weekend on c-span3. attorney general merrick garland testifies wednesday before senate appropriations subcommittee on the budget for the justice department. watch that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. very good tuesday morning to you. go ahead and start calling in now. it was his op-ed in his home state newspaper, the charleston gazette, that sparked the latest focus on joe manchin. this is what he wrote about the s-1 for the people voting rights bill and the filibuster in that op-ed. joe manchin writing some in my party have argued that now is the time to embrace election reforms and policies solely supported by one party. respect philfully, he said, i do not agree. i believe that partisan voting legislation will against the for the people act.

furthermore, i will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster. for as long as i have the prifl of being your u.s. senator, i will fight to represent the people of west virginia no matter how difficult and bonds that end divisions and unite the country we love. part of his op-ed in the gazette. no surprise, he has talked about them before. a renewed focus amid the latest push for joe biden's agenda, leading to questions in the white house briefing room. this is white house press secretary jen psaki on joe biden's relationship with joe manchin. >> i can certainly tell you that the president and senior members of the administration are in close touch with senator manchin and his team about infrastructure and a range of issues where there is an opportunity to work together moving forward. i'll also note that i'm pretty sure senator manchin is pretty proud of his independent streak and he made clear he took no offense to the president's comments last week.

and he also noted, i think over the weekend, that west virginia doesn't usually get this much attention. so maybe it's a -- that's something he doesn't seem to mind too much. >> the president cease senator manchin as an obstacle to his agenda, not wanting to pursue infrastructure through reconciliation. that pretty much grounds the president's domestic agenda at this point. >> we're certainly not willing to accept that, that analysis. i will say the president considers senator manchin a friend. he knows that they may disagree on some issues, as they do on this particular piece of legislation. he will continue to work with him, reach out to him, engage with him directly and his staff on how we can work together moving forward. >> jen psaki in the white house briefing room yesterday. you heard her say there that joe manchin didn't take any offense to joe biden's comments, referring to joe biden's comments when he was in tulsa. he didn't mention joe biden or

arizona senator krysten sinema by name. but made comments about this issue of voting rights. this was president biden from last week. >> i hear all the folks on tv saying why doesn't biden get this done? biden only has a majority of effectively four votes in the house and a tie in the senate. with two members of the senate who vote more with my republican friends. but we're not giving up. earlier this year the house of representatives passed for the people act to protect our democracy. the senate will take it up later this month. and i'm going to fight like heck with every tool in my disposal for its passage. the house is also working in the john lewis voting rights act, which is critical to providing new legal tools to combat the assault on the right to vote. >> president biden last week in tulsa. you heard him there say that joe biden votes more with his

republican friends in the senate. ap fact check on that statement finding that not to be true. according to cq role call manchin voted against his party's majority 38.5% of the time last year. krysten sinema did so 33.1% of the time. the ap noting that democratic senator doug jones of alabama, who lost his re-election race in november to tommy tubberville was third on that list at 32.2% of the time. this morning, we're focusing on joe manchin, the senior senator from west virginia. with the amount of attention he's getting on capitol hill at the beginning of this legislative week, asking you if you think he has too much influence. 202-748-8001 for democrats, independents 202-748-8002. for mountain state residents,

202-748-8003 if you're from west virginia. mark, schenectetty new york, you're up first. >> caller: susan collins, mitt romney, they're moderates. and they could vote for a democrat. i think the point here is that biden's legislation is so bad that you can't even get one republican vote. and they're singling out joe manchin because he's a democrat and because he's part of their side. and he sees how bad biden's legislation is, that they can't get him or even any other moderate to go along with them. >> mark, in a 50/50 senate, any senator who can be the most influential senator is what you're saying? any moderate senator who may buck their party? >> caller: right. correct. >> appreciate the call this morning.

sandy, columbus, ohio, democrat. good morning. you're next. >> caller: yes, good morning. i would like to answer also the last caller. my concern is that manchin is not going along with the group knowing that mitch mcconnell has whatever it is they vote against. he has made a statement that he's not going to allow any of biden's programs go through, or the democrats. so my question is -- i live in ohio, so manchin's state is very -- sliding into ohio and rights like you wouldn't believe. they don't have medicare, welfare, they don't havejobs. allowing companies to come in e and stop telling them that coal is coming back. go in and do what he needs to

do. it's very frustrating when you've got a group of people that are not negotiating in good favor. they have never done that with -- under mcconnell. >> sandy mentioned mitch mcconnell. he's also mentioned in this headline on the front page of "the washington times," democrats woo and boo joe manchin, west virginian dubbed the new mcconnell for blocking agenda. took to the senate floor to note the discord on the democratic agenda, why he believes there will be further bipartisan opposition to it. this was mitch mcconnell from yesterday. >> after a spring in which the senate has repeatedly, repeatedly passed mainstream legislation by wide marnls, democrats have decided that now is the time to argue that the legislative process is now

broken. poster child for allowing the senate to change its rules say bill that would forcibly change the rules for elections in every state in america. let me say that again. democrats poster child for lobby the senate to change its rules would forcibly change the rules for elections in every state in america. they mark the bill as a brazen political power grab that the question isn't whether it could earn bipartisan support. the question is how wide the bipartisan opposition will be. this is the bill the democratic leader has placed at the backyard of his campaign to destroy the filibuster. even though multiple members of his own majority are now on the record objecting to it. so madam president, make no mistake, failing to sell reckless, wholesale changes to our democracy isn't proof that the guardrails should be removed. it's a reminder that they're

there for a reason. the american people rightly expect a 50/50 senate to spend its time finding common ground, but our democratic colleagues seem to believe that the most important expectations are those of their far-left. they put forward an agenda that is designed to fail, and fail it will. >> not mentioning joe manchin by name but referring to what he calls the bipartisan opposition to the democratic agenda in the senate. we're focusing on joe manchin today in light of the attention he got yesterday in the wake of that op-ed that was published in the charleston gazette on sunday, noting his opposition to s-1 and to ending the filibuster, the s-1 the for the people act, that sweeping voting rights bill. when it comes to joe manchin, his agenda today, he's set to meet with the naacp to discuss

voting rights, along with a host of other civil rights groups as well, national urban league, national council of negro women. the leadership conference on civil rights and human rights. that's the headline from the hill newspaper. capitol hill reporter noting yesterday some of the names of the people that will be in that meeting to talk about hr1 or s1, for the people act. al sharpton will be there, cheryl eiffel, naacp legal defense fund and a couple of others who joe manchin is set to meet with today. we're asking you about his influence on capitol hill. what do you think about it, whether you're democrat, republican, independent, especially want to hear from folks in west virginia and middleton is a democrat in west virginia. you're up next. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, john. >> go ahead, sir. >> caller: i have to say that

since joe manchin is acting like he is, he's not my senator anymore. i'm 74 years old and i've lived in west virginia. i've seen what's going on. and he has made the thing so discouraged for us democrats, i don't know how we could put him back in office again. he's not worth it. >> have you voted for him in the past, middleton? >> caller: this country is built on. yes. hello? >> you voted for him in the past? >> caller: one time. i haven't voted for him in forever now. i know what kind of a person he is. even when he was governor, i wouldn't vote for him. >> what didn't you like about him when he was governor? >> caller: well, he just -- you could just see the way he does things. he just sits on the fence. and he's a -- he goes with the

wind. mostly it's republican wind. he's always -- now he is -- thinks he has to be republican because our state did a thing after 84 years, went to one republican and now we are a positively dark red. and it's a shame that that's the way our state is. and i'm so discouraged that i can't put up with it anymore. i've just about quit trying to -- you know, i've called his number, trying to leave a comment or something. he won't even answer the phone anymore. his staff or him, either one. >> that's middleton in west virginia. noting the state's deep red shade went for president trump in 2020. 68.6% to joe biden getting just 29.7% in the state. though, democrat joe manchin has been elected three times in west virginia to the u.s. senate.

also former governor as well. not up again until 2024, though, for his next re-election, if he chooses to run for re-election. we have no reason to think he won't. voters won't get a chance to vote on him in 2022. dan is next out of washington, an independent. what do you think of joe manchin? >> first of all, i'm 74 as well. and i'm relieved that joe manchin is exercising his rights to follow his conscience. i don't really understand the question, whether or not he's too influential. he's doing his job. and he's supposed to vote his conscience, not go along with the herd just because he's a democrat. i used to be a democrat but i left the democratic party because they left me as a working man. and, you know, i'm totally

against the democrats now. i vote republican. i'm an independent because there's no other option for me. but i thank god for joe manchin. i hope and pray that the united states of america gets back to its founding principles and honors. >> that's dan in washington. here is joe manchin in his own words, defending his op-ed and his reasoning for writing that and releasing it on sunday. from fox news sunday, joe manchin in his interview. >> voting say bedrock of our democracy. an open, fair, secure voting. we used to go around the world and explain and show and observe voting procedures in a democracy. now if we can't practice what we preach and we're basically going to do an overhaul, an 800-page overhaul of the voting rights or what we call for the people act, there's a lot of great things i

agree in that piece of legislation. there's an awful lot of things that basically don't pertain directly to voting. so the voting rights act -- >> i guess so just to put a button on this, you will vote against that bill if it gets to the senate floor? >> i think it's the wrong piece of legislation to unite our country. i'm not supporting that because i think it will divide us further. i don't want to be in a country that's divide any further than we are right now. if we continue to divide it and separate us more, it's not going to be unit and it's not going to be the country that we love and know. it's going to be hard because it will be back and forth, no matter who is in power. >> senator joe manchin from fox news sunday. a new story up this morning from the hill newspaper. alex bolton, c-span is familiar with his work at the newspaper. some democrats wonder when schumer will get tough with manchin, the story noting that a

member of schumer's leadership team has several points of leverage he could use, including the power to replace him as the senate of energy and resource committee. schumer doesn't have a reputation of getting tough with his colleagues and rarely criticize his democratic colleagues that cause him headaches. to read more on that story from the hill newspaper, thehill.com. here are some democratic members of congress' tweets about joe manchin in the past 24 or 48 hours or so. senator joe manchin, gerrymandering, you don't support a partisan bill that makes it easier for everyone regardless of party to vote i call bs what the congresswoman wrote. senator merkley, i'm

disappointed on senator manchin's for the people act. republicans, democrats and independents across the country defending the vision of the government, of, by and for the people and ends attacks on our right to vote. two more tweets. this, from congressman mark pochan, democrat saying we didn't need an op-ed to know you're unwilling to protect our democracy, and this from congressman jimmy gomez. if joe manchin is concerned about partisan voting legislation, state legislators have given him plenty to worry about. if he refuses to end the filibuster, to pass the for the people act he's complicit in our downfall of democracy. democratic members of congress sharing their views on joe manchin. we're asking for your views this morning. this is lorene, redwood city, california, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm calling with two data points

i would like to point out to joe manchin, to everyone regarding joe manchin and how he is so wrong. he is wrong. number one, alg research did a poll in april 14th through the 18th on rachel maddow last night. 79% of west virginians approve of the for the people act. eight in ten, almost eight in ten people in west virginia want the for the people act. i also would like to point out that the heritage foundation and their americans for prosperity pact have been lobbying joe manchin all the first quarter of 2021 and they joked, they actually joked in a leaked tape that jay mayor from "the new york times" has exposed, that they had a little fun pressuring manchin on sb1. joe manchin is taking heritage foundation money and koch industry money and that's why he's not voting for this. he is bought and paid and he's

going against what the people of west virginia want. eight in ten want for the people act. and he is just dead wrong. >> lorene, do you want him to leave the democratic party? >> caller: he's not going to leave the democratic party. that's a false narrative. that is a false narrative. he's not going to leave the democratic party. >> what do you think will happen? >> caller: i think that chuck schumer needs to start twising some arms. and it's a shame that chuck schumer is our -- i would prefer to see chuck schumer leave than joe manchin, frankly. >> why is that? >> caller: chuck schumer needs to start pressuring people. chuck schumer is a weak leader. he's old and he's weak. >> that's lorene, redwood city, california. s1, for the people act. hr1 in the house bill to address voter access, election integrity and security. this is the wrap-up from the congressional research service, summary of that bill.

it expands voter regions ration, voting access, limits removing voters from voter rolls. the bill sets forth provisions on election security, addresses campaign finance issues, including expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals. a lot in that s1/hr1 bill so named because it was the first piece of legislation that democrats tried to move at the beginning of the 117th congress. and now it's unclear what the fate of that bill will be now that joe manchin says he will not support it. shirley out of christianberg, virginia, republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you today? >> i'm doing all right, shirley. what did you think about joe manchin? >> caller: you know, i think he's a true american. i thank god for people like him. i've been -- i was a democrat, but i've been a republican for many years.

and i truly admire him, for the way he stands up for what he believes in. and i thank you that there's still people in the world that don't stand with the party, that stands for america and our rights. >> back to the mountain state. frank in clarksburg, independent. good morning. >> caller: how are y'all doing this morning? >> i'm doing all right, frank. go ahead. >> caller: john, i tell you, you know, i supported joe manchin. the man has ran for everything. i supported joe manchin. i literally worked for him. >> you mean door knocking? >> caller: oh, yes. yeah. i've had fights over joe manchin. this is west virginia. i know his family. my dad used to go to his house. but he's wrong. you know, there's right and there's wrong. this doesn't have anything to do with anything.

