by the statutes that we stand on, we debated. they say domestic terrorism are violent crimes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. arrington: i'm going to respect you gavel me out because i respect the rules of this chamber. i thank you for the indulgence and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 10:00 a.m.

host: he was on the sunday shows on abc this week and here's what he had to say about extending this extra $600 a week. >> well, those -- the original benefits will not. we actually -- original unemployment benefits actually paid people to stay home and

actually a lot of people got more money staying at home than they would going back to work. so the president's been very clear, our republican senators have been very clear we are not going to extend that provision. we are going to be prepared on monday to provide unemployment insurance extension that would be 70% of whatever the wages you were prior to being unemployed, that it would reimburse you for 70% of those wages. hopefully as a way to get people back on their feet. we are prepared -- >> can i stop you right there, sir? they said that's going to be impossible to administer and people will face real gaps before f before they get money. >> we looked at that. i have been on the phone with secretary scalia, secretary of treasury steven mnuchin, we believe in a combination of working with secretary mnuchin and secretary scalia we'll be able to find a way to actually

provide a threshold that will meet that guideline. yes, some of the state benefit computer systems are antiquated. we'll have to work from a federal government standpoint. secretary mnuchin is willing to step in and help with that. it's our goal to make sure that it's not antiquated computers that keep people from getting their benefits. as we look at trying to make sure that we get this economy back going again and actually the president's done an outstanding job there. we had an estimated 40 million people that were going to be unemployed. it never even got close to that number. we are still well beyond where we would hope a healthy economy would be, but it's improving very quickly. so the secretary and i have been on capitol hill, as you know, over the weekend. we'll be back there again today putting the final touches on a bill that leader mcconnell plans

to introduce tomorrow. honestly, i see us being able to provide unemployment insurance, maybe a retention credit to keep people from being displaced or brought back into the workplace. helping with our schools. if we can do that, along with liability protection, perhaps we put that forward, get that passed as we can negotiate on the rest of the bill in the weeks to come. host: mark meadows, former congressman and now chief of staff at the white house on whether on this debate about extending these enhanced unemployment benefits. democrats are saying they want to continue with that extra $600 a week. what do you say? greenland, new york. you say yes. go ahead. caller: yes, i do. because i drive a school bus. my company has gone bankrupt. i have no job. i have to wait until all the schools go back, which we don't know when we are going back in new york. and i have to find a new job and

i'm only getting $176 a week. i cannot live on that. so we need this help. host: you are getting the $176 a week from the state? caller: correct. host: that extra $600 from the federal government? caller: correct. yep. so that was definitely helping out my family. definitely. host: are you making less than you were as a school bus driver on these unemployment benefits combined? caller: no, i'm making the exact amount i was getting paid. with the extra $600. host: you were able to cover your bills. were you able to save any money? caller: a couple dollars. but my bills were paid. we are on track and everything is good. but this all is going to run out this week. host: if you had to live on $176 a week, what could you not pay? couldn't pay anything.

i have my cell phone bill, caints buy my groceries, it would be horrible. absolutely horrible. horrible. host: new york. ruby in alabama, you say no to extending the $600 a week. why? caller: because i know so many people that have financial advisors, they are just shutting their businesses down and the employees are drawing more than they would have if they -- way more. and i think people that need to have this funding, it should have been fixed differently so that people that really need it could get it. but people that don't need it, that have financial advisors, they don't need extra $800.

but i just can't understand why -- i'm on social security. i don't get any extra money. and i don't think that it's right that other people that does not need it, it should have been done on percentage or something of what they were making. but that's the way i feel. and i think it's terrible. people are getting it that does not need it and people that needs it that cannot get it. thank you. host: ruby in alabama. let's go to gale in milwaukee. gale, good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: morning. what do you think about these enhanced unemployment benefits? caller: well, first of all i have been a recipient of the enhanced benefit money. and what i'm most upset about is if i hear one more person,

