giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> here's a look at our live coverage today. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span a discussion on the pandemic and the medical supply chain from the washington international trade association. followed by a house administration subcommittee hearing at noon on access to voting in u.s. elections. at 3:30, the urban institute looks at how the pandemic affects immigrant families. on c-span two, chief of staff ron klain speaks to politico about the biden administration agenda. at 10:50 in the trial continues for former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin, charged in the death of george floyd. coming up in an hour, aaron s

hurr and jason sneed on state elections and changes to george's voting laws. at 9:00 a.m., sheryl gay stolberg on the expansion of the aboard all care act -- affordable care act. ♪ host: we begin with president biden's pitch to raise taxes for infrastructure. the plan is drawing opposition from republicans while a new poll shows that raising taxes on wealthy americans and corporations is ok with more than one into voters. -- one in two voters. if you support the idea of raising taxes for infrastructure, dial in at (202) 748-8000. if you are opposed to it, (202) 748-8001. undecided? (202) 748-8002.

you can also text us with your first name, city and state, at (202) 748-8003. or send us a tweet with the handle @cspanwj. and you can go to facebook.com/c-span and post your comment there. the president was in pittsburgh yesterday encouraging americans to support his idea. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> here's what i do. i start with one will. no one, say it again, no one making under $400,000 will see a federal tax go up. this is not about penalizing anyone. i have nothing against millionaires and billionaires. i believe in american capitalism. i want everyone to do well. but here's the deal, right now a middle-class couple, a firefighter and a teacher with two kids taking a combined salary of 110,000 dollars per

year pays $.22 for each additional dollar they earn in federal income tax. but a multinational organization that builds a factory abroad and brings it home to sell it, they pay nothing at all. we are going to raise the corporate tax. it was 35%, which was too high. we all agreed five years ago it should be down to 28%. but they reduced it to 21%. we will raise it back to 28%. no one should be able to complain about that. it's still lower than the rate between world war ii and 2017. just doing that one thing will generate $1 trillion in additional revenue over 15 years. in 2019 an independent analysis found that there are 91, say it again, 91 fortune 500 companies,

the biggest companies in the world, including amazon, who use various loopholes where they pay not a single solitary penny in federal income tax. i don't want to punish them. that's just wrong. that's just wrong. farmer and a teacher -- fireman and a teacher paying 22%? amazon and other corporations paying zero federal taxes? i'm going to put an end to that. host: president biden on wednesday. he went on to talk about more about how he plans to pay for this infrastructure spending. listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> we are going to level the international playing field. that alone will raise $1 trillion over 15 years. we will also look at that duct -- look at the deductions from

corporations for shipping assets overseas. you do that, you pay a penalty, you don't get a reward in my plan. you use the savings from that to give companies tax credits to locate manufacturing here and manufacturing production here in the united states. we will significantly ramp up the irs enforcement against corporations to either fail to report their incomes or underwrote or, raising hundreds of billions of dollars. -- underreport, raising hundreds of billions of dollars. it's honest, it's fiscally responsible, and by the way, as the experts will tell you, it reduces the debt, the federal debt, over the long haul. let me be clear. these are my ideas for how to pay for this plan. those with additional ideas, come forward. i'm open to other ideas so long as they don't impose any tax

increases on those making less than $400,000. host: president biden with his pitch yesterday, raise corporate taxes and in exchange, improve the infrastructure of the country. do you support or oppose the idea? south carolina, go ahead. caller: i believe that these taxes should be raised. as far as reconstruction is concerned, when bush was on hand he gave a tax cut to the super rich and no money came back to the coffers because they put it in bank accounts off the coast down there. trump did the same thing. that was just for the super rich. this infrastructure will go to the working people. and some of that money, a percentage of it will be returned in taxes to the coffers of the united states. and it's about time that people

got a break instead of the super rich. guest: all right. william in middletown, connecticut, sends us a text to say that this is a wide definition of infrastructure based on the scope of projects in the spending bill. take a look at what the front page of "the new york times" put together. this is what the president plans to spend on transportation, broken down by roads, bridges, public transit, passenger rail, airports, road safety improvements, and buildings and utilities, affordable housing, high-speed broadband, clean energy, public schools, the water system in this country. this is an billions, by the way. these figures are in billions. veterans hospitals, jobs and innovation. he wants to spend 52 billion dollars on domestic manufacturing, money for the science foundation, $50 billion for the supply chain support,

clean energy manufacturing, research infrastructure, climate technology, small-business support, the list goes on. again, those numbers in the billions. illinois, ken, you are also supporting this idea. good morning. caller: hello. greta? host: morning. caller: good morning to you and c-span viewers. i'm, i get real tired about the republican whining whenever the democrats get into office and complain that the deficit is -- yes, the deficit will expand. it will expand for good economic reasons which will help the country instead of just giving back taxable income -- taxable money back to their rich donors.

the plans, the plans being formulated are going to benefit the country as a whole, which has been very, you know, huge, huge lack of development for decades because the republicans are obstructionists. they say that you know, they want the united states to compete with china, which is spending multiple billions on their infrastructure development. they are going out beyond their borders to have a large influence on the world. the republicans, [indiscernible] [mock whining voice]

[indiscernible] we will always be a second-class nation to them. so, the republicans had better contribute, if they have any, intellectual power towards that end. host: the white house often cites, when talking about the infrastructure strategy, that we rank 13th in the world when it comes to infrastructure. caller: and we will sink further if we allow the republicans to block and dissuade and obstruct progress in developing a economic viability. guest: -- host: this is cnbc reporting, the headline is about mitch mcconnell, the republican

leader of kentucky. he slammed the tax hikes and the infrastructure built, saying he's unlikely to support it. cnbc reports that the republican leader said that if the plan is going to have massive tax increases and trillions more added to the national debt, it's not likely he would support it and mcconnell said that biden called him to brief him on the plan, the second time that they have spoken since the biden inauguration host: listen to senator john

barrasso, a ranking republican in leadership. he was on foxbusiness yesterday. [video clip] >> what the democrats are pursuing here, you mentioned it last night, they are working on wealth redistribution. when you raise taxes and they say it will only be on businesses and high earners? people pay taxes. businesses pay tech -- don't pay taxes. they pay taxes through lower wages and higher costs when they buy things. the middle class ends up paying the price of these tax increases . and it costs us in terms of our competitiveness. what we don't know yet is how much of this $3 trillion that they are talking about how much of it will be just adding more to the debt and how much will be by raising taxes. we have added significantly to the debt over the last 12 months because of the coronavirus crisis and we can't afford to add anymore. host: carrie in canton, north

carolina, you oppose increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pay for this infrastructure. good morning. caller: gretchen, biden done lied. he done raised gas prices and done raised food prices. so, why should we believe them? we had eight years of the obama administration. a total lie. what they did for our infrastructure than, remember the not so shovel ready jobs? i heard the guy from illinois talking about whining and crying republicans. it's people like him who have funded the elite in this country. don't forget the billionaire class bought their way into the biden administration. bill gates, tom steyer, zuckerberg, the entire billionaire class did. host: sounds like you are ok

with taxing corporations but you don't trust the biden administration to do it? is that accurate? caller: well, i think donald trump approved with lowering taxes how much revenue could come into washington. we raised businesses. we have had more jobs than i have seen in over 30 years. yet here we are, paying six-figure salaries to people in washington while the american people are making five figure salaries and suffering. tell me the competence around what democrats have done. i keep hearing that barack obama inherited a mess. we put democrats in charge in 2006. nancy pelosi became the very first woman speaker of the house on the promise of keeping george w. bush from ruining the economy. when obama and the democrats

said they inherited a mess, did they lie to us then? what did barack obama inherit? were they that stupid that they let one man ruin the economy? i don't believe that whatsoever. host: ok. caller: i think they did it intentionally. host: let me throw this out for you and others from "the new york times," supporters counter "the changes would do much more to promote growth and curbing the excesses of the 2017 tax legislation. democrats of already said that the low tax approach has already failed to deliver broad economic gains with only those at the very top and a fitting

host: derek on facebook says that he opposes it. cut the pork and useless programs the government has no business being involved in, stop sending money to other countries, you will find there is money for important things. florida, what do you say? caller: what i think is it's a bunch of malarkey, as our president would say, that they are going to raise taxes on the rich. all of the google and microsoft, amazon, they voted for the democrats because they knew the democrats were going to raise taxes and they also knew that they were never going to revise the tax code.

