military operations in the middle east and africa. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 committee centers to create wi-fi enabled sites for students with low income families. >> comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on "washington journal," elizabeth powers from the university of illinois institute of government and public affairs talks about the role of child care in the u.s. economic recovery. after that,after that, steve cos to talk about president biden's

infrastructure proposal and other news of the day. later, republican doug lamalfa of california talks about the idea of a vaccine passport. ♪ host: good morning this tuesday, 4/20/2021. the state of derek chauvin now in the hands of a jury that will decide whether he is guilty of murder or manslaughter in the death of george floyd. as we await the verdict, we get your reaction and asking you how would you decide the case if you are a member of the jury. if you believe derek chauvin is guilty, (202) 748-8000. if you believe he is not guilty, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text,

(202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. good tuesday morning to you. you can go ahead and start calling and as we show you the front page of the minneapolis star tribune. "community on edge as jury deliberates derek chauvin trial. the case handed to the 12 member jury wrapped up yesterday. -- wrapped up yesterday." [video clip] >> we have power. we cannot convict the defendant. the judge has power, but he cannot convict the defendant. that power belongs to you. you have that power. only you have the power to

convict the defendant of these crimes, and in so doing declare that this use of force was unreasonable. it was excessive. it was disproportionate. it is not an excuse for the shocking abuse you saw with your own eyes. you can believe your own eyes. this case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first. when you saw that video. it is exactly that. it is exactly what you believed. it is exactly what you saw what your eyes -- saw with your eyes. it is what you felt in your gut. it is what you now know in your heart. this was not policing, this was murder. the defendant is guilty of all

three counts. all of them. there is no excuse. host: steve schleicher for the state yesterday. derek chauvin's attorney eric nelson. [video clip] >> no crime is committed if the police officer's actions were justified by the officer's use of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful or -- lawful arrest or preventing escape from custody. the degree of force a police officer may lawfully use in executing his duty is limited by what a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary. any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. to determine if the actions of the police officer were reasonable, you must look at

those fact, which a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment the officer acted with force. you must decide whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer and without regard to the officer's own subjective state of mind, intention or motivations. the defendant is not guilty if he used force as authorized by law. to prove guilt, the state must further prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was not authorized by law. if you will remember from my opening statements how i talked about reason and common sense. the reasonable police officer

standard. i want to briefly add one thing here, the standard is not should the officer have done. it is not what could the officer have done differently. the standard is what were the facts that were known to this officer at the precise moment he used force, and considering all of the totality of circumstances and facts known to the officer, would a reasonable police officer -- what would a reasonable police officer have done? host: eric nelson, attorney for derek chauvin with his argument near the end of those proceedings yesterday, not soon after the case was handed to the jury. they will remain sequestered

until they reach a verdict or become deadlocked. the arguments throughout the past couple weeks from the wall street journal about it today, attorneys at the trial showed about 166 clips of video taken from by standards -- bystanders and convenience store surveillance footage. for the first time yesterday during the trial, mr. sheldon -- derek chauvin removed his mask. getting your reaction and asking you do you think derek chauvin is guilty, not guilty or unsure. phone lines for each of those thoughts as we hear from james, spring valley, new york. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i have to say i feel like he is guilty.

i am going to believe what i saw. i don't know that much about court, but when i heard the defense attorney try to put in a little doubt, that sounds like it should be illegal to make up stuff. like i said, i got it from tv. i thought the prosecution did an excellent excellent job. host: how much of the case did you end up watching? caller: i watched the whole thing. and then i listened to the so-called experts in the evening. i tend to agree with what i heard them say. if the jury don't come back today, today -- it's going to be a problem. host: that was james, here is

harold out of topeka, kansas. caller: i apologize, i should have been on the unsure line. i haven't had the opportunity to watch enough of the case. i watched people talk about it. what i would like to say is if you look at a lot of these cases , they did not follow commands. that is what you need to do with the police give you a command, follow it. that's what the media narrative needs to be, to teach our young people to follow the command you were given, not ask questions or try to jump back in your car, not try to resist. host: that is harold in kansas. also unsure is darrell in delaware, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say first of all

, the reason i am calling on the not shoreline -- not sure line, innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers. it is the jury's responsibility to -- the court system will decide if derek chauvin is guilty or innocent. what i would like to do is ask everybody to imagine -- look at what has happened recently with representative waters going to minnesota. she is a representative from california going to minnesota and telling the crowd if they do not get the verdict they want, get more confrontational. let's go back a few years and flip the script. let's say we have a white representative from minnesota travel to california and tell a crowd if we do not get the right verdict in the o.j. simpson trial, we should get confrontational.

everybody take a moment and think about that and understand something. in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers. this is the system we have. if you do not like this system, the replacement is terrifying. we all need to appreciate what we have because if we do not appreciate what we have, once it is gone we will -- of the consequences. host: congresswoman maxine water's comment -- maxine waters ' comments. from the new york post, "mad maxine." here are the words that maxine waters said when she went to minnesota and was talking with protesters about the chauvin

case, saying, if we do not get a guilty verdict, we have got to stay on the streets and be more active. we've got to be more confrontational. we've got to make sure they know that we mean business. as the caller noted, that is the issue coming up in the courtroom yesterday. it was after the case was given to the jury that derek driven's -- derek chauvin's attorney asked the judge about those comments, saying it is something to consider in throwing out the case. here is that exchange with the judge. [video clip] >> this is the --, right? this jury should have been sequestered from the very beginning. i have made that clear. so, i have moved based on that for a mistrial. the idea is that it is a public trial, i think the court has accomplished that, but the media attention is so profound. it is such a modern problem to

have where literally i walk from this courtroom into the courtroom where i have been permitted to stay, during the course of this trial i have received literally thousands and thousands of emails. so much so that i do not even look at that particular email anymore. but, my phone gives me alerts on things that just happened. you can't avoid it. it is so pervasive that i just do not know how this jury can really be said that they are free from taint. now that we have u.s. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case, it is mind-boggling. >> i will give you that

congresswoman waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in the trial being overturned. what is the status -- the state's position? >> this is a concern we brought up well into jury selection. we can't allow statements -- are statements to be considered a part of the record. host: district judge peter cahill going on to reject the mistrial request saying, "the congresswoman's opinion does not matter a whole lot." but it is getting a lot of attention today as we are awaiting a ruling in the derek chauvin trial. whitley in annapolis, maryland, on the line for those who say derek chauvin is guilty. caller: i think he is most definitely guilty. the reason i think he is guilty is the fact that -- you can see

he was choking the sky. host: i am listening. caller: i think he was obviously guilty. i heard a couple of your colors saying we should obey officers. are we in nazi germany? it sounds like these collars are very much in denial. if it was somebody else from the white community, it would be a total outrage of black officers did the same thing. you brought this thing about maxine waters, yes, but what about our president inciting a riot at the nation's capitol? we've got enough problem with terrorists. you were going to turn these black communities full of young people into a very fertile ground for international terrorists. host: that is willie. this is susan from south dakota. caller: good morning. i wanted to point out what i feel is the most obvious from

the beginning of this. that is that regardless of what happened before they all ended up on the ground, there are three police officers on top of this one man. mr. chauvin has his hand in his pocket. i've never heard anyone talk about how nonchalant he is about the whole scenario. it is not just a police responsibility, it is a human responsibility. we know the famous words, "i can't breathe," where was the concern in these other officers? where was the common sense in any of them that said hey, let us prop him up. it is absolute common sense. now this whole appeal or mistrial thing -- we all knew from the beginning this was very publicized. for them to make this last ditch

effort to say now let's just forget all of this information, it is absolutely ridiculous. host: the jury is sequestered now, a 12 member jury of two white men, four white women, three black men -- sequestered now. do you think they should have been sequestered throughout the trial? caller: i do. we all know what to expect from this. this is going to be national big issues for everyone involved. black or white, i don't care, this is a -- and i think at this point it is a little bit -- host: summit, new jersey. the line for those who are unsure. how much of the trial did you end up watching?

joe? i will give you one more shot, joe. and we will go to sylvia out of virginia, on the line for those who say he is guilty. caller: thank you, yes, he shows no remorse at all, chauvin. i feel he has a warrior gene. dr. phil on tv says some people have warrior jeans. some of them become great soldiers and some end up in prison. i think you went too far. he didn't listen to the crowd and he did not help him when he wasn't breathing. i watched too much of it, but he should have turned him over and done cpr right away. host: why do you think you watched too much? caller: it was just so bad. it was nauseating.

he had a good lawyer, but the lawyer could not give us a reasonable doubt that he could get off. he is guilty. he couldn't even say anything for himself, he had to plead the fifth. it was horrible. host: it was friday that derek chauvin declined to testify, invoking his fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, as his defense rested its case last week. closing arguments yesterday. we are getting your thoughts this morning as we await a verdict from the jury. (202) 748-8000 if you think derek chauvin is guilty of murder or manslaughter in the death of george floyd. (202) 748-8001, if you say he is not guilty. (202) 748-8002, if you say you are not sure about where this case goes. as you call in, some sad news

this morning from both ends of pennsylvania avenue. former vice president walter mondale who lost the most lopsided presidential election after telling voters to expect a tax increase, died yesterday at 93 years old. the death of the former senator announced in a statement from his family, no cause cited. his try for the white house in 1984 came at the zenith of ronald reagan's popularity. mr. mondale's selection of geraldine ferraro made him the first major party presidential candidate to put a woman on the ticket. he carried only his home state and the district of columbia. the biggest landslide in the electoral college since franklin roosevelt in 1936. axios reporting the farewell

little -- letter walter mondale wrote, thanking them for their years of work. here's what fritz mondale wrote, "dear team, while my time has come i am eager to rejoin joan and eleanor. i want to let you know how much you mean to me. never has a public servant had better people working on their side. we accomplished so much and i know you will keep up the good fight. i knew it would be ok if i arrived at someplace and was greeted by one of you. my best to all of you, fritz." walter mondale, age 93. back to your phone calls this morning, asking you about the derek chauvin case. phone lines for those who think he is guilty, not guilty, and not sure. ronald out of lawton, oklahoma, not sure. caller: i pretty much watched most of the trial, not all of

it. i turned away from it a lot. i would get back to it and watched, and then there were other clips i watched from cbs and abc. host: why do you feel you are still not sure? caller: the only reason i say that is because i am not the judge, i am not the jury. the jury is not the judge of this man, god is the judge of this man. there are certain things that are said that shouldn't be said. maxine waters knew better. she really did. and she still opened her mouth. but, it's ok. god is going to take care of everything. host: that is ronald in oklahoma. ray and ithaca new york, says derek chauvin is not guilty. caller: it is not guilty, just