he represents the people of the state of west virginia. when he has an issue that i feel is, you know, republican, bipartisan, democrat issue, it doesn't -- that party has nothing to do with this. this is for the people of this country so we can have a republic democracy. this is wrong. he had -- i don't know what he's doing. i have no idea. but i'll tell you something -- >> frank, has there been a time in the past where he made a vote that you disagree with? >> caller: absolutely. absolutely. >> what specifically? >> caller: let me think. this goes -- i just got up and had my coffee, john. the one -- i'm trying to think. this was when he was -- when they were in the minority. i can't remember the vote specifically. usually i keep track of that. >> frank, a few high-profile

ones from some of the profiles of joe manchin just that have been coming out in the past 24 hours since he has been back in the spotlight, breaking with democrats in the midst of the supreme court confirmation fight over brett kavanaugh to vote with republicans. he also supported trump's first supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch and opposed what he described the rushed confirmation of amy coney barrett. he stood with democrats in opposition to president trump and gop efforts to repeal the affordable care act and push through the republican tax bill. those are some of his most high profile votes in the past couple of years. >> caller: yeah, john. but, you know, with that issue of the supreme court, those people are there for life. they make their decisions. this is about the people of this country. this is a voting issue. if you can't vote -- and it's

going crazy. we're going to lose -- tell you something, this country can't keep going like this. >> so, frank this is the straw that breaks the camel's back for you with him or no? >> caller: if he votes against this, yes. this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. and i love him. i love him, but i can't -- i'll go against him. i will go against him, you know. that's just how i feel. and i come from a big family and this is sad. i mean, where do you get this at? this isn't democrat, independent, republican issue. i mean, this is about democracy. >> that's frank in clarksburg, west virginia, talking about joe manchin, former secretary of state of west virginia, former governor of west virginia, three-term senator now from west virginia. this is randy in millington, michigan, democrat. randy, your thoughts on joe

manchin? >> caller: good morning, john. i would like to start by thanking you and and all the men and women it takes to bring us this program. >> thank you, randy. >> caller: you're welcome. as far as senator manchin goes, we have to be patient. that's how this democracy works. it's slow. do i always agree with it? no. i do think what he is bringing out in a roundabout way is showing just how important getting out and voting at the state level is, or we wouldn't have this complaining about all of this if we didn't have -- if people would have been voting am their states and putting people in there that looked out for all of us, we wouldn't be at this point. our democracy is slow. in this new age of everything being instant, it bothers

everybody. look what happens when we don't have people that do that. mitch mcconnell and the supreme court, he threw everything out the bin dough and said all right, i'm going to run it my way. it didn't get us nowhere, but more divided. that's my opinion on it. it might not mean more than rubbing two wet sticks together but thanks for letting me say that. >> this is the editorial board of the wall street journal. joe manchin plays political chess as progressives rage against him, he's helping the democratic party, especially obtusse are progressives tweeting that democrats should strip manchin of senate

committee rights. please do. he could change parties and have his pick of committee seats as a member of the gop majority. our guess is that mr. manchin has already signaled privately he will support a large tax and spend bill traveling under the false flag of infrastructure opposing this s1 gives him more running room to do that. this is brett, nevada, independent. good morning. you're next. >> good morning. i believe in joe manchin. he represents everybody in the united states. that's why we call them united states senators, not just west virginia.

we've got two coward senators here who jump to whatever mr. schumer says. federal government has no say in how states run their elections. look what harry reid did with the nuclear vote. look how that backfired on the democrats. go ahead and get rid of things. when democrats are out of power and it comes back and bites them, they'll do all the complaining. i don't vote republican. i don't vote democrat. i'm independent. i vote for independent or third-party candidates. that's what a true independent does. joe manchin is a true senator who loves his country. can't say anything more about the man. he's a great man.

>> brett from nevada. it's coming up on 7:30 on the east coast. another half hour to talk to you this morning about senator joe manchin. ask you to keep calling in on phone lines for republicans 202-748-8001, independents 202-748-800 and that line for west virginia residents 202-748-8003. as you continue to call in, a few other headlines to keep you aware of, continuing to track vice president kamala harris's trip to central america, the story about it in today's washington times, calling for more spending on central america in her visit to xwaut malla. if you want to read that story more in the washington times and this story breaking late yesterday afternoon. federal officials recovering $2.3 million in crypto currency paid to the hackers who attacked the colonial pipeline, the

justice department said. the company last month paid nearly $5 million to the russian hackers in difficult to trace crypto currency within hours of the may 7th attack which prompted the company to shut down its operations. the story noting the amount of times that people actually pay ransom -- paid a ransom in ransomware attacks, interesting numbers there from a report by the institute for security and technologies ransomware task force reached nearly 350 million in crypto kurpsy. average ransom payment was in the area of $312,500 according to report cited in the washington times story as well.

ceo of colonial pipeline will discuss before the senate homeland security and government affairs committee. watch live, 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. that's where we'll go after our program today. online at c-span.org. elsewhere on capitol hill, secretary of state antony blinken testifies before the senate appropriations committee on the president's 2022 budget request. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. and later today, a hearing on the sackler family. the owners of purdue pharma, the role they've played in the opioid emdemic. we'll join that hearing. it starts at noon. we're expecting to join about 12:30 of that hearing in progress. that's also going to be on c-span3. also online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. plenty to watch this morning. other news this morning, bipartisan senate report is out

this morning on the january 6th insurrection this reporting from zach cohen, capitol hill reporter that senate report urges congress to adequately fund the capitol police staffing, training and equipment. empowering the capitol police chief to unilaterally request backup from the d.c. national guard. examining the u.s. capitol attack report, failures on january 6th. that senate report available at our website on cspan.org. more from fox producer on capitol hill, the uscp on the senate, neither the capitol police nor the fbi, u.s. secret service, metropolitan police or our other law enforcement partners knew that thousands of rioters were planning to attack the u.s. capitol. the known intelligence simply did not support that conclusion.

that from that report, just some of the reporting we're expecting more reporters to dig in to. that report we'll update you on it. if you want read it yourself at c-span.org. back to your phone calls about senator joe manchin, his role on capitol hill, his influence. do you think he has too much influence? that's the question we've been asking in this first hour of our program this morning. and this is prudentia out of florida. did i get the name right? >> caller: yes, you did. good morning. >> good morning, ma'am. go ahead. >> caller: listen, i blame chuck schumer. he's weak. he shouldn't be mantle leader at the time. i also blame manchin because what he's saying doesn't make any sense. if he looks at the states, they're doing everything partisan. they're blocking, trying to block people from voting, americans from voting. so he should really look at that. and he really doesn't know the history of the filibuster. he really needs to look at that

history, starting way back in 1806 or even further than that. so, i blame both of them. they want this s1 to go through. he really needs to take a look at that. he's doing it for personal reasons not for his constituents and that's all i have to say. >> national security adviser jake sullivan says the passage of s1 is a national security issue. this is more from the white house briefing room.

>> i would say the basic notion of democratic reform and voting rights in the united states is a national security issue. we are in a competition of models with autocracies, trying to show the world that american democracy and democracy at large can effectively work, deliver the will of the people and to the extent we are not updating, refurbishing our own democracy procedures to meet the modern needs of the moment then we will not be as successful to making that case to the rest of the world, behinda, russia or anyone else. there is a national security mention to this today just as there was through the decades of the cold war. >> jake sullivan, national security adviser in the white house briefing room yesterday. there should be another briefing today. so, we'll look to see if there's more commentary about joe manchin a second day of questions about it. we're taking your phone calls this morning. richard out of clarksville, tennessee, a republican. how do you feel about the senior

senator from west virginia? >> caller: you got the name contribute. i'm a libertarian, conservative. i did a lot of good things around where i live. my dad was a republican, old. chief foreign officer in vietnam. his two sons were honorably discharged. this is a wake-up call for both joes. we live in the 21st century, they say. since it turned 2000. i would suggest that they both turn around a little bit, take time and think. i vote all three tickets. i believe in christ. i'm a christian soldier, born on veterans day. my dad was born on election day 1930. my mom was rebecca, and she did what -- she's still living. and she retired from ft. knox. now we must go back to what? the first implement was the declaration of independence. all men are what? women, too.

are equally on that declaration of independence. >> all right. that's richard in tennessee. this is bob in kingswood, texas, a republican. good morning. >> caller: good morning, john. i would like to affirm what the gentleman from nevada, who was an independent, said. he was very accurate on joe manchin. joe manchin is doing for the whole of the united states. he's also representing his state of west virginia, which voted 70% conservative republican. so, some of these numbers that are being touted by rachel maddow at nbc have to be suspect. i mean -- so most important, joe manchin realizes, as a federal employee, as a senator for the whole of the united states, this is nothing more than the democrats taking charge to try to extend their power for decades. that's all it is. they want to make the whole of

the united states, california, new york, whatever, they want power. and that's the way they're try ing to get it. if the government takes over and denies the state's rights to require voter i.d. and clear the voting rolls of voters that no longer are eligible to vote, that just allows, obviously, problems in the voting. that's wrong. >> bob in texas this morning. don't forget about viewers watching and tweeting or sending us text messages or commenting on facebook. this is eric dyson saying thank you, joe. at least there's still one democrat or two in the senate with sound reason who can see things in the long term. vickie saying maybe, just maybe he's actually representing his constituents and knows the for the people act is a lie and a

bad piece of legislation. this is tony from ocala, florida, saying he's but one man with one vote. how much influence does that imply? and this from christopher, manchester, new hampshire. if there were more moderate democratic senators we would hear less about manchin, conversely the same about susan collins in the republican party. i applaud centrist folks like them and glad the breaks have been put on the aoc wing of the democratic party. a few of your comments this morning. this is carolyn, who called in from mt. vernon, new york, a democrat. good morning. >> good morning, john. i would like to say that i think joe manchin is an obstructionist in the democratic party. he reminds me of a joe lieberman, who did the same thing. they never side with their own party. they always side with the republicans. democrats should get a backbone

and boot him out of the party, like the republicans booted liz cheney out of her position. >> carolyn, in a 50/50 senate, do you want him booted out of the democratic party? >> caller: i want him out of the party. and i think that because what he is doing is he's holding the party back and then can't get anything done because of him. and i think he should be removed. >> carolyn, let me put it this way. would you rather be -- would you rather the democrats be in the minority in the senate with joe manchin out of the democratic caucus in the senate? or would you rather him stay in and be in the majority? >> caller: i think what joe manchin is doing is he's holding the democratic party back. see, the republicans stay on

code. they align together no matter what happens. and so i think the democrats should do the same thing. manchin is there just to cause he is there to be an obstructionist so they're not getting anything done. >> that is carolyn in new york. this is frank in new york as well. poughkipsie, new york, independent. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, frank. >> caller: i'm waiting for democracy to collapse. yep. because they're going to fail as a country. you have people running this country as an autocracy. >> bring me to joe manchin. >> caller: he's part of the problem, too. when the democracy collapses,

we'll know who to blame. no point pointing fingers. politicians failed us. >> that's frank from poughkipsie, new york. more from new york, democratic congressman jamal bowman from the 16th congressional district of new york was on cnn yesterday. this is what he had to say about joe manchin. >> manchin is a no on doing anything against the filibuster. he put it in writing. your reaction? >>io manchin has become the new mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell during obama's presidency said he would do everything in his power to stop obama. he's also repeated that now during the biden presidency by saying he would do everything in his power to stop president biden. and now joe manchin is doing everything in his power to stop

democracy and to stop our work for the people, the work that the people sent us here to do. hr1 not only is a huge bill when it comes to voting rights, it's a huge bill in terms of getting big money out of politics protection against fraud and injury marnding. big money politics is destroying our democracy. and the republican party is aiding and abetting that and donald trump is doing that as well. manchin is not pushing us closer to bipartisanship. he is doing the work of the republican party by being an obstructionist since they have been at the beginning of biden's presidency. >> congressman bowman tweeting out his appearance on cnn yesterday. back to your phone calls, 15 minutes are left in this segment, asking for your thoughts on joe manchin.

especially want to hear from west virginia residents. bill is one of those, a republican. go ahead. >> joe manchin is one of the few people in washington that has a backbone. i don't know what it matters if you're a republican or you're a democrat if you have a thought on what's right, you do what's right. i think that's what he's doing. and thank you very much. >> bill, you voted for him in the past? >> do what, sir? >> have you voted for him in the past, whether it was his governor's race or one of his three senate campaigns? >> i didn't vote for him last election, but i had voted for him before then and will vote for him again. >> because of this. >> yes, because of this. >> bill, west virginia. this is glorious, upper

marlboro, maryland. good morning. >> caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. >> yes, ma'am. >> mr. manchin is there's too much -- what he thinks is right is boulderdash. if eight out of ten west virginians are for this bill, he deserves a front row seat in the hall of shame and a big bouquet of stink weeds for not supporting it. one has to wonder why he doesn't want big money out of politics. he's a hypocrite, good republocrat. calling joe manchin a dino, democrat in name only. joe manchin thinks for himself and is not a group thinker. this from steven on twitter, saying joe manchin is not

working for our country. he's working for re-election to keep his power. country be damned, saying that's the problem with our elected officials. they forgot to read the constitution. folks getting in touch with us via social media, which we especially appreciate this morning in light of a reported massive internet outage going on right now. we're trying to find out more about it. countless websites and apps went around the world after widespread failures were reported. "new york times," cnn and many others, also provides content delivery for twitch, approximateinterest, hulu max, and other services. other major internet platforms, amazon, target and the uk government website, gov.uk also affected by that problem.

