president's 2022 budget request, appearing before a senate appropriations subcommittee. watch live beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. tonight on american history tv we'll look at the life and career of president ronald reagan. we'll show you an interview he did with first lady nancy reagan at camp david where they talked about their marriage and life in politics. later his inaugural address and other speeches that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. we will read much of the reporting this morning from capitol hill and elsewhere on this issue and other news stories this morning. this is politico's reporting on the vote yesterday. their headline, democrats confront failure on election strategy. progressives hope the election reform going down would bolster democratic votes to change the

filibuster and say that hasn't happened. senator schumer yesterday with reporters was asked several times about his plans for the filibuster and here's his quick response. >> we are not going to put the cart before the horse. we are going to have this vote and then we will discuss the future. yes. >> [ inaudible ]. i am not going to discuss those now until we have this vote and then discuss the future. yes, next. >> the majority leader yesterday just before the vote in the senate. the 50/50 vote, they needed 60 to move forward to the s-1, voting reform legislation. joining us to help understand yesterday's vote and what may be ahead is zach cohen, senate reporting for the national journal. good morning. let me start by a tweet from a viewer who asked about the vote yesterday, the vote yesterday permitting the limiting of debate. that vote was a vote on taking

up the bill. >> right. it's the senate's very typical fashion setup, sort of a backward way of getting into this bill because they didn't quite haves the unanimous consent to bring it up. it was a vote to limit debate on the question of whether to start debate on a substitute amendment to what was formally known as s-1 or the for the people act, but essentially what folks need to know, this vote, which did fail 50/50, would have allowed senators to advances the measure and get to a place where they can start maybe amending it and formally debating it on the floor. debate has been happening on the floor and in the halls of congress and out in the public square, but in order to formally start debate and take up the bill and begin to make changes to it, including what some democrats would like to change to it before it goes back to the

house, that vote would have allowed that process to start. >> senator joe manchin, who was uncertain in terms ahead of the vote, came on board because his alternative would have been about considered but the outcome was the same. >> rooelgts right. until a few hours before it was not clear democrats would get all 50 members of the senate democratic caucus to vote on the first procedural motion. senator manchin has had concerns about the bill but cosponsored it in a previous congress but a couple weeks ago wrote an op-ed in the "charleston "post-gazette" mail" and thought it was too partisan and able to reach an agreement with chuck schumer to basically say i'll vote on this first procedural vote, but i will have the first vote once they get to the point on the substitute amendment which would alter the provisions around voting by mail,

potentially voter registration details. i heard from one source that he wanted to cut provisions related to d.c. statehood and public campaign financing, voter i.d. was a major part of some of his changes he wanted to the original bill. that amendment will come up as long as republicans are still filibustering the underlying bill and enough numbers to prevent any sort of form malprocess. >> not just the filibuster but that's ten votes the majority leader needs to get. >> the filibuster in the senate prevents any sort of action on legislation as long as there aren't 60 votes to sort of limit debate or cut off debate. so when people talk about quote/unquote elimination of the filibuster they're talking about lowering the threshold from 60 votes or 50 vote or a majority to advance a bill to the point where it can be voted on and passed. >> do you think yesterday's vote indicates that the voting rights

issue is dead in the senate this year at least? >> certainly democrats want to continue to see movement on it. you can see them bring up provisions or parts of the for the people act for separate votes over the course of the year, they want to keep the drumbeat going ahead of the election. they could try to hold a vote on whether to change the filibuster if they want to put moderate democrats on record on exactly how they would vote if it came to that, but certainly it would be very tricky to get any election reform bill passed as long as one, republicans oppose the substance of the bill itself, and two, democrats aren't ready to go ahead and change senate rules to pass a simple majority. >> there's a multimillion-dollar campaign out there to end the legislative filibuster that's not likely to let up. >> manchin and cinema and other moderates and senate democrats have been reticent to do away with what is essential the most

powerful tool. democrats are familiar with the use of the tool when they were in the majority under the leadership of senator chuck schumer for the beginning of the trump administration and for the last couple years of the obama administration, and their concern is that the filibuster sort of enforces bipartisan cooperation in order to, you know, if you sort of raise the threshold you need republican votes or a minority buy in on a piece of legislation, it creates a more stable governance substance. democrats and progressives have been arguing for years now that legislation or that rule, that tradition, does prevent the passage some of pretty key priorities for them. [ inaudible ]. >> ahead in the senate how does yesterday's vote set the scene for potential votes coming up on infrastructure, even an infrastructure compromise bill that's been talked about? >> the senate is operating on