especially the people in congress, talk about people were making more money by choosing to stay at home, first of all, unemployment states very clearly if you -- i'm currently -- i still have a job. i don't know for how long, but i still have a job. but my hours were cut about 75%. if you are asked to come back and you choose not to, you lose your unemployment benefits. so for people to stand up and spout off about how people are choosing to stay at home, i don't choose to stay at home. my employer says i can't come back yet. what are people supposed to do? first of all when i hear too people are making $1,000 a week. i hear that on the television all the time. when people are making $1,000 a week and that's just way too much money. first of all i don't know who is making $1,000 a week because if

you do get the $600, people never mention taxes come off of that. you don't get $600. second of all, here in wisconsin, on my limited hours, -- my unemployment benefit is a max amount of $370. because i'm working a few hours a week by average is $58 a week. people need to stop assuming that everyone who got this extended benefits was making out like bandits. if people were choosing not to go back to work they should not be on unemployment to begin with. that's against the law. host: gale in wisconsin who says yes. what republicans are saying, according to "the new york times," is proposing altering the jobless benefit program to replace the $600 flat weekly payments with a plan that would replace about 70% of a workers' lost wages, a change democrats

are unlikely to endorse. democrats strongly oppose any effort by republicans to give many employers new protections from lawsuits from their workers, patients, or students. go to carol next, frankfurt, illinois, you say no. good morning. welcome to the discussion. caller: good morning. hi worked for 50 years, raised two children by myself. never had a penny of unemployment. if i needed another job, i found another job. ok. and there are plenty of jobs out there. for people to help. i drove around the other day to pick up something and i couldn't get over how many stores have help wanted. ok. i think it's ridiculous. if anything should go through the payroll tax cuts should. i have talked to plenty of people staying on unemployment because they don't want to give up the money, ok.

i think that's ridiculous. there's probably a lot of stuff going besides that. ridiculous. stead people should try to work and give themselves some pride in this. these are taxpayer dollars. essential workers are out there working and working, putting in a lot of hours. with the payroll tax cut, they would get some extra bonus, almost like a pay raise, and the employer would get the money. by giving unemployment, we are not giving anything. people are just staying home. host: "wall street journal" reports this morning that in new york, new york employers have added back just over 500,000 of the 1.7 million jobs lost between february and april. according to their labor department. the state unemployment rate jumped to 15.6% in june from 4.1% in january, and more than two million people are receiving unemployment benefits.

that's an example of one state in new york. debbie, franklin, indiana. you say no. good morning. caller: good morning. i say no. i'm on social security. my husband is also social security. and i don't see that they should be able to get that much each week. i just don't. host: ok. speaker of the house nancy pelosi who is negotiating for democrats was on cbs' face the nation. here's what she had to say about at they want to see with any economic aid bill that would get passed through congress. >> the treasury secretary said this morning that republicans will introduce a bill on monday. when do you expect to begin negotiating? >> well, we have been anxious to negotiate for two months and 10 days when we put forth our proposal that does three things,

honors our heroes, by supporting state and local government with the health care workers food suppliers, teachers, teachers, teachers. transportation workers, sanitation workers and the rest. secondly, that opens up our economy by having testing, tracing, treatment, and distancing to end this virus. third, to put money in the pockets of the mesh people -- american people. unemployment benefits, direct payments, etc. these are things the public have voted for -- republicans have voted for in previous covered packages. it's nothing new. it was more because more was needed. for them to come now when we are right on the brink, when people are hungry in our contry, children, millions of children are food insecure, many families who never thought they would go to a food bank are going toe food banks and we need more money for food stamps and emergency nutrition programs, and they are resisting that. and again that they would now be

trying to -- that they are in disarray and that delay is causing suffering for america's families. host: by the way the bloomberg is reporting this morning that the president's national security advisor, robert o'brien, has tested positive for coronavirus. barry in dallas, texas. good morning to you. and you think that the $600 a week in extra unemployment benefits should continue. why is that? aller: ok. host: we are listening. barry? caller: yes, i'm here. host: please go ahead. caller: ok. here's my thing. i like working. you know what i'm saying. and i have no problem with being on unemployment.