because i have reasonable doubt. i am not saying he is innocent, but i think there is reasonable doubt. in our system when there is a reasonable doubt, you have to vote not guilty. host: were from derek nelson, attorney for derek chauvin. [video clip] >> there are lots of what if's. what could have happened, what should have happened. but, we have to analyze this case from the perspective of a reasonable police officer at the precise moment with the totality of the circumstances when it comes to use of force. we have to look at the cause of death to determine, did mr. floyd die exclusively of asphyxia, or were there other contributing factors? that were not the natural result

of mr. chauvin's acts? things that happened that set in motion before mr. chauvin arrived. drug ingestion, the bad heart, the diseased heart, hypertension , all of these things existed before mr. chauvin arrived. the struggle, what role did the struggle play? we know that mr. floyd's heart was beating at 219/160 in a situation he was confronted by police and had ingested drugs. he did not die that day. all of this, ladies and gentlemen, all of this, when you take into presumption -- the

presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, i would submit to you that it is nonsense to suggest none of these other factors had any role. that is not reasonable. when you, as members of the jury, conclude your analysis of the evidence, when you review the entirety of the evidence, when you review the law as written, and you conclude that all within this -- all within a thorough and honest analysis, the state has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. therefore, mr. chauvin should be found not guilty. host: derek chauvin's attorney

wrapping up his closing arguments. derek chauvin facing three charges including second-degree murder, also known as felony murder, that means killing someone in the course of committing another felony. in this case, prosecutors arguing that mr. chauvin was assaulting mr. floyd. the other charge, third-degree murder, a death that occurs when someone is acting dangerously without regard to human life. second degree manslaughter is the third charge, death by " culpable negligence in which the perpetrator knowingly risks causing death or serious harm." those are the three charges facing derek chauvin courtesy of the new york times. the jury is now in its second day of deliberations after handing -- after the trial was handed to them late yesterday. we are taking your calls this morning.

he in fargo, north dakota. good morning. caller: yeah. my nephew, when he was young, i don't know six or seven or whatever, and his karate instructor showed doing to another guy that there is a pressure point on your neck. he put the pressure on the neck and the person passed out. if you are holding it too long, to me, the pressure on the neck from the cops knee down on him, i really feel he needs to go to jail. that is my opinion. host: some of your comments via facebook and twitter, this is

john, "if chauvin thought he was doing something wrong, why would he do it knowingly? manslaughter at most." raymond saying, "i would vote to convict." this from larry, "innocent. the threats from an out-of-control mob should not convict an officer just doing his job." taking your calls this morning as we show you some of what happened yesterday during the closing arguments of the derek chauvin case. you can watch that case in its entirety on our website, c-span.org. among those who spoke for the state, minnesota special assistant attorney general jerry blackwell. here are some of his remarks. [video clip] >> i am going to start talking about what i call the 46 witness. you have heard from 45

witnesses, but there is a 46. this witness was testifying to you before they got to the courtroom. they testified over everybody else's testimony. that witness is common sense. common sense. we will continue talking with you all the while because while you have heard hours and hours of discussions here in the closing, ultimately it is not that complicated. what it is you have to decide with respect to the use of force and the issue of causation. the fact that it is so simple that a child did understand it, a nine-year-old girl said get off of him. that's how simple it was. common sense. why is it necessary to continue applying deadly restraint to a

man who is defenseless, handcuffed, not resisting, not breathing, does not have a pulse , and to do that for another three minutes before the ambulance shows up, and then continue doing it. how is that a reasonable exercise in the use of force? you can believe your eyes, ladies and gentlemen, it was what you saw. it was homicide. host: jerry blackwell for the state. it is just after 7:30 on the east coast. we are asking you how the jury should decide the derek chauvin case. iris in rochelle, virginia. not guilty. caller: yes, i agree with a couple of collars before that god will be the judge of this. you've got to reach the point of

reasonable doubt. this police officer was trained in the tactics he used. this person was on drugs, i know they have disclosed some of the amounts, but maybe -- i do not know all of the amounts. you do not know how far this man would have gone and kept fighting and fighting which would have made his heart condition and everything worse. it's just like a little baby, sometimes you have to wrap them tight with swaddling clothes to get them to calm down. i look at it the same way. this man brought this on himself by his drug abuse and his actions. we can't keep beating up police officers every day and sending out mobs to attack them and attack their families.

rule of law in this country needs to be upheld. we need to lift up our officers and pray for them and to continually let mobs in this country rule is not what america is about. host: iris in virginia. this is from usa today, "tight security to greet the verdict, major cities bracing for violence as the jury gets the case." the washington times also focusing on law enforcement preparations for possible unrest after their verdict, noting that currently some 3000 national guardsmen are activated in minnesota, minneapolis itself. the washington times focusing on the d.c. response. city officials said monday they requested national guard assistance following the outcome of the chauvin trial in washington, d.c. the metropolitan police department restricted days off

and put them on longer shifts in response to possible unrest. priscilla in newburgh, new york. you say derek chauvin is guilty. caller: yes, i do. to the caller from virginia, nobody is going after police officers. we are going after bad police officers. on november 6 when the crowd went after those police officers, that was wrong. they should have been -- ok, they should be prosecuted. this officer stayed on this man for nine minutes and 29 seconds not fighting. a lot of people struggle with drug abuse in this country. a lot of white people. they do not get killed when a police officer is called. he should never have stayed -- he wasn't worried about the crowd because he didn't even look at them. he wasn't worried about traffic.

if he was, he would not have stayed out in traffic for 9:29. it is a bunch of baloney. you can't keep killing black people and just get away with it. it is wrong. host: james in tampa, florida. your next. caller: i am with the caller from new york. i think he is guilty and i think his lawyers doing an ok job, but chauvin is really guilty. he had his knee on the man's neck -- common sense. the man was already dead and he still had his knee on the man's neck for three more minutes. come on. this man is guilty as hell. host: how much did you watch? caller: almost all of it. he is guilty.

he has no remorse. he has his hands in his pockets, his knee on his neck like he just didn't give a dam. it is crazy how people can sit here and think that he is not guilty. that officer is guilty. host: james in tampa. this year are saying, "the arguments that floyd had previously existing conditions or ingested drugs are things officers would have to assume. it highlights the negligence rather than negates it." "how can a person kill a person by the neck and not leave a mark?" "it is interesting so far relying on a jury to decide on a video. the multiple charges do not fit the evidence. and a conviction will be on the lower end." "if the positions were reversed, a black cop, he would already be

under the jail." a white killer of nine black church members was taken to burger king before jail. as far as what happens after the verdict, this story from nbc news, president biden expected to deliver remarks after the verdict. the white house has spent weeks -- how to respond. yesterday at a white house press briefing, jen psaki was asked was asked -- about the closing remarks and how the white house was preparing. >> what i can say is, broadly speaking, we are in touch with mayor's and governors and local authorities. our objective is to ensure there is space for peaceful protest. we continue to convey that while

this country has gone through an extensive period, especially the black community, of pain, trauma and exhaustion as we have watched not just this trial, but additional violence against their community over the past several weeks, it is important to acknowledge that and elevate that at every opportunity. in terms of your question, we are in touch with local authorities, states, governors, mayors, and certainly we will continue to encourage peaceful protest but we are not going to get ahead of the verdict. >> your recommendation in terms of national guard deployments? >> there is a range of conversations about how to ensure that no matter the outcome there is space for peaceful protest. but of course, we will let the jury deliberated and wait for the verdict to come out before we say more. host: jen psaki in the white

house briefing room yesterday. this is the front page of usa today this morning, "x officer fate combination on edge." jeanette in st. petersburg, florida says derek chauvin is guilty. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to say i wish everybody would remember this trial is not george floyd, he is not on trial. what he has said and what he has done has been just unconscionable. i can't imagine being pulled over for possibly a crime and having a gun pointed in my face as a hello by an officer to start with. can you imagine how panic stricken a person would be? he didn't give the man a chance to breathe, to have possibly 400

to 500 pounds of people piled on top of him for nine minutes. the crowd, children, such vicious people. no. my family as a family of police officers and this man is a disgrace to all of them. host: what have conversations been like with your family of police officers? caller: they are not happy with this man. it made it difficult for them to do their jobs. they are police officers in the city of philadelphia. those people are, with the national guard, so afraid of what is going to happen if this trial does not, -- does not come to a happy verdict. host: what is a happy verdict? caller: officer chauvin should be held responsible for his lack of medical attention, if nothing less. host: rebecca out of burlington, vermont. she says not guilty. caller: good morning.

i say not guilty. officer chauvin, how long was he police officer, 19 years? a spotless record. chauvin is not a medical doctor. the last seconds before he supposedly lost unconsciousness, he gave one heck of a back kick. the other officer said, i won't use the lord's name in vain because they couldn't believe, wow. officer chauvin i don't think would have any way of knowing that was some type of seizure, and probably he was very much alive still. i do not think he had intention to kill mr. floyd or anyone. i do not think he had ever been accused of anything remotely close to this in his 19 years of being a police officer. i feel this was certainly not intended.

it was a horrible situation for mr. floyd, but also now horrible for officer show than and i have to say no, i do not believe he intended to kill a man. host: how much of the trial did you watch? caller: all of it. [buzzing] host: this is john in boston. caller: i called in to say that i believe chauvin will be convicted of at least manslaughter, even though i don't agree with it because of the fact -- i take exception to the woman that just called and said she had police officers and her family. i do too. i have a lot, it goes back 18 years. i talked to a lot of police officers since this happened

because it is so serious. the job they do, including my son, there is a focus when you are in a situation like that. chauvin came into this on the second part of it. he came into this after the other two officers couldn't control this fella. this fella seemed like he was on a death wish as far as his lifestyle. there's just a few comments i want to make, one thing we grew up with, decent honest people, you do not resist a police officer if something is happening. whether it is a traffic violation or whatever, you do not resist a police officer.

there is plenty of law to protect you from whatever the grievance was. there are so many things in this case. one of them would be the coverage of stations like cnn and msnbc. they've got this fella guilty before it -- they don't even know what it is like to be out there. i live in boston, thank god we have been doing good for years. our leaders, our politicians, our residents in general. it has been a great place to live. host: john in boston. you talked about the coverage of the case, here is how it is playing out on newspapers. a day after the judge handed the case to the jury in the derek chauvin trial.