these people have thousands of lawyers and accountants, paying them billions, to get them out of paying taxes legally because the tax code allows it. host: again, sounds like you don't trust president biden to enforce corporations to pay them. so, if this was proposed -- caller: i think he's just a figurehead. . host: if president trump had said that he wanted corporations to pay more, would you support the idea? caller: only if they revised the tax code. only pay more if they revise the tax code. they are never going to pay more than they want to pay. you can raise it to 75% and as long as the tax code is not revised, they are not going to pay that amount of money. they are not. host: ok.

let's take a look at some figures from "the washington times." if you can hang on the line, i want to bounce this off of you. this is what, according to "the washington times" and the white house website say they want to do. increase minimum taxes on foreign source income of u.s. multinational corporations and make it harder for businesses to merge to avoid u.s. taxes host: you heard the president say have a minimum 21% corporate tax rate so that companies cannot avoid taxes by going overseas. caller: that's just a few

things. have you ever seen the tax code and the loopholes in it? have you ever seen it? host: it's huge. caller: it's like five feet tall. you listed a couple little things. there's never going to be a minimum. there's never going to be a minimum. as long as the tax code remains in place, they cannot collect it. because they are doing illegally. i don't know, i do not trust this group in the white house. host: alright. take a look at this poll done by pew research. positive view of the government handling of certain policy areas. when it comes to maintaining infrastructure, look at the numbers. 40% have a somewhat good view of the government handling infrastructure. 13% say a very good view of the government handling infrastructure as opposed to only 23%, who have a very bad

view, and 22%, a somewhat bad view. cleveland, ohio, oppose. hi, raymond. caller: yes. i have a question here. i have noticed the prices at my corner stores have been going up so fast that the tags are not keeping up. i have heard that there is a 20% increase in the money supply. i also have a question here, you can look this up for me -- host: how do you feel about raising corporate taxes to pay for infrastructure? caller: the corporations are benefiting from this. those trucks and trains are the ones that benefit. my question about raising taxes here is that i think no one is asking the question of how we are paying for this. what i have been told is that it

has been a 20% increase in the money supply, meaning the government is printing more money, causing inflation in the long run. can someone look into how much the money supply is right now and what we are printing up to pay for all this? host: all right. nevada city, california. you oppose it as well? caller: yes. i don't oppose the tax hikes as much as the lies behind them. the infrastructure bill, and less than 10% of it goes to infrastructure. just like the stimulus bill, less than 10% was for stimulus. they are running these bills, the higher majority of the bill is more for welfare. but i was reading an article the other day that the proposed tax hikes on corporations would not even begin to pay for this.

you have heard biden say that he would not raise taxes on anybody making less than 400,000 dollars. then that turned into households making under 400 thousand dollars. it will be a trickle-down tax on the middle class. host: in what way? caller: i run on the theory that the democrats, when they talk about taking care of the people, it's all the people except for the taxpayers, the backbone of the country. take on taxpayers to support their social plans. host: got it. so, in what way does the middle class pay for this? caller: was that? host: in what way will the middle class pay for this? caller: because the taxes, they are calling, he calls it taxes on corporations. but he also has a plan to raise taxes on everything. he said 400,000, remember?

not raise taxes on anybody making less than $400,000? but then that turned into households making $400,000. so, that's two people making 200,000 dollars. it's going to trickle down. host: ok. the wall street journal argues "the great political factory -- fakery, everyone knows that corporations don't pay taxes, they are vehicles for collecting taxes ultimately paid by some combination of customers, higher prices host: ted, new york, you are

supporting the president on this. good morning to you. hey, ted, in the new york. it's your turn. ted in new york? are you there, ted? all righty. michael in portland, oregon, says support in principle but the plan is too ambitious and needs to be scaled back, we don't have the economic power at present to try a one and done project like this. eric in new hampshire, you are undecided. why is that? caller: i think what makes me dubious about the plan, like the suppose it covid bill, -- supposed covid bill, it's another bill loaded with pork. i will use bidens words -- biden

passwords, pork on steroids. he likes to say that about certain things, about voting rights, jim crow on steroids. this is pork on steroids. there is very little that is going to go to infrastructure and the social infrastructure, the new word and phrase that's been made up is crazy. we really need to look at where it's going. it's really out of control. the bill will do nothing for infrastructure. it's just dumping money into ludacris biden. thank you. host: evelyn in chicago. you support, evelyn. good morning. caller: hi, hi. my ex-husband is a civil engineer. they need to talk to other engineers about for structure. he's been talking about it since he graduated from engineering

school in the 70's and it has been progressively deteriorating . our infrastructure is so bad that a lot of the engineers fear that the bridges at any moment could collapse. the water systems are shop in this country. the sewage -- shot in this country. the airports, everything in this country needs to be overhauled. it's well past due. he worked for the steel industry, same situation. he has worked for airports, same situation. buildings, you name it. he worked in chicago. he worked in indiana. people need to just look around and look at some of the things you drive on, the bridges and highways you drive over. look at the concrete where it is cracked. unjust, the people who don't want anything done about the

infrastructure, i think, i think their lives are in peril and our children's and grandchildren's lives are in peril. host: your ex-husband, the civil engineer, the civil engineer organization gave us a grade this year and it was d-this year, going to evelyn's point. how president biden can get this passed through congress is a question. you heard earlier republicans say they have to use reconciliation. that means he doesn't need 60 votes, he can get it passed with 51. from roll call this morning, republican reaction suggested democrats would have to go through reconciliation again, enabling tax legislation with just 51 votes in the senate, the biggest challenges could come from democrats.

host: aaron, bessemer city, north carolina. you oppose. go ahead, tell us why. caller: corporate tax is a joke. when obama was president, biden was vice president. the ceo of general electric was

the jobs are -- job czar for the obama administration. that year he made over $1 billion and didn't pay a penny in taxes. so, they got so many loopholes for corporations, how they are going to raise corporate tax and run business in the united states and create more jobs? creating more jobs in america? what biden is worried about is union jobs. and what we need is good paying jobs for all americans. not just union members. host: frank, montana, you support it. good morning. caller: absolutely i do. i have to marvel at the people i listen to who are worried about whether ge or amazon pays taxes when in reality, it makes very

little difference to the average american. but it does make a difference when you try to drive the distances we have here in montana or you have broadband internet service inco hagan, montana. that makes a great difference. it's got to be paid for sooner or later and we might as well do it now. there's no reason to wait. just to make mitch mcconnell and joe mansion happy? -- joe manchin happy? caller: paul, minnesota. -- host: paul, minnesota? caller: the end user always ends up paying taxes. it's going to be just like another tax on you and me, alright? also it seems like no one in this country is working, they are dead on their feet. they think that taxes need to go into infrastructure for their

own. why should i pay for something in new york i will never probably use or somebody in california and why should they paypeople should pay for their n stuff, if they have tollroad or bridges or whatever. a lot of times the airport here in orlando, they have user fees for these airlines. so there has got to be a way out without raising taxes, have union dues for everything -- in mississippi, florida, and all these southern states. that's all i got to say. host: here is an idea by robert poole, transportation policy at the reason foundation, author of "rethinking america's highways p writes, "will infrastructure with private cash. in use across the world to finance infrastructure. last year alone, infrastructure investment funds raised a new record $102 billion in equity. despite the pandemic, they invested $54 billion in project worldwide last year.

