastern on c-span three online@c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> a busy agenda here in washington. the chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner, good monday morning thank you for being with us. >> good morning. let's first talk about the senate today taking up hate crimes aged at asian-american and pacific islander's but with the final bill expected on the floor later this week. what would it do? >> it could change because i

think there may be amendments. it would dedicate somebody at the justice department to oversee and ensure that hate crimes aimed at asian americans are followed closely in mitigated. it seems straightforward enough for there's been hate crimes against asian americans in the wake of the coronavirus. typical congresses caught up in politics for the republicans would like to amend the bill to broaden its does not appear to be strictly tied to coronavirus. they would like a more broad hate crimes inserted in the bill. because of that fight there is a slowdown process right now. the leaders are working on a deal on amendments. both sides seem to believe that by this week they will be able to passs something, probably a little bit broader than what the democrat and senates put forth, which was strictly tied to a covid-19 related hate crime.

republicans sought as a political move in relation to former president trump and his labeling of the coronavirus pandemic is tied to china. : : : that is where the arguments right now. it is anticipated that the legislation will be settled and moved this week. host: the house taking up the issue of statehood for washington, d.c., expected to pass in the house. what will the senate do? guest: this is one >> the big question is what is it going to do. this is part of the agenda priority and they pass it on a partyline vote and they are expecting to pass on the same political line this week before the town, that will go to the senate, it's going to be stuck

there and they have to get rid of the filibuster, which means theti threshold, and then they have to get coordination with their own party to agree to this amendment. some lawmakers could feel like adding a newee state would incle the power of the 50 states. and honestly for democrats it would likely add two democratic senators, so let's it's not completely approved by the moderates in the party, so i predicted that would be installed, along with a lot of other things that they are having a a hard time because of their own party and their own situation. >> and they liberal wish list, adding justices to the supreme court as you pointed out,

literally and threw cold water on him last week. >> yes, she did that definitively, saying that the judiciary committee is going to move legislation, they expanded it to 13 members. and there is a lot of opposition, there were people on the left to push that and they feel that republicans confirmed judges in a way that seemed unfair to the democrats, but on the opposite side we have the intelligence campaign saying look at how the democrat want to radicalize the country, expand the supreme court, which had been nine justices, and the last time we tried this the democrats had their own efforts to expand the quarter. and that includes an unfair movement to try to politicize the judicial branch.

and instead of this, look at what president joe biden authority said in terms of the core, that shows that they are doing something to address the party andan their desire and dot forget he was able to confirm three texas president trump in the supreme court. that back the -- they can get their fair shot when justice antonin scalia died and then the republicans refused to take up obama aesthetic, merrick garlan.

>> the president sitting down at the oval office at about 1:15 p.m., some democrats and republicans in routing senator d mitt romney including kay granger of texas, and yesterday this from fox news sunday and so in terms of this, they are looking to negotiate a bipartisan deal with. >> republicans want to agree to a plan to pass part of the velvet underground the rest of it threw on a partylinene reconciliation draft. >> well, chris, the broader question you're really asking is what to do for our country and for the people that we represent for the state and i think that if we come together in a bipartisan way to pass that 800 billion infrastructure bill that you are talking about, then we show our people that we can solve their problem.

wewe just disagree about how to pay for it. and i think that we should roll up our sleeves and find ways that both parties can support to make these critically needed investments. that is here at home. and the worst thing that could happen that would ruin the chinese presidents' day with the for him to see republicans and democrats working together in the senate and the house. and the texas governor had this response. >> in the interest of bipartisanship i would say thatf he is half right.

even reaching out to broadband. and with that country we have seen advances in medicine, more people learning online, i think we can all agree to that. >> that was the texas senator, senator, what is going on that's in terms of size and scope's and it seems impossible to me that they would cut any kind of deal, including what you have been talking about depending on what they do to pay for it, which is

another thing. and health care, child care and all kinds of things that are green energy initiatives that could not be necessarily can traditionally thought of as infrastructure. so you have some that say maybe two-part deal, giving my constituents the notion that i am working to improve infrastructure and working with democrats. but you also have democrats who don't like that idea either. they won it all together. because once you break things up, stuff can get pushed to the sidelines, you have stuff that is bipartisan the most and then maybe the second targets left behind, they are very aware of that. so given that the audio really tells a story here, they are very far apart and it's not included and they would like to

payy for this, the state tax increase, things that may not affect people in certain income levelsls and so it shows that ty are achieving this huge goal. and they will circumvent republicans trying to get the statege through. called reconciliation it will make them feel less broad. i think of that is ultimately what the party will go with and

they don't have a lot of time to go back and n forth as republics and republicans say that he is paying attention to them, but he would really have to take the lead on this and say we are going to look to this the best that we can. so far that is what happened with the package. ultimately they were not included in the final deal on. >> you can watch the debate here on c-span2.