time for a couple more calls. we have that phone line for west virginia residents, 202-748-8003, otherwise it's democrats, republicans and independents as usual. in sherwood, arkansas, republican, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, john. yeah. i'm very much impressed with senator manchin. i'm a republican but love the senator who votes his mind and not party. also, the guy bob from texas, he said just about everything i was going to say except for one thing. democrats that are calling in, please understand, in 2020, 327 filibusters were done by the democrats. so talk about hypocrites, there you go. thank you. >> john lake geneva, wisconsin, independent. you're next. >> caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i just want to agree with the people who spoke out on mr.

manchin. he's simply doing the work of his constituents, i believe, being a moderate democrat, which is hard to find nowadays. and also previous person, caller said something about polls, eight out of ten people support hr1. i don't believe that. polls can be skewed any way, depending how the sample was conducted. >> jesse, rosedale, you're next. >> caller: i want to ask a question. are you sure he's a democrat? could be a wolf in sheep's clothing. have a nice day. >> cassandra, independent. >> caller: yes, i am calling in. i don't think joe manchin is a democrat.

he acts more like an undercover republican. and i don't know why west virginia continues to keep puts him in there. i hope he loses in 2024. >> cassandra, would you prefer he leave the party beforehand, even if it meant losing the democratic majority in the senate? >> no shall not right now. because we're 50/50. if we had more democrats like if it was 53-54, something like that, then i'll say yes. >> you want him to stick around long enough to get beat in a primary in 2024, is that what you're saying? >> yep. yes, i am. he's not a democrat. i mean, you can see that he's undercover. he's just there for himself, you know. and the republicans, i will say this, they do stick together. it seems like the democrats don't. >> cassandra in ft. washington, maryland. a special line for west virginia

residents. this all started from an op-ed that joe manchin wrote and released and that op-ed conversation continues in the charleston gazette. opinion piece from david lob saying as senator joe manchin asserted in that op-ed the right to vote is fundamental to american democracy. frustratingly, though, his announced refusal to vote for the people act and extension shared belief in the secretiveness. and then plenty of conversation in the national papers as well, including greg sergeant yesterday in the washington post columnist for the washington post. this is what he writes. if rewriting voting rule on a partisan base will destroy our democratic 3w07bs we already live in that world. gop state legislatures are

passing such changes largely on party lines across the country, including voter suppression, efforts to take control of election machinery, to potentially overturn outcomes and preparations for extreme injury marnds. manchin does not explain why democrats acting on partisan lines to blunt those changes as the for the people act would will destroy our democracy, allowing those changes to proceed on party lines would not. his column in "the washington post" if you would like to read that. or give us a call. a few more minutes for this conversation this morning. clay out of louisiana, republican. what do you think of joe manchin? >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking me call. he should run for president. he's the only one who seems to take a stance on everything and is firm in his stance. west virginia's primarily a republican state. trump carried it by probably 60,

70%. and fars about his houseboat being $700,000, he actually paid $200,000 for it. so, yes, i'm firmly in support of senator manchin and thank you for taking my call. >> clay before you go, when was the last time joe manchin was brought to your attention as somebody in louisiana? has he come up before? i think we lost clay. we'll go back to the mountain state to charleston. this is rhonda. good morning. democrat. go ahead. >> caller: hi, yes. i'm a lifelong west virginian. i don't agree with what joe manchin is doing. i see the problem in west virginia as an education problem. it's a deep red state. but education and people understanding the issues here seems to be a problem. >> rhonda, what do you think happens to joe manchin in 2024?

>> caller: either he will go all republican or he will continue to remain a blue dog democrat. >> that's rhonda out of charleston. by the way, the caller before rhonda mentioning the houseboat issue. just for those who haven't been following it, this is apparently where it came from. "the wall street journal" editorial board giving some background on that saying that it was an aide to democratic senator dick durbin who went to twitter yesterday to say i don't think our founding fathers anticipated the survival of this democratic experiment to rest in the hands of a man who lives in a houseboat as joe manchin apparently does. the editorial board asking what's wrong with houseboats, noting she later deleted that tweet. this is joann out of mississippi, republican. good morning. >> caller: i understand that mississippi is a smaller state, and i would not want to stand in

a long line. there's a simple solution to this. the states need to put in more voting places closer to people to vote. it's simple. they don't need to make a big mess out of this. the problem is the people have to wait so long in lines is what started all this. just have more precincts for people to vote. >> joann -- >> caller: other people like him should be speak up. i don'tnd why they all stay silent. >> joann, how do you feel -- >> caller: whether democrat or republican? >> how do you feel about vote by mail? should it be easier to vote by mail? >> caller: no. no. if you're an american and you're patriotic, you want to go vote. you just have to have more voting, more precincts. because when you have a

precinct, like in mississippi, you know who is dead, who has died, you know. a neighbor will say, well, they passed away on such and such a date. and precinct workers turn that in and they take them off the rolls so there aren't dead people voting. but it's done because we have more precincts easy to get to. we have organizations that will drive someone to the polls. just be a neighbor instead of all this fighting and all this stuff. >> that's joann in mississippi. this is ted out of rhode island, a democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning, john. thank you for taking my call. i want to say that i agree with caroline from the democrat from new york, that he should be

pulled out of the party. i belong to two democratic organizations. and i helped support the democratic party. i had been an independent until last year about this time. then i switched to democrat. anyway, people -- these two organizations called me up, looking for funding so on and so forth. what i've done over the past two or three months is said no, no democratic organization is going to get a dime from me until joe manchin and krysten sinema are excelled from the party. no more money at all. if you're going to consort with the enemy, will you not see a dime from me. >> ted, i hate to keep going back to this, but would you -- you want them gone even if it means losing the majority in the senate? >> caller: yes, sir, because we can bind up the senate just like the republicans can. i want them gone.

i don't believe in sleeping with the enemy. >> do you think the republicans would have qualms about eliminating the filibuster? >> caller: i don't know. they play dirty. i mean dirty. but the thing is, the way i see it, the republicans want a civil war, unfortunately. >> that's ted in rhode island this morning. arlene out of salt lake city, utah, republican. arlene, your thoughts on senator joe manchin? >> caller: i think he's correct. i think people should do their homework and look into this. it's called for the people act, but it takes away power from the people. for example will no longer set their own election policy.

so the reins will be handed over to whoever is controlling congress. and, for example, the bill overrides voter i.d. requirements and it prohibits voter list maintenance. and this doesn't make sense. our state legislatures will no longer be accountable to the people. >> that's arlene out of salt lake city, utah, on the for the people act. our last caller in this first hour of the washington journal. stick around. plenty more to discuss this morning, including up next we'll be joined by budget committee member pennsylvania democrat brendan boyle who will discuss the 2022 budget request, economic agenda. and later more on that with the u.s. chamber of commerce executive vice president neil bradley.

stick around. we'll be right back. coming up live tuesday on c-span networks, joseph blount testifies on the cyber attack against his company. 2:15 p.m., antony blinken talks about foreign policy and the state department budget. on cspan 2 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the u.s. senate continues work on two u.s. district court nominations and will have a final vote on science and technology bill that had been held up just before the memorial day recess. on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m., secretary of state blinken is at a senate appropriations subcommittee hearing. around 12:30 p.m., we'll join the house oversight committee hearing looking at the role of pr due pharma and sackler family

in the opioid epidemic. "washington journal" continues. >> always glad to welcome back pennsylvania democrat brendan boyle, member of the house budget committee joining us ahead of that committee taking up the president's fiscal 2022 budget tomorrow. i wonder if you want to weigh in on the question we were asking our viewers in the first hour this morning after senator joe manchin announced he wouldn't support the for the people act and wouldn't support ending the filibuster to move president biden's legislation. is he someone who has too much influence on capitol hill? >> it's great to be back with you and back on c-span. in a world in which the senate is 50/50, you could say that almost every member of the senate has outsized influence. joe manchin is a moderate, moderate to conservative democrat probably right in the middle in terms of ideological

score on how he votes. you always knew going in once the senate broke down 50/50 that he especially was going to have a lot of influence. but on the main question about the filibuster, i have been clear for a number of years, including when republicans controlled the senate. i believe the filibuster is contrary to what our founding fathers intended. in two different parts of the federalist papers, either madison or hamilton, whichever one wrote that section, comes out clearly against a super mantle vote requirement, which had existed in the articles of con federation and proved so unwieldy that they opposite opted against it. unfortunately at the time with senate rules this concept of a filibuster evolved and it's really only, though, in the last approximately three decades that the filibuster evolved to the point that basically it is

invoked on every single vote of substance. that was not the case if you go back 40, 50 years ago. the filibuster existed but it was primarily used, and i'm not saying at all this was a good thing but it was primarily reserved for civil rights legislation, that southern segregationists would filibuster any civil rights bill. beyond civil rights, the filibuster was not used. this is a real problem in our system. it grinds things to a halt. i do want to tackle one other thing where i think joe manchin who i believe say principled person and is doing what he thinks is right, i just don't think he's right on substance. he believes the filibuster leads to more bipartisanship. i actually think it's the reverse. and i would point to the vote on whether to establish a january 6th commission, which passed the house with every single democratic vote. it also passed the senate --

excuse me, it also passed the house with more than 30 republican votes. if you look at the senate vote, it was 54-35. it had support from some seven republican senators. in a world in which the filibuster doesn't exist, that would be seen as a large bipartisan vote. unfortunately because of that 60-vote threshold it wasn't. >> as a practical matter in the 117th congress if ending the filibuster is off the table at least for now, what's the future of the for the people act? and what's the future for some of these other major biden policy and spending legislative items? >> yeah. so i'm still hopeful even if the filibuster were not ended that joe manchin and a couple of other democratic senators who support maintaining the

filibuster recognize that it is preventing anything at all really from getting done. and at the very least it needs to be reformed. a couple of reform ideas have been out there, switching the thresholds. instead of needing 60 votes to break the filibuster, decide that it's filibustering, one idea that's been talked about that would make a difference. you could potentially do carve outs on certain issues and make them so you can't filibuster it. we already have that today. budget reconciliation is essentially a carve out and exemptions the filibuster rule. mitch mcconnell, several years ago, got rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments, including to the supreme court. that's another carve out. i would certainly like to see more if you're going to maintain the filibuster. while i'm frustrated, i respect senator joe manchin, and i know

some of my fellow democrats are as frustrated as i am, i'm not going to challenge his motivations. i think he's doing what he thinks is right. i'm just, you know, frustrated that he has the view that he has. i will say, though, for folks who want to kick joe manchin out of the party, that would be a terrible mistake. that would mean mitch mcconnell was again senate majority leader. we just passed with joe manchin's yes vote a $2 trillion covid relief bill. that would not have happened if mitch mcconnell was still the senate majority leader. let's not forget that. so, it can be, you know, frustrating when you have a big tent party, but i for one am not giving up. >> we invite viewers to join the conversation. brendan boyle, congressman from pennsylvania, budget committee, ways and means committee, with us for the next 40 minutes this morning.