dual tracks right now. big election fights on one side an then you have plenty of other action where the senate is trying to and continues to pass bills on a bipartisan basis. obviously the biggest example of this is the current infrastructure negotiations between some moderate members of the senate, both democrats and republicans, along with the white house, in trying to find a multihundred billion dollar, maybe trillion dollar infrastructure agreement. now those talks are typically -- or have really sort of gummed up on paying for it, how it pay for hundreds of billions in new spending but able to overcome the hurdle schumer told us a couple of us, he planned to bring that up in july with the first vote on a budget reconciliation package resolution that would allow a reconciliation package to advance the rest of president biden's build back better agenda on a party-line vote.

>> look forward to your reporting on it. zach cohen, senate reporter for national journal, follow his report at zachary underscore cohen, thank so much. >> thanks. >> our opening question this morning, should senate democrats eliminate the filibuster. if you say no, 202-748-[ inaudible ] headline election bill is blocked in the senate. willie in annapolis who says eliminate the filibuster? >> caller: i think they should. i think if anything, everybody should have the right to vote and i'm also kind of very suspicious of these state rights going on. because as far as i'm concerned, as far as the big states like florida and texas, we got nuts running the governorship. when i look at the republican party i've always known one thing about people who like to tease, when the joke is on thing they get bitter and like to do

things. yes, i think it should be eliminated and i think everybody should have the right to vote whether it's mail-in or whatever. everybody. this is bothering the people's constitutional rights and i'm against it. >> next up in medfield, massachusetts. go ahead, bill. >> caller: yeah. how are you doing? >> fine, thanks. >> caller: i got a statement and a question. basically the statement is, if you're an american and for right and wrong, you know, there's good, there's bad, and there's right and there's wrong, we need to have two theories of government. you can't just have one side only. and if you eliminate the filibuster then one side could rule for like 100, 200, 500 years which means half of the country wouldn't have a right to their opinion because the government, which is controlling

all of the rules, if you eliminate the filibuster tells you what you're supposed to say and do. my question, here's my question, why is it all democrats seem to want to have a one party country? are they communists? bye-bye. >> steven, next up, alexandria, virginia. hello there. >> caller: yeah. we should get rid of the filibuster and to riff off of the last person's comment, the democrats are in the majority. a majority of the people in the country voted for the democrats and their policies. so there's no one party state because this is what the people wanted. that is what the voters wanted and the voters wanted people to remove the filibuster. we should get rid of it because that's what the majority wants. we shouldn't let a minority rule the country. that's what our founders said was going to be a problem was a tyranny of the minority. not the majority. the majority rules the country.

that's what -- that's who elects the president the majority. the majority leads the government because that's who we wanted. not the minority. >> thanks for that. here's a reporting of our capitol hill producer right after that vote yesterday. 50/50. senate voted along party lines against taking up the democrats voting and election legislation. 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster against the bill. the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell talking about the difference between the legislative filibuster and judicial filibuster. >> there are two calendars in the senate, the executive calendar and the legislative calendar. until bush 43 was elected, even though it was possible to filibuster the executive calendar it was never done. s the tradition was, up or down votes for appointments. the best proof of how sacrosanct

that practice was, was the clarence thomas nomination in 1991. arguably the most controversial supreme court nomination ever. clarence thomas was confirmed 52-48. i don't have to remind all of you it only takes one senator to make us get 60 votes. ted kennedy, was vehemently opposed it clarence thomas, joe biden who was vehemently opposed to clarence thomas, no one said, out of 100 senators, no one said, you have to get 60 votes. that was the tradition. until the earl '90s when chuck schumer, the freshman senator from new york, decided to start filibustering on the executive calendar. the answer to the question is, the executive calendar is one thing, the legislative calendar is another. the executive calendar is now 100% back where it was 20 years

ago, simple majority. i'm comfortable with that. that used to be the tradition. that's where we are. the legislative calendar is the essence of the senate. the very essence of the senate. change the legislative calendar and you have fundamentally turned the senate into the house and completely destroyed the institution. i admire the handful of democrats left in the same position they were a couple years ago, when they were not only using the filibuster but defending the filibuster repeatedly when they were not in the majority. so i do think that it's extremely admirable there are at least a handful of democrats left who believe in the institution. >> and some reaction to the failure of yesterday's vote by democrats to move forward on their voting rights legislation from progressives in congress including senator ed markey of massachusetts tweeting the filibuster is a threat to democracy.