she is from the the washington examiner. talk to our next caller now. >> caller: take you for having me back, steve. i s have been a republican since 1980. and i have never been more frustrated with the republican party than i am rightty now. and the new jersey governor chris christie came out and said republicans need to get more aggressive. yes, he is absolutely right, the they are always on the defense and number on the offense. the democrats never apologized for any of the d things that thy have said and this has been an area of frustration when it came out recently that marjorie taylor green was taken off the

committee and that's why it they were coming up every day and that includes why kevin mccarthy didn't take them off the intelligence committee. and i wish i had another alternative. >> we are talking about feeling a lot of people in the republican party havey right nw one of the main politicalso characters was president trump

he kind of push forward with his agenda and he did get a lot done and he divided it, and he also suffered a lot of criticisms as well. so the voters have demonstratedd well with their own party and some are frustrated because they don't like president trump we should see if they can get rid of the lawmakers lawmakers like marjorie taylor green, so there's dividing line in the party especially of the former president gets involved and starts endorsing and campaigning for people. you will see those lines even

more.is >> host: joining us is clay, thank you for joining us today, clay. >> caller: thank you for accepting myr call today. my question is i have watched them along the news, basically the senate commented that president joe biden did not hold enough news conferences. do you think that he was really running things order was he a little slow in reacting or just slow, he did not exactly say that, but he indicated how they feel about this and president biden not holding very many news conferences. i thank you.

>> following president trump who is kind of legendary, he was always out there talking to the press, just on, the lawn, he would stop and give press briefing or lengthy q&a sessions, he was really available in their a lot of people that criticize that because it opened him up to all kinds of controversial statements and things like that, you know, is tangling with the press, some people loved it, some people thought it was a terrible idea, that they shouldn't have so many press conferences and so what joe biden is doing and i agree that that is true and reporters have complained about that. we want to be able to ask them

questions and there's no rule about how available he wants to make himself. if the party can get away with less, things that are tough for the border problem, the administration is clearly having as hard time with this. and the headlines aren't there, there is always the opportunity. it doesn't matter if you're in your mid-70s order mid-fifties. when you're dealing with today's press, in a way it makes sense for him to have fewer press conferences. they have individuals they handle it pretty well in the

daily press briefing and then they have the occasional press conference. and i think that iti is workin, the approval ratings are pretty good except for on some issues, as long asep we can sail along. >> lindsey graham of south carolina, he has been very critical to pull this out of afghanistan and last night he said we, will see if their withdrawal strategy turns out to be a national security policy and he indicated that this will only indicate another 9/11. >> it gives a hard deadline, which is always something that the military shows -- it gives

all kinds of time to plan. afghanistan has been an unsolvable problem, we have been trying to withdraw in a way that leads to the least amountam of violence, but the violence has continued and they are not going away and they are clashing with each other and i think that every attempt has led to criticism and problems. so they have long wanted out of afghanistanci and so the hard deadline approach is something that has always been opposed by republicans because they think

that it is dangerous. and that's why you saw the tweet today some members of the senate about thisis plan. and obviously it's more violent there due to the factions. >> host: mike is joining us on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: hello. >> host: yes, go ahead, please. >> caller: the only comment i have to make is i'm really frustrated with the link to this whole thing, 20 years and then the thing is that if we leave

now they are going to take that back over and they have been fighting for thousands of years, i don't understand if it will help in the future. >> thank you, and good luck to you. >> our involvement and has been two decades in the war there began after september 11, 2001 because the origins were in b afghanistan and here we are 20 years later and the two sides on this issue, we are still putting our own men and women in uniform in danger and we are not really getting anywhere. and they are still havingnt

persistent problems but on the other hand there is a fear that includes what happened 20 years ago and destabilizing the region, including without the u.s. presence there to lease keep things down to a lower level. and that has been a big debate about the middle east, our involvement in the whole area. to help keep these terror organizations at bay. in our region, because of our allies there and for our own protection. and that is where the debate lies and that includes trying to

bring peace to the area and that is when the debate is and so far he is getting pretty favorable reviews other than from republicans who are not happy with it. but there's really not a lot they can do because he is the commander-in-chief and he is declaring the mission now and it's it sounds like that is what is going to happen smack good morning. you are on the air, thank you for your call. let's go over to jean from waterbury, connecticut. >> caller: good morning. i don't know who the woman is that you have on your screen, but i have a general question you, and i am a registered independent voter, but i can't