202-748-8000. taking a look at the president's fiscal 2022 budget proposal tomorrow. this time of year when we talk about budgeting we hear the phrase budget is a statement of our values. what does that mean? and what does the statement that the biden administration is making with this budget? >> yeah. i mean, it's a statement that goes back many years, actually, well before this administration. it's one thing to say what your priorities are. but when you show your budget and where you're spending your money, that speaks volumes to what your priorities and values actually are. so, for example, some of the many exciting things to me in this budget, extending the child tax credit. one thing we passed in the covid relief bill that i just referenced earlier is a one-year

dramatic expansion to the child tax credit that is projected to reduce child poverty in the united states by 50%. i want to make that permanent in our budget for '21-'22 or biden budget proposal would go ahead and do that for the following year. removing the lead pipes that are currently in so many metro areas of this country and replacing them with safe pipes, that is in there. strengthening our electrical grid, that is in there. so, those are just a few of the examples. money for child care, another. i believe that budgets are a reflection of our values and i think we're showing our values by what we're choosing to spend on in this budget. so i'm vice chair of the committee. i joined our chairman in supporting this budget proposal. and i think over the next --

beginning with our hearing tomorrow, really over the next month to seven weeks, we're going to see a lot of action on capitol hill on a number of priorities. >> you mentioned budget reconciliation a little while ago. >> yeah. >> can you explain again what that does and how that works? >> yes. i'm shaking my head a little bit because i'm not sure -- there are folks i know who have spent decades on capitol hill who i'm not sure they can fully, 100% explain this rather arcade measure. but it exists because of the existence of the filibuster. so budget reconciliation essentially says you cannot filibuster the budget proposal. any proposal that has a budgetary impact. so a simple majority vote is required, which is how four years ago the republicans were able to pass through their dramatic $2 trillion tax cuts for the rich. it is how they almost were able to repeal obamacare. it is how we were able to -- democrats in the majority a few months ago were able to pass our

covid relief bill. and it is how i suspect we will be pushing forward on this infrastructure bill, because in this modern age with two highly ideologically consistent highly ideologically consistent political parties, particularly on the right, there's such a penalty for voting for anything that a democratic president supports, it is difficult to see a super majority vote of 60 in the u.s. senate. so the budget can go through on reconciliation, which at its most simple level, means only a simple majority vote is required. 51 instead of 6024 the senate. it opportunity change things in the house. you always just need a simple major any the house. >> why does the senate paroltarian this can only happen once more this year.

and if it doesn't, what else do you try to include in that? you mentioned infrastructure. does the american families plan become a part of this round of reconciliation. >> again, i'm shaking my head because i find the senate rules maddening and very illogical. as a house member, we operate under a much more frankly straight forward set of rules and don't have to worry about reconciliation. although we end up having to worry about reck sill isuation because we know what the senate rules are and we want this to pass both chambers and be signed by the president. i would refer to the senate parliamentarian on why it seems her judgment has switched over the last several months. initially there were indications in the spring that we would be able to use reconciliation a couple more times this year. she has by all accounts essentially gone back on that, but i would defer to her.

i imagine there must be some further explanation as to why that is. she would be able to better speak to that. >> you were shaking your head on the senate rules. is that part of the reason there is a senate seat open in pennsylvania in 2022 i know you're not planning to run for that seat. is that part of the reason for not running? >> there were a couple reasons. being in my fourth term in serving on the budget committee, i happen to enjoy what i'm doing. this is an incredibly important term in the history of congress. if we do everything we need to do this term, it could end up being one of the two most historic terms in congress since the 1960s. but there's also personal reasons as well. i'm the father of a wonderful and precocious 7-year-old. and getting to do things last week like go to her first ever

school play, to be honest, things i wouldn't be able to do if i was running statewide. i'd be spending the next year and a half traveling. and those are great places, but if i'm traveling there, it means i'm not home. i'm already gone about half the week any way when i'm in washington when we're in session. so for both personal and plit professional reasons, i decided to stay put put where i am. i know that i'm in a good spot to do a lot of good. i don't think that forred. >> plenty of callers this morning. out of philly, this is debbi. good morning. >> caller: yes, thank you. what is in the offer that is coming from the republicans in the senate? they are saying they want to use some of the money provided in the covid-19 bill.

what money is available? i thought all the money was already allocated for different reasons. and if that money is going to be affected, the democrats need to come out and say what the money is that the republicans want to take from them. you folks just don't fight enough for me. i don't understand it. >> give you a chance to respond. >> first, i'm finding hard to make sure that our proposal that leaves the house, that that ends up looking like the final proposal. i'm glad that we fought and succeeded, frankly, on the covid relief bill. one of the largest bills in american history. $2 trillion, which included those covid payments, more money for ppp. one of the reasons why the vaccination rollout right now

has been so successful, the fact that more than half of u.s. adults have at least one dose or excuse me, more than 60% of u.s. adults have one vaccine dose. more than 50% are fully vaccinated. think of what a mess we were in before that covid relief bill passed the american rescue plan. right now we are leading the rest of the world when it comes to vaccination ps. such a big contrast to the previous administration, which had one of the worst records when it came to covid cases and deaths. so those are the kind of things we're fighting hard for. as far as the proposal on infrastructure, i don't think it's a credible proposal. because a lot of the figures throwing around as the caller was right pointing out, it's really repurposing spending that has already passed.

that's the bulk of the proposal. while i don't disagree with attempting to be bipartisan, in reality, i'm very skeptical that you'll get ten senate republicans to come on board and make the large infrastructure investments, the once in a generation investments we need. so my view is just like the american rescue plan, we push forward on a bill that was enormously popular. it was popular with independents ask republicans, and yet we didn't get one republican vote for it in the house or senate. i'm prepared to do the same thing with the infrastructure bill. at the end of the day, it's about the substance of what we pass and not trying to chase this bipartisanship goal in an era in which frankly there was very little good faith negotiating from the other side. >> do you think that's specifically coming from the one west virginia sender.

the other senator leading these negotiation, do you think president biden should walk away from those negotiations with her? >> again, i think it's an admiral impulse from this president to give bipartisanship a shot, which is what we did on the covid relief bill. we gave it a few weeks, even a month, attempted to negotiate, saw that wasn't going to go any way and we pushed forward with our own bill. i support that same sort of twin track approach. we'll give the other side a shot. they are not going to be hld up by them. there are a few senators on the other side who maybe negotiating in good faith. i just don't see ten. that is the number you would need to make it work. >>s what's the cutoff date for that shot you want to see given? >> originally, we had the goal of fourth of july. we're in danger of that slipping

now. one way or the other, this has to pass by late squul. then congress goes on recess. so absolutely this must pass the house and senate ask be signed by the president by late july. >> we'll head across the keystone state to outside of pittsburgh. is that right? >> what's your question or comment for the congressman? >> caller: my question is it's a disgrace that we're spending billions of of dollars on legals in this country, and yet every day of the week our veterans without legs and arms are beging on it have. >> congressman? >> so first, i have repeatedly

voted for greater funding for veterans. we owe it to them. it's our moral responsibility. my view we should do far more than we already do for veterans. on the immigration issue, the fact is we're not letting millions of illegals into our country. we have a challenge and our border and it didn't just start with this administration. it goes back to at least the george w. bush years. there are three central american countries. the three countries south of mexico, in which the crime rates are off the charts as well as high unemployment. and those are countries where families choose that they believe they are actually better off trekking hundreds of miles through a dangerous path than living in their current country. so the immigration issue is complex, but the idea that we are just lily nilly opening our

gates and allowing millions of illegals, and that perception is out there. it's just false. >> to sheila, a democrat. good morning. >> caller: okay. i'd like to know what your qualifications are for being a congressman? you look awfully young. >> congressman, you want to take it up? >> i appreciate that more and more as i get older. i am 44 years old. my daughter who is 7 thinks i'm closer to 100. so age is relative.

the constitution, there are very few stated requirements to be in the house of representatives. you have to be 25 years old, a u.s. citizen, and a resident of the state which you represent in congress. other than that, there aren't too many requirements. but fortunately, i'm the first in my family to go to college. i have undergraduate degrees and a graduate degree in government and public policy. and have now been a legislator for 13 years. this is a very serious profession. i think sometimes we do a disservice to our not just public poll sit folks, but we do a real disservice to our country when we devalue public service. because i'm going to be voting on a $6 trillion budget. i have a vote on whether or not we go to war or peace.

these are important issues. and i think that certainly valuing the profession of public service is a wise thing to do. we really want as high quality people, democrats and republicans, to be interested in running for these positions. >> a generational question has come up in your party recently. when it comes to the leadership of your party, a story about it from politico from earlier this year. democrats start to eye what a post-pelosi era looks like. nancy pelosi has called herself a bridge to the next generation of leaders in the democratic party. so who do you think are those leaders and when do you think they will get to take the top reigns of power in the caucus? >> first, after sometimes having questions raised about my age on the young side, the last thing i'm going to do is raise questions about any member because of their age on the

older side. there's some great quotes from thomas jefferson and james madison on this point. speaker pelosi and jim clyburn, it is true they are a few years older than i am, maybe one or two. you wouldn't know it by their energy level and their acumen. so i'm in no rush based on age. there are, however, many leaders within our caucus who maybe don't have quite as visible roles but play a very important job. i'm not going to get into one or two. if i mention four or five, i'll annoy probably five or ten other friends of mine. but i'm pretty confident that the house democratic caucus will be strong regardless. >> to nick out of dl ray beach, florida, republican, good

morning. >> caller: good morning. just a couple quick questions. the first is i'd like the congressman to answer whether or not we saw bipartisanship the last four years of the trump administration or did we just see russia hoax stories, ukraine hoax stories, all different hoax stories where they investigated but yet i don't see the former president being charged with anything. fpz maybe the congressman can explain why you have people dying in the streets of new york, but state attorney general is investigate donald trump's business dealings from 30 years ago. maybe he could explain to us why we're not concentrating on the people who are being killed in new york on a daily bsis. second, could he answer if the phil buster is jim crow, why did the democrats use it over 300

times donald trump's last year in office. i understand the democratic party is the party of slavery and jim crow and segregation, but maybe he can explain if it is jim crow to use the filibuster, why they do that. >> congressman? >> so the caller obviously is a very ardent republican. i'm not sure open minded he will be to my answers, but i'll go ahead and be straight forward and answer them. first, there's no question that the history of the fiibuster in terms of how it became to be and so often vote as i mentioned before was just on civil rights legislation. southern segregationists who started out actually as democrats, but then evolved and left the democratic party over time when the national democratic party came out in support for civil right ts in

the '60s. they would invoke the filibuster just to preserve segregation. the filibuster was expanded to the point where we are now. i mentioned this earlier. to the point where we are now that 60 vote threshold is invoked. so what started out for over the decades so now it's invoked on basically every single issue. and the filibuster is bad for our system regardless of which party is in power. it is also interesting that this is probably why some of my fellow democrats are frustrated that when republicans have full control of dwoft, you never heard mitch mcconnell talk about the importance of bipartisanship.

they didn't have to worry about the filibuster. the same with the tax cuts. the same with appointing medical examiner three folks to the supreme court. they were conservative nominees. so there's this real asymmetry that exists now in which the filibuster applies to a lot of the things we democrats care about, but the things that republicans care most about, tax cuts, you can't invoke the filibuster on. i hope my democratic friends and colleagues reognize that the the longer the filibuster goes on t puts democrats structurally at a massive disadvantage. >> the filibuster a tool of the senate but jim wants me to ask you if you have ever in the house voted against a democratically sponsored bill?

>> sure. you can check all my votes online. it's a public website. i use it myself when i'm looking things up. you can look at my voting record. even though there's little evidence of bipartisanship, you will see on other bills that don't get as much attention a number of bipartisan votes that take place. so there certainly have been times when i voted against the bill that might have a democratic sponsor. >> what's the toughest vote you have ever taken? >> just in general, the toughest votes are not ones where because it's a controversial issue, the toughest votes for me are typically complex pieces of legislation that maybe have four main pieces where i agree with

two, but i disagree with two. and i know if i vote for it, i'm voting yes including a couple things i dislike. if i vote against it, i'm voting against a couple things i like. those tend to be the toughest votes not only for me, but if you talked to most legislators. if you're looking for one specifically, the eastern vote five or six years ago is probably the most difficult vote that i have passed. i ended up voting contrary to a president of my party. in the 13 years serving in a legislature whether it was congress, that was the most difficult vote and the one i i felt most torn over. >> does the for the people act have any of the pieces in it that you disagree with? >> i'm a cosponsor of it i'm a supporter of hr-1. it's badly needed. the antigerrymandering

provisions alone, putting federal minimum standards in our elections, i think we saw in 2020 as one nation, how frustrating it is to have 50 different state rules and requirements. these are minimum standards. so rules would be set at the state and local level. they would have to exceed a federal minimum standard when it comes to voting and elections. our campaign finance system is completely out of whack. i would like to see some other things that weren't in there. i have a money bill that would provide free air time for qualified candidates. you have that many most other democracies. it would help reduce such the massive need to raise funds at election time. most of the money that i raise in an election goes to paying for tv adds. so if i had had my -- if i total carte blanche, i would put a clean money act into hr-1. but that said, i'm not going to

let that stand in the way of something i otherwise strongly support. >> back to the keystone state. this is vick in mid-way. good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. congressman, i want to fwif you a simple solution to bipartisanship in this infrastructure bill. put an amendment in the legislation giving the federal agencies permission to prioritize which infrastructure project will be funded first. you include with it the support of the either congressional candidate or the senatorial candidate's position on the infrastructure. >> i think it's a good proposal. one of the things that's coming back in the transportation and infrastructure bill that's being marked up in the house this week is for the first time in over a

decade we the elected representatives of our districts have the opportunity to direct some of the spending back home. i think that makes a lot of sense. i think congress made a terrible mistake over a decade ago when it got rid of that sort of directed spending. you have to have your name associated with it. i put the projects, there are five i supported. i put them up on my website. it seems to me for a representative democracy, those choices should be made by the people, through their elected representatives, rather than some anonymous bureaucrat in the nation's capital who doesn't know the difference between northeast philly and northeastern pennsylvania. so that's something that i strongly support. i think congress worked better back when that used to be the way things were. so i'm excited that that is in our infrastructure proposal. >> do you not like the term earmarks? >> i think member-directed

spending is more accurate. i have used the term earmark as well. in my view, as long as you have transparency, so i mentioned you have you have to have the -- this is new this year. it's the first time in my career that such a thing has existed. obviously, they were done away with more than a decade ago because of some scandals that took place. in my view if you have full transparency, that's the best way to avoid that. all the projects i supported on my website have my name associated with it. frankly i'm pretty proud to have fought for them. the game still isn't over yet. i still have to get funding for them in the senate. so i believe the way it's going to work, you don't necessarily get 100% of the projects that you have pushed for and that you have endorsed. but my view, that's a much better system than what we have now. those decisions are still taking place. this doesn't spend any additional money. i think that's a fallacy that's

out there. i would much rather the people see what is being chosen and then either reward or punish your elected representative if you disagree with that decision. right now, you can't do that. if a decision is made on transportation, it's made by frankly i don't even know the person. at either the state or federal departments of transportation. that affects my neighborhood. that affects my community. i don't think that that's a good system for represent i have democracy. so i'm glad we brought this back the way we have, both for transportation as well as for other sorts of projects. it's a relatively small amount of money compared to the overall amount that we're talking about. and again, i think it's the most combatable with our representative democracy. >> columbia, mississippi, ava is waiting. just about ten minutes left. >> since you're talking about

the budget, does anybody do anything about duplications of bills and grants and programs? for instance if a woman goes to make a pot of chilly before she runs out and buys the chili powder, she has two partial containers sherks combined them and makes one. if they are not good, she throws them out and gets new ones. but if it's good she uses what she has. why can't congress do the same thing? they need to clean out their cabinets for the american people and quit giving the same thing over and over and over. thank you. >> ava in mississippi. congressman? >> ava, you have made my hungry actually as i'm sitting here. yes, there are those sorts of checks. government can be wasteful. no doubt. but i think that there might be a perception that government is more resources.