my thing is this, can you hear me? host: yes. we can. stop watching the television. just listen and talk through the phone. caller: ok. here's my thing. you saying that the $1,200 per week -- the $1,200 for a month package -- host: you got to just listen and talk to the phone otherwise you get distracted when you are watching and listening to the tv. kathy in fayetteville, georgia. tell us your story. caller: yes, ma'am. this is the first time i ever applied for unemployment. in my entire life. i'm 52 years old. first of all, i would like to say is the government came up with this $600 a week because that was the quote average salary. so it's not that they decided to give all the lower income working people a lottery ticket,

basically. a winning lottery ticket. that was the average income. i'm in favor for $400, $300 a week. the issue about the 70% income, it's already been discussed, is that the antiquated system that most unemployment computer systems are on is -- it would take weeks up to months for everybody to figure out that 70%, per person, calculate it ut, sub tract out the state -- sub tract out the state that the state is paying and come up with the remainder. you still have a million people applying every week. so you are going to have a backlog. on top of that they are approving your claims every single week on top of that. they don't have the staffing to do that. that would just delay everything even worse.

host: paul in connecticut. paul, you say yes. what's your argument? caller: yes, i do. thank you for having me. first of all i'm a retired union ironworker. i used to work for like five different companies a year. so i can relate to living on unemployment. when i was laid off, i always take the max unemployment, which -- maximum unemployment which was $00 some dollars a week. i can till any time the hall gave me a call and said we have a job i was gone. because i always made more money working. however, what we are seeing now, is the issue is there are a lot of people that are not making enough money. all of a sudden this is like manna from heaven for them. this extra money. i can tell you, a few extra dollars makes a big difference in your quality of life. and even adam smith wrote something about people figuring out what is the best economic

deal for them out there. so there is nothing new about that. with people that say no is that people should reduce their wages, reduce their standard of living to go back to work. don't think that's right. they deserve a decent living like everybody else. and we are not talking a lot of money on an individual basis. yeah, over 100 million people it adds up. they are a look at -- they ought to look at what's going on on the -- how these people are getting by on the little bit that they are paid. and the second thing is that most of the people, in my opinion, that are not too eager to go back to work, probably had a zero benefit package. as a union ironworker i had a good benefit package. the only way i could get that

benefit package was by working, i believe it was 1,200 a year. so there was no incentive for me to sit around. and every so often a job would come up where you make a little less money in your envelope, and yeah, i would work. that was a way to get hours because our benefits were still paid. the result of that today is i have a pretty decent pension with my local 15 in hartford, connecticut. and secondly, i have good medical coverage. and the people being criticized for not going back to work don't have this. host: ok. paul's story in account k the flag's up on capitol hill this morning are at half-staff to mark the death of representative john lewis. yesterday many of you saw his last trip across the selma bridge in alabama. "usa today" notes that it was on

bloody sunday in 1965 when the late congressman and hundreds of marchers came to that bridge to demand an trend end to restriction that is blocked black citizens from vogt. on that day law enforcement beat the peaceful protestors with clubs and showered them with tear gas. many of you know the story of john lewis nearly losing his life as he led that march across the bridge. you can watch if you missed any of these moments on our website, c-span.org. today the congressman's body is on its way from alabama to the nation's capital. there will be a memorial service at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. then he will be lying in state at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. before that happens, though, the congress -- the casket will be touching down at joint air force base, andrews, and the speaker the house plans to meet the lewis family and the late

congressman there before his body is taken to several spots around washington, d.c. including the black lives matter plaza in here in washington, d.c., and then up to capitol hill for that memorial service and the lying in state, which will be done outside, according to "usa today." because of the covid pandemic and the family requesting people not travel across the country to -- for this visitation period. it will be opened to the public. and also former vice president joe biden is expected to make an appearance as well here in washington to pay his respects. our coverage here on c-span. rob in orlando, florida. what is your story? caller: yes. my store have i is this. i have applied for unemployment in march. and still have not been paid. i live currently in orlando,