we will let you look at those front pages as we hear from paul in tabak, florida -- tampa, florida. caller: i think of myself as logical and objective. the prosecution is making light of this counterfeit money. i would like to see it on the other end if they were prosecuting somebody for counterfeit money. that is a federal crime and it involves the fbi and cia. it is not a light crime. when they first confront fluid, he is in a car sitting there and he is breathing. when they try to put him in a police car, he says he can't breathe. he is saying he can't breathe almost from the beginning. he could breathe in his own car, which is a lot smaller, and he can't breathe in the police car. in accordance with what i saw, with police training, options he

had and the orders given by the judge, i think you have to find him not guilty. there is reasonable doubt because -- no one planned killing this man when they showed up. it is not like premeditated murder or anything. i do not think it is. one more thing, i mean, he was -- and this thing about his neck , he was on the back of his neck, but they said you could breathe from your carotid artery. that is -- host: that is paul in tampa. he talked about the $20 bill that brought officers to the scene in the first place. a story from the new york times focusing on that, saying it has gone -- all but unnoticed.

it still remains unclear where that bill came from and whether mr. floyd committed the crime that brought the police officers to the scene in the first place. that story in the new york times as we hear from jacqueline out of stratford, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. the woman for -- from virginia stated this officer had a spotless record. i wanted to clarify that he actually had 19 community complaints about his record. i just wanted to make that clear. host: thanks for that. michael in sterling, virginia. caller: thank you. first off, i would like to say i do not think there is any doubt of culpability or guilty and is on the part of chauvin. i will leave it up to the jury to decide the nature of that guilt.

the message i would like to communicate to the c-span audience is that this was a lynching. i have been saying this, and i probably would not have called and said that on air except that i heard it echoed last night on rachel maddow from philip doss, cofounder and ceo for the center of policing equity. the thing that makes it a lynching is how public it was. this is -- i am confused about chauvin's culpability because he was doing something that was ok for him to do. it was ok. he was sending a message to the community. the bystanders were helpless. just as the prosecution said in their closing arguments, the

bystanders were helpless and that was the point. of the whole incident. in short. it fits every definition of a lynching. we just need to keep that in mind and not lose sight of that. host: back to derek chauvin's previous record before these manslaughter charges in the case of george floyd, 18 complaints in 19 years. now, a murder charge. the story from business insider noting he racked up 18 complaints over his 19 year career. chauvin had a reputation for being overly aggressive and combative according to the nightclub owner who hired him has security. one guest complaint in 2007 that chauvin and another officer pulled her out of her car with no indication.

here we are today, april the 20th and we are waiting for the jury verdict. we are hearing from you in this first hour of washington journal. how you would decide if you are a member of the jury. if you say guilty, (202) 748-8000. not guilty, (202) 748-8001. unsure, (202) 748-8002. this is james out of charlotte, north carolina who says not guilty. caller: of course the man is not guilty. i can't see why some of these collars can see that. you just had someone call up and say that man could breathe from his carotid artery. that was ok. if you just listen to him say he could breathe from his carotid artery. we had another caller say he had a spotless record. how would she know that?

of course that black men should have been tortured in front of them white folks to make sure that community knew that he ran that community. the fact that we are asking this question on air tells us that man is not guilty because if he was, -- we wouldn't even have this question asked on air. host: do you believe derek chauvin is guilty of murder? caller: i believe they should let him go. that's what the people want. that's what these people are calling about. -- being tortured and they really think that man did nothing wrong. so they should let that man go. this country deserves whatever it gets. host: dexter is next here in washington, d.c. caller: good morning.

i think chauvin is guilty. it is obvious he is guilty. all these other collars are saying he is not --they also need to understand that -- like we got here in this country we donated -- [indiscernible] when it comes down to killing us by the police, i think that is fine? host: what you think of maxine waters' comments? what you think of the focus on maxine waters' comments saying we cannot go away, we have got to get more active if we do not get a guilty verdict? caller: maxine waters might be a

congresswoman, but she is a private citizen entitled to her own opinions. she has nothing to do with this trial. she has nothing to do with what happened to george floyd. she had nothing to do with the decision made to kill him in front of little kids. everybody else who thinks the guy is not guilty, i guess they don't care about anybody but themselves. don't expect anybody to care about you. host: that is dexter here in washington, d.c. nancy pelosi saying she does not need to apologize for her rhetoric. from the floor of the united states senate yesterday, it was minority leader mitch mcconnell with his comments about what maxine waters said. [video clip] >> over the last few weeks, minneapolis returned to center stage with the trial of the police officer accused of killing george floyd. again, the causes of civil rights, equal justice and the

rule of law tell us that this trial, and every trial must go forward without social pressure, political considerations, and certainly violent threats playing a role. every single american deserves a fair trial. -- you do not balance the scales of justice by trying to tip them. and yet, this past weekend, one democratic house member from california took it upon herself to visit the protesters in minneapolis. she said "we are looking for a guilty verdict." like somebody windowshopping, or ordering off a menu, she is looking for a guilty verdict. if that verdict is not reached, the congresswoman said demonstrators should not only stay on the street, but get more confrontational, make sure that they know we mean business. it is hard to imagine anything

more inappropriate than a member of congress flying in from california to inform local leaders, not so subtly, that this defendant had better be found guilty or else there will be big trouble in the streets. again, so much of our nation's quest for civil rights and equal justice has been the fight to get rid of extrajudicial violence, to get rid of rigged trials where the outcome was molded by public sentiment or angry mobs. it is beyond the pale for a sitting member of the united states congress to look at what happened last summer and imply there should be some kind of sequel. a sequel? if a legal case does not unfold as she thinks it should? host: mitch mcconnell from the floor of the senate yesterday. the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. today. they will continue to debate the covid-19 hate crimes act. the senate also expected to vote

today on the confirmation of lisa monaco to deputy attorney general, the number two post under merrick garland. also, there is expected to be an all senators briefing at 3:00 on afghanistan. secretary of state tony blinken joints chiefs chairman millie, defense secretary austin and deputy cia director:, all expected to take part in that briefing. plenty of legislation being debated including a bill to limit the president's authority to issue travel bans and changes immigration law to prohibit discrimination based on religion. also expecting debate on the legislation that would make the district of columbia the 51st state. let it be known as the washington douglas commonwealth. all of that action on the house of the floor and senate today. you can watch it on c-span and

c-span2. about five minutes left, we will just continue with your calls about how you think the jury should decide the generic -- the derek chauvin case. this is stephen out of michigan. caller: is that me? host: that's you. caller: i think he is guilty. as far as i can see. we all watched it. the guy had his hand on his pocket, applying more pressure as he sat on the guy's neck with two other cops on them. it is as plain as day. i don't know what you saw, but i saw a very wrong wrong situation. host: how much of the trial itself did you watch? caller: i did need to watch it. i watched the -- when they shoot at the first time. that was a murder. any time you've got to put that much pressure on a man who has

his hands cuffed behind his back , that is ridiculous. host: tom from dayton, ohio says not guilty. good morning. caller: maxine waters, that woman is the biggest racist this country knows. to spark the flames like she did, they ought to do in this trial of the whole thing. one thing i want to say, keith erickson -- or whatever his name is -- in the video for months of george floyd trying to get him in the car and he couldn't breathe. that's another thing. democrats, tell these people, do not resist and you will go home.

host: tom in ohio. carl from maine says he's guilty. caller: i believe he is guilty. just look at the -- where the kid raised his hands and he had no gun and they shot him. i agree with the other man. i watched the whole trial, and what his lawyer tried to do, chauvin's lawyer, i felt like are we watching a cop accused of murder? they made it look like, chauvin 's lawyer, that george floyd was on trial. he was on trial for his lifestyle and his drug use. any time a trained cop who is paid to serve and protect the people, at any time when george floyd said he couldn't breathe,

he could have lifted his knee. i went to police school in south carolina. that was excessive force. he was a racist and when you show his record of all the complaints they have had about him and what gets me mad in this country is say on a jury of 11 people say he is guilty, but one person does not think he is because of whatever reason, he goes away scott free, and for them to -- for mitch mcconnell to focus on that senator saying that, he had better go back and focus on former president trump because he still has to deal with what he did at the capitol. let's put the facts on tv. host: surely out of winter park,

florida says she is not sure. (202) 748-8002 caller: -- caller: thank you for taking my call. i watched a lot of the trial, quite a bit. some of it i watched twice. the more i watched, the more i realized what a difficult decision this is an the more i was grateful i did not have to be a member of that jury. with all the chaos in our country, in the division, here is america at its very best, and the fact, please understand what i'm saying, that we had two opposing views, and they are both presented in a legal and orderly, and peaceful, manner. you may not agree with either one, you may agree with one side, but it was a way our country can present opposing views.

i thought that was krait -- was quite a credit tower legal system. what i came out about, i think we should accept whatever the jurors come up with. i certainly would not want to be one of those jurors. it is a very difficult decision, but they have sat through every minute of that process, and i think we should respect their decision. host: that is shirly, in winter park. we will come back to the derek chauvin case later in the program. stick around for that. next, we will be joined by elizabeth powers, professor of economics at the university of illinois, to discuss the role childcare plays in the post-covid economic recovery. stick around for that. we will be right back.

>> sunday, may 2 on in-depth, a live conversation with author and new york times columnist, about politics, religion, moral values, and education. >> progress has not ceased but it is along a very particular dimension that then seeds back into -- feedback into the larger pattern of decadence, because it leads people to spend more and more time in virtual realities, simulations of reality, and retreat from both certain kinds of economic activity but also to bring us to rome next childbearing, which is what i call stability. >> has book is called the decadent society. other titles include privilege and bad religion. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text, and tweets for ron, on in-depth, on c-span --

ross, on in-depth, on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: professor elizabeth powers is on your screen, teaches economics at the university of illinois and joins us for a discussion on the role childcare plays in the covid-19 economic recovery. professor powers, explain first what we know about just how big of a hit the u.s. childcare industry took over the past 13 months. >> good -- guest: good morning. it is nice to be here. covid has a profound impact on childcare and a lasting impact. when covid hit, and there was stay-at-home orders, of course that had an immediate and dramatic effect on the childcare industry. two thirds of childcare is closed. they suspended their operations completely.

