>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect program. bridging the digital divide one connected and engage student at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> we are joint next from amanda north dakota, former knows to codis center at heidi heitkamp visit with us in "washington journal" to talk about rural voters to talk about the 2022 elections. good morning. >> good morning. how are you? >> doing well thank you. were having you on. your project, your one country

project is an effort to engage rural voters to look at the issues of importance to rural voters. you with the founder of this project. tell us about and what your mission and efforts are doing. >> i really want to start up a giving people may be a bit of history lesson about politics in the great plains. when you look maybe 20 years ago he had tom daschle, kim johnson, kent conrad, you had max baucus you had a good split in the great plains in terms of united states senators. that is all but evaporated. there's only one left which i would say in the great plains and that is jon tester and he is fortunate enough to have the region in montana that provides the kind of boost he needs to get over the finish line electorally. you have to ask yourself as a

democrat in billy as an american what has happened in the great plains and what is happening in rural america whether it'sd rurl south or whether it's in the mid-atlantic regions where we see rural pennsylvania going hard red. what's happened in those regions that is really turn people? the easy enter a lot of people is it's all about donald trump. that is absolutely not true. we started losing votes during the tea party revolution right after barack obama was elected and we had been able to regain our footing since then. reelectee statistic for your viewers, when i was elected in 2012, probably about 20% of republicans would cross over and vote for a democrat.

when i ran into any 18, that number -- when i ran in 2018, that number dribbled -- that number dwindled to 4%. when that number gets low, democrats cannot get elected in a state like mine. it is important rural america not be one party america. we started the one country project. it was to reintroduce the democratic party to rural america and rural america to the democratic party. host: do think over the course of the years the policies of the democratic party have fallen out of favor with rural americans, or rural americans themselves have changed their views? guest: i think it is the emphasis. it is not the policy. the economic policies of the democratic already are much more favorable to rural america. where we get into challenges is when this becomes about defunding the police or about

transgender bathrooms for all the cultural issues. then rural americans say that is not something that looks like me. when rural americans vote strictly culture on these issues is when we begin to see serious erosion of democratic support in rural america. i think we have to understand that we have to do a better job explaining our position on cultural issues. it does not mean we cannot persuade a few people, but we also have to be much more aggressive on outlining our economic plans. a great example is build back better, which has amazing provisions for housing, for rural daycare. these are issues that are challenging your -- challenging role america and the growth of rural america. republicans are sitting on the sidelines. we should be talking about how

we are going to revitalize rural america, not just broadband. i get tired of everybody saying broadband, broadband, broadband. it is about more than broadband. it is about economic opportunities and helping our seniors, helping our rural health care and looking at rural education and making sure it is high-quality. these are things the democratic party has long stood for. once we explain our economic agenda in the democratic party, i think we can win back some of those votes. do i think we are going to become a majority party in rural america? now. -- no. i get criticized for that. i want to return to a world where rural america will at least consider voting for democrat. host: how is your one country project funded and give us an

idea on how you're trying to reintroduce the democratic party to rural america? guest: i was fortunate. you cannot spend billions of dollars on a senate race in north dakota. at the end of my senate race i had donors from all over, including the state of north dakota, many of them small dollar donors that believe my voice was an important voice in the united states senate. unfortunately i was not able to get reelected. i am a former attorney general my state that i did a lot of nonprofit supervision work. i thought about those times and i thought the best thing you can do if you have money people have given you in a nonprofit setting , which is what a political campaign is, is to figure out what was the intent of those people and how can i honor that intent? i thought the intent was to win more elections, and how can i

honor that, i could honor that by helping the democratic party do better in rural america, which is a place i believe i have some level expertise. if you set go into the inner cities in minneapolis and figure out a political campaign, that is not my life and certainly not what i know about. michael was to form an organization that raise the awareness of the critical electoral importance of rural america to the democratic party. i started out doing a lot of pulling, a lot of election analysis and sounded the alarm saying you think you can just talk to suburban housewives -- not housewives -- but suburban women and suburban people. you think you can just talk turbine folks -- to urban folks? you can do what you did in virginia which is perform well in those areas but lose massively in rural areas.