also from representative [ inaudible ] who said shocking news, officially filibustered the for the people act. why do we think they're so afraid of letting people vote? let's end the filibuster and guarantee your voting rights. ro khanna who said the right to vote is under attack in order to protect our democracy we must reform the senate filibuster. i don't understand why that's difficult. joyce beatty says you shouldn't be able to filibuster americans' voting rights. tom in fort lauderdale says no democrats should not eliminate the filibuster. i'm sorry, tom in fort -- let's see. punched the wrong button. go ahead. >> caller: okay. i would like to comment, the person, the democrats are in the majority so we got to run over the republicans any time we want to, the democrats voted for

moderation. they didn't vote for what's going on here. there's a lot of people very unhappy with the -- what's going on with the democratic party. to my point, i think the comment or the choice is wrong. what we need is pressure on our politicians to compromise. there has been so much damage by uncompromising politicians of the past. let me give you a couple examples. if 20 years ago we could have had comprehensive immigration reform, if the democrats had just compromised on one thing, one thing, and that was securing the border, before the immigration statutes, the comprehensive reform took place, can you imagine that?

that one thing? but that's really what happened. john mccain's immigration legislation would have passed if they relented on that one opponent. people say you're going to keep them out. look, you could have loosened up the immigration requirements and gottenp around anything that you thought was stopping people from getting in. that was a very tragic and damaging thing that happened. one other example, the daca people, we would have daca reform, what, six, seven years ago, if the democrats had just compromised on one thing. and that one thing was the crazy lottery system for immigration into this country that makes no sense, has no purpose, and it's just a political talking point. so my point is this, okay, don't eliminate the filibuster. instead, make all politicians swear that they will compromise

on every single bill that comes up before congress so we can get things done and get this country going the way it should be going. there's been so much damage by no compromise politicians. thank you very much. >> tom you talked about compromise, "the washington post" editorial writers wrote yesterday in their piece how to tell it's time for reform. some of what they wrote they say there's no shortage of ideas about how to adjust the procedural maneuver without abolishing it, the filibuster, such as demanding that minority senators show up to sustain their filibusters requiring three fifths of voting senators to end a filibuster rather than three fifths of all senators or reducing the votes needed to overcome filibuster, a few of the possibilities. if republicans will not permit a vote on the obvious of pro voting reform something needs to change. senators should be cautious in reshaping the chambers rules but not to a fault.

jamaica, new york, anne says, yes, eliminate the filibuster. good morning. >> caller: good morning. it should be eliminated because we're in trouble and we seem not to get anything done down there and the only way that we need to do is eliminate this filibuster. let people vote the way it should be done. it's so disgusting to see senate and congress not doing anything. it's ridiculous. voting is a very important thing for people. my grandfather could never vote in this country, so this is horrible what they're doing down there. eliminate it and let the people decide. >> next is cindy in norwalk, connecticut, who says no. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

a couple points. i don't think the filibuster is the problem. i think maybe we should reform and have term limits. that to me would break the gridlock and the compromising bologna. you know, the people, the people voted for the filibuster. no. did anybody care what the people voted for four years ago? the democrats didn't care who got voted in. and they use the filibuster over 300 times under donald trump. so, you know, all that is just a bunch of hooey. the election laws we want to go back to how they were precovid. nobody is changing anything. everything was changed because of covid. and i think that's a point, you know, everybody knows it. but nobody wants to be honest. of course we want fair voting.

that is not the issue. you know, when everybody lies about bills, voting right bills, and don't read the bills, they pick up a talking point from joe biden, oh, georgia won't give out water when that is a falsehood and so if your president can't be honest, and i don't care if it's donald trump or joe biden, people need to be a little more educated about voting rights bills. i live in connecticut, liberal state, no early voting, and i'm not opposed to early voting, i think there should be but it shouldn't be two months ahead of the election. there's just -- everybody has lost their minds and everybody has to be extreme in their views. and that's basically my point. thank you so much. >> this is from huff post this morning, their headline, biden slams republicans for blocking debate on voting rights bill. president joe biden chastised senate republicans on tuesday

for blocking debate on the for the people act, sweeping piece of legislation that aims to improve and protect voting access and write it was suppression of a bill to end voter suppression, biden said which all 50 republicans voted against debating the bill though the 50 democrats that have control of the chamber with vice president kamala harris as the tiebreaker current senate rules allow republicans to block any bill that can't muster at least 60 votes. asking you this morning about that, should the senate democrats eliminate the filibuster. s the line to call if you say yes. if it's no. and you can always send us a text. linda from georgia says this, i do not support ending the filibuster. it would result in a constant flip flop of laws with the new political party in power every two years. laws passed by one that could be easily undone by the next party