i'm taking about the federal government now that it has. there are agencies that if you were to walk through them, you'd see computers that are 20 years old and things that are badly in need of repair as well. so there are those checks in place. you can't have duplication, but i won't say it's perfect either. i will say that every two years, i hear some new candidate running and saying they are going to solve everything by getting rid of fraud, waste and abuse. you always have to snicker buzz to do some of the major things we want to do, the sort of savings that you can find, believe me, if you can eliminate fraud you should do it just on the merits. if you can cut waste, doo it. the idea there's enough change in the sofa cushions to fund the

major priorities we have like rebuilding our infrastructure, it's just not so. i wish it were. the reality is this sort of level, tough make hard decisions on spending. so i'm a strong supporter of this infrastructure bill. someone raised a question about bipartisanship. i was on tv for the last four years when donald trump was president saying that i was the supporter of an infrastructure bill. i said it on this program. saying that i wish the trump administration would push forward with an infrastructure bill because there would be a lot of support on the democratic side. i will never understand why he didn't do that. it would have been a big bipartisan win for the previous president. it's unfortunate that opportunity slipped past him, but i'm glad we're going to get the job done in this administration. >> congressman, 159 videos in the c-span video library

including several on the issue on this program on the call-in program and also the floor speeches and committee speeches. all available at c-span. a few minutes left if you want to join this conversation. brian in new jersey. fpz. >> something i find and so forth, this was very frustrated at the reluctance of democrats and republicans to give credit where credit is due. you mentioned representative how you contrasted the amount of cases and the previous administration. compared to now. it's obvious the vaccine rollout has been successful. did the trump administration deserve any credit for the development of that vaccine? of course, there were more deaths and cases when the

vaccine was just being developed, and was initially being rolled out. >> go ahead, congressman. >> let's be clear. the previous administration was an absolute mess and a disaster on covid. we had -- and this was last year when no one had a vaccine. so all of the countries were on the same level playing field. none of us had a vaccine. the united states is 4s. of the world's population. yet we were 20% of covid cases and 20% of covid deaths. you compare us to other wealthy countries like japan and asia and europe, we were the worst. and so that record is quite clear. i think it's one of the reasons why donald trump lost the last election.

fast forward to this year, most countries on earth have the vaccine, yet only in the united states, it maybe a couple others like israel. the fact we were able to reopen and go on without masks as long as you're vaccinated. and this is a lot sooner than any of us were expecting. it shows you just what a good job this administration has done. and the sort of disaster on covid is basically night and day. >> time for just one or two more phone calls here. john has been waiting in farmington, connecticut, a democrat, good morning.

>> good morning, top of the morning to both of you. i wanted to point out an issue about population. ezra klein in his book mention ed that the population is represented kind of unequally by the senate. 70% of the population has 30 senators representing them. and 30% of the population has 70 senators. that's why the filibuster has to go. 90% of the american people want gun control. because the way the senate is currently constructed, we can't get it. most of the damage to the people in the country from guns is in the city areas. so therefore, we have to point out to the west virginia senator that the population is not being

adequately represented. thank you very much. >> congressman? >> there's no question that the senate was creted in an undemocratic fashion. california by far the largest state. i think about 40 million people, two senators and wyoming, closer to half a million also has two senators. so that is unfair. i have to say though, i don't see any solution to that. it is baked into our institution. i think those of us on my side of the aisle are better off recognizing that that inequity exists ask we just have to win in more populated states. we have two senators who vote

with us from vermont. so it is unfair, but those are the rules. it's one of those rare parts of the constitution that amendable. we have to push forward and run great candidates who are fit for the districts in which they are running. we touched on january 6th twice in this segment, but that new report from the two senate committees and the rules and administration committee out with the new report examining the capitol attack. but congressman for you, what's the future of a january 6th commission? >> i think one way or the other, we have to push forward is and get this investigation done. we push forward with the bipartisan bill. it got more than 30 house republicans to vote for it. even though their leadership was shamefully whipping a no-vote.

even in the senate, seven senate republicans decided to vote with us on this. it is completely bipartisan. it was negotiated in good faith with a republican co-chairman essentially of the effort. so now that they have voted it down, i hope we would take another shot in the senate. we should hold their feet to the fire and push the vote again, which is something we're completely entitled to do. if that fails, we need to move forward with our own select committee. these are questions that have sob answered. we had 800 to a thousand american citizens attack their own government, i tacking the capital for the first type since the british invaded two sench ris ago. i want to know what donald trump was and was not doing for the hours on january 6th when the national guard was not being

sent in to aid us against this violent mob. so that and many other questions still exist. we need to get it done. >> democrat from pennsylvania, member of the budget committee, that committee is going to be taking up the fiscal 2022 budget tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern. congressman, we'll look for your comments and questions during that hearing. but we appreciate your time this morning. >> thank you. >> up next, more discussion on the biden administration's major spending and tax proposals. we'll be joined by the executive vice president of the u.s. chamber of commerce neil brd heat will be here. we'll be right back. c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant court decision watch key episodes from our series

sunday at 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. "new york times" v united states when president nixon used executive authority to prevent the new york city from publishing secret documents. it protected the times first amendment rights of freedom of the press. watch landmark cases, sunday is night at 9:45 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app.

today a hearing on the zach letter family, owners of purdue pharma and the role they play in the opioid epidemic. we'll join live in progress at 12:30 eastern on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> washington journal continues. >> we welcome neil bradley back to "the washington journal." executive vice president for the u.s. chamber be of commerce. joining us a week after the chamber released a poll of 500 americans became unemployed during the pandemic. here's some of the top line find frgs that survey. 49% of those who lost jobs not actively working for work. 30% don't expect to return to work. 13% never expect to return to work. and 16% say it's not wort looking due to the benefits they

are receiving right now. >> the job crunch for employers is very much real. the anecdotal stories they are hearing about the tifltty that businesses large and small are having and filling open jobs is a reality that's compounded by some of the incidents of the pandemic. you mentioned the 16% who self-reported that the income they are taking home from unemployment benefits including that $300 enhanced weekly benefits, means that they are not interested in looking for work. we think the 25 governors who moved to end that $300 was the right move. the job market is ready. there are good paying jobs out there. we know that some others are having difficulty because schools rbt open to in-person or child care center closed.

we can help these individuals as well. we need to expand child care options. there's no one single solution to this, but identifying the barriers that people are telling us they have in returning to work gives us a road map of how to move forward. >> is a $1.8 trillion american families plan is that going it alleviate the jobs crunch? >> no, the president identified some problems that we need to address. including accessibility to affordable child care over the long-term. and so we should begin hooking at that. but yor talking about programs that will take a month, years to get past. and then even longer to get set up. there are actually some more innovative solutions to deal with the immediate problem happening at the state level. the governors of arizona and oklahoma in the last couple weeks each announced programs to help those returning to work access child care.

if there happened to be a working parent. we should turn this first and have discussions about long-term poicy solutions. it did you want come anywhere near the $4 trillion in spending that was proposed. >> where do you fall on infrastructure spending? president biden continuing negotiations to perhaps find a middle ground. his original proposal over $2 trillion. the republican proposal less than $1 trillion. is there a happy middle here? >> there should be a happy middle. we're encouraged by the negotiations that are going on. we think there's a deal to be had here. if you look at the president's original proposal, $2.4 trillion, there were a lot of things in there that i don't think anyone would appropriately diabetes as infa structure. at the same time, there's some real infrastructure needs in this country that have been long neglected. a package that focuses on roads

and bridges and water and waste water and broad band accessibility and about the trillion dollar range, it's probably the sweet spot that makes sense. we think it could be bipartisan, it could be funded and a fiscally responsible way that doesn't disadvantage american job creators. instead relies on the tried and true mechanisms we have used since the days of dwight eisenhower of financed infrastructure. there's a deal to be had here. we're hoping republicans and democrats tds to take the deal rather than reverting to the partisan bickering. >> so you don't believe raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% is a fiscally responsible way of paying for this? >> it's not fiscally responsible because it's economically damaging. if you go back to the obama administration, one thing that republicans and democrats agreed on at the time was the that the corporate tax rate and the corporate tax structure punished

american based businesses. so we made ourselves uncompetitive relative to foreign companies in the rest of the world. we will address the problem by lowering the corporate tax rate from the highest in the center industrialized world to the middle of the pack in the industrialized world. it puts us at the top in the centralized world. the top in a good way. the highest tax rate, which means it's more advantageous in a global economy to not be an american company. i don't think anyone wants that republican or democrat. >> explain what a global corporate minimum tax does. >> we saw the news out of the g on friday. in all honesty, we're trying to decipher what they intend by this global minimum tax. we think we understand maybe the intent of what they are trying to do. there is global tax arbiters

that occurs. we want to make sure that taxes are collected fairly and fully. we don't want fits crimination. so the rules that kind of fall underneath the headline are going to be much more important than the headline of the announcement. we're looking forward to learning more from secretary yellen and the administration as this continues to unfold. >> white house press secretary yesterday in the briefing room speaking a little bit about that. and the administration support for it. here's jen. >> they endorsed president biden's plan for a global minimum tax of at least 15%. this is a historic unprecedented progress made possible by the presidents and secretary yellen's commitment to a global tax system that's equitable and to immediate the needs of the 21st sench are ri. the g7 endorsement is another example of america reasserting

leadership on the world stage. something we look forward to doing later this week and establishing a corporate minimum tax will level the playing field for the united states, ensure fairness for the middle class and working families and focus competition for business where it belongs. >> in response to those comments, is the chamber thinking about giving the endorsement to a global minimum corporate tax? >> we like to judge policies based on the facts and what happens if the policies that are proposed go into effect. so let me tell you what we're looking at as we look to judge this policy proposal. the 2017 tax reform includes what in effect is a global minimum tax for u.s. multinational companies. it's part of what's called the guilty rate. it's set lower than 15%, but there's also certain rules about how that global tax is applied country by country, versus an

average basis, what's included in that global minimum tax. those are the details that really matter. so it's one thing to say 15% this is going to solve all our problems. it's another thing to understand the did tails below it and understand whether that puts u.s. companies on a level playing field with our international competitors or puts us to a disadvantage. our concern would be that it puts us to a disadvantage. before we issue a final opinion. >> coming up on 9:00 a.m. eastern here, we're talking with neil bradley of the u.s. chamber of commerce. pzs to you want to join the conversation, easy to do so. phone lines republicans 202-748-8001. democrats 202-7488000. mr. bradley, as folks are calling in, remind viewers who the chamber represents, how many

folks you represent and how you do that here in washington. >> so the chambers over 100-year-old institution. it was formed when local business leaders and chambers of kmerz from across the united states came together and said we want to have a voice in washington. and we want it to do two things. so represent the interest of the business community and the free enterprise system and to help the government. that's what we have been doing for coming up on 110 years now. our members are all sizes from one and two-person shop on main street to the nation's largest employers. we're one of the only associations that represent business irrespective of industry. so everything from agriculture to zoological sciences is within our membership. and they are from all over the united states. so we work with them every day to make sure that their voice is heard in washington. >> tim is up first on the phone

lines out of wisconsin. >> thank you for taking my call. i would like to know, i know the chamber of commerce generally represents big corporation in the republican party more than the democratic party. but $15 an hour with two people working and two kids, they make $62,000 a year. that's the poverty level. i would like to know how the republican states they have the lowest stages and lowest standard of living, some of the poorest health care, poorest schools and how does the republican party keep getting reelected? i made a good living at it. i do believe that the chamber of commerce is pretty much antiunion. but that helps out blue collar working class people.