the first thing was to elevate the importance of rural america and rural votes in the democratic party, and then to talk about issues that are much more nuanced. people say will not win those votes because of this and that. a lot of it is charge rising rural people in ways that are not very fair. my argument is we used to win, why aren't we winning now? let's take responsibility yourselves and not blame the voters. the customer is always right. how do we find common ground? the next step was to begin to talk about what role america wants. we named this project one country because people said shouldn't it be the rural project, and i said no.

what people in rural america want is the same thing a cabdriver in new york once, a reinsurance -- in new york wants, and insurance salesperson in suburbia wants. they want good insurance for their kids, they want physical security which is a big part of what we are experiencing right now with the erosion of democratic support in many areas that they're hoping to maintain that support. the problem is rural delivery has to be done differently and we have to talk to people. i will give you a statistic from a57% of rural voters expressed the opinion that democrats don't know anything about rural america. i get that. the good news is in all of this 50% said republicans don't get our challenges.

i think it's time to understand the challenges. not do to people but with people and to do that we have to have a conversation. host: heidi heitkamp served as one term a senator from north dakota. talking about her new one country project. we welcome your calls and comments. the senators are for rural residents, (202)-748-8000. all others use (202)-748-8001. if you do not want to call you can text at (202)-748-8003. senator, how much of a priority do you think rebuilding rural democrats, rebuilding support among rural americans is, for the national party and the campaign committees, how high a priority do you think that is? guest: it has been frustrating to me to kind of watch this from

a distance from north dakota and think about the opportunities that have been missed by the democratic party to tell people what they are about and what they mean. i have had conversations about the medium whether it is facebook. where is rural america getting their ads? guess what? they are getting impressions from fox news and they are getting impressions from friends on facebook and they are getting their impressions from local radio. there is three places we could do a better job communicating and people say, well, i don't want to go on fox news, they are biased. when you go on fox news and make a persuasion argument guess what? people listen. i think that we have got to be more willing to explore

discussions in areas of the media that people are comfortable. you know, i am somebody who appreciates and understands what goes on on msnbc but you are preaching to the choir. when you send out a tweet guess what? you are preaching to the choir. people are going to read that tweet are the 10% who are politically active who really follow it day to day. if you want a sustained message, you have to find the right medium and the right message. to me the right message is talking to friends and neighbors, doing the kinds of things you can do one-on-one in local settings. i used to talk about the local coffee shop and this happens in suburban and urban america. but in places like north dakota

people used to get together always in a minority. democrats were the minority and they would engage in lively debate about what is happening with corn prices and why it is happening or ethanol. what is happening with the local school. there was always a diversion. opinions were not identical and there was not a debate but definitely a conversation. guess what is happening in rural america? none of those conversations. they have been muted and muted may be by the trump influence of you are either with us or against us and if you are not with us, you are not american. a lot of democrats and may be in rural america who did not like this president are not really engaging in the debate. we have to get them back into the debate as neighbors one-on-one, having a conversation so that we don't

leave this just to republicans. by that i may not just normal republicans but trump republicans. host: you mentioned jon tester from montana. there is also joe manchin from mostly rural state. what is your opinion of joe manchin's role being in the middle between getting the biden administration getting the agenda through? guest: you know, i have expressed strong opinions. those people who know me know that joe manchin is a dear friend of mine. one of my closest friends in the senate. i think he is an incredibly earnest and capable public servant. he got himself reelected in a state that voted almost 40% for the president. everybody who wants to beat on him i would remind you there would not be any opportunity to do any of this, including the $1 trillion infrastructure bill, if

not for joe. he represents a conservative democrat point of view and in some ways that old-school democrat that had a broader perspective. this is what is happening in both political parties. they have been driven further to the respective ends of the polar extremes by primaries, by gerrymandering, but mainly by the engagement of very vocal people on either side. and so, if you want to know what i think has been the mistake the last year it has been democrat on democrat violence. by that i mean the focus on joe manchin. my goodness, why isn't there focus on ron johnson? why isn't there focus on pat toomey? places where the president won elections in pennsylvania and wisconsin. places where the democratic

party is driving states with democratic governors. why is there emphasis on getting them to explain to us why they don't want to help with daycare cost? why they don't want to help with housing cost? we are so focused on turning our ammunition on each other that we have forgotten that is not the opposition. the opposition is the republican party and the stakes are high not just for an economic agenda. the stakes are incredibly high and people who know me know that in 2020 we basically escaped an erosion, almost permanent erosion, of our democracy. if we want to go back to the era of the four years where autocracy was on the table, let's keep fighting among democrats. let's start talking about what the other side does not stand for, with the other side is not doing, and let's quit focusing on each other.