in power every two years. all or nothing yields nothing by either opposing party. it's another thing when filibustering has no such cost and the senate shut down on the issue. the tyranny of one senator over the other says william. a tweet here saying it should be modified. we're living in an era of minority rule and that is not how our government is supposed to work. the senate is supposed to force debate at the end of the debate they vote and the filibuster rule prevents that. back to john in new york. go ahead with your comment. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: thank you for what you're doing. i believe that the filibuster should be eliminated because of what was done yesterday. essentially what it was, it was a vote on debate so people could form the majority of the people in this country believe, they

were behind the voting rights act that was taken yesterday. yesterday's action was about debate. now the previous woman said well there should be debate and everything. and she's absolutely correct. because the thing is, it's a republicans voted to have debate on it people could form better opinions on why they're opposed to these things. this was not a vote on the bill itself. it was a vote on a debate. even with what mitch mcconnell had said a short while ago on your program, you can't believe -- you can believe mitch mcconnell as far as you can throw him. he's always coming up about with things about the constitution and everything else. what did they do with the merrick garland as opposed to the recent supreme court placement. it's ridiculous. the woman before me she called about compromise, the gentleman

a few calls ago, he talked about compromise. one of the things in this voting rights act was the fact with gerrymandering to the extent it is. where it's become a game changer not only to democrats, but to republicans themselves. people like mitt romney, liz cheney out in, you know, wyoming. that essentially they've created a danger now they've created a situation where people are not concerned, even republicans, aren't concerned about losing election in various areas of this country, that essentially what it amounts to, they know that the way that the districts are constructed now they're not going to lose a district unless somebody is completely off the wall, that essentially it's going to go to republicans so they can go further to the right which they've done. >> thanks for that. we'll hear from dan who says no,

do not eliminate the filibuster. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> fine, thanks. >> caller: i just wanted to point out that trump asked mcconnell to get rid of the filibuster and he said no because of how undemocratic and how uneven it was. and then when the shoe gets put on the other foot how much it's going to turn against them. i just wanted to point out that. i also wanted to point out that the democrats need to explain how they use the filibuster how many hundreds of times in the last couple years and now when things are the way they want it to be, they want to get rid of the filibuster to get what they want passed through, like unfairly. i find that to be ridiculous and there should be no way we have -- get rid of the filibuster.

that's it. >> here's the headline from "the washington times," republicans kill rewrite of election laws. democrats partisan initiative meets demise with filibuster. senator henrick of new mexico spoke on the senate floor about the filibuster. >> it is outrageous that senate republicans, as we heard from the minority leader, are planning to block legislation to restore voting rights and bring much needed transparency and ethics into our elections. their refusal to even allow debate on the for the people act should be seen for what it is. it is a ringing endorsement of former president trump's conspiracy theories and his attacks on our elections and on reality itself. re fusing to take up the for the

people act will prop up the campaigns that are -- that we're seeing in states across the country that strip americans of our hard won right to vote. mr. president, i want to be clear, if senate republicans are successful later today in using the filibuster to block the senate from even debatings the for the people act, this cannot be the end of the story. we simply cannot give up on passing voting rights legislation in this congress. not when our democracy is what is on the line. we should all remember that filibuster is a rule, a rule that cannot even be found in the constitution, but voting, voting is an american right. >> our opening question, should senate democrats eliminate the filibuster. here's the reporting of roll call the headline senate voting and ethics overhall stalls but

democrats united in votes. senator manchin voted with his party in favor of debating democrats signature of overall eelection and laws but the path to enactment remains improbable. republicans as expected opposed a procedural vote that would have lets the senate begin debate and given manchin a chance to change a sweeping bill he said earlier this month he would vote against. senators voted 50/50 leaving the motion short of the needed 60 votes for adoption. gop senators called the bill a power grab by the other side of the aisle and argued it would give too much control to the federal government over elections. democrats said they plan to press ahead as allied outside interest groups mounted a fresh round of pressure campaigns including ones to end the legislative filibuster. this is the beginning and not the end, said amy klobuchar, a chairwoman of the rules and administration pam which has jurisdiction over election and campaign issues. thoughts by text. mike in buffalo sends this, the