florida, which is home to all the major attractions and does a lot with tourism. when there is no telling when we'll be get back to work. desantis and his cronies, delaying people's payments and trying to insinuate that people are somehow lazy and don't want to get back to work is just -- not only insulting, but it's really laughable. because there is no jobs. you can't get a job anywhere. and that little money that they are talking about, that we paid in to -- for ourselves with our own money, and they are sitting here complaining, complaining, complaining that these people -- we are so lazy trying not to get to work. have these senators and

congressmen, they are taking public dollars right now from us. and be off work continuously. they are going on vacation again in the august recess. so for that to happen and for them to take money from our pockets and give it to themselves and refuse to pay us and make us look like we are down, lazy people, not ready to work, just like the gentleman said, you need at least 30 hours to have health insurance in this country from your employer. you need to at least 30 hours a week for health insurance. we are not getting any of that. everybody's on their own. it makes no sense for those taking ourtting here money and not giving it back to us. it's absurd. host: ok. john in salem, oregon, john. you say no to extending these benefits.

caller: with the extra $600 a week because i have a disabled mother and she -- and turf take care of her and take time off of work every week. nd i don't get no extra money. basically i have to work two jobs. and i can't get caregivers because they are getting more money for not working to take care of my mother. that means i have to do double anyway. it ticks me off. that's all i got to safmente host: michelle in arlington, texas. you also say no. good morning to you. caller: yes. i definitely say no. whenever i lost one of my jobs i have been working two jobs for a long time, i just picked up hours -- more hours ass at my other job. i have co-workers that are not only working, but they are also drawing this unemployment. to the point where they are buying new phones, new cars, going on vacations. they are living it up while i'm here struggling every single day

just to make bills. it's ridiculous people who have been working this whole time working this whole time don't get anything extra. the people sitting at home get extra. now not only are they getting extra, but they are back to work. and still getting that unemployment. they are able to save that and not use it and use their money from work for their bills. what about people like me who have to work two jobs to make bills get paid? that's ridiculous. i don't think they should continue to get unemployment if they are working. don't think they should get an extra 600 just to sit at home. i work two jobs. don't get insurance. i don't get anything extra. i'm not saying that -- nobody should ever get anything extra, but think ridiculous, no. they should get back to work. there are tons of jobs out here. the people saying there are no jobs. every job that i ever had i look around and they have help wanted signs. this is ridiculous. host: all right, michelle in

arlington, texas. onna joining us from greenfield, massachusetts. don, good morning. you think they should continue with the $600 a week from the federal government. caller: yes, i do. what i'm seeing is a lot of people is there are jobs out there and people can go back to work. i work in the music entertainment business for large concerts, large events on the high scale. there are no jobs. in that field people are very professional in their work cannot go back to work because there are no jobs in that field. there are certainly other things we can try to do, but we are waiting to see what happens with our personal jobs. things that we actually have stake in and job security, so to say. we know that's probably not going to come back for another good year. so we are still trying to figure out what to do. until that happens, there are no in that the anything

field. host: are you collecting this extra unemployment benefits from massachusetts and then the extra $600? caller: yes, i am, currently. which still doesn't come anywhere close to what our normal pay is, which is fine. it's fine to keep us going. keep us afloat. but -- it's really hard. we do need to extend this because we are not going to have -- there is nothing else at this point. host: if you only -- only have to rely on state unemployment benefits, what your situation be like? caller: if i could only rely on this? it would take care of the bills. it would at least keep us from losing our houses until we can figure out what to do next. host: don in massachusetts. dianne in mansfield, ohio. hi, good morning to you. caller: hi, there. thank you very much for taking my call.