i don't understand why the republican party isn't more involved in trying to pass some of these stimulus bills. they would help their constituents in these poor states in the country. >> let me say the chamber with of commerce isn't a political institution. we represent businesses and business owners come in all flavors from republican to democrat to independent to every other political flavor that one could think of. what we do represent is the free enterprise system and the interests of job creation and economic growth. our membership over 90% are the smallest of businesses. we're talking about 10 and fewer employees. when whet think about the minimum wage and the cost of living, we also acknowledge that because we look at the whole country, it just varies a lot. i grew up in oklahoma. i got to tell you the cost of living and the sticker shock when i moved from my small

hometown in oklahoma to washington, d.c. here on the east coast, it was a major difference. you have to take into account those local differences and sometimes setting policies on a national level fails to recognize that life in california or new york isn't the same as life in iowa or oklahoma or anywhere else. >> is the chamber antiunit job? >> we're not anti-union. we believe in the right of individuals to unionize. but we're deeply concerned about efforts to stack the deck. for example, the proact. this is legislation currently pending in congress that we adamantly opposed. it gets rid of secret ballot elections. rather than casting your vote for a union in secret, someone is going to come to your door and present you a card to sign

one way or the other. that leads to the type of intimidation that we have seen in the past that no one the want wants to see. we have relative ease between labor and management and this fostering the unrest is unproductive. back in the 1940s, it was they bared something called secondary boycotts. which is you're running a a business on main street. one of your customers is in a battle with a union somewhere else in town. and a union comes and decide s to protest your business to put pressure on the other business. that's wrong. those are the tiend of tactics we have outlawed 80 years ago that it would bring back. give us a level playing field. and there's a lot of things we can accomplish. >> to the tar heel state. this is kenny. good morning, you're on with neil bradley. >> a couple things.

allowing corporations to move to a post office box say in ireland and keep their money in the cayman islands and still claim they are a united states corporation, that needs to end. the worst thing that has happened and the reason why the republicans keep winning is citizens united. unlimited secret money. and supply side economics. the middle class is never going to gain until they do something about those two. the thing with the minimum wage is it's not tied to inflation. if it was minimum wage would be $20 an hour now. but they use that to keep the

lower income buying power. >> you bring up a few issues. >> i'll start with the first one and end with the last one. having a post office pox and some island and that's the way that they effectively pay their taxes. that isn't the way the tax system should operate. in fact, the 2017 tax law, the tax reform that i mentioned earlier that impose this worldwide global minimum tax on u.s. multinationals, part of the reason for that provision and a few other provisions was to address abuses just like that. but also to make sure we address the abuses in a way that didn't punish a company for simply being headquartersed in america. the results pre-pandemic were pretty dramatic. we had the lowest unemployment rate and you had to go back to the late 1960s.

as low as what we had right before the pandemic. we saw progress in there. all that progress stalled out because of a global pandemic. that's not anyone's fault. but we need to recognize that the policy track that we were on, particularly with respect to taxation was a good one that was lifting wages. when it comes to the minimum wage, the chamber said we're open to a reasonable adjustment if you did adjust for inflation, it would be about 10 to $11 right now not $20. that's actually probably the spot you have seen some republicans and democrats in congress suggested it might land. but understand that that's far short of the $15 that many progressives are pushing. s skbl can you talk about the chamber's strategy in how you make contributions to candidates? i'll show viewers the response

for politics on the chamber of commerce their top ten resip yepts. the mostly republican resip yepts although the presidential campaign one of the top three rezip yent back in the 2020 cycle. >> that's looking at individual employee donations. as an entity they do engage in politics. we don't engage in presidential politics. we only focus on races for the house and senate. and if you look at our giving, it includes both republicans and democrats. the basic criteria is to support the agenda of free enterprise. it won't surprise you that there's not a single republican or a single democrat that we agree with on every issue or that we disagree with on every of issue. there's a temptation you have to put everyone on one side of the

line or the other. the truth is that depending on the issue, sometimes our best advocates are in the republican party. sometimes some of our best advocates happen to have a d after their name. when they are focused on the issues, that's going to lead us to support both republicans and democrats as long as they are committed to free enterprise. >> doo you have a sense about how much money you intend to spend during the 2022 cycle? >> we don't. it's still early in the cycle. we'll see how races unfold and develop. i will tell you that with certainty though that our priority is going to be making sure that we elect men and women to congress who are focused on and understand what it takes to keep an economy growing, to keep job creators creaing jobs and to bring back prosperity. >> will you play in primaries? >> we have in the past, and as primaries unfold, i wouldn't be surprised if we play in them again.

>> this is debra, an independent, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for this opportunity. i'm very interested just as a aside i would like to see you live on $10 an hour and run a household. but i'm very interested in the chamber's stance on climate change and one of the most behind the facts organization and the country. in terms of you didn't even admit that climate change was happening until 2019. and while your statements have been more supportive lately, your actions are still fighting through lobbying and who you fund in terms of elections. we have 126 obstructors of climate solution in congress. so i'm wondering when your actions are going to match your statements so that you have acknowledged that climate change does exist and that it is human cause and that we do have to get

awe of the polluting fuel. much of the infrastructure bill that you just mentioned has the solution to stabilize climate and reduce pollution by choosing greener products by going to a clean electricity standard. the compromise that you talked about is a billion dollars for the infrastructure plan does not address those issues. so when are you going to start to take the leadership role to actually get the climate and pollution solutions you need. >> so i appreciate the acknowledgment that they do believe that climate change is real. human activity contributes to it. she mised a few things that the chamber has done that are making a meaningful difference. it didn't get a lot of attention in the press because when things don't result in hand to hand combat between republicans and democrats, too often the press ignores it. but two important accomplishments that the chamber

helped spear head. one deals with a eliminating hydroflur carbons. they are more potent as a greenhouse warming gas. you find these things in refrigeration units. the chamber helped spear head the negotiations on capitol hill and in the senate to implement the u.s. ban that compliments a global ban on these hydroflor carbons. the scientists tell us it's going to reduce future global warming by half a degree celsius. the second big development was an energy innovation package. we know that we feed to innovate and pat ri cell technology. transz mission lines, new ways of harnessing noncarbon-producing energy if we're going to meet our goals of reducing carbon emissions. that's not going to happen magically. we have to invest in those things. we helped spear head the largest

investment that we have seen in our nation's history into that basic r&d that's going to help us meet our climate obligations. so we're committed to taking the smart steps necessary to make sure that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that we address global climate change. >> good morning. i would like to hear your guest speak to the role of the chamber when it comes to this gross of inequality in our society. many of the policies supported by the chamber basically support the status quo, which is economic inequality, lack of mobility for people trying to lead the ladder to move up. and i understand they have this long history. but our society has changed

significantly. and prosperity for everyone is limited. and the chamber of commerce has played a role in creating that environment. so what are some of the things you're going to do connected wi the koch brothers and people like that, but what are they going to do for americans trying to become productive systems by being able to move up the economic ladder. >> got your question. neil bradley. >> john, i'm so glad the caller asked this because we've taken a lot of steps over the last several years, in particular the last year. i hope folks will go to the internet. you can google u.s. chamber and equality of opportunity. it was just about a year ago that we hosted our first equality of opportunity summit because there are policies in place that prevent equal opportunity. there are longstanding divisions that are allowing people, preventing people from achieving their full potential. we said the business community

has a role in solving this, both in terms of what businesses do themselves, where they invest, how they hire, who they do business with, but also that government has a role in this. we actually outlined 38 separate different policies that can be taken by the private sector, state and local governments and the federal government, to help close this equality of opportunity gap. we actually quantified the gap around areas like employment, entrepreneurship, health and educational outcomes and, you know, it is a very real problem. so we're actually going to be convening in a couple of weeks for our second annual equality of opportunities summit, talking about the progress that we've made, but in all honesty the great distance that we still have to go to help close the gaps that the caller mentioned. >> some numbers behind the top line numbers of the may employment report from the

burrow of labor statistics, the unemployment rate in may among whites, 5.1%. among blacks in this country, 9.1%. among hispanics, 7.3%. has it been an equitable recovery? >> well, it wasn't equitable pre-pandemic and it certainly hasn't been equitable since. you know, one of the areas that we focused on a lot during the pandemic was helping small businesses survive, and if you look at in the black community, small business ownership, they tend to be sole proprietorships. so think about the local black-owned barber shop or a black-owned restaurant. so they tend to be smaller in nature, and historically have not had access to capital and access to the financial institutions that other businesses relied on to survive the pandemic. so we spent a lot of time focusing on what other avenues through the paycheck protection program and other government

assistance programs can we provide to ensure that those black-owned businesses access that capital through the u.s. chamber foundation, we actually set up a grant program that provided grants directly to black-owned businesses to help them survive through the pandemic. so, you know, there's more to be done, but we're proud of the strides that we've made in the past year, and we're hopeful that if we get public policy right and we get the private sector focused in the right direction that we can close that gap, john, that you just mentioned. >> just about 15 minutes left with neil bradley of the u.s. chamber of commerce, executive vice president there, chief policy officer, taking your phone calls on lines for republicans, democrats and independents. this is mac on the republican line from port orchard, washington. good morning. >> hello. yes. thank you for c-span. first of all, i got two things to say to you, mr. bradley. first of all, the equality of

opportunity. see, i really don't think that it is about, you know, equity. i think it is really about equality. people should be completely equal and egalitarian about what they do. >> well, idaho, an independent. good morning. >> hey. i want to know why you support foreign illegal invasion over american people. every time you invite somebody from another country to this country here, our wages go down and makes it harder for our kids to get entry level jobs. why do you support foreigners? >> well, frank, the chamber has had a long history, like the united states has had, of welcoming legal immigrants into this country. legal immigrants, you know, it is my lineage, it is many of the lineages of, frankly, many americans, and we know that those who strive, who want to

come here to build a better life for themselves and their families and are willing to do so legally tend to start new businesses, help other businesses survive and grow. and so if you look at all of the studies, all of the evidence, legal immigration actually helps our economy grow faster and stronger. that helps all of us. so at the chamber we don't believe this is a zero sum game. we don't believe that there's one fixed pie and we're simply fighting over the slices of that pie. we believe the pie can grow, just as it has grown for all of the united states' history. our goal is to keep that pie growing, and legal immigration is a key element of growing that pie and creating more prosperity for everyone. >> a headline on vice president harris's trip to central america calling for more spending on central america, wants to address the root causes of illegal immigration from that region. have you been tracking her trip? is she saying the right things

overseas? >> well, they're right to be focused on the root causes of this. so this is not a problem that's only going to be solved along the border. securing the border is absolutely critical in curtailing illegal immigration but we also have to understand some of the root causes, whether it is people coming from the northern triangle region, fleeing gang violence, or people fleeing venezuela and making their way all the way up to the u.s. southern border because of the oppressive communist dictatorship there in venezuela. so, you know, addressing some of these root causes is both good for addressing our illegal immigration problems here in the united states, but it is also good for, you know, global economic growth, prosperity. so i think focusing on this, as did prior administrations on a bipartisan basis, is a good first step. >> salisbury, north carolina, this is louis, a democrat. good morning.