host: our line for rural residents (202)-748-8000. let's get to calls. toledo, ohio and diane is on the line. good morning. caller: good morning, senator heitkamp. i saw your lively debate with chris christie this week with whoever and i really want to talk about the salt. the local tax deduction thing. $80,000 for deductions? who pays that kind of state and local taxes besides wealthy people or extremely high middle-class people? it just feels like that is the one series giveaway to wealthy people that is in their when you are being provisional with what people are allowed to get, mostly child related. i heard a young lady on the previous segment speak about her

situation in middle-class, lost the job with covid, and i can kind of relate to stuff like that. i am lower middle class. i feel like we are just helping to pay the bills. we don't qualify for anything either, not that i am looking for a handout, but it feels like one idea i have not heard anybody raise is to stop the sales and local tax and instead raising the standard deduction. it feels like everyone would benefit from a raise of the standard deduction. may be double it. make it $25,000 per individual and get rid of the whole provisional thing in the build back better. make it one simple line item thing. raise the standard deduction. everyone benefits, everybody gets something, and everybody can choose how to spend that additional money they get to simply hang onto. that is just a thought. host: thank you.

guest: the first thing i want to say -- diane right? host: yes. guest: you already know more about taxes then 50% of the people. [laughs] i should not be so mean but i want to unpack what you said. the deduction, i agree with you. i think $80,000 is too high and that leaves the democrats open to the debate you saw on sunday saying, this is a millionaire tax cut. what really is interesting about the deduction is that it was done to punish blue states. blue states that tax their residents a fairly high rate to deliver more services and those services basically help build communities. southern states do not tax the residents at that level and consequently receive greater

subsidization from the federal government. what i was trying to say is if you want to segregate regionally this country in terms of taxa fiscal policy, you have got to be very careful. medicaid is one of the biggest cost centers for state and local governments. poor states, states with lower per capita income, basically get 80% federal payment where states like new york and states with higher per capita income get a lower rate of 50%. there is a huge subsidization. i think it is really challenging when you look at regionalization of fiscal policy which is what salt is which is why i disagree with what congress did. with that said it was probably the only progressive part of the trump tax cut and it really did affect higher income earners much higher. i want to talk a little bit

about the standard deduction and for full disclosure i spent the better part of my professional career as a tax lawyer and as the tax commissioner of north dakota. standard deductions are based on your filing status not the number of people in your community. when the administration, the trump administration, revised the tax structure they got rid of personal exemption and those are the ones you used to get per household member. but what they did do is raise -- they were increased standard deduction which drove more people out of itemization along with the salt cap. she is not wrong. you could do a lot of good things by giving higher deduction to moderate income folks who don't necessarily qualify for the earned income tax credit, although i would argue that is something we should be looking at seriously increasing, the child credit.

pretty high income levels on the child credit. most people will not get the child credit. i think the question is, how much do you want to create a more equal world using the tax structure we have right now? the american people not wrongly believe when you create a more complex structure what you end up with is a huge loophole and huge advantage to rich people who can hire tax lawyers. i think that is absolutely true. and so, you know, i think she should run for congress and talk about these great proposals and talk to her congress people about these proposals. on the salt adduction i think that rate will get lowered from $80,000. i think $80,000 is excessive but when you're getting around the