those who invest in these funds are institutional investors such as insurance companies and public pension funds. they seek to invest equity in projects that generate revenue and are a good match for long-term viability. the majority of this private investment goes to project outside the united states. other countries have private airports and toll roads so the fund can -- in this country, those assets are owned by government. the only way funds can invest equity is if the facilities are leased long-term as public-private partnerships. you can read more in "the wall street journal," robert poole writing today. let's go to dan. undecided in lincoln, nebraska. hi, dan. caller: how are you doing this morning? i am sort of in a quandary about all this stuff because i happen to think that if we tax

corporations, businesses out of existence, then so what? you know, i think this restriction needs a lot of infrastructure spending, but infrastructure incorporates a lot of stuff. the people that are complaining about "social spending, social infrastructure spending" are probably the same people that in certain parts of the country, probably the same people that complain about the potholes, slow internet, and the like. so the term economy, i think we have to redefine, because if we raise taxes for infrastructure spending, then along with that should come rethinking about pollution and making us safe

from the harm that some of these corporations inflict upon us. anyway, so that is why i am undecided. thanks, greta. host: randy, willow springs, missouri. you are in the support category. good morning. caller: good morning, ma'am. it is a shame that we all go to vote, and nobody knows what they are doing, either on the republican side or the democrat side. they don't let anybody do anything. so let them do what they are supposed to do and get together and be one person, one country. host: all right, randy in missouri. bud is watching in lyon, west virginia. hi, bud. caller: good morning, i enjoy

your program. i oppose it because everything that we buy, or cost-of-living, will increase. i don't know how much gas will be or how much food will be, but the middle class and the poor will pay. that is why i oppose it. another thing, the infrastructure and stuff. the solar panels and windmills -- all these products are made in japan -- china. so what are we doing? we are supporting china? we need to build things here, and higher taxes is not the answer. host: all right, bud. "i agree with the tax bill. remember the 2017 tax break."

joel in michigan, you support. hi, joel. good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, i support it. the tax bill -- or the tax cut that comes provided to the rich -- there was nothing really seen as far as the lower income people. i mean, if you were to go and look at reports, institutional taxation and economic policy, the reports say that that tax cut did nothing for the lower middle class. a report in february, 2019, said that netflix, the popular video stream service, posted the largest profit in 2018, 840 5 million. but it is not paying a dime in federal estate income taxes.

the company reported a $22 million federal tax rebate. how do you get a rebate if you do not pay for anything? that's one thing. also, in april 2019, a report called meet the new corporate tax system, same as the old corporate tax system, it goes into corporate tax advance remains rampant under the new law, released in april 2019, found that 60 fortune 500 companies paid zero federal income tax in 2018 despite enjoying large profit as a group. these countries -- these companies enjoy $79 billion in u.s. income, and the federal tax rebate of $3.4 billion. other reports shows that, from

-- by corporate leaders in the wage of new law passage remain use of corporate tax cuts so far have been a $1 trillion wave on stock buybacks from the corporations. so, you know, we need to stop the rich from getting richer on the poor. host: bobby in alabama. are you there? caller: i'm here. host: all right, your turn. caller: i appreciate it. absolutely is going to be a debacle, like pretty much everything the government does. it has been the willie mammoth in the room for a long time -- it has been the willie mammoth -- the wooly mammoth in the room, red china.

determining what the topic of the day is going to be. i would presume that because of some very limited, horrible attacks on asian americans, there has been a silencing of any topic about red china on the c-span program. i watch every day and have since 1979 when brian lamb started the program. it is absolutely scandalous that it is not being covered. the segway to biden is this. of course, massive, massive help is going to be given to our greatest, most powerful foe and adversary, the people's republic of china. as an earlier caller referenced and was pretty quickly silenced. i am shocked that your network is not covering this. i suspect that because of the board of directors, telecommunication, multimillionaires, anybody who wants to check c-span, i encourage that to your credit you at least publish it. there are only two minority members of your board of

directors. each one of them is either a billionaire or a multimillionaire. they are white males. they have huge dealings with the people's republic of china, and to suggest that there is not influence put on the editorial decision at c-span is simply derelict and untrue. host: bobby, it is not true at all. there is no editorial input from them, none. harry in boone, iowa, you oppose. go ahead. caller: yeah, i oppose. i don't impose infrastructure. we need the -- i don't oppose infrastructure. we need infrastructure. but pull your newspaper back out there and let's pull out what it is spent on. host: the new york times? caller: we can break all that down. i will give you credit -- host: sir, hold on one second. while you talk, we will show it. go ahead. caller: i was going to say there is about 10% of that whole

dollar amount getting spent on infrastructure. that means roads, bridges, airports, things that people use every single day that we need repair on. i am going to go ahead and give you 25% of it, so you take 25% out of all of that money. now let's break down where all that other money is going. do we really need to spend all that other money where they are spending it? then they want to play on everybody's emotions, just like they did on the last bill. the last bill they played on emotions that we are going to give everybody a $1400 check. everybody likes money, everybody wants that. nobodies looking past what else they put in there. besides that for hunt -- nobody is looking past where allstate -- what else they put in there -- nobody is looking past what else they put in there. nobody likes potholes, nobody likes the maintenance on their vehicles because of it, so they

play on everybody's emotions. break it down. i will give you 25% of that bill is only going towards the emotion part of what they are playing on people. the rest is spent on their democratic wish list. they want a green deal. they want to take buildings apart and do it the way they want to do it because of the future. i understand that. when you build a new building, this needs to be in it. but let's don't go back through the ancient buildings of the past and try to go to the mall and re-retrofit them for the future. that's build the future for the future. host: you might be interested in the business section of "the new york times this morning." "biden unveils plan for electric future." "electric vehicles remain a niche product, just making up 2% of the cart market and 1% of all

cars on the road. they can cost up to $10,000 more than similar conventional cars and trucks. starting ev's is slower -- charging ev's is also slower than filling a car at a gas station. he aims to lower the cost by offering individuals, businesses, and governments tax credits and other incentives. j in east syracuse, new york. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. good morning, america. i live in an era where there are 750,000 people or more, and i have several options for my internet and cable tv, things of that nature. what we are doing is this -- with this is having to go in and fill the gaps with the economy in this country. it is not profitable for these companies to go out where there are only 10 people per square

mile or less in the rural areas, and they will never have adequate service for the internet or other things because it is not profitable for companies to go there. without the government stepping in and filling in the gaps, those people will be left to free-market devices, each would not be for very much at all. 25 years into the internet and still having problems like this. thanks, have a good day. host: robert in texas responding to the viewers that say corporations will just pass the tax hikes on to the consumer, writing that the price of groceries, lumber, gasoline, has increase without raising taxes on corporations. so it is necessary for corporations to pay their share of taxes. karen in california, you are undecided. why is that? caller: i am not undecided. i am decided. host: all right. caller: now you are ready to

talk to me. i am undecided because if you know your history, doesn't this history remind you of when they first started america, over here with the wealthy? they sent the wealthy overcome and the wealthy ran out of money , which made spain and england push to try to get control? this pandemic is reminding me of that same running out of money. now, why do people think -- why do our legislators think, well, if we give into this, we have to take from that. we have a treasury -- all when you to do is put the proposals to the treasury. this is 2021. host: all right, karen. debbie, mitchell, south dakota. why do you not support raising taxes for infrastructure? caller: well, there might have to be some, but what the feds

are trying to do is way out of whack. what bothers me is that so many of the callers have totally forgotten about remembering their civics classes in high school. first of all, the city and county and state things are supposed to be figured out by your own counties' director of equalization. taxes are assessed on property, and even rural property, etc., for those three entities, and the people that are on the city council or the county commissioners, or the state legislators -- they have got a certain budget and have to plan ahead of time. our problem is, of course, washington, d.c., with the federal taxes. i do agree with many of the callers that the federal --

should federal taxes be remembering americans, u.s. citizens, not foreigners. you know what i mean? host: abraham in california, supporting the president on this. hi, abraham. caller: good morning, greta. host: good morning to you. caller: thank you. i'm baffled. every time i listen to this, a lot of the people that are opposing all these programs claim that they are antitax and they are, you know -- they want america or localities to take care of these things. most live in welfare states. most of the money is being generated by blue states. most businesses are created by blue states, and yet it seems like they always blame democrats as being antibusiness or not