>> yes. good morning. top of the morning to you guys. hey, look, i heard you made a statement concerning the pandemic and it is no one's fault, but i beg to differ. now, i remember the time when it first began in january of 2019, and donald trump came out and said that, oh, it is like a sniffle, it is like a cold, don't worry. then in april he made a statement to a news reporter and said, hey, man, this thing is five times worse than the flu. so, no, there was somebody who made a mistake with the pandemic. he didn't take it seriously enough, and it is any time he just came out of an impeachment. so he is really mad at america. but i want to ask you is this. when you stated that your organization give money to black organizations or mom-and-pop blacks like barber shops and what not, on your website, is there any evidence that would solidify or show that what you

making a statement about of giving money to black organizations, is there record on your website to show us that? >> absolutely. so i will just ask you to google the u.s. chamber of commerce foundation. it is a program of our foundation, and so u.s. chamber foundation. you will find all of the details about that program. if you google u.s. chamber of commerce, equality of opportunity, in the u.s. chamber site you will find information all about our policy programs and our advocacy work, about closing the inequality of opportunity. >> what was your and the chamber's relationship like with former president trump? >> you know, like all presidents there were areas where we found common agreement and we worked very closely together. i mentioned the tax reform bill in 2017 a couple of times this morning. that was a real high point and an area where a problem that had gone long unaddressed, we were

able to work with the administration to solve. regulations were another important step. i think president trump deserves credit for the greatest deregulatory activity in terms of freeing up capital, freeing up innovation, since at least the early 1980s, and may have even surpassed that. there were issues where we disagreed as well. no surprise that we didn't agree with the president's approach to tariffs and we didn't agree with his approach on legal immigration. so there are areas of agreement, areas of disagreement. that's nothing new for the u.s. chamber. presidents of both parties, we found areas to work together on and we found areas where we disagree and we take opposite sides. >> how would you say that relationship was left when he left office? >> you know, i think it was the same. we were proud of the work that we had done on areas of agreement, and we continued to disagree with the areas where we had disagreements.

so, you know, we were concerned in january about the state of our democracy and about the activities, the attack, the assault that we saw on the u.s. capitol. you know, we believe that policymakers, elected officials should have done more to prevent that and to buttress our democratic norms, but, you know, again, that's an issue where we disagreed with the former president's approach. >> cynthiana, kentucky. this is randy, a republican. good morning. >> good morning. thank you. i know we have a worker shortage in this country, seems like a pretty major one. what attributes to that? would you think it is the policy that went on since 1973, was abortion where we killed all of the babies? >> well, without getting into

the issue of abortion, we definitely have demographic challenges. so, you know, if you go back from world war ii, all the way through the early 2000s, we had a demographic boom i the united states. the baby boom generation obviously contributed to that, but from a workforce standpoint women entering the workforce also contributed to it. that's begun to slow. the latest numbers that we got out of the census department earlier, i guess it was last month, which indicated the lowest birth, number of births in at least four decades. we are well below maintaining our current level of population. that's really problematic. so we have to begin thinking about how we address these demographic challenges, because left unaddressed they're going to harm economic growth, our ability to support seniors through social security and

medicare and these other retirement programs. so there's a lot of challenges associated with these demographic changes that we have to begin to address. >> steve on twitter with this question. does the guest support global workplace health and safety standards? businesses complain that this is costly to them and it accounts partly for the race to the bottom. how about tariffs on nations refusing to meet such standards? >> we certainly don't support tariffs that way. you know, i think the difficulty in these type of global, strict regulatory standards is exactly what we saw in the last year with the pandemic. we are constantly learning how to fight public health challenges, how to fight workplace challenges, health challenges in the workplace, and what tends to happen with strict regulatory requirements, particularly on a global scale, is they're fixed in the past. they're based off our understanding of what works best from a year ago, five years ago,

ten years ago, and that doesn't allow us to meet the current challenges with the best available science and evidence. >> lionel out of baltimore, maryland, a democrat. good morning. >> yes, good morning. you had spoken about 16% that didn't want or was unwilling to go back to work. the thing that i have about that is the government pretty much authorized an extra $300 a week or something like that. so i think that we should -- i mean what do you think about this? they should just go ahead and let them have take money, man, right? and use it as an incentive for them to come back. you don't have to worry, it is going to end anyhow. all right. come on back to work. people would take that deal, man. >> mr. bradley? >> well, there's something to the caller's point there. i think we can look at this as

two sides of the coin. on one side of it we shouldn't have a system that compensates individuals more in unemployment benefits than what they previously earned working, and that's the problem with the $300 weekly supplement. about one in four unemployed americans takes home more in unemployment benefits than they earned in their prior job. by the way, that's the reason we've never had these type of supplemental benefits during past recessions or economic downturns, is because of the distortions that it causes. on the other side of the coin, there's something to the caller's point. in that same survey where we found that 16% reported that the extra benefits were causing them not to look for new employment, we also found that the number one change that could induce people to come back to work was $1,000 rehiring bonus. you are actually seeing employers offering hiring bonuses, sometimes well in

excess of $1,000, and you are also seeing governors, both republicans and democrats, who are using some of their federal covid relief money to provide a return-to-work bonus. so there's some merit in both of these policy approaches. when you combine them together as, for example, oklahoma and arizona and montana have done, you are really going to get the best bang for the buck. you are going to help individuals who are unemployed, you are going to help them get a job and you are going to help employers. >> staying on employment and going back to the bureau of labor statistics report from may, digging into it, the job gains led in large part by the leisure and hospitality sector last month, 292,000 jobs added. the professional and business services sector, 35,000 jobs added. health care sector, 46,000 jobs added. the retail trade sector losing 6,000 jobs last month. the manufacturing sector, please

23,000 jobs last month. the question for you, what will you be watching in the june report? where should we focus our attention when that comes out? >> yeah, interestingly i'm not going to be looking at the top-level jobs numbers, you know, because those can fluctuate and move up and down. what i really will be looking at for indicating the tightness of the labor market is what is happening with average hourly wages, particularly for nonsupervisory employees. we have seen that really on a tear of recent, really back to pre-pandemic levels and in some instances exceeding that. i'm going to look at the number of hours worked. are people working more hours because there's more demand of those who are currently employed? i am going to look at the number of people who are employed part time for economic reasons and whether that's following, and then i'm going to look at the workforce participation rate. are people reentering the workforce because they're looking for work, because they found it is a good time?

i am going to look at that. and then i will look at one from a different report bls puts out, it is called the jolts report, which will tell us about job openings, how many job openings do we have to fill. the problem is we have record number of job openings, over 8 million today. i'm also going to look at something called the quits rate. the quits rate is how frequently someone who has a job voluntarily quits that job to go to a different job. when you do that, that's -- when that is up, as it has been, that's actually an indication that workers understand just how tight the labor market is and how easy it is to get a new job. >> that labor force participation rate, one of the rates you're going to be looking at. in may it was 61.6%. what is a good number in june? >> well, the problem with the 61.6% is that it moved down. so we need the rate moving up. we need to be individuals reentering the workforce. we would like to see it several points higher.

i think that's a big jump for one month, so i want to be realistic about our expectations. but most importantly is that that number is moving in the right direction, and that's a higher labor force participation rate, not a lower one. >> time for one last call. this is sedona who is waiting in oregon, an independent. go ahead. >> yeah, i am concerned about the voter suppression that is going on around the country and why it isn't being handled more forcefully, because that is basically illegal and against the constitution. >> mr. bradley, give you the final two minutes. >> yes. so at the u.s. chamber we represent the american business community. we know lots about lots of issues from taxes to labor force to regulations. we are not experts in voting policy. like most americans, however, we do believe that greater

participation in our democracy, in our electoral system is a good thing, and so is trust in our electoral system. so what we've said at the u.s. chamber is that we believe we ought to follow reforms in the past that had expanded the ability to vote while at the same time reassuring confidence. so whether it was the 1965 voting rights act or all of the subsequent, five subsequent amendments to it or the help america vote act, enacted after the 2000 election, the one thing all of those things had in common was that they were overwhelmingly bipartisan. so they were reforms that both sides bought into, that engenders trust in the system. we are seeing some states moving that direction, kentucky most notably. we think that type of approach is the one that's going to expand access and ensure that americans can trust in our electoral system. >> bradley, as executive officer

at the u.s. chamber of commerce, appreciate the wide ranging discussion this morning. >> thanks so much, john. it was a pleasure going with you. about 30 minute left in our program today, and in that 30 minute a question for you about president biden's upcoming summit in geneva with russian president vladimir putin, asking you if you believe president biden should be meeting with vladimir putin. phone lines for republicans, democrats and independents on your screen. you can start calling in now and we'll be right back. >> c-span ss c-span's online store. c-span shop.org is c pan's online store. there's a collection of c-span products. browse to see what is new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations and you still have time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. go to c-spanshop.org.

secretary of state anthony blinken testifies this morning before the senate appropriations committee on the president's 2022 budget request. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. this morning the ceo of colonial pipeline, joseph blount, will talk about the company's recent ransomware attack and discuss threats to u.s. infrastructure before the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. "washington journal" continues. >> in the coming days, president biden expected to meet with plenty of world leaders as part of the g7 summit, that happening this coming weekend, but it is a

week from tomorrow that is getting a lot of attention. president biden set to hold a summit with russian president vladimir putin, june 16th, in geneva. ahead of that trip and that visit, we're asking you in these last 25 minutes or so this morning, should president biden be doing that? should president biden meet with vladimir putin? some questions on that topic in recent days, and since that announcement was made about that summit. the issue came up yesterday in the white house briefing room. this is white house national security adviser jake sullivan on that meeting between biden and putin. >> meeting face-to-face is not just something you do with vladimir putin. it is something president biden is going to do, i think all told when you add it up somewhere approaching 35 or 36 leaders just on this one trip alone, and he has welcomed the prime minister of japan and the president of korea. he will welcome other leaders here over the course of the summer because face-to-face

engagement is a different order of magnitude of diplomatic engagement from doing it over the phone. second, on this notion of deliverables in the u.s./russia summit, at the end of the day we're looking for the two presidents to be able to send a clear signal on -- to their teams on questions of strategic stability so that we can make progress in arms control and other nuclear areas to reduce tension and instability in that aspect of the relationship. and then, second, being able to look president putin in the eye and say "this is what america's expectations are, this is what america stands for, this is what america is all about," this we believe is an essential aspect of u.s./russia diplomacy because president putin is a singular kind of personalized leader. and having the opportunity to come together in a summit will allow us to manage this relationship and stand up and defend american values most effectively. >> white house national security

adviser jake sullivan yesterday in the white house briefing room. our question to you, do you think it is worth meeting with vladimir putin? should president biden meet with vladimir putin? the schedule is for it to happen next week on june the 16th in geneva. some of those with concerns about the meeting, the "new york post" editorial board in an editorial recently titled "biden keeps rewarding the world's villains." this is what they wrote in that editorial from may 28th. the president has seen fit to schedule a summit this summer with russia's vladimir putin, as well as waive sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline which will increase germany's dependence on russian natural gas. quite a favor for a guy who biden poignantly called a killer and whose interference most democrats believe put donald trump in the white house. and soon after russia-based hackers cyberattacked a u.s. pipe loon and created major gas shortages here followed by new cyber assaults on federal

agencies linked to russian intelligence. bottom line they write, the biden doctrine is starting to look like a simple two-step process. one, identify the globe's worst actors. then, two, reward them for their crimes. that's the "new york post" editorial board from their recent piece. we are asking you, should president biden meet with vladimir putin? phone calls can come in on phone lines, split as usual. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for democrats. nathan, arizona republican. you are up first. >> good morning. congratulations to justice barrett on her ascension to the supreme court. i think it is a waste of time for biden to meet with putin. i think biden has run his course. a lot of people believe that he has already run out of steam. the honeymoon is over, and putin is an official elected

government leader. we still don't know whether or not biden won arizona, and crist general cinema getting a lot of flack across the board as well as joe manchin. i think it would be a waste of time. joe biden is going to be a one-term president. thank you. >> did you think it was a waste of time when former president trump met with vladimir putin? >> trump won his electors in the electoral college. i think trump was as legitimate as putin. the question remains -- >> rather than refighting the 2020 election, do you think it was worth meeting president putin when president trump did meet president putin? >> absolutely. the two were on the same page. i just don't think joe biden has the right administration nor the right policy to make putin interested. >> that's nathan in arizona this morning. this is daniel deprus from

"newsweek" writing about this upcoming summit saying, as nauseating as it may be to watch a u.s. president shake hands with an autocrat like putin, a man who is likely responsible for the poisoning of a russian opposition campaigner, alexie in val any, among others, the fact is that u.s. presidents don't get to pick their sparring partners. neither do u.s. presidents have the luxury of tying one hand behind their backs by writing off diplomacy all together. a tough-mind rational dialogue with adversaries and competitors is not a reward, but an essential component to prevent problems from spiraling into crises. again, this is june 16th, and that's what we're asking you about this morning, asking you to call in and let us know if you think it is worth it. should president biden be meeting vladimir putin? phone lines again. limited partnerships, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. one of the issues that has come up related to russia is where those hackers from the colonial pipeline hack were based. it is likely to come up today in the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee hearing on the hacking of the colonial pipeline. the ceo of the colonial pipeline, joseph blount, will talk about the ransomware attack, discuss the threats to u.s. infrastructure. you can watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. you can watch online at c-span.org or listen to it on the free c-span radio app. i should note we are expecting a very brief pro forma session right at 10:00 a.m. so we'll, of course, take you there to watch that, but it is not expected to take more than a minute or two, and after that we will bring you over here on

c-span to that hearing on the colonial pipeline attack. linda, midland, texas, republican. good morning. you are next. >> yes. my name is linda. i am from midland, texas. i do not like this president. good morning. >> i'm listening, linda. why don't you like him? >> because he's dangerous. he wants to bring all of these hispanic people in, right? all right. what do you do when you are sitting in your living room and a car pulls up and starts shooting? >> so, linda, we are talking about the meeting with putin? >> putin? i think, like i said, this president doesn't know what he is doing >> all right. that's lunda in texas. this is dave in cincinnati, democrat. good morning. do you think the meeting is worth it? >> good morning, sir. yeah, your first caller on this subject was just the opposite of me. i mean we put up with four years

of humpty-dumpty year around. he seemed to be frightened of him. so, yes, biden should meet with him and tell him off. he should really give it to him. this is a horrible human being. he's done horrible things, and we need to present an american now that says we're not going to put up with it anymore. you're not going to be doing these things to us and to your own people, and this is very important. >> dave, do you see -- >> four years -- >> do you see joe biden as the kind of president who can do that, who can tell him off in that meeting? >> i hope so. i hope so. i certainly think it is something better than