65% of childcare workers were sent home. at the same time, of course, those parents who could work, emergency workers had trouble finding childcare. as people have slowly come back to work, childcare has continued to be a nagging problem for parents. host: another way to look at the numbers from the bureau of labor statistics in yahoo! news, some 167,000 childcare workers lost their job between december 2019 and december 2020. do you think all of those jobs will come back in post-covid economy, or has covid and what it has forced for what families have had to do to rethink childcare, will it change the way people use childcare? will we use childcare services as much -- need childcare services as much? guest: about the number of employees and childcare is down about 15% for pre-covid, and we

all know parents have been coping in a number of ways. work from home has been important, and a number of mothers have had to leave the labor force or work less than they would like to or go in and out of the workforce. so i think, right now, parents are coping with stopgap measures . [indiscernible]are still way down. i would say childcare is scarce, there is a risk it will be more expensive and people will use less of it, normally, but i think that the american rescue plan contains a lot of aid to childcare abilities, providers,

and parents. that may have an impact on getting the industry going again. one thing i found interesting from a survey, where many centrists started online programs, like k-12, and most of the centers that started online programs essay they will keep the programs in some forms, so maybe we have seen some permanent change in the modes childcare is delivering through. host: elizabeth powers, professor at the university of illinois, institute of government and public affairs, teaches economics. with us for the next 25 minutes this morning. let me give you the phone number so viewers can call in. parents, (202) 748-8000. we want to hear from you. childcare workers, a number for you, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002.

go ahead and start calling in. professor powers, as that is happening, you mentioned the american rescue plan and funding and that specifically for the childcare industry. just a walk through some numbers, $39 billion in direct funding for childcare, which would include $24 billion for stabilization funds for childcare providers, $50 million to fund a childcare and development block grants. explain what the fund does and what the block grants do. guest: there are two funds mentioned in the act. one is really direct aid to providers. so maybe a little background. the cares act, which has a famous ppp program, which provided forgivable loans to small businesses, many childcare providers were surveyed at the time of the initial wave of covid and said they would use the ppp funds but in

reality, only 7% appeared to have been able to access the fund. i think the first leg of this american rescue plan is providing the direct funding to the childcare centers and other providers like the ppp would have, if it had been accessible to providers. so it pays for mortgages, keeping workers on the payroll, covid compliance, expenses, so there was fairly large amount of aid to -- direct aid to providers. the other piece you mentioned is a $15 million piece that is eight states, primarily -- states. primarily, states run a program for low income people, which

would largely pay for their childcare. this additional funding to states, it is primarily so they can be more generous with who can receive the funds. host: and then two other aspects of the american rescue plan, changes to the childcare tax credit and the pending care credit, and increasing the childcare entitlement to states. explain this two aspects of the plan. guest: sure. i think the most traumatic change, perhaps, well i do think the most romantic change is going to be changes to the child entitlement -- child dependent tax care credit. that is a deduction that you can pay for paying for childcare, and it was pretty small. a person could receive -- a family with two children for

example could receive up to $1200 to pay for part -- a credit for part of their childcare spend at yours. this has been increased dramatically in a couple ways. first is the amount of the claimable deduction has a maximum of $8,000. that is on a $16,000 -- that is not $16,000 in childcare, but for people paying a lot in childcare, that is tremendous, 50% back to production and because of their childcare -- increased to production and because of their childcare. a refundable tax credit means if the tax credit exceeds the amount of tax you owe, you get a check for the excess. so you can claim, for a family of two of a modest income, they

can claim the entire $8,000, even if their tax liability was $2000, even if their tax liability was zero. that will have a really big impact on child poverty. it will effectively reduce it by about 40%. the other interesting aspect of the expanded child dependent care tax credit is the income of families that can qualify, or some of the credit at least, will be set higher, up to $125,000 before there is even a phase out of the credit. host: go ahead. guest: i think this is almost a major [indiscernible] obviously it will have a big impact on families. host: that is what is the in -- what is in the american rescue plan. we want to hear from our viewers on what has helped you, how you

have dealt with childcare during the pandemic. again, focusing on parents, (202) 748-8000. and childcare workers, (202) 748-8001. all others is (202) 748-8002. one question to start from the viewers from lee on twitter for professor powers. lee says childcare in the u.s. should be handled as it is in europe. it is that -- is not the family responsibility and the european union. it is not a problem for rich people but a problem for poor people in the united states. guest: most definitely. the united states is pretty unusual in not having very significant publicly provided care or heavily subsidized care. i think this is part of where the initial tactic of talking about childcare's infrastructure

came from. it has been somewhat reframed by the white house because of the pushback on calling it infrastructure, but i think one of the things a viewer might agree on is childcare is like an essential foundation for supporting work and the productivity of families. people with young children tend to be coming into their prime age working years, so we would like them to be productive in the labor market. two thirds of children have parents who are not available -- or who are both working. so there is a big need for childcare. it's a big support for healthy families. we can also talk about it is a big support for early child

development and that. and other countries -- and in other countries, this is considered basic entitlement. host: that's 25 billion dollars in president biden's infrastructure proposal for childcare facilities. we can talk more about whether that should be considered infrastructure, but we hear first from barbara from oklahoma, calling in. you are on with professor powers. caller: good morning. i'm from california, and i worked everywhere from the 60's -- i had three children. i took jobs that i could be home with my kids during the daytime, and i did not make a lot of money, but i did it mostly for the insurance and being home with my kids. my ex-husband was home at night. this thing about giving people money, money, money from the government, all it is doing is making people dependent on them. then they are getting lazy. believe you me, this united states is really getting lazy,

and it is going more -- growing more and more socialist. it is really burning me. i don't know why people can't take responsibility for themselves. host: professor powers? guest: i think there are two things i would say to barbara in response. one is that childcare has become -- one is many families have to work to get by. we don't have a strong safety net in this country, especially for cash, for money you can spend on rent and daily living. we don't have a strong safety nets, and we really come to expect people will make up for the absence of a strong safety

net by working. lots of families cannot get by unless they work, unless both parents are working, and in a single parent family, there is only one earner for the family. under the system we have, there's a lot of direct support for families. people must work to get info -- to get income for their household. the other thing i would say, childcare is really expensive. center care and even family care, someone running care -- offering care for children out of their homes, in many states, infant care, for example, costs as much as college tuition at

the public state school would cost for your child. that's combination of families really not having a lot of choice about the being in the labor market and the high expense of childcare does not make it realistic for many families to get by without support for childcare. host: what we know about the average cost of childcare? has there been studies done that shows this is getting more expensive, post pandemic, or will become more expensive post pandemic? guest: there has been some -- this information is hard to come by. cloven -- covid closed down a lot of the industry quickly. it was chaotic. but care providers found childcare costs have gone up. for the ones that remain open,

the prices have gone up by 50%, which is enormous. similar is these family care providers that run at daycare out of their home. that is a combination of factors. one has been that this is the cost of childcare facilities and operators dealing with covid that is very high. also, as part of that, there has been social distancing, which has been impacting care providers a lot. they cannot take as many children as they did prior to covid, and all of the providers were set up to operate with their capacity they had before covid and getting by with the capacity they had before covid. after covid, the capacity is much lower, because they are

charging -- so they are charging more to serve fewer children. host: should parents expect the price increases to come back down as the american rescue plan money works its way through the system? and if this infrastructure spending, another $25 billion, works its way into the system? guest: i think we will see high prices in the near term. they will continue. a survey of providers who are going to try to increase their revenues next year said they would try to do it through price increases. of course, they have all of these additional costs they did not have before, passed on to parents. and a lot of capacity, we do not know how many childcare spaces have been lost in a longer-term sense, but about 25% of those that close their doors initially have not come back into the marketplace.

so we will see fewer slots for a while in the childcare marketplace, which will drive up places. -- prices. the childcare independent tax credit presumably will help a lot with that by subsidizing 50% of many family's childcare. on the other hand, that will increase demand for childcare, a lot. and you can see increased prices offsetting the gains. host: to bobby in alabama, good morning, you are on with professor powers. caller: yes. i agree to that is a strain to home parents. i have a daughter that finished college and she is a single mother, and i helped her because i realize the expense of childcare. what i see around me, every day, there are people that are really taking advantage of this. you have people that are

subsidized with housing, single mothers. my daughter, she got a job, i helped her. i said you cannot depend on the government to take care of you and your child. there is so much fraud and abuse in the system. when you look around and see people that is getting subsidized with childcare and can live better than people working -- i am retired, and i pay my medical bills and i know so many others doing the same. i just think you need to be -- there needs to be more restrictions put there when people apply, and it is very expensive. i've been -- i have been through it. i had to pay my daughter's school loan, but they need to let the people look at their priorities. host: professor powers, i will let you jump in.

guest: yes. there is auditing of people receiving childcare benefits. you have to be employed or have to be a full-time student, or have to be actively looking for work, to receive the childcare subsidy in the state. at least, in illinois, this is enforced pretty actively. so they can see your earnings. they can see your employment history. so they can check of people are earning enough to qualify for the childcare subsidy. similarly, if you are a full-time student, you have to prove you are a full time -- a full-time student.

if you are searching for work, that is time-limited. so they give you, in many instances, a couple weeks to search for work. there is monitoring in the system. host: to answer out of massachusetts, you are on with professor powers. caller: good morning. first thing i would like to point out as the last caller was saying fraud, that is a large part of i think -- i'm 42. in the past 20 years, i have watched workers like daycare, people do house cleaning, other small services, they are able to charge what they want. they can get paid cash and are essentially doing jobs other family members used to do for their own households. maybe it is a problem with diverse -- divorce, maybe families do not connect, but where our grandparents? my grandfather worked in a witch up and took care of me every day after school as much as i can

remember. i don't know why friends with two to three kids are better off than i am in massachusetts but i imagine it is because they get a lot of help. as soon as you have a kid. i was evicted in february, and the house i was living in sold. when i called the housing department, there is a block for me right now, and new development. it is supposed to be affordable housing, it is $1500 per month, a waiting list, and they are giving preference to mothers an people with children. i don't know why single people without children are being ignored, but i made a joke and said i guess i should get someone pregnant and i'd be able to get a home. the woman working for massachusetts laughed and said yes. she did not deny it. host: professor powers. guest: i can appreciate that view. i would say that one thing that

is in the cares act is there is an acknowledgment that there is not much in our country for jobless individuals especially. the earning income tax credit for childless individuals, snap for childless individuals has been much lower and stricter than families with children. one of the things in the american rescue plan that i think is important is there is a greatly expanded or income tax credit now for childless households, recognizing this problem is a safety net for childless individuals who were particularly poor. host: this is john, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to bring up a