$10,000, $15,000, $20,000 you will see were itemized filers in the lower income brackets. people who are itemizing are very wealthy people. host: the organization is the one country project focusing on rural voters. jim in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. heidi, you mentioned something at the beginning. you said a conservative democrat. that is a paradox. i don't think there are conservative democrats. there is a saying that says, the economy is stupid. it is the policies that the liberal democratic party are promoting that has turned them away from the rural voter. the gun rights, i can think of every desperate group you guys support whether it is lgbtq, critical race theory, indoctrination in public school system. these are why rural voters have turned away and nothing you say

is going to pull us back and let you start promoting an agenda that is more favorable to people that have conservative viewpoints and are being pushed out of the big tech. you can do all you want but if you don't do some things to change the policies you have, he will never get rural voters back. guest: you know, i think most people who followed my career in the senate knew that i was a supporter of the second amendment. i believe one of the reasons gun owners react so, kind of, politically react to the proposals is they feel like they are getting blamed for owning a gun for all of the problems that are happening across america. i think we need to better understand. i once said to a group of people, you know how you feel

about your reproductive rights? that's how people in my community feel about their right to own a firearm and be responsible with a firearm. i get exactly what you are saying. if the democratic policies regarding the gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, queer community that says we should not discriminate and they should be protected like every american citizen, i don't believe rural americans disagree with that. the question is, what gets emphasized is not that position. what gets emphasized is who goes to what kind of bathroom when that should be a local decision in my opinion. i want to say, look, obviously this person has strongly held opinions about cultural issues. there is some difference between

democrats and republicans on these issues and i think a lot of those have been exploited rather than bringing people together. abortion rights are an interesting place to examine. abortions went down in this country and we know we could virtually eliminate a lot of demand for abortion if we created areas where we were providing free contraception. but that has been prevented by conservative republicans who say, we don't want to prevent it. we just want to tell people what to do. but the real issue here is we are not having that dialogue. people like our viewer from new york is watching fox news and saying, see? they believe in critical race theory, they believe in defunding the police. that is not true but if we don't

go out there and say this is what we believe in, we don't believe any person regardless of sexual orientation should be discriminated against, should have the opportunity to live a healthy life -- transgender individuals are frequently targeted and the murder rate among transgender individuals is too high. that is being driven a lot by attitudes. you know, i think there is room for discussion. are we going to win the hearts and minds of everyone in rural america? no. are we going to win back some of those people who share those human values we can talk about but are very concerned we have gone too far as democrats? i think we can win them back. host: let's go to connie in havana, illinois. caller: good morning. nice to talk to you. i am from rural america. i was born in a farmhouse 73 years ago.

i think you are kind of missing the mark on how rural america thanks. we don't all watch fox news. i don't. i get almost everything from c-span. i actually watch you in action. i think with rural people value our independence. we are not stupid. we have high iqs also. we have careers. i think what bothers me is we don't want to be dependent on the government. every giveaway program costs us money. when i hear pete buttigieg say he wants a national gas tax i think, we have to drive 50 miles to a big hospital or to go to work. that is going to affect us. and all the new, green energy -- we are stewards of the earth but when the car was invented the government did not say, ok,

everybody shoot your horse in the head. you have to allow transition. i look at big farm equipment in the field. what are they going to do? we have to allow for transition and i think you just missed the mark. rural people are more independent, we value our independence, and we don't need the government to take care of us. host: thank you, connie. senator heitkamp? guest: i grew up in a town of 90 people. my family was 1/10 of the population. i grew up with rural people and i know they are not stupid and i know they are independent. but i also know they are interdependent in this economy. by that i mean if we did not focus on rural health care, if we did not do things like provide for critical access hospitals in rural areas she is talking about, if we did not provide for medicaid expansion -- states that did not do

medicaid expansion lost the rural hospital. now people have to drive 50, 60, 70 miles to have a child. to suggest i don't know about rural america i think does not understand my experience and what i have seen over a long time in my career. we are interdependent. we cannot say we are somehow more independent, more virtuous than people who live in other parts of this country because when we do that we continue to further divide this country. rural america is a place that is struggling. it has higher rates of poverty, it has higher rates of health care challenges, in part because we have let the rural health care structure erode. it has higher rates of cost structures for heating fuel. she is right. i disagree with anyone who does not understand -- i think it is

interesting when people say inflation, yeah the gas prices have gone up. well, do you understand how you farm? you farm with hydrocarbon. you farm with diesel fuel and hopefully with mild fuels. i get it but i think there is this attitude that somehow we can maintain rural america without focus and emphasis on how we are going to build it back better. i think the results are already in. the trendlines are in. farms are getting bigger, small farmers are getting pushed out, small manufacturing concerns have been hurt by tariffs in the last of administration. if living rural america alone is the strategy, i think that is a strategy for failure long-term. host: stan calling from silver