successful, and somehow they are branded as the people that don't know anything, although they are running the country. most of the educated people are democrats, most of the people who care about others or care about social programs are democrats. this is what built the country. people caring about people. all of a sudden we live in a country right now where we are divided on party lines, and the statements at lunchtime are loaded with people who are anti-immigrant. that is not america. america was built on bringing your poor and hungry from around the world, and created the great's nation on the face of this land. we are getting away from that. we are becoming isolationist, and people that just -- people

are just very selfish and very shortsighted. so i hope that is ending soon. host: gordon, kansas city, kansas. you are next. why are you opposing this? let me push the button. there you go. are you there? caller: yes. good morning and thank you for taking my call. i was going to address the guy that quoted from the international tax policy or something, that said that the middle class got no benefit from mr. trump's tax cuts. well, i got $2400 a year. i'm retired, i'm old. i am pretty close to death probably, but he benefited me $2400 a year and my grandson's 529 dollars went to the roof. as to biden is moderate. he is not coming up with this stuff. he says i wrote this in my bill,

in my bill. he did not write anything. his handlers are telling him exactly what is going to happen, and he doesn't have the mental capacity anymore to go against any of this stuff. they are pushing all this socialism on us, and the inflation is going to eat our cookies. remember jimmy carter separate inflation was 18% -- member -- remember jimmy carter's inflation was 18%. i miss president trump so bad. goodbye. host: let's listen to what president biden had to say in pittsburgh, trying to sell this plan to america. [video clip] pres. biden: in america, anything is possible. like what we did with the vaccines a decade ago, laying the foundation for the covid vaccines today. like we did with the highway system, the way we travel, work, and developed. americans can visit relatives

anywhere in the country, just with the family station wagon. in pittsburgh you can load up a truck and get a product to portland or phoenix. to this day, out of a quarter of all the miles americans drive each year on one of those original highways, imagine what we can do, what is within our reach if we modernize those highways. you and your family can travel coast to coast single tank of gas on board a high-speed train. we can connect people to high-speed internet no matter where you live. imagine knowing your handing your children and grandchildren a country that will lead the world in producing clean energy technology, and we will need to address one of the biggest threats of our time. that is what we will do. altogether along with the american rescue plan, the proposal i put forward will create millions of jobs, estimated by some wall street

outfits, over 18 million jobs over four years. good paying jobs. it also works to level the playing field of power workers to make sure the good jobs -- the new jobs are good jobs that you can raise a family on, and organize and bargain collectively. that is why my plan asked commerce to -- asked commerce -- congress to pass a proactive plan. this plan is important not only with how and when we build but also important as to where we build. to alter the economic growth recovery concentrated on the coast. too often investments fail to meet the needs of marginalized communities left behind. there is talent and innovation everywhere. this plan connects the talent through cities, small towns, rural communities, through our businesses and universities, to our entrepreneurs, union workers

all across america. we have to move now, because i'm convinced if we act now, in 15 years -- in 50 years people will act and say this was the moment that america made the future. [end video clip] host: president donald trump said under biden's plan, if you -- if you close down your factories in ohio, michigan, fire u.s. workers and move your production to beijing and shanghai, you will pay less. it is the exact opposite of putting america first. it is putting america last. georgia and florida, you're undecided? caller: yes, ma'am. first of all, i have to say that you are one of the most attractive girls on television, and i am an old man, so don't take that the wrong way.

i think socialism is dying a death, and they are doing everything they can to try and lock us into more socialism. this country is falling behind in the world because of that, due to the fact that the world -- russia is dead, venezuela is died, all of these socialist countries are going -- that lady in south america wants a washing machine, she can get it now. why would anybody want to go back to socialism? we have this dictator going around, biden. they all are trying to jam down our throats with a lastgasp effort. host: let me go to gary, moorefield, west virginia,

supporting the president. gary, your turn. caller: good morning, how are you doing? i listen here to everybody talking about socialism and i don't know where the hell they come up with that. if you listen to all these nice people, the chinese and everybody else, trying to take over the world or becoming whatever it is they want to become. to follow what we need to come everybody look at where gas has gone up since last year, and this is before president biden got in. so everything is going to go up no matter what you do. but at least get the people at the top part to start paying their share. they are not sending anything out of the country. you people on the other side of the aisle just don't want to listen to what the president has to say, because the other president for four years, we are going to have infrastructure.

it is awful funny, it never came to fruition. so give the president a shot. if we don't, we are not going to have infrastructure for your children, great-grandchildren. everybody keeps saying they are so worried about it. i am worried about it. i have 32 grandchildren, and trust me i definitely worry about them. you have a great day, greta. host: all right, francis, farmington, missouri, posing president biden. good morning. caller: yes, before we go down this road to this huge expense, i think i have some questions. who is over all the infrastructure in the obama regime? was it joe biden? what is he spending the money on? do we have these highways that went to know where or businesses that were spent for people? are they still in business?

i think we need to maybe have an audit and find out what all this money was spent for the first time when he did this and why do we have to do it again? i think we need to know exactly what this money is going to be spent on. host: so you want more details? caller: definitely. i don't think we should go out and spend money and their are no answers to what the money is for. how do we know if all the money will be spent on infrastructure this time? host: there could be changes made in congress, francis. usa today, what is in this plan? they have some details of what the president would like to do. 170 $4 billion on electric vehicles. $800 billion on amtrak's repair backlog. $115 billion for bridges, highways, roads, main streets in need of repair. resiliency to climate disasters, 25 billion for miscellaneous,

$20 billion for road safety, 20 $5 billion for airports, $20 billion to connect neighborhoods, 17 billion dollars for waterways, and for water infrastructure, $111 billion. the electric grid, $100 billion. if you go to whitehouse.gov, they have put together a lengthy summary of what the president is proposing. joyce in douglas -- go ahead, francis. joyce, in douglasville, georgia. caller: good morning, greta. host: good morning. caller: i support the president 's tax raise, because, you know, america -- we don't improve america. we don't have honest infrastructure. really becoming to look like

third world countries. who better to campaign for this but the person with security income, retirement income, fast food restaurants, or the people who own the sky towers that has the big companies that does all the trading and export overseas, the very rich. you see what i'm saying? people think about are we raising taxes on the rich or the corporate america? corporate america is the one who does the wall street trading, the nasdaq trading. so we want our country to look good, we got to kind of work in the garden. we have to improve these roads. we have to improve our schools. if not, we're going to and up 50

to 100 years in the future looking like a third world country. host: vernon in alexandria, virginia. caller: thank you for taking the call. it all sounds very nice, and for a lot of the infrastructure, but electric vehicles -- tell the people in arkansas, kansas, when a tornado comes through and everything is devastated, what do you do for a truck that is electric that cannot get to the place to put up the new lines? i mean, electricity is a wonderful thing, but airplanes need fuel, too, and no one ever says about how much pollution comes from an airplane. it is a wonderful thing to put money out there, but i don't know.