point that a couple other callers brought up also, that i think the government is getting too big and getting into basically supporting everybody and trying to support everybody with government benefits. you know what i mean? the government is supposed to keep us safe and let us be self-reliant. i think they are trying to get more and more people, in my opinion, to be on their government-funded things. host: john, do you think money for child care facilities retrofit them to help bring them up to better standers, do you think that should count as infrastructure spending in this country? caller: not really, i don't think. like i said, my niece did babysitting when i was -- when she was younger, and she did not charge an exorbitant amount of money. my mom did not work when i was younger, and she worked a couple

part-time jobs, but for the most part she raised us in the 1960's and 1970's. i don't understand -- i don't think it qualifies as infrastructure in my mind. host: professor powers? guest: relative cares come up a couple times. relative care is still really important. i think an issue with relative cares whether many relatives are capable of keeping the always open hours or open from 6:00 to 6:00 hours at daycare. working people, for the most part, on a strict work schedule, and they need that care, day in and day out. i'm speculating, but they may have problems finding a relative who would give that kind of rain

or shine all they care, because relatives have their own things to take care of. the childcare part of the american rescue plan is really big, a lot of money. the childcare industry is a several million dollar industry, and the american rescue plan is about $39 billion. relative to the childcare industry, this is a big bill. and the stimulus bill, how it respects other sectors also, so i think this is a big stimulus bill. that is one of the ways we had to think about it. stimulating the childcare sector will bring back the childcare jobs, will bring back the small

businesses to life, and will enable people to get back into the labor markets faster. the aim of these bills is to speed up a recovery from covid. host: in pennsylvania, this is diana. good morning. caller: good morning. i came into the conversation late this morning, so this may have been addressed earlier, but i have a grandson in the air force and, during the covid, he had to put his two children into childcare. and they are charging $1200 per month. i don't really understand how someone could charge that much. one child is seven years old and very self-sufficient and had to

go to school online during the day there. then, one of the health-care workers, childcare workers had covid, and they had to quarantine at a home for two weeks, and they still charged them while they were out, even though it was not their fault. i wondered if there is some kind of regulations for the daycare industry. guest: i'm not aware of any states that regulate how much childcare operations charge. i would say it is i can pretty petted of -- competitive market. so childcare prices, they are not necessarily -- childcare prices, not necessarily always, but often will reflect the cost to the care provider.

there is labor, rules about the ratio of teachers to children or caregivers to children for example. you can just go on adding children to the enrollments. that keeps labor costs pretty high for the provider, and they have programming they are doing. they serve food. maybe that is overlooked in this discussion. many children are getting two thirds of their food at the caregiver. so caregivers have expenses and they have to charge prices that justify those expenses. that being said, i think it is important to acknowledge childcare is really expensive. it is out of reach for a lot of people, so that is why there is a move to have government essentially support the industry and help people take on those

costs. host: running short on time but one more caller. carlton is a parent out of new hampshire waiting for a while. carlton, can you make it quick with professor powers? caller: very quick. host: all right, sir. caller: i would like to say without government help, it would have been impossible for our wife and i to raise our autistic son, who had a lot of mental retardation. without state help, she and i could have never, ever even helped that kid to even survive. i can tell you i am more than happy to pay my state taxes because of that is provided to the people of the stay. i've no problems paying taxes if i get something for it. so now he is 27 years old. his care has to continue the rest of his life. i would say mostly women who have run these programs have helped me and my wife. they are very underpaid, usually

getting by is well -- barely getting by is well. i would say the problem is more capitalism than socialism. host: thanks for the call, from new hatcher. professor powers, i give you the final minute. guest: yeah, i think carlton has a great point, which is that childcare industry is very female dominated also and low-paid, as you mentioned. i think that we are seeing -- another way to look at the access is helping women who have been impacted by covid and also helping women who are in these women-worked roles that are

valuable to society but are not greatly rewarded financially. that is another way to look at these initiatives. host: elizabeth powers, an associate professor of economics at the university of illinois joining us this morning. we appreciate your time. thank you so much. guest: my pleasure. host: next, we will go back to your phone calls this morning, back to our discussion about the final day of trials of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin. after that, in the 9:00 hour, we will be joined by two members of congress, steve cohen, the democrat from tennessee, and later republican doug lamalfa of california. your calls of derek chauvin and weather you think he is guilty or not. you can call in on phone lines. (202) 748-8000 if you think he is guilty. (202) 748-8001 if you think he is not guilty. (202) 748-8002 if you are not

sure. go ahead and start calling in. as you are calling in, i did want to show this headline from today's washington post on the passing yesterday of walter mondale at age 93. the picture there at the top of walter with jimmy carter in 1978 when he was vice president, then in 1984 when walter mondale was running for president himself, standing alongside geraldine ferraro, his running mate in the campaign. here's his headline from his home state of minnesota, the star tribune, minnesota's statesmen. we take you back to when walter mondale spoke to c-span about how congress changed since his time in office. >> i think it has changed, and i underline the word think. i know it has changed in my own mind, but others might disagree with it. i think when i came to the

senate, when dole came to the senate, 1968, 4 years later, while it was partisan and we had our debates and all of that stuff, there was a kind of underlying sense of civility. we were all members of this club , and we got to know each other, and we would crack jokes. wherever we could, we would try to find ways of doing things together. the only way a majority can get done what it needs to do is with the minorities help -- minority part help. we went at it -- minority's help. we went at it that way. although it is changing, i think now the belligerence -- belligerence of partisanship, the idea you don't just

defeat the person and then arguments, you defeat the person. it is a different move. i am hope i -- i hope i am wrong on that but it looks meaner than i remember. >> sometimes not only defeating the person but throwing the person. >> that's what i mean. it is like vengeance or something. it should not be that way and does not help anybody. the public does not like it, and i often wonder why it continues. >> "washington journal" continues. host: about 25 minutes here to take your phone calls. more phone calls as we wait for a jury decision in the derek chauvin case. this is the headline from today's usa today. the officers fate with the jury, the nation on edge as the trial of george floyd's death near its -- nears its end. closing arguments yesterday and today begins the jury's second day as they remain sequestered until they released -- reach a verdict or become deadlocked and

cannot reach a verdict. one more headline from today's paper, tight security to greet the verdict whenever it comes. major cities bracing for violence as the jury gets its case. asking you what you think the jury should decide. if you remember, would you say derek chauvin is guilty. it is (202) 748-8000 if you say so. if he is not guilty, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. we continue your calls until the top of the hour, 9:00 a.m. eastern. we will be joined by a couple members of congress on the "washington journal." cheyenne's first out of wisconsin on the line for those who say derek chauvin should be found guilty. go ahead. caller: yes. i believe derek chauvin is absolutely guilty. the jury should find show the guilty on all three charges. i do not believe mr. floyd rose -- was resisting, and he was

absolutely being honest when he said he was claustrophobic, so yes, i feel the office definitely is very -- he was very cruel. host: how much of the trial did you end up watching over the course of the past couple weeks? guest: i watched all of it. -- caller: i watched all of it. host: what was your biggest take away, and it anything surprise you? caller: excuse me? host: did anything surprise you? caller: the way that the officers had treated mr. floyd. that is what really surprised me , that these officers could be so wicked. host: that is cheyenne and wisconsin. he mentioned the three suck -- three charges, a secondary murder charge, and second-degree manslaughter charge. it will be a jury of 12 that

decides if he is guilty of those charges. patrick says the jury should say not guilty. to louisville, kentucky, go ahead. caller: yes. it was one thing i would like to express. one thing i agree with maxine waters on. i was not in the ku klux klan, but i was raised with a lot of them. waters, she reports there is no peace without justice. here in kentucky, several years back, there was three blacks that sodomized and executed three white sophomore high school kids at holy trinity high school.

they promised they would not kill them if they sodomized them. of course, with the catholic, doing that is a moral sin. but they went on and did it anyway and killed them. these guys are in prison now. they should, instead of getting social services and going to school and all of that, they should be executed. they were put on death row. host: so patrick, bring us back to the derek chauvin case. do you want to finish her comment? -- your comment? caller: well, you know, he is a cop and i used to be a cop, in the state department of corrections. in prison, it is like a city.

they have what they call frogs. a frog is a person that the cons use to get their way in prison. host: we will stick to the trial. we are waiting to see what happens with the sentencing after the jury comes with a verdict. we will try not to get too far ahead of that. kimberly is in california on the line for those who say guilty. kimberly, go ahead. caller: yes. i actually agree with your first color. i hope he is found guilty in all three charges. i also want to say the oppressed we see in the streets, i'm a person of color, a brown woman, and i am frayed -- afraid for my sons and grandsons. it has to stay in the streets because it is not about this one case. there will never be justice because you can't bring floyd back, but i definitely think the

police should be held as accountable as any other citizens are in the united states of america, but this is broader than a case of violence. it is also about the injustice that happens every day by police and people of color. i hope we stay in the streets and we continue to fight to be seen and stop being invisible ized as people of color, because that is what we are. host: it was these comments from maxine waters in minnesota that garnered so much attention. if we don't get a guilty verdict, we cannot go away. we have to stay on the street, you have to get more active, have to make sure that they know we mean business. the headline from the new york post after those comments attracted attention both on capitol hill and in the courtroom itself, the judge said

the shoving case could be thrown out on appeal because of maxine waters's threats. that discussion coming after the case was handed to the jury, after they had left the courtroom, a discussion by the judge and the defense asking for the case to be thrown out. all of that happening, getting attention on capitol hill as well amid the first day the jury gets the case, as we begin day to asking you, do you think the jury should decide he is guilty, not guilty, or are you not sure? a little bit from yesterday's closing arguments, this is minnesota special assistant steve slasher -- slicer toward the end of his arguments. >> this started over a call of an alleged counterfeit $20 bill. but george floyd's life was taken for something worth far less, far less.