bay, minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. caller: thank you very much. i would like to mention to the former senator i have always tried to be open to have a discussion with the democrats, progressives but every time i try i am hollered at, my decals are ripped off the vehicles. there is no discourse with your progressive democrat party. they want control. they want to shove their ideas in our faces and down our throats and it started the day

for his china connections and ukrainian connections . >> center heitkamp. >> first the progressive wrap isn't just limited to talking to folks like you. i think i've probably experienced that as much, and a much more aggressive way than a lot of people in this country so i understand that the all or nothing perspective of so many people on both the right and theleft is what's hurting this country . so this idea that this is all just progressives, let me tell you. you can come down to any coffee shop in north dakota and i stress a progressive point of view, you can tell me how this aggression is

just limited. it is about dialogue and there are people on both sides who are willing to your any other perspective but their r own and that's absolutely true. i know there are people on both sides. they are the people who can be persuaded or who will help build back the country. they are the people who will be on the sidelines and create litmus tests for who's good and who's bad. i will tell you i will not back off my position that much of the behavior of the previous president has exacerbated this condition. on the create it. i sat on the front end of my discussion that this was basically an erosion that was happening over a long period of time, not donald trump but

donald trump made the courts this coarseness of our dialogue possible and i'll debate that with anyone. and so to suggest that this is not in part, this division has not been exacerbated by the previouspresident is wrong . where i will agree with you is he's not president anymore so now it's incumbent on all of us to step up and fill that void and figure out how we're going to develop that dialogue and to the extent this country continues to be divided, continues to see these types of wrangler and callousness and civil conversation, that's on democrats to try to fix and when you don't listen to people and some people don't want to be heard and they are persuadable, i get that.

but if you're persuadable and you want to help solve problems there's plenty of people out there who want to do that. >> host: next up is north carolina, this is howard. >> caller: top of the morning, good conversation. i don't know if this is critical race theory but i remember in history that john wilkes booth went to the ford theater and assassinated abraham lincoln. he was a democrat or a dixiecrat and i think he was trying to destroy the republican party. do you think by trump also was a dixiecrat return to a republican and his parents also were a klansman who didn't fall far from the tree. do you think trump succeeded in doing somethingjohn wilkes

tried to do , todestroy the republican party ar? >> i don't know that that's true. i don't think that was trump's motivation. i thinkhis motivation was , i don't think of trump as a democrat or a republican or even apartisan. i see him as an opportunist . i don't think he has closely held beliefs. i find it interesting that people would support him because of his position on reproductive rights. he was very pro-choice before he ran on the republican ticket. the chameleon will change his spots. where i think trump was dangerous is he gave the very dangerous elements whether it's three presenters, the proud voice, whether it is the oath keepers, these right-wing militia groups, he gave them permission and when he said and by, stand down and stand by that was a dog whistle.

>> those militia groups senator, do you see evidence of those being active in your state in north dakota ? >> we have a history, a plan history and north dakota. we have the posse, thomas in the early 80s and one of the highest profile kinds of events so we've always had kind of a more militant underbelly but i don't really see those groups in north dakota the way you would see them gathering in places like charlottesville. so we are fortunate there. we're a pretty peaceful group up here. and so i don't see them gathering in places like north dakota but i do believe that they have been ignited. and that's why i think that the january 6 commission which i have to say this. people like maybe your

previous caller would say it's just a partisan job. there was the opportunity to buy do a bipartisan commission fashioned afterthe 9/11 commission . the republicans refused to do that in congress now we are at this committee.i think it's critically important we get to the bottom of this cause i think there is a movement in this country that is an underbelly that has been ignited by president trump but i don't think president trump in any way shape or form wants to destroy the republican party. i think he wants to gather to himself economic and political power. >>. >> host: berry in harrison michigan, good morning. >> good morning. i look at this in a different i with this progressive stuff. i look at it as fulfilling the promise ronald reagan made years ago that all this stuff was supposed to trickle up but it never did and i

think this is a way of making it trickle-down so i look at this a different. i just don't think it's the republicans, they don't want to have anybody at all and the democrats if they have somebody they want tokeep you stuck there forever .om lots of us out here it makes absolutely no difference which party is in there. it can be none at all. thank you, i appreciate you. >> i appreciate what he's been sayingpp. we have rising levels of income and wealth inequality. we spent a lot of time talking about eaincome inequality but where we really have challenges in wealth inequality. so are we going to address that or are we going to continue on this path? we saw what happened in the 1920s when we didn't address it. i get asked often what's the difference between the