50 democratic senators represent 41 million more americans than the 50 republicans. the gop is making it tougher to vote including overriding election results in states like georgia and it can. the filibuster should go back to a talking filibuster. let them stand and show americans what they believe in. as long as the filibuster exists we will have nonfunking. they should go back to the old way where a senator has to be there in person speaking. dave in orlando, i don't think you should do away with the filibuster because the republicans when they want to block everything it may be needed. bill is in owe wing, maryland. go ahead. >> caller: hello. my opinion of this is that -- am i on? you are. go ahead. >> caller: turn down your radio. you're with us.

are you there? >> caller: i am there. >> you're on the air. >> caller: i turned the radio down. >> great. >> caller: all right. yes. i believe that the filibuster at least temporarily should be put down. i would like to say in response to a previous caller that the prospect of term limitations is, although a good idea, will never happen in my opinion because you are not going to get all of these politicians to vote for that because they want to stay in. on the other question, given the obstructionism by particularly mitch mcconnell and his crew, nothing is going to get done by the democrats of any value. and this is the time to go big. of any time in the recent history, we need to go big.

the republicans do not want to see a successful president and democrats run legislature don't want to see high success on that because it's going to make them look bad. i believe now of all times is the time to go big on these issues because it's not going to get done any other way. get rid of that. filibuster. thank you very much. >> okay. to laura next up, spokane, washington. go ahead. >> hi. >> hi there. >> caller: hi. my -- the reason why i object to the bill is because i found it to be very unconstitutional. when you read the bill, and i read parts of it and studied other parts, that bill was only to give the states rights the federal government and let anybody who wanted to vote vote. wherever they wanted to vote when they wanted to vote.

so that's what my issue was with that. there's so many bills coming out of the democratic party that is so anti-constitutional, so un-american, they hate white people, and it's just -- they're not doing for the american people. they're not doing for this country, they're doing for whatever agenda they have going. the same is true for the media. that's my concern. the bill was not constitutional. it shouldn't have been on the floor because it did not fall within the boundaries of the u.s. constitution. >> laura, do you think by debating that, in your view, by bringing the bill to the floor, including the compromised legislation that joe manchin had proposed, that that would have been exposed, that senators would have been able to point out the unconstitutionality perhaps of some provisions? >> caller: you know, when you read the bill, you see there

just isn't enough there. i mean there's so many things that go directly against the constitution. and against the integrity of our elections and they say it's for the people, well, they're not talking about the american people. it doesn't seem to me. you're letting 2 million people come in, 20,000 kids in cages, and the cartels run the borders. i mean tell me how good that is. >> thanks for your call this morning. some news this morning about our c c-span colleague steve skully, over 30 years at this network and countless interviews from 8,000 hours of programming, from "the philadelphia inquirer," long-time c-spans host steve skully leaving the network after three decades. he has been one of the faces for the network for more than three decades. leaving next month they report. here's the -- part of the statement from steve which says for 30 years c-span has given me a front row seat to history

allowing me to explain politics and public policy to our loyal audience. steve skully will be moving on to the bipartisan policy center here in the nation's capital and i think speaking for a number of my colleagues here at c-span and washington journal, we thank him for his service to his network and wish him the best of luck in this endeavor at the bipartisan policy center. back to our question. do you think senate democrats should eliminate the filibuster? if you say yes. if you say no. in atlanta we hear from doris who says yes, eliminate the filibuster. >> caller: good morning. you know, until recently republicans have been in charge and all this time nothing has been done. they can't improve health care, infrastructure, i really don't think republicans respect the average american voter. i believe, like trump, they lean

towards a dictatorship and believe that most americans are not competent to really know what's going on and to rule the country. i think in this instance there are too many things going on in the country now with the covid, health care, infrastructure, we're falling behind the rest of the world. something needs to be done, if only they would even reform the filibuster, but if there was some way to get rid of manchin so we could get things done. i'm so disappointed that the country is turning into a dictatorship. maybe -- okay. if that's what people want. put the republicans back in, ask for this dictatorship and see what you get. because if trump had gotten back into office, what do you think

the country would be doing now? >> let's hear from ralph next in new york who says no, do not eliminate the filibuster. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm a uaw worker from upstate new york. remember back in around 1975, it took 67 votes to invoke closure and the master of the senate lyndon johnson was able to overcome the southern seg gre nationists, so they could vote on the landmark 1964 civil rights act. the republicans are on the record they don't support workers rights because they're blocking the act to protect to organize act in the senate and they're blocking voting rights. they're taking on the role of the southern segregationists. my solution to lower the threshold for the philly buster to 55 votes. because we're pretty much a divided country. i don't think you're going to

see super majorities in the senate for a while. 55 votes. thank you. >> thanks for that. former senator tom harken has a piece in "the washington post" we'll get to a similar thought. current senator from arizona, senators kiersten cinema yesterday, we have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster and in that piece she says this, my support for retaining the 60 vote threshold is not based on the importance of any policy. it's based on what is best for our dem sip. the filibuster protects the country from wild swings between opposing policy policy that stand the test of time would help heal our country's divisions and strengthen americans confidence that our government is working for all of us. if we eliminate the 60 vote threshold we would lose more than we gain. in missouri, jim, good morning.