believe the republicans and independents and the green party would not be outraged, i want to know where the ethics committee is when we have someone like maxine waters, for the second time, calling for violence as well as upheaval. >> let's remind our listeners that we are talking with susan from the miami herald, now she is the chief congressional correspondent. >> getting a lot of attention along with marjorie taylor green who wants to get her removed from the house. >> welcome you have a really interesting site with the rhetoric. and i think that it all is really elevated after the january 6 attack where the democrat impeached the president andd house, they pointed to his

rhetoric but they said led to the violence one capitol hill, that he stirred up the violence and encourage them to come and attack. so the two parties could go back and forth on rhetoric. one of the more interesting parts of the impeachment trial, and you can find this where the defense team plays a montage of lawmakers using rhetoric, it sounds like committing their own act, but it's really their political rhetoric and things like that. in her comments now are in the wake of what is going on in minneapolis a longtime leader in

the house and then on the other hand you have democrats who have voted in kind of an unprecedented way, from the committee assignments, because they didn't like some of the things that she said that they thoughtri were insightful and dangerous prior to being elected. it was before they voted for her and put her in office. they took her off the committee. so now you have what i kind of see as an escalating war between the two parties, they are not trying to go after each other using the rules of the house, that seems to be returning now,

that is why you saw the removal of marjorie taylor green and also metal detectors installed at the doors to the chamber that are specifically their common bond of staff of the public or anything else, she said the democrats were for your fill. and maxine waters said something again, you know, i'm praying that she's very insightful, especially at a time when it's really not helpful and there are already protesting and things arees very tense and she makes t seem as if she's calling for more off that. and last night the minority

leader said he is going to take some kind of action if the house does not. so during the minority they cannot do much, but they can bring it to the lawyer with a vote on it and it is procedural vote and it will be something that the democrats will sit together on. but for me, this demonstrates an escalating war between the parties right now and it has made all the more intense because the 22 election is only a year away and democrats have a very tiny majority. republicans are looking for an opportunity as well and so they see the opportunity of we take the house majority. so i anticipate this kind of thing getting worse as the months go by and also more of these kinds of conflicts between the two parties cement jumping in with one final point, this is

a headline from fox news, you mentioned the gop caucus platform that would promote indo saxon traditions in led by marjorie taylor green and others in georgia, this idea has the next, but it was the subject yesterday with the former house speaker out with a new book, here is what he had to say. >> welcome i have no idea how this even showed up. i would not call it mainstream to the party, but i will say this so-called america first caucus is one of the many things that i have ever seen in america is a land of immigration. we have been the world's giant melting pot for 250 years. we had to celebrate thewe fact that we are the giant melting pot.

and that's when the silliest things that i've ever seen and republicans need to denounce it. >> their definition, by the way, basically say that there should not be asian american citizenship away that that is described. i don't think people realize how cruel some of that sounds, bright, mr. speaker? >> welcome i think it's awfully cruel, and quite frankly has no place in the republican party. and my biggest regret is my time as a speaker is not being able to come to an agreement with president obama. the immigration system is a mess from top to bottom, and it needs to be fixed so that it's more fair a for american and more far for those that are trying to come here. >> former house speaker john boehner and susan, what are your thoughts? >> kind of going back to when the first callers who have frustration, you still see that divide, the former speaker is of

the mindset for a more cooperative republican party and those that are more like trump candidates elected to congress, like marjorie taylor green and some others who might push for an agenda. i would have to interview her and ask what is this bill. i don't quite understand, i cannot quite imagine something thathi would ban asian-american. i would have to look at that, what is that legislation. but republicans are also very wary of looking like they are too far to the right. and so you have them coming forward saying i don't endorse it, i don't know what it is, and frankly for the republican party for trying to bring in an

increase their votes among newcomers to america, they won more. .. .. ..os back it is not sitting well anu i suspect that that will be completely scuttled but it does raise the issue of still thatth divide in the republican party that we were talking about at the beginning of the show. >> more details at washington encounter .com, susan's chief congressional correspondent in joining us on this monday as always, thank you for being with us. >> thanks a lot. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including charter communications.

>> broadband is a force for empowerment and that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications sports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> jurors in the derek chauvin trial, former police officer accused in the death of george floyd have been sequestered for deliberations after listening to over five hours of closing arguments from prosecution and defense attorneys. this is a picture from "the washington post" website. coverage starts with judge peter cahill issuing instructions to the jury followed by prosecutors who urged jurors to believe what they saw in the video of mr. chauvin kneeling on the strip lloyd's mac for more