democratic party and republican party and i would say the founding principle of the democratic party is that when you invest in people whether it's making sure that they stay healthy, making sure they have access to quality education, making sure they are the cure in their homes and can't afford to put a roof over their head and food in the pot. when we invest in human beings like we did with the g.i. bill or student loan program and like we did with inthis modernizing our healthcare reimbursement system we grow the economy and we grow opportunity and we grow inequality in this country. so where i don't agree with every piece of the progressive agenda, once was criticized because people asked me if i would support free college tuition i said number they looked at me and i said if i have those kinds of resources to allocate i'm going to allocate them to young children whether it's pre-k, whether it's education . whether it's daycare, making sure that they get a good the

start because we know that early start is critical. for the ability to prepare to go to college. so i don't agree with every progressive agenda it's interesting in public opinion polls highly regarded, love by then build back better agenda is and why that doesn't translate to political support and i would say he hit the nail on the head your caller , yothey're all the same nothing ever changes even though you do this . i think there is some truth to that but there's also some points i could disagree with whether it's on social security , providing that safetynet for seniors that was a plan devised by democrats and by republicans. whether it's medicare and medicaid and child health insurance. these are programs that have benefited many people. we just forget where the program came from. >> to sergio in pompano beach

florida. >> good morning bill, how are you? i'm fine. yes, good morning senator. how are you? >> guest: i am good. >> caller: my question is this. i'm a democrat and i'm a strong supporter of the democraticparty . i just want democrats and republicans to work together to stop this nonsense because trump, i do not like our former president trump and i do not like governor ron desantis. it is causing friction and hatred you know and they're not working together for the people. i mean, how can they work better together? how can youfix that ? >> host: senator heitkamp, og maybe you can focus on how they work together when you were there.

>> i think it's acontinuation of the same ouemotion . what i would tell you is that the press for political power as the clips the responsibility that civic leaders have for actually getting the work of the senate done. i think we can't forget that there were a number of senate republicans who voted blfor the infrastructure package. there were a number of house republicans who voted for the infrastructure package and promptly death threats from the moreright and extreme members of the republican party . so we have to have statesmen and states women get elected. people who wantto get the job of governingdone . how do we do that ? we reward people who actually get things done. when i ran i assumed if i got things done for my state that reelection would be difficult

but not impossible . i did things like we did a major dodd frank reform bill and oil not being able to ask for which was putting a tr strain on my jobs in the oil patch and putting the increasing oil prices and so we were able to get that done in a bipartisan way but the question is you do those things, when you get too far down the path what's the political reality? the political reality is people are holding to a political party and not results. we've got to get people opening their minds to vote out people who are not getting things done. that's the movement that we need in this country. a movement that goes back to civil discourse and normalcy in our political discourse. and doesn't alstand and simply

point the finger at each other but saysthis is all of our problem. this is all of our responsibility and i frequently say this . the leader of the senate have become political leaders and not leaders of the institution so it's important that we get back to leading the institution. >> the organization is a one country project and its founder former senator heidi heitkamp . we appreciate you joining us on washingtonjournal . >> wednesday the supreme court hears a case on the constitutionality of a mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy . live coverage of oral arguments at 10 am eastern on c-span3, online c-span.org for what paul coverage on c-span now , our new video app. >> as these six presidents recorded conversations in office. your many on our new podcast presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the

presidency of lyndon johnson here about the civil rights act, 1964 presidential campaign, a goal of tonkin incident , marched on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> also your talk. >> i want a report of the number of people assigned to kennedy and the number assigned to me now and if mine is not as much i want them right quick and i can't ever go to the bathroom i will go. i promise i won'tgo anywhere, i'll stay behind these black gates . >> find it wherever you get your podcasts.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companiesand more including communications . >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure,upgrading technology, and power and opportunity in unities big and small charter is connecting us . >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers giving you a front row seatto democracy . >> earlier today president biden spoke about four bills related to benefits for veterans . after his remarks beside each piece of