i won't be around to pay it, but somebody is going to have to someday. host: vernon in alexandria, virginia. we will leave the conversation there for now. when we come back, we will turn our attention to election laws and talk about georgia's boarding was next, with aaron scherb of common cause, and the honest election project's jason snead. from the new york times, sheryl gay stolberg discusses the expansion of subsidies under the affordable care act, the expansion of the enrollment period. announcer: listen to see's podcast "the weekly." this week, tara oh. >> know your enemy, know yourself. this goes back to knowing -- i don't necessarily want to say enemy. i could say no your opponent,

your challenger. that is something we have to understand because if we don't understand that portion right, then everything us really won't matter because it does not address the fundamental issue, which is the communist party and its tendency and its goals. announcer: fine c-span's "the weekly," where you get your podcasts. american history tv come on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend, saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, on oral histories. recounting her time as an army nurse during the vietnam war. send at 2:00 p.m. eastern, milton jones recalls his parents as a marine in vietnam. his experience as a marine in vietnam. on "the civil war," the depiction of slavery in hollywood films. and the assassination attempt on

ronald reagan. sunday on "the presidency." we will look at presidents' first address to congress, president reagan in 1981 and president bill clinton in 1993. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. announcer: washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is aaron scherb, director of legislative affairs for common cause, and jason snead, director of honest election project, talking about state election laws. what is your organization and who funds you? guest: thanks so much for having me on this morning. , and because is a national test common cause is a national -- common cause is giving a voice to everyday americans in government, funded by small

donors, larger donors, and we care deeply about strengthening and protecting our democracy. host: jason snead, same question to you. guest: good morning, thank you for having me. honest election project is also a nonpartisan group. we are engaged every day defending the rights of american voters regardless of political persuasion, to a fair election that they can trust and ensuring that their voting rights are preserved. we also funded by a mr. of donors who care passionately about the need to defend good and honest election policies throughout all 50 states, and we continue to enjoy their support as we press on to make sure that we have all got good and successful election policies on the books. host: i want to invite our viewers to join in on this conversation. if you are a republican, 202-748-8001. democrat, 202-748-8000.

independent, 202-748-8003. let's begin with the georgia law that was just signed into law by the government test by the governor. an id requirement for voters requesting an absentee ballot. move ballot drop boxes inside and make them for early voting days to make them available for early voting days and early hours. prohibiting disturbing food and drink to voters waiting in line. jason snead, your group was pushing for these changes. how come? guest: we have to as a first goal ensure voter confidence in our elections, that is why i was pleased to see the application of the voter application requirements absentee ballots. the -- prior to this law, there

was a voter id in place for absentee voting, but it was a significantly reduced aspect of the election, so rather than allow that to become a loophole to get around this very basic common sense electric -- election safeguard, georgia applied it to absentee ballots, and -- this new requirement that you write an id number will not only streamline the process but also cut down on false positives and error rates in terms of rejecting host: ballots. -- rejecting ballots. host: aaron scherb, what impact could this have on elections? guest: first of all, let's be clear. republicans in georgia and around the country did not like the election where there

were record high levels of turnout. so many republicans are doing what they can to prevent certain people, including students, from voting here. so it is as simple as that. it will have a significant impact on the right to vote and our freedom to vote around the country. host: jason snead, the new law as we noted remove the secretary of state as the chair of the state election board. why was this done? guest: that when i'm not too sure about the particulars of why the georgia legislature decided to make that particular change. but i do want to respond, if i can, to the general characterization just made about why some of these election changes are being adopted. i would strongly reject the notion that this is because of the result or the outcome of 2020, that it was disliked by republicans or by conservatives. what we are talking about is trying to ensure that voters have greater confidence in their relations going forward, and

also with the adoption of a number of these sorts of measures, that it is easier to dispel false allegations of election fraud going forward, which again will have the effect of providing greater confidence and greater certainty to voters and encourage participation. that is why voter id laws are favored by wide margins across the united states and across every demographic group in the united states. more than three quarters of voters supported voter id laws. this is just commonsense policy. it has nothing to do with stopping people from casting ballots. i want more people voting. i want it to be as easy as possible to cast a ballot as long as we are not compromising fundamental security in the process. host: aaron scherb, was there fraud in this last election? guest: first of all, there was record high voter turnout, something we should all celebrate and embrace. you are more likely to get struck by lightning rather than have voter fraud occur.

these elections were safe, secure, accessible. you want to talk about voter fraud, let's talk about the big lies from president depart -- from president trump's own department of security. hundreds of baseless lawsuits, trying to overturn state's elections. asking state and local election officials to find that didn't exist. our elections are safe, secure, and accessible, and this bill is a false bill. host: jason snead, why was this bill necessary if there were few irregularities or fraud? guest: there is always opportunities to improve the election process. we should never a route -- we should never rest on our laurels to make sure that it delivers accurate and reliable results and brings trust to voters, and

moving to princeton's to a voter id requirement, considered by many to be best practice in the election space. this one is used to replace the signature match program on the ballots, and it cuts down on false positive rejections of those ballots, leads to more objective standard, and streamlines the process. saving manpower and resources makes a ton of sense to me, and that is why in recent polling done by our partner organization , 60 6% of americans support that policy. i think that when you actually ask individual voters what they think should be in place in terms of election measures, you see things like voter id laws, and particularly voter id laws that need to be balanced as well. we have the opportunity to improve the functioning and ultimately to build confidence in the process. i'm glad to see that the states are taking advantage of that. host: let's talk about what is

happening in other states. aaron scherb, what are you seeing after the 2020 election? guest: we have seen hundreds of bills introduced by republican state legislators that further restricts our right to vote come everywhere -- everywhere from new hampshire to iowa to michigan to texas, to arizona, certainly into george as well. it is not just pro-voting rights groups that are coming out, but common cause is pushing back against these efforts. just yesterday the delta airlines ceo said, "the entire rationale for this bill was based on a lie that there was widespread voter fraud in georgia in the 2020 elections. this is sibley not true. unfortunately, that excuse is used across the nations that are attending to pass similar legislation for restricting voter rights." that was the delta airlines ceo yesterday. another ceo came down harshly on

the fb 202 in georgia as well. we hope that corporations and others and other states around the country as well will push back against voter suppression attempts. host: jason snead, your response. guest: one of the things we are hearing now is an unwillingness to talk about particular aspects of the georgia bill or any other policy. you are hearing broad strokes that are designed to muddy the waters. rather than talking about very popular policies. 77% of americans want voter id laws. you hear a lot of rhetoric and not a lot of specifics. i wish we could move beyond that. i wish we could talk the on these specifics, and ultimately i wish we could deliver to voters the policies that they want, when three quarters of the american electorate, including majorities in the black community, in the hispanic

community, majorities in low income voters, want a voter id law. i don't understand why this is such a contentious or controversial policy. host: gina in texas, democratic caller, you are up first. morning. caller: thanks, ma'am. i appreciate you taking my call. i have a couple of statements to say. first of all, i call on the republican line and they said that i called on the democrat line, and i said i called on the republican line, mark me down as a democrat, then i would have to call back on the other line to get -- host: let's just get to your question or comment. caller: i didn't appreciate being deceived on calling the numbers, and then they told me i called on the democrat line. these numbers are opposite. that is deception going on and i wanted to call that out. as far as the elections, i have

to register to vote, show my id. i cannot even have lights on in my house right now unless i show an id. i cannot get my car when i walk outside, get on the street and travel without my id. if i buy something at walmart or wherever, i have to show an id so they see that i don't have fraud. these elections do need to show that we are citizens and that we are, you know, voting in america because we are americans, because of our constitution. host: gina, i'm going to leave it there and add to it. so many michigan is saying the same, that's saying something similar, that you need a license to get a covid shot. parents need, take that one. guest: i think -- aaron sneed, take that one.