>> caller: good morning. it's g important to revise the filibuster rule so we force these naysayers on to the floor to make their case about why they are against a given issue. so that's very important. the other thing that bears mentioning here, what we're faced with now more so than ever before is the real chance of my nor tare yan rule over the majority and so i don't see in this day and age how we're going to address the divisiveness by approaching the problem the way the senator suggests. >> to jacksonville, illinois. dan, welcome. >> caller: yeah.

i was calling in about the filibuster, strongly against getting rid of the filibuster. the democrats calling in know how many times the democrats used the filibuster last year? didn't they use it 277 times last year for donald trump? i'm pretty sure that's how many times the democrats used the filibuster. >> you know, dan, you're the second one. somebody said 300 times, you said 277, you mean during the previous congress, during the 116th congress or during donald trump's four years? >> caller: i believe it was the last year. i could be wrong. >> we're going to try to track down that number. i know by saying it we'll find out. >> caller: one thing is for sure, they used the filibuster last year. that's for sure. as far as steve skully leaving and you saying him going to some partisan thing, that's the

equivalent of saying louis farrakhan is partisan. steve skully is not a partisan person. he's a hack. you had to suspend him for what he did. >> i said steve skully is going to the bipartisan policy center in washington, a bipartisan think tank. to gladys in san antonio, texas. welcome. make sure you mute your volume and go ahead with your comment. >> let me mute. okay. all right. >> caller: i'm ready now. the reason i'm calling is the lady from washington, i don't know how she can come up with that theory about that we have more to lose getting rid of the filibuster than we have to gain. what everyone needs to look at, this plan they have to overthrow and to obstruct every voter in the usa of america, doesn't matter whether you're black, white or green, their plan, these laws that they're enacting

are decided to stop people from voting and if they vote, and they don't like the outcome, the laws are designed to overthrow the will of the people. how can that be constitutional? that statement she's making is ridiculous. what we need to do, we've got to find a middle ground and you have to come together so that everybody has a chance to participate in this democracy. it is not democracy when all of these different states are allowed to invoke their own rules and then are subjected to them. we have no other recourse but to make some kind of amendment or some kind of change to the filibuster law. should millions of people have their vote thrown out? not be allowed to vote? i don't like the outcome of this election so i'm going to overthrow the will of the people? how can that be constitutional? mitch mcconnell has lost his mind. he is a dictator and all he cares about is power.

we need to care -- our government is based on by the people and for the people. all of these laws they have passed is against the people in this country. i don't see why anyone can't see that. i am prague praying for this nation because we are truly ill. >> some folks asked about the number of filibusters, number of times they basically asked for a clo cher vote in the 116th congress, the previous congress, our viewers are pretty much right, 298 times, 298 votes in the previous congress. in the 117, 54 votes. on the floor yesterday senator john thune of south dakota talking about the filibuster. >> allegedly the reason to bring it to the floor was to provide pressures on certain democrat members this is the reason that they need to vote to do away

with the legislative filibuster, something that has been part of the senate going back to our founding fathers. in fact, they're the reason the founding fathers created the united states senate was the balance against running rough shot over the rights of the minority. the legislative filibuster has provided that protection so much so it was used extensively in the last six years when republicans were in control of the senate, by the democrats. to filibuster legislation. in fact, it was used to filibuster coronavirus relief bills. it was used to filibuster police reform bills. it was used over and over to block the former president's nominees. and yet, now, mr. president, we are being told that the senate needs to get rid of the legislative filibuster and that

all those democrats, all those on the other side of the aisle who used it extensively to block republican legislation over the past six years, are now -- now believe we need to get rid of the legislative filibuster and this bill is example number one for why that is necessary. well, it's really ironic and interesting to hear members on the other side make that argument, given where they were a couple of years ago. >> continuing with your calls about 15 more minutes on our topic of the filibuster should senate democrats eliminate the filibuster. and the nos are winning by a large margin on our twitter poll on this. nearly 65% say no do not eliminate the legislative filibuster. another story we're watching this morning from "the new york