it never ceases to amaze me about how selfish human beings can be because i only make x you are only allowed to make y because my reality was different than yours, you should be able to do exactly what i did in noncovid times. people do want to work. oftentimes there is no childcare, school opening is questionable. what are those people supposed to do? of course, as usual, women are disproportionately affected. further, since so manyp are not living on a living wage to begin with, we really needed this boost for our country. it behooves our country to keep one another from going under. this is not a moral issue. thank you. host: ok. staten island, new york. sal, good morning. welcome to the conversation. you say no to extending the enhanced benefits. caller: absolutely not. i'm 58 years old. i have been in construction, like that ironworker from account k he has his story half right. because the way it works and the way it always has worked, even

for yourself, if you was to be unemployed, you would go on unemployment, it's based on what you made weekly, like for instance in new york a top paid construction worker, like if you make over $1,000 a week, you would be eligible for $505 a week in unemployment. now, if your employer calls you back to work, you have to go back to work. it's against the law to say that, no, there is no work out there and you were not called for work. you have to go back to work. what this plan is doing it's making people dependent on government. and this is the outlook, this is what they want. it would hurt everybody in the future. because if this ever became law, the country would be finished. the country would be finished. these people in florida saying ron desantis said this and that.

there is work out there. there is work out there. he doesn't want to go back to work. he wants to be dependent on government, ok. my nephew worked at a bar. young kid. 22 years old. and he was making like take home $200 a week, $250 a week. in new jersey he would get an additional $600. he doesn't want to go back to work. but it hurts in the long run. people don't understand if this was implemented indefinite, it would kill t would be like everybody on welfare. host: ok. sal's thoughts in staten island. anthony, williamsburg, virginia. tell us what you think. caller: good morning, ma'am. i disagree with the ones who are saying no. i'm like the lady that just hung up. where has our empathy gone? every situation is different. everybody's not in the same category.

for me it really has been helping me and my mother out. i work for the hospitality industry and i was laid off from my job. i have not yet been called back. also it's been helping because we are living in a hotel. we pay rent every week. so it's really been helping out with that and many other areas. also when you look at alaska and the european nations, they had their act together before all this. people are receiving $2,000 every month. and even their unemployment benefits, they made sure before they was in the break about to run out, they reinstalled it so it can still kick in so people still can get it. i disagree with the people who have a lack of empathy right now in this time that we are living in. we are living in a serious time and living in a time right now where people have no heart for others. we are supposed to help our neighbors. we are supposed to be considerate of others. and i really feel like this made a difference for agreeing with the ones that took advantage of this.

but for the ones who didn't and do want to go back to work like me and you can't, it's really been helping. it's been sustaining me. host: all right. jim, little valley, new york. jim. good morning. the house will gavel in here in a couple minutes. or less. we'll make it quick. go ahead, jim. caller: ok. i work for an airline for 45 years. in the wintertime it slowed down. wasn't hardly any work for nifpblet i took a lesser job, paid lesser money so i would be working. these people that are on unemployment and they are working, you still getting unemployment, go take another job. that's tax dollars we could use for education, defense of this country. you make things better for the infrastructure in this country. so these one that is want to lay around and not go back to work, take another job lesser than what they had before, it's ridiculous. go out and learn earn what you

got coming. i understand the help. some people do need it. low-income people need it. they need to go to work. there's plenty of jobs out there. they say there ain't no jobs out there, that's nuts. because even mcdonalds pays $10. $30 thou hour a week that's $300 a week minus taxes. they don't need the extra $600 a month. the way i think the unemployment should roll, ok if you're getting unemployment and 70% of your pay, then the government should only afford you a 30% to make you so you made exactly what you was making when you was working. not all this extra. i'm sorry. host: all right, jim. jim in new york. lynn on facebook joining the conversation saying, no. open all businesses and let freedom loving adults decide whether to work or no. these are consequences -- there are consequences to any and all choices we make. the government isn't my daddy. and then cynthia says, on facebook, the president has

ignored the threat covid posed shameful, wishingful thinking is guiding a public health crisis. congress must extend benefits along with eviction protection. or millions of homeless within months. the president's national security advisor robert o'brien tested positive for covid. according to the white house he has mild symptoms and self-isolating and work interesting a secure location off site. no risk of exposure to the president or vice president. the works of the national security council continues uninterrupted. a quote from the white house this morning. seconds away from gaveling in for the morning session. we'll bring you to the floor, live coverage, here on c-span.