guest: just this added protection is not necessary in many cases. there are already penalties in place for individuals who try to -- host: jason snead, your response? guest: i would simply say if we do have to have a photo id for so many parts of our life, if we recognize that pre-much everybody has an id, if you make ids free for people who cannot afford them, i don't see why we should not be able to use this in a voting context. i take the point that there are laws on the books to punish voter fraud, but you also have to have tools in place in order to detect that fraud in order to unissued. a lot of these prophylactic measures challenged in court are the things that are targeted in legislation, like hr one in congress, to remove these. i would say that we absolutely

need to be bolstering the safeguards to our elections, not weakening them. host: frank from nashville, tennessee, independent. caller: yes, i was wondering why you have the georgia law that says that you have these alleged -- the legislature able to take the rights away of those who voted one way, and the legislature can change the way that the people in georgia had voted and give it to somebody else. i wonder why that part of the bill was passed, and why it is part of the law of the georgia election bill. host: ok. jason snead? guest: i'm not sure that is what the law does. the provision being referred to talked about the ability to step into local election administration, when local officials are poorly performing. i would characterize that as a basic accountability measure. this has been used in the state of florida, for instance, to

remove local administrators who were incompetent or not performing their duties up to spec. as a result of that, you have seen an improvement in the election administration process in several jurisdictions. this is more design to get at problems with local election administrations, for instance, the fact that during the postelection audits in georgia, there were a couple of instances where flash drives were found where votes that were supposed to have been counted had been overlooked. that is a problem which i think is inexcusable, and if that sort of thing continues to occur in a particular jurisdiction, it is eminently reasonable to have accountability mechanisms in place to ensure that voters can have security in the basic process of voting. host: democratic caller. caller: good morning. perhaps snead and the other

gentleman can rebut. i have specific questions regard to this new situation with absentee ballots. how is this supposed to work with regard to this new identification number? and what is the problem with having someone to distribute food or water to voters in these long lines that are fomented by those who wish to suppress the votes? can you not even have any porta potty's nearby? and what -- what is the issue regarding the drop boxes? i need mr. snead to answer that and perhaps the other fellow can rebut. guest: sure. i will take those in reverse order. the drop boxes -- i am opposed to drop boxes. i think they are a useful means of returning ballots, but you have to solve a couple of

problems with those, including the physical security. there were unfortunately several incidents that were recorded last year where people were vandalizing or even torching those drop boxes. you had to handle the question of physical security and you have to handle equitable distribution throughout the state so that voters regardless of where they live have relatively equal access to the ballot dropbox. as to the point about the lines and the distribution of food and water, i want to be very clear here, the law does not say that water cannot be provided to voters. it actually has a specific carveout that says that elected officials, government employees and the people running -- what the law does not permit is that groups that are engaged in political activities -- going around, for instance, representing the nra, and handing out food and water and other things of value to voters while they are in line -- that

is a standard anti-election hearing type of provision, and a fair number of states have requirements that say you cannot engage in electioneering within a certain radius of the polling places. georgia has closed a loophole being used by groups and says simply you cannot do that within 150 feet of a polling place. this bill also has a new provision that says that precincts have to measure wait times three times a day, and if they exceed more than one hour, they have to take steps like reducing the size of that precincts, opening a new precinct, or adding machines to cut down on wait time. rather than make sure that political groups can hand water to voters, this is allowing water to be given to voters in a nonpartisan fashion, and it also tries to end the lines outright. host: aaron scherb? guest: what georgia republicans did in passing this law is like

a thief wanting praise. criminalizing depriving food and drinks to voters while waiting in line is mean-spirited. there is no getting around that. to the other point, the law also says that each county cannot have more than one drop rocks for each -- dropbox for -- which has 30 get drop boxes in this election, it would have to be reduced down to eight in the future. and it just so happens that fulton county is largely african-american, so they are limiting the restricting of drop boxes. this affects people of color, primarily black georgians as well. there is shortening the time when absentee ballots of voters are reduced by half, as well as being received by election officials. so again, disproportionately it affects democrats and

communities of color. host: diane in jacksonville, florida, republican. you are next. caller: good morning, everyone. host: good morning. caller: i would like to say i don't see any problem why it should be a problem to be able to show either i.d. or provide the proper id in order to vote. he has explained why or how the water and food thing goes, even though i think it is kind of stingy. so i don't see anything wrong with providing food and water for people standing in line, especially the elderly. you know what i'm saying? but as far as the voter id laws, i don't see anything overly drastic about it. i think everyone should have an id anyway. if we don't want to do ids, how about we do fingerprints?

how about everyone in america that votes has to have a fingerprint on file? when you go to vote, stick your finger in the machine, and if it says who you are, fingerprints never lie. host: ok, diane. aaron scherb. guest: the challenge with voter id is that certain people do not have access to them. certain black voters do not have access, certain younger voters if they have moved recently, they might and have a voter id. certainly elderly voters as well. especially during the pandemic, when you're closing elections offices, when you might have to drive a significant distance just to try to get an id, it sounds easy at first but it actually is much more difficult. in a close election, it is disenfranchising. you have a percentage of those verse are -- of those voters who

have a significant impact. especially in the georgia elections come as we know recently. host: this is for both of you. do you agree that if voting was mandatory, with the exception for illness and disability, voting laws would then have to ensure that everyone has easy access to vote? jason snead, why don't you go first. guest: i suppose that's true if voting was mandatory. i don't believe that voting should be mandatory. i also think that as we stand right now, voting laws do generally make voting quite easy. i would go so far as to say that for most people it has never been easier to cast the ballot in the united states. so i don't think that the mandatory voting approach is a good one. i would rather have a system that people trust, that people want to engage with. i would rather have politics and

political rhetoric and dialogue that don't turn people off. when you look at surveys of nonvoters and try to get to the bottom of why they don't participate, it is not because voting is considered hard. the vast majority of people consider it easy. it is because they don't believe in the system, they think it is rigged, they think their vote doesn't count, they don't like the politicians running, so on and so forth. if we are talking about getting a higher rate of voter participation, there are other things that we need to be doing and other things we need to be focusing on. host: aaron scherb? guest: it is an interesting point. australia is one of the best-known countries that does have mandatory voting. i think there are other ways to further incentivize voting as well, and i'm glad that jason brought up hr-1, which is a piece of legislation that common cause and other groups have worked on to establish automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, and many

others to further incentivize participation in democracy to make sure all voters have their voices heard and their vote is counted. the house of representatives passed a transformative bill several weeks ago, and the senate had a hearing a week ago. common cause is very excited about this, legislation that can further incentivize voter registration. host: do you know when that would come to the senate floor? guest: it is unclear exactly. the senate rules committee chairwoman, amy klobuchar, has said there will be a markup in the senate rules committee at some point in april. and we hopefully will expect a senate floor vote. many of the provisions have strong bipartisan support from democratic, republican, and independent voters around the country. host: jason snead, do you agree

that it has bipartisan support? guest: i don't. i have looked at this 800-page bill. i have seen a number of provisions there which not only do not have bipartisan support but are actually opposed i the majority of americans. so let's take a look at the fact that in a demise every voting requirement in the country, would bar states to ask for an id as a requirement of voting. it would also prevent states from applying basic safeguards to their absentee ballots. so not just id requirements like what we have been talking about in georgia, but even requiring a witness. this is a basic best practice because you have to show when you are voting absentee that the person who is returning the ballot is who they say they are. that is just common sense. this would prevent that basic practice from being applied as well. it would also mandate legal ballot harvesting in every community in the united states. this is a practice which puts political operatives in unsupervised direct contact with

voters as they are casting ballots, and it allows them to take unsupervised possession of their ballots. it is one of the most abuse prone practices in the election space, and it is so obviously abuse prone that even the 2005 commission cochaired by former president jimmy college -- jimmy carter, called for it to be abolished in every state. this is just some of the beginning of the policies, but overall it is so concerning that even the new york times a couple of days ago published an article about the rancor building up even amongst a demo -- amongst democratic election administrators about the disaster this bill would cause, particular with all its lines proposing a sweeping overhaul of elections before next year's voting begins, which is an impossible deadline. that may go to warren, ohio, an independent. i will tell you right up front that this stuff, the stuff that

jason snead is spitting out, doesn't wash. you worry about integrity. we have the best run election ever, and you are just pushing the big lie that we have problems. there is no problem with the absentee stuff. there is no real problem to be addressed here, this is all just a smokescreen to create something that isn't fair, and to get an agenda through. the voter id thing is just fine. people have id's all over the place, but the problem is republicans don't want to make something like student id in a state college legal, which is ridiculous. they will let the nra id -- if you have a national rifle association card, they will say that's ok, but not your student id. all the scrap about how we have to have this or that is just krapp. it is more so experience -- is just crap,

