before they stream that illegal property. >> we think the best solutions would be for the u.s. to cooperate with other nations around the world to prevent works from being pirated, to allow creators to continue to create, funding their creations the right way. >> the winning entries are available online at studentcam .org. >> a busy agenda here in washington. washington. susan ferrechio is the chief correspondent for the washington examiner. let's talk about the senate today taking up hate crimes aimed at asian americans and pacific islanders. what would it do? guest: it could change because i think there may be amendments. he would dedicate somebody at the justice department to oversee and ensure that the hate

crimes aimed at asian americans are followed closely. it seems straightforward enough. there has been a rise in hate crimes against asian americans in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. congress is caught up in politics. republicans would like to amend the bill to broaden it. they would like a more broad hate crimes provision. because of that fight, there is a slow down in process right now. both sides seem to believe that by this week, they will be able to pass something, probably a little more broader than what the democrats in the senate support. republicans saw it as a political move by democrats in relation to former president trump and his labeling of the coronavirus pandemic as tied to

china. republicans do not want to get caught up in that. that is where the argument is right now. it is anticipated that the legislation will be settled and moved this week. host: the house taking up the issue of statehood for washington, d.c., expected to pass in the house. what will the senate do? guest: this is one of president biden's 100-day priorities. the house passed it in 2019 on a partyline vote and it is expected to pass again along the same political lines this week before the house leaves town. that bill will go to the senate and it is not -- it is going to be stuck there. it does not have full support by democrats. they would have to get rid of the filibuster. they would have to get

coordination among their own party to agree to this amendment. some lawmakers feel that adding a new state would dilute the power of the existing 50 states. it has a lot of support, though. for democrats, you would add two democratic senators. politically desirable for them to move something like this. it is not completely approved by all the moderates in the party. i predict that is going to stall for a while in the senate along with a lot of other things they are having a hard time moving because of their own party and their own factions in their own party. host: which leads to this headline -- house democrats hitting the brakes on a liberal wish list. the speaker of the house threw cold water on the idea last week. guest: she did that pretty

definitively. the judiciary committee is going to move legislation to expand the supreme court to 13 members. right there, -- right now, there are nine. this was a campaign issue. people on the left push that, saying we want to balance the court out. on the opposite side, you have republicans campaigning saying, look at how the democrats want to radicalize the country. they want to expand the supreme court. last time they tried to this during fdr, the democrats shut down their own presidents effort to expand the court. labeling it court packing, and unfair move to politicize the judicial branch. it is a real political hot potato. nancy pelosi threw it back to

the judiciary committee. i think what democrats would like to do is put it on hold by saying, president biden has already said there is a commission forming to study expanding the court. that buys them time and shows they are doing something to address the base in the party and their desire to balance the court out, which they feel has gone far too conservative. president was able to confirm three picks to the supreme court. that very much vexed the democratic party and thought they did not get their fair shot during the obama administration. host: let's turn to infrastructure. the president sitting down in the oval office this afternoon. some democrats and republicans, including mitt romney and kay

granger, and yesterday, this from fox news sunday from chris wallace. the question in terms of whether or not the democrats are giving the republicans enough room to negotiate a bipartisan deal. >> democrats connect bipartisan to pass part of the bill but they ran the rest of it through on a partyline reconciliation vote. >> the broader question you are asking, what is in it for the country and what is in it for the people we represent from our state if republicans and democrats work together to solve problems? if we come together in a bipartisan way to pass that $800 billion infrastructure bill that you were talking about that i have been urging, we show our people that we can solve their problems. we have all agreed for a long time that we need to invest more in american infrastructure.

we disagree on how to pay for it. we should roll up our sleeves and sit down and find ways that both parties can support to make these critically needed investments. that is here at home. chris, is critical for our standing in the world. the worst thing that could happen to xi jinping, that would ruin his day, would be for him to see republicans and democrats working together in the house and senate to solve the problems facing the american people. host: susan ferrechio -- joining him was john cornyn. he had this response. >> in the interest of bipartisanship, i will agree that the senator is half right. there is a core infrastructure bill that we could pass with appropriate pay-fors to pay for roads and bridges and even reaching out to broadband.

we have seen advances in telemedicine, more people learning online. i think we can all agree to that. that is the part we can agree on. let's do it and leave the rest for another day. host: that was texas senator john cornyn. susan ferrechio, what is going on? guest: the audio told the story. both parties are very, very far apart on what they want for infrastructure in terms of the size and scope of the bill and how to pay for it. they are so far apart, it seems impossible that they would ever cut any kind of deal. they would pass it in two parts. they would do this core infrastructure bill that republicans would find appealing and pass that, depending on how they would pay for. part two would include this broader idea of what democrats

leave infrastructure to be. health care, child care, all kinds of things, green energy initiatives. you have some republicans who say, maybe i could do a two-part deal. give my constituents the notion that i am working to improve infrastructure. you have democrats who do not like that idea either. they want it all together. once you break things up, stuff can get pushed to the sidelines. you do the stuff that is bipartisan the most. and maybe the second part is left behind. i think the audio told the story. they are very far apart and on top of that, which is not included in what they were just saying, they would like to do this by the summer. if they start moving this into an election year, democrats

would like to pay for this with some tax increases. the corporate tax increase, state tax increase, things that may not affect people at certain income levels, it is still a tax increase. democrats want to get this through as quickly as they can to show that president biden is receiving -- achieving this goal on infrastructure. what i predict is they will circumvent republicans using that special budgetary tactic called reconciliation. it is how you pass things with 51 votes. it narrows what can be in the bill. i think that is ultimately where the party is going to go with this. they control the house and senate and the white house. they have this greenlight that will probably be temporary.