you saw the photo, you saw the body language, and you can learn a lot about someone by looking at their body language. defendant facing down the crowd, they are pointing cameras at him, recording him, telling him what to do, challenging his authority. his ego, his pride, not the kind of pride that makes you do better, be better, the kind of ego-based pride that the defendant was not going to be told what to do. he was knocking to let these bystanders tell him what to do. he was going to do what he wants, how he wanted, for as long as he wanted. and there was nothing they could do about it because he had the authority. he had the power of the badge and other officers. and the bystanders were powerless to do a thing. the defendant chose pride over

policing. host: that was for the state yesterday during covid -- closing arguments. for derek chauvin, it was his attorney. here is part of his argument on what the jury would need to see in order to convict his client. >> no crime is committed if a police officer's actions were justified by the police officer's use of reasonable force in the line of duty in effecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. the kind and degree of force a police may lawfully use in executing his duties is limited by what a reasonable police officer the same situation would believed to be necessary. any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. to determine if the actions of the police officer were

reasonable, you must look at those facts, which a reasonable officer, in the same situation, would have known, at the precise moment, the officer acted with force. you must decide whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer and without regard to the officer's own state of mind, intention, or motivation. the defendant is not guilty of a crime if he used force as authorized by law and to prove guilt, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant's use of force was not authorized by law. so, if you remember from my opening statements on how i talked about the reason and common sense, the reasonable

police officers. i want to briefly add one thing here, is the standard is not what should the officer have done in these circumstances. it is not what could the officer have done differently in these circumstances, the standard is what where the facts known to this officer had the precise moment he used force, and, considering all of the totality of circumstances and faxed to the known to the officer, would a reasonable police officer -- what would a reasonable police officer have done? host: that is derek chauvin's attorney, and back to your phone calls. derek is on the line for those that say not sure on this case. go ahead. caller: yes.

to me, the only reason i'm not sure it is i don't know what he should be charged with. i know he should be charged with something at the very least. some of the things we should be looking at is past complaints. hold on. why he didn't to anything after his last breath when there was four minutes and 44 seconds before he got off of him. i think that alone what should get -- alone is what should make them guilty but the question is what to charge him with. host: the next caller is mike. go ahead. caller: the previous arrest of floyd, he had done the same thing, semi-resisted, acts like he didn't do nothing, and

couldn't breathe, he said that in the 2019 arrest. it says that -- it's just that people would not resist arrest. if you are not resisting, i don't understand that. host: what would you say to last caller who just made the point, he said why didn't he do anything after he took his last breath? why was he on him for four more minutes? caller: well, he was looking at the crowd, all of them over there. all of them over there was cussing. they played that on the court thing. f this and at that -- and f that. looking over the years, how many protesters against cops. he didn't know if he had a gun or anything and would try to assault the cops. the other thing, how come every

time a cop shoots a person of color the media, the mainstream media like cnn, msnbc, pbs, they all make the assailant out to be a choir boy or choir girl. me in this country and people, black, brown, and white that owns these businesses are going to get fed up with these people burning their businesses. you seen the video of the two black girls that tried to carjack that guy in d.c. and they ended up killing him? they were 13 and 14. it don't matter what their age is. if they got the sense to do that, they got the sense to be tried as an adult. host: got your point. this is richard out of oklahoma. you are next on the line for those that say guilty. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, sir.

caller: you know, i believe that man is guilty. the police are there to serve and protect, and the man was saying i can't breathe, had him cuffed and secured, three cups there. if they can't handle one guy, they don't need to be a cop. i bet he was saying i got the guy, could have set up and breathed. there was a look on chauvinist face whenever he was dead and he was looking up like look what i did. it looked like he was saying look what i could do to you. that is what i got from him. i just think the man is guilty, and i think if he gets off of it, there's going to be a bad thing happening all over the united states. host: to patricia, the line for

those that say not sure out of new castle, delaware. how much of the trial itself did you end up watching? caller: i have watched all of it. host: why are you still not sure? caller: i'm not sure because we, as a public, have not seen all of the tapes, all of the information. i am really amazed you have so many people calling on the guilty or not guilty line. i don't know how anybody could be sure at this point. i really wouldn't want any of these people to call in on either side to be sit as my jerry f i was to do anything or be accused of doing anything. that is the first thing. it does not make sense. you don't have all of the information. leave it to the jury. i do not understand people out here making comments about it that have no idea. we have had witnesses go on, when the prosecution would say something they would agree with it, and when the defense

would go up, they would agree with it. then they would go back to the prosecution, agree with their statements. we have had very unreliable witnesses. however, the jury has all of the information. they need to go over these hour-long tapes. if they are not there for over a week, they have not done their job. whatever the decision is. i want to also note two, -- too, whatever the decision is, people need to relax. they do not need to cause violence on either side. no matter what the decision. we give this to them and that is their duty to do it and we should respect whatever outcome it is. i think, honestly, they will get the right decision. host: that is patricia in delaware this morning. two nuggets from this morning's round up on the shoving case from the wall street journal,

including closing arguments, attorneys showed about 100 66 clips of video taken from bystanders, police body cameras, street cameras, surveillance cameras, that over the course of the entire trial for the first time for the trial yesterday. mr. shaaban removed his mask so the jury could see his face as his attorney began his closing arguments. we will take a few more of your calls on this topic. we wanted to note, as you were calling in, news yesterday from up here on capitol hill, congressman steve stivers, the republican from ohio who announced he is retiring from congress next month, a move as the washington notes will temporarily give republicans one fewer vote in the narrowly divided house that house. it will increase from 218 to 211 until voters in his suburban district select his successor. a tweet from congressman stivers

on his announcement, for the past decade, he said it has been my honor and privilege to serve the people of ohio's congressional district throughout my career. i have worked to promote policies that drive our career forward, get folks to work, and put our fiscal house in order. he went on to say i'm excited to announce that i will take on a new opportunity. may 16, i will leave congress to accept the decision a president and ceo of the ohio chamber of commerce. he said the best part of this job has been making a positive difference in the lives of constituents. i am grateful to the people of ohio 15 for putting their trust in me. that was the republican steve stivers on twitter yesterday. one other story him capitol hill and one we have been following for several months, capitol police officer brian sicknick suffered a stroke and died of natural causes. the medical examiner's office in washington, d.c. said that

monday. answering the question since the officer died a day after he was assaulted at the u.s. capitol riots. two men arrested last month on charges of assess -- arresting sick nick with a spray. they did not link a spray. after being sprayed at 2:00 p.m., he claps around the capitol around 2:00 p.m. and he died around 9:30 the following night. capitol police say they accepted the medical examiner's new finding. "this does not change the fact that officer -- the officer died in the line of duty courageously defending congress in the capital." that is the agency statement that came out yesterday. back to your phone calls. four of your calls about how the jury should deliberate the derek chauvin case. a caller from new york says not guilty. caller: hello? host: go on, sam.

caller: i just want to say, how many police officers do we need to pull the guy for speeding or for shoplifting? so how many comps do we need in this country to control the crowd? hi said not guilty, because he was the second squad to be called to help. the man should listen to the police, obey the police, and nothing will happen. host: mary is next, orangeburg, south carolina, says guilty. caller: hi, john, good morning. host: good morning. caller: i want to talk about three things that i'm afraid of that they will happen if they don't find him guilty. one is the riots. the second is that it is open season for police to kill people of color. the third thing is, if any police do get hurt, it is not going to be coming from blm or

antifa, it is the book low boys. that will give them the cash boogaloo boys -- boogaloo boys. they will kill cops and blame it on people of color. those are the three things i am afraid of if they do not find him guilty. host: mary in south carline a. this is kevin in michigan that says not sure. caller: thanks for taking my call. one thing i have to say, if he is found guilty or innocent, either way, they will write. there is no way around it. just like the fergusons case, hands up don't shoot, that was perpetrated by the mainstream media that just carried that on and on. eventually, it was found false, yet you still see it when you watch any kind of protest. everyone's got their hands on, don't shoot. to me, it does not matter.

either way, they will riots. that is all i have to say. host: in texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i would say not guilty because the medical -- the corners office -- medical information was clear that he did not die from the knee on his neck. -- i think the are guilty of not taking him seriously when he said he could not read from the time the dust could not breathe -- i think they are guilty of not taking him seriously when he's had he couldn't breathe. but killing him, i don't think that is what happened. host: sarin humbled, texas. our next caller in this segment of "washington journal." about one more hour to go.

we will be joined by two members of congress. first will be steve cohen, and later, doug lamalfa from california, republican. stick around for those conversations. we will be right back. ♪ >> listen to c-span's podcast "the weekly." this week, house democrat majority whip, james clyburn of south carolina, talks about the history of the group and their priorities moving forward. >> stay focused, stay in touch with the dreams and aspirations of a people who look to you for leadership, not necessarily who you may represent. i am the only african-american in the congress from south carolina. but south carolina is a state of over 4 million people, and right

around 29% awful are african-americans, so although i have one of the seven districts that are african-americans, -- there are african-americans in all those districts who look to me to help with the fulfillment of their dreams and aspirations, and the congressional black caucus has the same role to play on the national stage. >> find c-span's "the weekly," where you get your podcast. >> "washington journal" continues. host: democratic congressman steve cohen represents the ninth district of tennessee in the house. we await the verdict of the derek chauvin case. do you think the state made its case? guest: i definitely think they made their case. the film was strong. what happened was horrific. and the videos from many angles

showed it, but derek chauvin kept his knee on george floyd's neck for nine minutes plus even after one of his fellow officers saw he had no polls, after he knew he wasn't resisting and was not speaking, and he kept his knee on his neck. chauvin did not budge, did not change. they made their case. i was a defense attorney and also early in my career, i was the police you will advisor in memphis, so i understand both sides. the defense attorney did the best he could with all he had. i wouldn't shown the footage, i think it hurt him, saying, "i can't breathe." it hurt the case. but you go with what you got. host: in a case like this that has garnered so much attention and sparked so many emotions, in your role as a congressman, what do you think your role will be

after the decision comes down from the jury? guest: defending what is, it might have some consideration of legislation in the judiciary committee. we have already passed the george floyd adjusting and policing act, and we certain portions of it concerning qualified immunity. this is not a civil rights case, it is a murder case but it might be related,, and there may be some other issues that come out of the decision and the public's response to it. i think also we need to try to keep everybody called -- everybody calm. the matter what happens, the violence and the rioting is wrong. host: congresswoman maxine waters garnered attention yesterday, including yesterday by the minority leader who said,, "if we don't get that guilty verdict, we have to get more confrontational, we got to make sure they know we mean

business." should she have said that? guest: well i don't know the crowd, i don't know exactly what was going on. i am a friend of maxine, so i am not going to criticize her. but i do think we need to call calm people done at this time. i was -- maxine has been a civil rights warrior. a lot of civil rights success has come through demonstrations and for test industries -- protest in the streets more so than in congress or legislatures or even courts. what we have gotten out of courts and legislatures has been from the streets, for civil rights. it has come from the streets.