it is all smokescreen's. host: let's let jason snead respond. guest: my grip looks at widespread allegation of fraud, which led to the idea that there was no fraud. so my belief in applying voter id laws and improving election operations in other ways has nothing to do with the "big lie this is entirely about ensuring that we have elections that we can trust, and showing voters that there is transparency, that there is accountability, and that the results are accurate. that is really the way we are going to drive up participation in our democracy. as to the point about why certain id's are not six consider why we are asked -- consider why we are asking for

an id. depending on the student id, not everyone may solve that problem, especially when they are expired. that is why you see certain ids included in these laws. as long as the state will issue a free state id or a driver's license, then you solve the idea of access -- solve the problem of access. ready much everyone has id to begin with. host: james in georgia, independent. caller: this is james from georgia, and i think that's what we need to do. i saw this go on. stacey abrams claimed she lost the election when she run for the governor's job. but it is different when it is republicans hollering that. i am for that. across the state of georgia, thousands of dollars to recount,

recount. that will stop all of that. if you are trying to satisfy fulton county, you might as well forget about it. host: will it stop, recount after recount? guest: hr one and s1 would help restore the integrity and what happens in our elections. host: he was talking about the georgia law. guest: i'm not familiar with that provision of the bill. i think there can still be recounts that could occur. that part of the law has not changed. host: go ahead with your point about hr one and s1. caller: it helps restore confidence that the government is working for we, the people instead of we, the corporations and vote suppressors. there are a lot of measures to help prevent voter purges. in the 2018 election, the georgia secretary of state, now

governor camp purged several hundred thousand voters from the rolls before the election. just because somebody doesn't vote in the biggest election is not a justification for removing somebody. it would really help restore confidence and ensure that voters can participate. host: willie in katy, texas, republican. caller: good morning. mr. sneed, please continue with your point and your answers and information. -- has nothing but conjecture and emotion which will fail in court. for example, there are huge election improprieties that were noted in this election and the arizona audit that they are conducting will uncover a bunch of them. georgia should do the same. why are 400,000 ballots in georgia still in fulton county without the required envelopes?

that is crazy. there was a question earlier as to why the secretary of state has been stripped of his "authority" to make election policy. it is a constitutional mandate that the state legislatures are responsible, not the secretary of state, not the governor or any other unelected official. last thing, please, c-span, there is a difference between the absentee voting process and me as a former election -- or rather voting coordinator for the military. there is a difference between absentee voting process and this mail-in voting hybrid process that was created by the states in response to covid. i think c-span should define both of these things and start correcting folks when they get them wrong. host: why don't you go first?

guest: i guess i don't have any response to that other than, i am not -- that provision in the georgia law. when they take away the power from the secretary of state and give it to the head elections officials, i'm not familiar. host: jason snead? guest: i agree with the caller 100%. the constitution gives state legislatures the power to legislate elections. the power is vested within legislatures and there is an interesting debate about this throughout 2020, when you saw groups, particularly groups on the left suing in states across the country and using what are called consent degrees or settlements in court, to get state officials to essentially

counteract election laws and change laws on the fly. that is a process my group opposed and we supported a lawsuit in minnesota which got the eighth circuit to rule the constitution does give this power to legislatures to write election laws, and executive officials cannot change them. i agree 100% about where that power is vested. host: nancy, republican, evans, georgia. caller: i was calling about this last election and the guy that keeps talking about -- first of all, i can tell he hasn't read what governor kemp just past. number one, we don't need the federal government getting into our business in georgia or any other state, and i voted here every election we've had. there should be no problem with somebody having to show an id, if you get a free id in georgia already. this has been enacted for 25

years in georgia. another thing i wanted to bring up, when they say there was not widespread voter id problems, just in my county alone, when they did the recount, there were 65 votes that were for trump that they counted for biden. we have 159 counties in georgia. if there were 65 of those that went on throughout the whole state, that would have changed the election. but the stuff they are saying that goes on in georgia, they have no idea what happened here. it was horrible. we got four mail-in ballots sent to our home that we never asked for. we shredded them and tore them up. we know people that actually signed them and sent them in. i have a friend in alabama who used to live in georgia, and while they were standing in line in alabama to vote, they got a

tech saying -- text saying, your vote is counted in georgia, they haven't lived in georgia for three years. if you don't think all that was going on and that stacey abrams and her sister did not have a lot to do with this, you are wrong. this has been going on since she ran for governor and her sister steps in every time and gets somebody to let the lines last longer. if you want it to be even come up make it even across the whole county. we feel like we are being held hostage by fulton county every election. host: aaron? guest: under the u.s. constitution, congress has the authority to help determine the time, place, and manner of elections, so congress is in many places, past uniform standards -- passed uniform standards. any voter regardless of their

race or zip code should have the chance to vote under uniform standards. that is in the constitution. for some of the other issues this caller mentioned, there are protocols and safety checks, barcodes, other ways to verify that every voter can have just one ballot counted. i am not familiar with those individual instances that she alleged, but there are many checks and balances, safety checks, to ensure every voter has one ballot. host: jason, a text from jason in chicago -- please ask your guest how it is safe to send a copy of your id through the mail with a mail-in ballot. republicans did not have a problem with mail-in voting until the majority of democrats used it. all of a sudden, it is a problem when the never was when the majority of republicans voted by mail. guest: my response would be that the georgia law doesn't require

that you send a copy of your id. it requires that you write either a driver's license number or state issued id number just on the ballot. this is something several other states have done including ohio, which has improved be a problem in any way -- has not proved to be a problem in any way. the problem is not so much absentee ballots per se. it is ensuring safeguards. we have long recognized that it is recognized as valid, that they are the most vulnerable to fraud an error, and you have the most difficult information problems. is this person away from the polling place or observation of officials, the person supposed to be casting the ballot? you have to have measures in place to protect the integrity and solve the information problem that people are who they say they are. it is just the fact that almost

any time you see any degree of widespread fraud, it involves absentee ballots. that was the case in patterson, new jersey, and north carolina, where an election was rigged by republicans using ballot harvesting tactics. it would be mandated in hr one, ballot harvesting. these are the basic prophylactics we need and they are the front line of this current debate on election policy. host: richard in canada, republican. caller: good morning. you said that you found no evidence of widespread voter fraud, but how come there were over 1000 people who signed sworn affidavits who witnessed that? on the night of the election when president trump was leading by a mile, they suddenly stopped counting in those five states. did you investigate who gave that order?

in canada, we have strict voter id laws and anyone against showing voter id is totally corrupt. host: i think that is more for aaron. go ahead. guest: i think the reason that several swing states work continuing -- were continuing to count past election night was because legislators prevented them from counting absentee ballots. you would not end a football game after the third quarter, so you have to let the process play out. state legislatures would allow the counting of absentee ballots to be done beforehand and the election could have been done on election night. counting past election day is something that democrats and republicans and independents should support. host: carolyn in baltimore, democratic caller. caller: hi, and thank you for

c-span. i have one comment and one question. comment is, i'm sure there was fraud in the election. as a matter fact, president told people to mail in and then go to vote, so he tried. i am sure there are checks and balances in place. to mr. snead, as far as id, i live in maryland and to get an id you need to have either a passport or you have to have a birth certificate. but now to get a passport or birth certificate, you need an id. so it is a catch-22 situation. thank goodness i already had nine pets for -- had mined before this went into place. what is your solution for that? someone mentioned having a school id. an id is an id. what is your solution? guest: i am not 100 percent

familiar with the particular law or requirement you are talking about, but generally speaking, the idea is relatively simple and straightforward and as long as you can solve that problem and have a program to make it free for people who cannot afford the id, you've met the basic requirement. id is quite widespread in our society and pretty much every state that has a voter id requirement in place accepts multiple forms of id, trying to make an extensive dutch expansive net. -- expansive net. some ideas not passing muster, the fundamental reason for id is not to create an extra headache for voters. it is to solve the basic problems of who is this voter and are they eligible and qualified to vote? some ids, for instance some student ids, do not solve that

problem because students are itinerant. i for one went to bowling green state university in ohio but maintained my residency in my home town outside of dayton. you have to show you are eligible to vote in that jurisdiction. host: up to maine, joe is in bedford. -- biddeford. caller: jason, have you ever stood in line for six hours to vote? guest: no, i have not. caller: ok. so why do you want people to have to wait? number one. number two, you've contradicted yourself at least three times. you say you want everyone to vote, but you vote but legislatures can take away your vote because they didn't feel like the particular vote.