times," front page on the nytimes.com. adams leads in new york mayoral race. yang concedes. 32% in the ranked choice voting in new york city. the democratic primary. declaration of a winner may take weeks in new york city. we understand the republican primary, the founder of the guardian angels has won the republican mayoral primary in new york city. what else people are saying about our topic this morning. ronald in tennessee, democrats should break the filibuster or they won't be able to get anything accomplished for the american people. republicans block investigations of capitol 6 riots to protect themselves. julie says i will miss steve. did a great job. the filibuster should be done with, nfl major league baseball, any sport changes their rules to better accommodate for changing demographics and new land scapes. the u.s. has changed for the

better and is now heading in a new direction. the government needs to follow the same trend. bob in illinois no the democrats did not receive a mandate last november and they will regret shoving this far left nonsense down america's throat. both party should compromise and chalk up victories for the usa. in albany, new york, this is fred, go ahead. mute your volume and go ahead with your comment. >> caller: okay. yeah. i definitely believe that filibuster should be eliminated. all the -- you know, the assault on the voting rights and all these states that's led by republicans is making it more difficult for people of color to vote.

the one caller on earlier, it's assault on white people, but it's really assault on african-americans and people of color, people that republicans know are not going to vote for them. republicans are obstructionists. anything that biden is for they're against. they would not vote to have a commission to talk about to investigate the assault on our democracy on the january 6th capitol. you know, so without a filibuster nothing won't get done. they've taken us back in time, you know, with the policies that they're trying to put in place. >> to lloyd in virginia, we hear from eric. >> caller: the audio you played a couple minutes ago by a senator sums it up perfectly.

i mean, i don't understand why the democrats feel that they can use what has been used since the founding fathers, the process, to sort of push their agenda and represent their constituents, but when it's on the other side, they want to reverse it. about 20 minutes ago someone said well, yeah, they can use the filibuster, get rid of the filibuster, and push everything they want but when republicans are in charge they're going to flip flop it again. it's not doing anything good. you can't change the rules just because you're now in the majority. it doesn't work that way. another caller said something about the republicans are not representing the people. well, republicans are representing the people. approximately half of the country. that's what it's for. and the caller that just talked about race about, you know, voting rights against black, african-americans, and i'm

black, tell me how any law specifically makes it harder for a person with a dark skin tone to vote. where? it's a talking point. they need to stop. this time of the country where we're so divided we need it even more because that means we need ten more people who are on the other side to say this is a law that we need to pass. so we're divided we don't need a narrow margin because we'll be flip flopping everywhere. talk about nothing getting done, something will get done in four years and flip flopped another four years and go back another four years. you can't just do that because you're in power now and change the rules when it was good for you before and now it's not good enough for you. it's ridiculous. >> eric in virginia, another story on the response to covid-19. the headline from "usa today," biden administration admits it won't reach july 4th vaccination goal, cdc explains vaccination slow down.

the change in that goal was talked about yesterday in the covid-19 response briefing. here's jeff. >> based on today's estimates we're on track to hit the 70% target for those aged 27 and over. once the data for a july 4th holiday weekend is fully in. so as per our goal of 70% for all adults we'll hit it for adults 27 and older. this is amazing progress and has our country returning to normal much sooner than anyone could have predicted. where the country has more work to do is particularly with 18 to 26-year-olds. the reality is many younger americans have felt like covid-19 is not something that impacts them and they've been less eager to get the shot. with the delta variant spreading across the country and infecting

younger people worldwide, it's more important than ever that they get vaccinated. >> from the hill this morning, on the filibuster and the vote yesterday, their headline, kilo buster. democratic angst grows as filibuster threatens agenda. they write elizabeth warren, the democrats have to talk about what the next path is. chris murphy of connecticut who supports filibuster reform added democrats need to have an open debate after months of closed door conversations and communicating through the media and op-eds. let's have an open debate about what it means to keep these rules in place. we'll hear from joey next in oklahoma city. go ahead, joey. >>. >> caller: thank you. i believe yes, we have to get rid of the filibuster and foremost, i think it all comes down to ownership. if you get rid of that, the party in power gets to have their agenda.

then the american people get it see is that agenda benefitting the majority of the people or just a minority of the people. then we can vote them in or out based on that. now it's like, the democrats put all these bills up but need that mitch mcconnell and now it's manchin and sen ne ma that are best for the people but if you poll the people on key issues on what they want to see happen, the filibuster has to go before what the people want gets done. for example, is cinema and manchin's idea about having to get some ridiculous weakened compromise, if they can even get a compromise, more important than climate change, more important than republicans stripping voting rights based on these bogus fraud claims? because all the studies, including trump's own commission on voter fraud, turned up nothing.