very little has come down from the top. host: putting your defense attorney had back on this hat back on -- her statements, do they help you with the mistrial effort? guest: i was surprised to hear what was talked about by the judge. i don't think any jurors saw that. they were supposed to be watching the news. even if they did that this street talk,. political talk. it shouldn't make any difference to the jurors whatsoever. the idea that this would have made the jurors think they should vote to convict, because of the threats from society at large or what it might provoke, they know that is built into the system and into their mindset because of past activity. so i don't think that has anything to do with a mistrial. i think that was a hail mary by the defense. host: let me invite viewers to join into the conversation. congressman steve cohen, a

member of the judiciary committee, the transportation and infrastructure committee, with us until 9:30. go ahead and start calling in. republicans as usual 202-748-8001. ,democrats 202-748-8000. ,independence 202-748-8002. ,congressman, as a lot of the calls are coming in, you mentioned the george floyd justice and policing act passed in the house last month. it prohibits racial refiling by law enforcement, bands chokeholds and no-knock warrants, bands transfer of military grade equipment to police departments, requires the usage of body cameras by officers, mix it easier to prosecute a defendant and enables individuals to recover damages in court. that is just some of what is in the act. where does it stand in the senate and how close is that to becoming law? guest: well, until the senate gets rid of the filibuster, it doesn't stand anywhere, because

it stands underneath mitch mcconnell's shoes. it is unfortunate. but i think it will not get anywhere. that is a perfect bill. it is a compromise. a good bill. that we saw the last time we had it, it was not fine-tuned and it was just minimized. atrophied so terribly, you wouldn't recognize it. until we get rid of the filibuster, it will be hard to pass important legislation that really brings about changes to society. we need to renew the voting rights act. that needs to happen immediately. that is the fundamental a drop of democracy is, the polls right to vote -- bedrock of democracy, the people's right to vote. remember, they can't win if everybody votes. host: do you think the filibuster, there will be a vote

to get rid of the filibuster. what do you think of happen with moderate senators, joe manchin, what sort of pressure are they under? guest: strong pressure, because it is affecting their constituents as well. senator manchin of west virginia, senator sinema of arizona, their base wants to have the george floyd justice and policing act passed, i suspect. they suddenly want the voting rights act passed. they will be under great pressure. i don't think we will have a complete repeal of the filibuster but at least you might have a talking filibuster or some kind of a stair-step reduction, or you could do it on certain special types of legislation, like a monocacy and voting. host: plenty of calls for you. from ohio, democrat.

you're up first with congressman steve macron. caller: yes, i watched the trial, and the drug dealer that was in the front seat of the car, i think he was a real killer. i also think with the reporting in the paper, 80,000 people being killed a year by drugs overdose, and this trial is coming up. i don't see why you are blaming the cop, with a cold that has been used thousands of times and nobody died from it. host: your response. guest: i don't know what the person in the car did. they have been no testimony at all that he died of a drug overdose. that is just outside information and outside of the facts. the facts are, there have been very few times when an officer has done what of the social been did. and it was unnecessary -- officer chauvin did. this is what unnecessary.

we are talking about a $20 counterfeit bill, to take a man out and put your knee on his body for almost 10 minutes. and your fellow officers said he didn't have it and you did not turn him over. it is a macho attitude. i am the law, i am the way. host: explain the difference and where you think it should come down. guest: i think there should be a -- on the verdict? host: yes, sir. guest: i think he is guilty. whether he is guilty of first-degree murder or second-degree, i can't say. i think the defense, all they have to do is show that there was a small amount of doubt to find somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. that is a high burden.

that is the way our system is set up. with a jury, one person can feel that way. i think it will be unlikely with the police man who was there, didn't touch the guy, but he was there. he is unlikely to get a first-degree murder conviction. i think he will get a lesser-degree murder convention. i think everybody will accept that as justice. host: john is in texas a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, congressman. maxine waters in 1992, when the rodney king incident happened, she was encouraging the riots. she was behind it. she even went to the family members who hurt a man and a concrete truck. she made statements when donald trump was in office. she made statements over the weekend. she was inciting violence. tell me why you democrats are hypocrites. if donald trump did that, you would be all over him.

guest: maxine waters is a longtime champion of civil rights and she has effectively changed society by getting activity in the street. the march on washington was not violent. it changed the perspective on the african-american condition in america. dr. king led that much. there have been other marches that have been important in the civil rights struggle, the selma, montgomery march with john lewis. it ended up getting voting rights moved along. that has been a successful measure. in our country, african-americans have been held back. without a war, african-americans would've had slavery many more decades, i am sure. and then jim crow went on until the supreme court in 1994, in brown versus board of education defeated that.

and we continued to have segregation for at least another decade, before people kind of came around. it has been tough. we have denied african-americans rights and their opportunity to participate in our economy for over 200 years, and maxine waters has been a leader in changing that. i don't necessarily need to put my name behind what she did, but i will not go against her, because i know that she is a fighter for justice. host: house minority leader kevin mccarthy tweeted yesterday in part, "i am introducing a resolution to censure congresswoman waters for these'' dangerous comments." what happens with that censure proceeding? guest: it will go down a party line vote, most probably, but republicans, like those spoke at the trump pregame rally for the insurrection, talked about, "it is time to take names and kick

ass." and inflamed that crowd. we have had others do the same thing. kevin mccarthy has enough going on right now with people wanting to carry guns onto the floor and people who want to start anglo-saxon caucuses in our congress. he should work on it. there is plenty to cleanup in his own house. i do know that any house cleaning service could do a good job but he has to try. host: next caller, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a registered libertarian. since i saw that you said on the judiciary committee, i was looking to ask you about the immigration court backlog. i was wondering what your thoughts are on the prospect of

introducing prosecutorial discretion, and perhaps the idea of implementing aspects of adr into our immigration system, or even our immigration agencies under d.h.s. i recently attended a dispute resolution, and i came away with some ideas of how it might work. i was hoping to get your take on it. guest: i really have not thought about the issue but i will take it up with my judiciary advisors. but, you are a libertarian in colorado. i wonder if 4/20, if this is a special day for you? caller: know, it is not for me. it is just another day. guest: you have a good one. host: congressman cohen where are we on the amazing marijuana and is country? guest: -- in this country? guest: well, we are coming along. the house has passed bills to

change the laws. we should leave it up to the state at the minimum and decriminalize it at the federal level, and not have it under schedule i along with heroine, ecstasy and other drugs that don't belong there. i was in a really opposing the oil pipeline coming through african-american communities and potentially threatening our water supply, and the lady came up to me, who was about to go and see reverend barber who had spoken at the rally, she put her arm and said, take a picture. she said,, "i've got breast cancer. please get medical marijuana." i hear that consistently from people who have suffered from cancer, might have parkinson's or m.s. many residents tell me it helps with the pain they go through.

it may be difficult in the senate, but republicans have come around on this and there are more bipartisan votes than ever before. host: his medical marijuana legal in tennessee? guest: yes, it is. tennessee has been very slow to change. it took me 20 years to pass the state lottery, which has raised over $6 billion for college scholarships. when we got the bills passed after 20 years of fighting mostly the religious right, they were first in line to try to get money for their schools and their students who are homeschoolers. they got it and they never questioned it again. host: to shawn out of california, democrat. next, you're on. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: my comment, i have a couple of them. first on maxine waters, i am not one to just point out republicans, i want to point out for people that are trying to destroy america, the

insurrection of the capitol. those are descendant from the confederates. and also, you are wanting to make sure that maxine waters is not standing in power to protect and fight for the people. that is not going to happen. she is not going anywhere. she has been around for a long time, and anything that is happening in this country now, it is all being blamed on the democrats. i watched this every morning, and i just think that our civil rights are totally being violated. we as americans, if we are supposed to be going by our constitution and saying everyone has civil rights and the liberty of this country, then why is it we keep coming back to the same old song with how we are treating people in america? we need to get it together. we are no better than any third world country. we are actually looking very, very bad and looking very

racist. we will never be a communist country. sorry, confederates, the war is over. host: congressman cohen? guest: i am kind of confused. i agree that we will never be communist. when the republicans throw up communism more socialism, that is just red herrings, to try to appeal to people to think there is a communist threat. there isn't in any way, whatsoever. and the democrats are not getting rid of police. one or two democrats have talked about it, but 98% of the democrats are for the police and having police. they know that you need on order. the former attorney general who just died two weeks ago said, in this country, some people are for lauren order and some people are for justice, but you can't have one without the other, and you got to have both. i think the idea that -- there is still a need for change. in the african-americans have

been at the back of the line forever in getting opportunities. they were cut out of relief as farmers for years, discriminated against, they were cut out of g.i. bill benefits after world war ii. those things were just wrong. those are areas, in the rescue bill that we provided for farmers to get relief to make up for the relief they were denied for years. we will try to do things like that in the future to try to make up for the past inequities. but there are so many past inequities -- health deserts in black communities, food deserts, transportation shortages. if you are black, your life expectancy is a good amount less than if you are caucasian. they are one of the few if not the only best we are one of the few, -- -- if not the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have health insurance for its people. we are trying to do that with

the affordable care act. trying to improve it with joe biden. and the rescue bill, trying to encourage states to extend medicaid to many people to the affordable care act, by encouraging them, giving them more money. and yet, they are still resistant to it. it is like in the chauvin case, where the closing argument was that if chauvin had too small a heart. a lot of our governors in red states have too small a heart. they are not extending health care to their poorest citizens who don't have the opportunity because of finance, because of lack of transportation, because of lack of access to health care, to the basic right of health care. they are dying. and they don't care. so i tend to disagree with the lady who said maxine waters and others -- they continue to make the case to make our society a more perfect union and bring us forward to the country we believe we are. we talk about things in the

declaration of independence and the constitution, all of this inequality, men are created equal, but we know african-americans were not part of that. they were not considered equal. they were slaves. the constitution had in it a compromise to recognize slavery. the united states government had positions that supported slavery and let it continue for years. then because of the -- 1876 election, democrats got rid of efforts after the war to give african-americans a chance and they put jim crow laws in effect, but the republicans allowed them to do it by making a deal to win the presidency. republicans did not care about african-americans. democrats certainly didn't. that is something we have to recognize. host: steve cohen of tennessee. to ravenswood, west virginia,

this is arnold, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a former police officer and i have something to say about this trial. i don't think the defense attorney presented everything he should have presented. my thoughts are he needs to present police officers that dealt with people on drugs, because usually a person that is on drugs, once you get them in custody, you need to keep them restrained until you get them locked up, because they will do anything to try get loose. if they get loose, they turn comes really violent. they just turn wild. host: congressman cohen? guest: well on fentanyl, you don't get violent. you gently pass out. but even with the knee on his neck, three other officers could have held him down.