those contradictions are lie. i used to be a republican. i used to listen to your people but all you do is lie. president of the united states a year ago said that this election was rigged. with no proof. the president of the united states called roethlisberger and reitan tim, all of the people who had a trust for a good -- find me 12,000 votes. how is that a fair election? come on. host: jason? guest: i will say a couple of things. i agree, i thought that call was wrong, so i don't think there is any argument from me on that point. as to the point about

legislatures taking away votes, i've never said that. the point i was making about legislative authority to write election rules is distinct from that question entirely. and then i've also never said that i want people to wait in line. in fact, quite the opposite. when there are lines to vote, that's unconscionable and is a problem that should be solved. the georgia election law has a mechanism to tackle that problem in georgia by requiring that you measure wait times three times a day and if they exceed one hour then you have to take steps to reduce those by adding machines or opening new ones. that is a sensible policy. for most americans, you don't have to wait in line, but where you do, we should be attacking that. some of the long lines were due

to problems from covid, so i do not expect that to happen when the pandemic ends, but when the problems are endemic, we should tackle that host: wilson, california, republican. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: i understand this other guy's scenario with the false narrative about suppressing the vote. there is no suppression of vote asking for an id. you have to have an id to rent a house and almost anything you do in life. that is not suppressing the vote. the implication is that it is stupid to be able to have a 90. get real. -- have an id. get real. guest: it is a problem -- what we need [indiscernible]

many policies would help voter turnout, understanding the right to vote. voter registration, same-day vote registration, same-day early voting, online vote registration, no excuse absentee voting, these reforms happened in red and purple states. common causes help promote and the last 50 years, so if we want to address this, -- host: tina in north carolina, democratic caller, winston-salem. caller: i got so many problems over these republicans. the lady, for instance, saying she was a republican and dialed the wrong number. "washington journal" is never a wrong number. again, that was a republican starting stuff. you can never be honest. ever since trump got into the

church -- republicans are the most dishonest people i've ever seen. host: kenny in glendale, california, independent. caller: great show. when i think a lot of us are overlooking is the motivation behind this sweep of new voter laws, is really that the republicans are aware that they spent the last four years with trump bashing brown america. they see the wave of brown america coming about and that is motivating all the new laws, not so much a law to protect americans, but to protect the republican party from this wave of brown america that they criticize at every turn for the last four years. host: jason? guest: with all respect, i disagree. i cannot speak for the motivation of every republican

lawmaker, but speaking for myself, the policies my group are articulating like voter id laws for absentee ballots, ending ballot harvesting, these are policies that are popular with mainstream americans. voter id laws by a 40 point r.g. in, lack voters support -- margin, black voters support this. only 11% of americans think it should be legal in the united states, vote harvesting. i'm looking out for the interest of all voters and to ensure that everyone, regardless of who you vote for or what you believe in, have a system you can trust, that works well, and delivers prompt, reliable results. host: harold, georgette,

republican. -- georgia, republican. caller: you go to walmart, you have to show id. you go to home depot, you have to show a 90. you go to kroger and buy -- show an id. you go to kroger and buy a lighter, you have to show an id. why is it so hard for the american people to understand that id is not impossible to achieve and have? [indiscernible] the only thing we have to control our government. [indiscernible] out-of-state people and illegal aliens, they can vote if they have got an id which they can buy at some of the patrol

officers. host: is that happening? caller: voter fraud is extremely rare. jason is a clever guy and knows our elections are safe, secure, and accessible. conservatives say the quiet part out loud and admit they cannot win if too many people vote. two weeks in oral arguments before the supreme court on march 2, an attorney for the republican party offered a reason for the voting restrictions and said the measures would disadvantage republicans. last june, then president trump said the biggest risk to his reelection was mail-in voting. they quietly -- say the quiet part out loud and admit the real motivations for this voter id justification. host: jason, a viewer from colorado says he primarily votes by mail. we have wide access to drop

boxes under surveillance. what is wrong with 24 access to drop boxes? the last line to vote i stood in was in texas in 2012. it seems you simply don't trust americans to fairly vote. guest: one of the things with drop boxes is of course the security, and ultimately, individual states and localities have to solve that problem in a way that will work for them, and which they have the resources and logistical capabilities to do. that may well be different in colorado than in texas or georgia. colorado spent a number of years building out its mail-in voting system. it cannot just be turned on like a light switch. to the extent we are talking about ballot security through drop boxes, it is reasonable to have a conversation about what are the limits without compromising the basic security? i just want to take a second to

respond to something that was just said. i don't think this is a conversation about trying to prevent people from voting or fear of widespread voting. we just had an incredibly high turnout at the election, and republicans did very well in down ballot races. the presidency of course was lost, but there were a number of pickups and the house. the senate is on a razor thin margin and down ballot in state legislatures, republicans did well. as a conservative, i don't fear high turnout elections. i think that is something we should be celebrating, and yet we are still having, despite the fact that two cycles in a row we've had unprecedentedly high turnout, we are still talking about voter suppression. we need to talk about how do we continue to show voters they can have confidence in our election system. host: seymour, scottsdale, arizona, democrat. caller: i think the basic

problem is that states have gone their own way, politically motivated, rather than doing a national election by a national voting standard. we need to get the system, based it on social security cards to let people vote. it is sad that only 68% of the country votes when most other major western european countries that are democracies have odor 80% vote. -- over 80% vote. host: aaron? guest: that is certainly an idea worth exploring, and the same thing with voter id. many people in the population might not have a social security card. if you are older, were bowing in a third world area, you might not -- were born in a third world area, you might not have one. that could create some challenges to certain communities as well, might have unintended consequences. host: amy in gray, georgia.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think we are muddying this issue. it is quite simple. in the last three elections, the primary, general, and the runoff, i voted by mail. it was the first time i had done it in about 20 years. i wasn't unusual, and a lot of people took advantage of voting by mail because of course, covid. our representatives, republicans , were totally unprepared for that. and it scared them and we basically use a system that the republicans put in place and something that they thought they could only avail themselves of, and they didn't like the fact that a lot of georgians, african-americans, people of color used that system to their advantage.

so they went out and began to come up with solutions for a problem that doesn't exist because of the simple reason, too many people went out and voted. so let's stop talking about voter id, because it is not about voter id. this is about people voting. it is as simple as that. we need to stop being dishonest about this. host: jason? guest: look, with all due respect to the caller, i've been studying and working on election issues since before donald trump was even a candidate for president, much less president. the policies i've been talking about in terms of absentee voting, the need for protections, have been consistent. this is not a response to how people voted or how many people voted this past cycle, or who voted. this is simply about saying, particularly if we are going to see a continued expansion of

absentee, how do we secure those ballots and give people confidence they are being counted properly and correctly? it works just as much for the individual voter trusting that absentee ballot as all voters trusting the results. i think this is about ensuring we have a system that works for everyone. host: aaron? guest: i will go back to the point to provide proactive measures that all eligible americans can have their voices heard and votes counted. many provisions in this bill have already been passed in red and purple states, supported by republican, democrat, and independent voters. there is a "new yorker" article about leaked republican meetings run by the coke brothers and they worried it would garner white support from voters and

the bill would be so popular that it wasn't even trying to work -- trying to mount a public advocacy campaign to shift opinion. it is recognized that the provisions are extremely popular, so that is a solution that we need. host: aaron is the director of legislative affairs for common cause. go to commoncause.org. jason is the executive director of the honest elections project. you can go to honestelectio ns.org. i want to thank you both for the conversation. guest: thanks so much. guest: thank you. host: the house is gaveling in for a quick pro forma session. we will bring you there live and then continue with "washington journal."