humpty-dumpty was. he was scared to death of him. >> that's dave. this is fred in ohio. good morning. >> good morning. i think biden is too weak to go to russia for this thing. i think he is a weak president. that's all i have to say. >> a few comments from social media in just the past couple of minutes here since we asked this question. from our text messaging service, this is stephen in michigan. when president biden talks with putin, i'm sure there will not be notes of the meeting released, unlike his predecessor did with no one else in the room. this from odi knight saying, it is a silly question. are people worried this will give putin credibility? this from lonnie in texas. why not. maybe we can find out what was discussed when putin and trump met in public. what he shouldn't do is having a secret meeting with no agenda

and no coverage of it. this is don, michigan. democrat. good morning. >> i agree -- excuse me. good morning, america. good morning to c-span. i actually agreed with your last statement you just read from the last comment. that was about everything i had to say. but when biden does meet with putin, he needs to let putin know that we are not going to stand by with the hacking of the pipelines and the food companies and things like this. let him know that we can do that too and not appease him like the last administration did. but i think over 100 some odd days biden has done the best with what he has been left with. god bless this country. god bless america. >> eric is next out of breckenridge, michigan. good morning. >> yeah, i don't think it is

going to make a bit of difference if he meets with him or not. i don't think the president knows what day of the week it is. so that's just my opinion. >> that's eric in breckenridge this morning. you can continue to call in. phone lines. republicans, 202-748-0001. democrats, 20e 2-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. as you are calling in, we noted the news this morning about a major internet outage that has happened around the country and impacting sites around the world as well. forbes noting several major sites including "the new york times" and reddit and spotify and cnn have all been hit by that outage this morning, and it sounds like the impacts are happening on capitol hill as well. some reporting on -- from punch bowl news, jake sherman, if you work in a capitol hill office chances are you are familiar

with constituent. it is a platform that helps congressional office manage constituent communications and it is hugely important as we reported in punch bowl news, it was the subject of a ransomware attack. going on to note, 60 offices from both sides of the aisle have been able to access constituent info for weeks now. so this not connected today's outage but an ongoing issue. constituent is working with the chief administration officer of the house to clear up this situation. no sign that the broader hill i.t. system has been compromised but it is another sign that the hill, its vendors, et cetera, are susceptible to such attacks. jake sherman reporting that this morning from "punch bowl news." back to your phone calls about this upcoming meeting. it is june 16th in geneva. the president and vladimir putin having this meeting. we are wondering if you think it is worth it. what do you think joe biden

should tell vladimir putin in this meeting? what would you like to hear if they stand together and take questions at this meeting? what do you want to hear them be asked about? this is joe in riverview, florida, a democrat. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. you know, as i hear these republicans kissing up to this bimbo that was so-called president, and when i hear them i think about the knowledge that joe biden possesses, the experience that he has, and putin probably knows that. these people, i don't -- well, i know it is demonic mindset, demonic dream on how americans -- look, they're not -- they're not americans. they want -- >> joe, bring me to the summit. what do you want joe biden to

say to vladimir putin? >> well, hey, we're not going to put up with your -- with your people hiding out in your country that hacking our industry and america. we're not going to tolerate that. i guarantee joe will go tell them we're not going to tolerate it because we have the capabilities to do the same thing. we don't hear what we are doing. we are doing things that probably making russia do the things that they're doing to us. >> joe, do you think the gloves should come off when it comes to cyberattacks? >> i kind of think so, but i think technically joe is a guy that believes in god and love and peace. i don't think this fight, that what we would expect that i feel should happen, should go down. i think joe will be patient. he has the right people in the

right places to know how to deal with russia. we've been dealing with this russia thing for a long time. >> that's joe talking about joe biden. this is jesse in albuquerque, republican. good morning. >> good morning, sir. yeah, i just wanted to say, you know, i think joe biden kind of needs to talk to putin right now, just along with everybody else. i think america's economic strength is going down, unfortunately. our median age population is going up, and that's not good for economics. so we're going to need to start cutting some big international deals right now. clearly with this ev discussion, all of that, micro chips, all of this technology, and, honestly, it is not helping like the american jobs, i don't think, and the whole economy. i mean look at the

infrastructure gas thing that just happened, ransomware. i think technology is not the answer for america moving forward, and we need to get back to some hard work ethic and some focus on educating ourselves and investing in ourselves. also, we're going to have to cut some deals. have a good night. have a good day. >> that's jesse in new mexico. a few more comments from social media. this is steve. putin should have the same standing as kim jong-un or bolsanaro, and biden needs to let these thugs know that they're unimportant to the agenda of the united states, which is not to stand on a stage with them. this from universal saying, of course, he should meet with putin, even if we don't like putin he is the leader of the world's largest with 150 million people -- not the world's largest country, but it is important, he says, that we coordinate on global activity. if you think it is legitimizing

a dictator, that's not an argument, he's a world leader. this from kentucky. joe, i think president biden should meet with vladimir putin. everything should be out in the open. he should tell him that we'll not tolerate what he has been doing. none of this kissing up to dictators with love letters. this is sam in montclair, new jersey. good morning. you are next. >> good morning. good morning. it is a terrible idea because it will be punching above his weight class. far, far above. the problem is he has already shown his hand with removal of the sanctions that opened up the pipeline to germany, just put all of the negotiating power in putin's corner. i want the american president, no matter who he is, to project american strength, and it just cannot happen at this point. putin -- >>, are you a democrat who supported biden in 2020? >> i'm an independent that voted for biden, the same reason i

voted for trump in 2016. i just couldn't stand the other guy more. so the problem is i don't care who is president, i'm an american and they're the president, right. i may disagree with them, but they're the president and i will support them. the problem is that he has no good game to play. if he goes and he meets with putin after giving up sanctions, putin knows he has all of the strength. look, putin is a bully and a dictator and a very strong man. biden has made his career by putting his thumb in the wind and seeing which way it blows. i think the best court is to avoid this because it will only get worse. sorry, i'm out of breath, i'm at the gym but i couldn't not call in. >> calling from the gym. we appreciate that. on the issue of the u.s. national security and the pipeline issue that you and some other callers have brought up, a recent column from it from one of the folks on capitol hill, republican senator kevin cramer in his fox news piece four days

ago. biden's pipeline to putin, his decision puts american national security at risk. on biden's first day in office he notes that president biden revoked a permit for the keystone xl pipeline, talking about the international ramifications of some of president biden's decisions when it comes to tariffs on that european pipeline. staying in new jersey, this is maureen, woodland, republican. good morning. >> yes, good morning. just a brief comment. i just firmly believe that biden is behind all this, as far as the pipelines, the meat prices, the cyberattacks, and that's all i have to say. >> why would -- >> thank you. >> why would the president be behind all of that, maureen? >> i just don't believe -- i mean, first of all, a while back they were saying about getting rid of meats and such, you know,

things like that. >> what would be the benefit to the president being behind all of that? >> and then the pipeline, his first day in office he destroys the pipelines. i just -- i just don't trust him. i don't believe him, and i just don't believe that he's all there. >> all right. that's maureen in new jersey. this is jerry in kissimmee, florida, democrat. good morning. >> good morning, sir. >> go ahead. >> yes. i do believe that biden should be speaking directly with putin face-to-face, and i do believe that he should have not only one but three people in there with him so that they could take notes and not be anything like trump. trump has destroyed, destroyed us politically and all around the world. so we need somebody like mr. --

like president biden who would be able to get in there and actually listen. he's an experienced political person and he's sweet and he's not only religious but he has a family who actually went to war. he actually had children who were in the army and the armed forces. so he knows what he is saying. he is putting his heart and love and patience to save america from dictatorship. >> jeri, is sweetness and love something that you think will benefit him when he meets with vladimir putin? >> oh, god, yes. i mean let's put it this way. you know, you have to be able to take a deep breath when you look in the face of somebody who you know will be the damage and the danger to america. you have to be able to sit there and you have to be able to be sweet and generous and kind in

order to sit and listen to what somebody like that has to say. because whatever comes out of your mouth after that person speaks or even before he speaks, has to be for the world, not for yourself. you have to remember, everything that america does is going to be all over the world. it has something to do with the rest of the world. and if americans do not notice, the americans who do not notice that we are going to dictatorship right now and biden is trying to pull it all up, they're in a sad world right now. >> that's jeri in kissimmee, florida. this is a text message from dave in orlando, in florida as well, saying, i i think president biden should be on five level alert when he meets putin. remember, trump and putin are good buddies, he yeses. i have never trusted either one. just a couple of minutes left before we are expecting a brief

pro forma session in the house. we will, of course, take you there live when it comes into session, but then we will take you to that hearing over on the senate side on the colonial pipeline hack, that taking place with the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. it is expected to start right at 10:00. we will take you to you in progress if the pro forma session in the house goes a little long, but you can keep calling in phone lines for republicans, democrats, independents. this is steve, a republican in highland park, illinois. good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i would like to preface my comments by saying i'm a fifth generation chicagoan so i kind of know how the democratic party works and operates. so to answer the question, like is it worth -- is it worth it for biden to meet with putin? of course it is worth it for biden because he has to meet him to get the envelope, you know, for cancelling the keystone pipeline and for taking the sanctions off the pipeline they built in russia.

>> that's steve in illinois. this is lee in west olive, michigan. good morning. >> hey. yeah, i have a question for you, sir. why are you such a biassed democrat in this program? that guy that was just speaking, you cut him off. you let the other lady talk from florida for 20 minutes and she didn't say anything. >> so, lee -- >> why is this a -- >> lee, i didn't cut him off. he stopped speaking and i wanted to get to you. i am just asking the question. >> okay, okay. >> should president biden be -- >> i asked you a question. quit asking all of these democrat-driven things you guys are doing. let's talk about real things. let's talk about real issues. every democrat you have on here, all they can say is, oh, orange man bad and biden good. like, no, they don't -- do you know that google is run by the democrats? so everybody that these democrats that are getting all of this information, it is pure democrat propaganda.

>> so, lee, should president biden meet with vladimir putin? >> yes, and putin should tell him thank you for all of the horrible policies since he's been in office for three months, and the democrat followers probably should look it up. look up the policies, not the propaganda. >> you finished, lee? >> what's that? >> are you finished? >> no. i would like you to -- why are you a democrat biassed person? >> i just don't want to cut you off, lee. we have a couple of minutes before the house comes in. just wanted to make sure you were done. robert, raleigh, north carolina. good morning. >> hello, sir. i used to watch c-span and those it was informative, but it is becoming a show where a lot of people call in and don't seem to have much research on what they're saying. you as the host, i feel like you

might be a strong trump supporter because whenever people say bad things about joe biden you have this silly little smirk on your face and i'm sorry if i misjudge you, but i think it is horrible and you should resign from being a host on this show. >> well, last two calls got criticism for being a democrat and for being a trump supporter. so i feel like we're doing okay here. we are trying to just hear from you and focus on you this morning as we ask these questions, and we're trying to create a forum where you can call in and do this every single day. not many other places where you can do this, to call in and speak back to washington. so that's what we're trying to do here. this is ken in dundee, florida, a republican. good morning. >> good morning. >> go ahead, ken. >> what? >> ken, you have to ton down your television. just go ahead with your comment. >> okay.

my comment is joe biden is a dog-faced clown. putin is going to eat him alive. they're all laughing at biden at the kremlin. he is a joke. he is a joke. get him out of there. >> all right. riva, gaithersburg, maryland, democrat. good morning. >> hi. for the record, i think you are pretty impartial. i don't always like c-span's scheduling, but you are doing a good job. on your question, which nobody seems to want to address or few people seem to want to address, of course, biden, the president of the united states, should meet with putin, the president or whatever he is called for russia. he should have someone in the room, unlike trump, and he should try to pressure russia on things like hacking and so on, which i'm sure he will. it is absolutely needed.

thank you. >> that's riva in gaithersburg, maryland. our last caller today, we, of course, will be back here tomorrow. ♪ ♪ weeknights we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on c-span3. tonight the u.s. capitol historical society hosts michael evans, shakes peer enthusiast and u.s. finance committee democratic chief counsel, who

discusses how shakespeare has been invoked in congressional debates. he also talks about political lessons that might be learned from shakespeare's plays, especially the tragedies. watch american history tv tonight beginning at 8:p.m. eastern and every weekend on: c-span3. attorney general merrick garland testifies wednesday before senate appropriations committee on wednesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. listen live on the free c-span radio app. c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions, and for the next several weeks watch key episodes from our series, sunday at 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. "new york times" v united states, better known as the pentagon papers, where president

richard nixon used executive authority to prevent "the new york times" from publishing top secret documents on u.s. involvement in the vietnam war. the court's ruling protected "the times'" first amendment right on freedom of the press. watch landmark cases on c-span, on c-span.org or listen on the v span app. next, a look at ideas on how to change federal courts. the american express constitution society for law and policy hosted this discussion on term limits for judges and expanding district and appellate courts as well as the supreme court. is celebrating its 20th year of celebrating and shaping legal debate, nurturing the next generation of lawyers, judges and advocates and ensuring that the law is a force to improve the lives of all people. now, in this year we have focusing our worknd