they would like to get this done , so they do not have a lot of time to go back and forth with republicans. biden is listening. he had a meeting with republicans last week and is having another one this week. he would really have to take the lead on this and say, look, democrats, we will agree to some of the things republicans want. so far, it is just listening. that is what happened with the covid-19 package. it seems they are on that path right now given the time parameters and the huge difference between the two parties. host: you can watch the house debate on c-span and the senate debate on c-span2. susan ferrechio -- our phone lines are open. peter, republican line.

caller: good morning. nice to see you back. susan, nice to see you also. i have been a republican since 1980, since i voted for ronald reagan, and i have never been more frustrated with the republican party than i am now. i saw the new jersey governor come out the other day and say republicans need to get more aggressive. he is absolutely right. they are always on defense and never on offense. the democrats never apologize for any of the things they say. this has been an area of frustration for me, particularly when marjorie taylor greene was taken off her committees because of some stupid things she had said in the past. during the russia investigation, eric swalwell and adam schiff

were coming out every day and lying saying there was misinformation on president trump when they all knew it was not true. kevin mccarthy did not take them off the intelligence committee. i do not get it. same thing with liz cheney. they voted to keep her in leadership after she voted to impeach our president. i wish i had another alternative. what is your comment, susan? guest: i think you are talking about feelings a lot of people in the republican party have right now. the storyline about republicans has been a party divided. one of the main political characters who helped sort of highlight the dividing line was president trump because too many voters, he was fearless -- to

many voters, he was fearless and unapologetic. he did get a lot done. of course, he divided the party. he also suffered a lot of criticism. the voters are frustrated with their own party and some are frustrated because they do not like president trump. they are more of the political feeling that republicans should play bipartisanship more, should avoid big clashes with democrats, get rid of lawmakers like marjorie taylor greene. there is a real dividing line in the party right now. it will play out in the 2022 elections, especially if the former president gets involved and starts endorsing and campaigning for people. you will see those lines even more. host: louisiana on the republican line with susan

ferrechio. caller: good morning, thank you for accepting my call. my question is i watched the senators yesterday. senator cornyn commented that president biden did not hold enough news conferences. did he think that president biden was really running things or was he slow in reacting? he did not say that but he indicated that. i would like to know how the guest feels about president biden not holding very many news conferences. guest: following president trump, whose availability to the press was legendary.

he was always talking to the press, whether it was on the lawn before departing on a helicopter. he would give impromptu press briefings. he was really available and a lot of people criticized that because it opened him up to a lot of controversial statements. his tangling with the press -- some people loved it and some people thought it was a terrible idea. what biden is doing is going back to prior administrations who were not as available. there is a comparison that he has given fewer press conferences. i believe that is true. he does not make himself available to reporters, and reporters have complained about that. there is no law or rule about

how available the president wants to make himself. if the party can get away with less, less dealing with the press and having to talk about things that are tough for the president -- for example, the border problem -- the administration is having a hard time dealing with that, if he is avoiding questions, the headlines are not there. there is always an opportunity for a gafe. -- gaffe. it is very easy to mess up when you're dealing with today's press court. it is easier for him to have fewer press conferences. you have jen psaki, who handles herself pretty well during the daily press briefings.

i think it is working. his approval ratings are pretty good, except on some issues. as long as he can keep sailing along at this pace, i expect -- i don't expect biden to start making himself available to the press the wait president trump dead. -- president trump did. host: this is from senator graham of south carolina. last night, he said, we will see if general biden and general trump's strategy turns out to be sound policy. guest: i think the republicans immediately criticize that plan because they gave a hard deadline, which has always been something military operatives oppose because it shows your hand. it gives all kinds of time to plan.

afghanistan has been this unsolvable problem for the u.s. military and our government. we have been trying to withdraw in a way that leads to the least amount of violence. the violence has continued their. -- violence there. there are two factions in afghanistan and they will keep clashing with each other. every attempt to pull out troops has led to criticism and problems. the democrats have long wanted out of afghanistan. they criticized it when they -- when president trump said he was pulling troops out of afghanistan. there is that observation that people are making about when trump wanted to get the troops out in a phased out way. the hard deadline approach is something that has always been opposed by republicans because they think it is dangerous and that is why you saw senator lindsey graham tweet.

biden's military advisors will be there today briefing some members of the senate about this withdrawal plan. i anticipate you will hear a lot of criticism from republicans when they come out because of the fear that this will put our troops in danger and put more people in afghanistan in danger of the ongoing violence because of these warring factions. host: we are talking to susan ferrechio. caller: hi. how are you? the only comment i have to make -- i am a disabled veteran. i am really frustrated with the link -- length of the whole afghanistan thing. 20 years and the saying is if we leave now, they will take back

over, but it has been going on for thousands of years. i do not understand. that is my only comment. host: thank you, and good luck to you. guest: a lot of people want our involvement to end. it has been two decades. the war began after september 11, two thousand one, because the origins of the -- 2001, because the origins of the terrorist attack were there. why are we still involved? we are still putting our own men and women in uniform in danger. we are not really getting anywhere. there are persistent problems with terror attacks. on the other hand, there is a fit -- there is a fear that it

creates a vacuum that makes more room for terrorist nations to thrive and presents a danger to america as they did 20 years ago. and to the region. it is destabilizing the region because of the advent of terror organizations. that has been the big debate about the middle east, our involvement about the whole area. how are influence -- how our influence and keeping the terror organizations at bay. >> we take you live now to the national press club and washington, d.c. to hear from west virginia senator joe manchin. live coverage on c-span. >> thank you for joining us with senator joe manchin from west virginia, who chairs