so all these laws they're passing are just meant to disenfranchise. so yes, get rid of it, get rid of your excuse, nancy pelosi, for not passing this stuff, do what the american people stay they want, and then let them vote about it. because you're going to be voted out if you don't do what you claimed you were going to do when you got voted in. >> that legislation, the voting rights legislation, has passed, did passes in the house and had moved on to the senate. let's hear from jerry in carrollton, ohio. who says no. go ahead. >> caller: yes. hi. this is the first time being on. appreciate it this. i say no. i say no, but i listen to your program and i see so much people hate each other and i can't believe this. i think myself, the government does this to us, the senate and

stuff, and they talk about this guy, this guy, but it's -- listen to what nancy pelosi says and chuck schumer. it's embarrassing that they're part of our government. i think we should literally get rid of all of them and have the american people vote ourselves. because this is getting us nowhere. we go this way, we go that way. whoever is in charge. it's pitiful. nothing ever gets done. and i see so much hatred now because of our government pits us against one another. i think i'm beginning to be prejudiced and i'm really not. it's a shame. that's all i have to say. >> glad to have you calling. welcome to the program. molly from the brookings institution published a piece a

number of months ago what is the senate filibuster and what would it take to eliminate it. the basics she has in there, that are kind of helpful to keep in mind, further legislative fights are ahead in the u.s. senate, the senate has a number of options for curtailing the use of the filibuster including by setting a new precedent, changing the rule itself or placing restrictions on its use. president biden has expressed openness to the idea depending on how obstructive congress republicans become, but it's ultimately up to the senate to set the process in motion and she says that the use of the senate rule has become far more common in the 21st century more motions have been filed in the last two decades than in the 80 years prior. let's go to john in hillsborough, new jersey. john, good morning. go ahead. >> caller: yes. good morning. thank you for having me. i think the -- what it needs to be is modified for something to come up to the senate just for

discussion, should be maybe 30% of the senate. if 30% says they want to discuss something they should go through and discuss. i have yet to hear any policies from the republicans. they want to do do this, take a voter rights, but i don't hear anything from them on what their real policy is on matters. so that's my view on that. >> here is the opinion of former senator -- iowa senator tom harken in today's "washington post." here is another opinion for filibuster reform that could achieve compromise and part of that the former senator writes in this is the proposal that i put forth 26 years ago was this, after getting the signatures needed to file cloture on a measure 60 votes would be needed to bring the measure to a vote. if the 60 votes were not obtained then a new cloture petition to be filed and after a certain number of days the

second cloture moment would require 57 votes to a close. he goes on further to say to reduce the number of votes over a period of a number of days he says, why, because for the senate majority leader the most important thing is time, time to get the bills to the floor and debate and pass appropriations bill to bring a fellow senator's bill to the floor for passage for the senate minority leader the most important thing is to protect the right to have amendments, have them debated and voted on. he concludes by saying that during my 40 years in congress i chaired two major committees in the senate but also spent much of my time as ranking minority member. i find that compromise is the result of negotiations and negotiations happen when there is a mutuality of interest not an absolute yes or no but a more nuanced maybe. west virginia, morgantown, west virginia, it is sally up next. go ahead. >> good morning.

thank you for having me on. yes, i am absolutely clear that democracy is more important than this filibuster. the filibuster has not been here since the beginning of our nation, it's a vestige of the jim crow era and it has been used to stop voting rights in the past and the use of it now is also to stop voting rights for many americans in this country. it's so essential that we have the right to vote. it is the fundamental american value in this country. also, i just wanted to say that the filibuster actually prevents

debate. we have this idea from the movies that the filibuster causes this great debate in the senate, but what it does is cut it off entirely and prevent any discussion of bills that would lead to a compromise. so in my opinion and my hope is that for the good of our nation, for the health of our democracy that we end the filibuster. thank you. >> noah, last comment on this. abington, virginia. go ahead. >> yes, i'm going to make it short but i think we need to keep the filibuster intact because it's the institution that helps the minority, it helps protect the minority if the majority becomes overbearing and it helps to go along with the senate -- the whole purpose of the senate which is to protect the lights of the minority. >> appreciate that. and there's more ahead here on

washington journal. >> fbi director christopher wray testifies today on the president's 2022 budget request. he is appearing before a senate appropriations subcommittee. watch live beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, online at c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. former minneapolis police officers derek chauvin was convicted in th m