if he had any problem. he didn't have to put his knee on his back. he wasn't able to get up just by his head. he went too far. as far as the gentleman who was a police man -- i thank you for your service. you know, i hear people say there aren't good policeman, that is not true. when i was an attorney, a lot of the policeman i met were fine young and women, some of them were my good friend. one in particular, jack wallace, was my hero. generally, a lot of the officers never used deadly force. there were some that were bad. some of them liked to exert their authority, black and white folks, when they put on the good uniform and they want to show they are the power. but that is changing. we need to help -- part of the george floyd justice and policing at has sensitivity training, and the escalating these things. most police are good.

and we need to recognize that and thank them, because without them, we would have lawlessness. too many murders and many crimes of violence in this country already. host: let me go to your transportation and infrastructure committee work. a lot of discussion since its release about what the biden administration is considering, infrastructure in the spending bill. in usa today, the republican from south dakota saying less than 6% of the trillion dollar package would invest in roads and bridges, and the most expensive pieces stretch the meaning of infrastructure far beyond what americans would ever think. i am someone who believes you should be straight with the american people if you are asking for one of the largest tax hikes in a generation to pay for the largest proposal in american history. guest: he voted for the trump tax plan, a trillion dollar giveaway to the rich that

was supposed to trickle down and help the economy, which it did not. corporations took their savings and give it back in big operative executive bonuses and stock buybacks. it did not help the economy. it helped the wealthy. 80%-plus went to the upper 1%, and they voted for that. they are only concerned about fiscal conservatism when it is concerned with helping the people. this proposal by president biden changes the breath of infrastructure. there are many areas that don't have broadband. without it you can't stay up to date with what is going on in the world, you can't educate children, and you can't get health care through telehealth. you need broadband. pipes go to people's homes, lead pipes. that needs to be changed. they are poisonous. the only way will be able to change those pipes is to make the water safe, is through this type of bill.

the electric grid. . that is infrastructure. that is important to have it up to date. we saw what happened in texas when they didn't have a grid that worked. schools. senior care. there are a lot of us getting older. senior care is important. that is infrastructure for the last years of your life, and it needs to be good and safe and they need to have every possible aid they can have, whether it is climate control, whether it is health care in the senior care home. and we need more home health care. people are more reasonable and the like being in their homes. there is a lot in this bill that changes the definition -- the supreme court said infrastructure could include us that he having eminent domain for putting up a ritz-carlton hotel. infrastructure is continuously changing in its definition, sometimes to the pleasure and sometimes to the displeasure of people.

president biden has seen where the country is falling down. we are 13th in the world in infrastructure, may be lower. we just can't continue doing that and remain a world power. the chinese are moving up. their capacity is increasing and ours is not. host: one more call for you. this is victoria in michigan. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. there are two things i would like to comment on. the first thing, first, before i say anything else, let me say, for police officers, i thank them so very much for this service. i don't know what we would do without them. but at the same time, whether you are a republican or a democrat, what happened to george floyd was wrong, and there is no prettying it up, making it look good, coming up with excuses. it doesn't matter the party you

are from. when you see something like that, you have to be able to simply speak the truth and that is the bottom line. guest: i think that lady said it perfectly and she is exactly right. a lot of the people who were immediately questioning george floyd and saying he was on drugs and the policeman did not wrong -- policeman put their lives on the line. but this police man did wrong. some of the same people arguing against the george floyd case, are the people who say that january 6 was just a demonstration. they were just good americans up there, and-or antifa was responsible for it. that was the greatest threat to our republic. an attack on the capitol, first since the british in 1812. it was an attempt to overthrow our government and disrupt the electoral college and try to impose the election of donald

trump over the wishes of the people. three people died in the insurrection who were protesters. one lady was trampled by the rioters we just ran over her. she was trampled to death. that is not a bunch of peaceful protesters. they did physical damage to the building. over 100 officers incurred injuries. two committed suicide because of the trauma. it was a. serious incident we need to come together as americans and understand january 6 needs to be dealt with in a commission, the justice department needs to prosecute those people. let's hope the jury comes out with a verdict that the american people can accept understand, and go on with better policing, but with respect for the policemen who do their job admirably. host: congressman steve cohen, we appreciate your time and we appreciate you bringing your seat "washington journal" mug to the interview. guest: you are welcome.

good coffee and good memories. host: always. after the break will be joined by another member of congress, republican of california, doug lamalfa. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> coming up like today, the house needs at 10:00 a.m. for speeches. legislative work at noon with debate on the veterans job-training bill, on c-span. on c-span2, the senate is back at 10:00 a.m. to consider kerry gensler's reappointment to the securities and exchange commission, and lisa monaco to be deputy attorney general. at 10:30 on c-span3, transportation secretary pete buttigieg, house -- secretary marcia fudge, and others testify on the biden administration's $2 trillion infrastructure plan

at a senator probations hearing. there is more streaming live on our website including a senate judiciary hearing on voting rights at 10:00 a.m., with testimony from stacey abrams. and the new hampshire secretary of state, bill gardner. and a house committee reviews the status of covid-19 relief programs. at 11:00 a.m., pentagon officials testify before the house armed services committee about u.s. military operations in the middle east and africa. >> washington journal continues. host: california republican doug lamalfa joins us. he is the author of two new pieces of legislation focused on the issue of vaccine passports. what would they do? guest: we have two pieces. one is focused on transportation. i have a belief you shouldn't be discriminated against cause you don't have a vaccine past, in order to use airlines, amtrak,

whatever. even the biden administration has backed away from the initial flurry of publicity about vaccine passports and the requirement of them. the second bill would not segregate people from doing business -- going into stores or theaters or whatever the business might be without having to produce a vaccine passport. host: that no vaccine passport act and they keep vaccines voluntary act. you may want to look those up. you mentioned the biden administration and what they have been saying about vaccine passports. this is jen psaki, questioned about vaccine passports. [video clip] >> a federally organized vaccine passport of some kind, would the president lean more on listening to people have raised objections of privacy?

sec. psaki: the have been lots of questions. the government will not now nor will it be supporting a system that requires americans to carry a credential. there will be no database or mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential. as the issues are being considered either private and nonprofit sectors, our decision is simple from the federal government, which is americans' privacy and rights should be protected so that these systems are not used unfairly. there is a movement in the private sector to identify ways that they can return to events where there are large swathes of people safely in soccer stadiums or theaters. that is something that -- that is where the idea originated and we expect that is where it will be concluded. we will be providing guidance which will look like an faq -- frequently asked question -- that provides answers to questions americans have, particularly around privacy, security and discrimination

soon. i don't have an update on that yet. host: congressman the mouth for are you ok -- congressman, are you ok with that answer? rep. lamalfa: -- -- guest: that is actually a refreshing thing to hear by jen psaki and the biden administration. that said, we see a lot done using corporate america, media and other outlets to do the footwork that the federal government weeks to do. so look him in the company's, how many are jumping on board and saying, we will give you a doughnut or a $25 certificate if you show us you have been vaccinated. that is coercion. it is their freedom to do that. and it is freedom of people to take one of these injections if they choose to, but the key

choice is to choose to do so. that is what we are about as a country. what if they discriminate on people that have an allergic reaction to that? i know there are some who will do so. i have gotten word from people who say they do not want to do it. others are not comfortable yet. the problem has been, there has been so much misinformation ever since the beginning, or lack of information, since the beginning of this pandemic situation, that there isn't a lot of trust by people for their media, for what dr. fauci is saying, what is coming out of various regulatory agencies. so with that, it has kind of caught the process of getting the injections of these different materials, it has gotten caught up in the mistrust that a lot of americans have. if they want to do it, that is fine, but for those who do not wish to, you shouldn't be

coerced into getting it because you will think you will get access to normal, everyday things. host: are you ok with school districts requiring a whole swathe of vaccinations for children in public school? guest: absolutely not. the evidence we have been able to gather, research, what have you, has shown kids are the least susceptible to getting the virus or having negative effects of them. host: not just about covid, but other vaccinations required to participate. guest: we went through this in california a hotly debated situation with the required vaccines for kids in schools. what we're looking at is, again, i think that is apparent's choice -- a parent's choice. now, you will have a did eight. do they have school choices to go if they don't get the vaccine? but i don't think the government should be forcing you.

i am against mandatory, compulsory vaccines at any level. host: republican of california, congressman lamalfa with us for the next 20 minutes or so until the house comes in. we will take you there for gavel to gavel coverage when they do. if you want to join the conversation, republicans 202-748-8001. , democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. as folks are calling in, congressman, your work on the transportation and infrastructure committee and the biden infrastructure plan and what is and is not being considered infrastructurep how do you define infrastructure? guest: it has certainly taken a wide-open approach with this new go around in infrastructure conversation, you know. i hear this word being used a lot." reimagine things. let's reimagine everything. you have different pots of money

for different uses as we budget for, as we appropriate in congress. these are all the peoples tax dollars. that is what we have to remember. this is not just congress-created money. although it is being printed with trillions of new debt that will be on the next intermission, the school kids we were just talking about -- the next generation. with infrastructure, we have different money for health care. different avenues where the federal government has an involved. infrastructure in most people's eyes is things like highways and bridges and airports. water infrastructure. my home state of california, we have, in part, a man-made drought because of the way water has been misallocated, how it has been allowed to flow out to the ocean because we could have been storing some of that water. we are in the second year of a tough drought. in 2019 our lakes were jammed full. we are in this situation two years later.

so much water being allowed to escape to our ocean based on issues, the big delta, for example. they think it will save fish. what it really boils down to his menace abilities are being allowed to let their sewer and other -- what it boils down to is municipalities are being allowed to let their's you are or other drainage drain. water released from these urban areas should be released cleanly instead of -- there is a structure is behind. that is what we need to fix. the highways are lacking. how many have driven down the right lane where the trucks on the freeway and it is full of potholes. terrible to drive on. we have flood control situations. in northern california we have done a lot of good work. more can be done. look at the southern states, louisiana, for example. my colleagues down there are frequently talking to us about

that. much work should be done on the levee systems there. we have flood control, we have water storage. we could be raising shafts for the dam, which means thousands more acres of water in california, but that is being put off because of environmental concerns, were maybe we think we don't have the money. plenty of money will be in the infrastructure package if they pass it as is, but the idea that it will only have anywhere from 2% to 6% go to what people think of normally as infrastructure -- my home state of california, for example, they are still pursuing this ridiculous boondoggle known as high-speed rail. we asked voters 12 years ago. it was supposed to be $33 billion. now it will be at least $100 billion. they don't even have all the parcels purchased yet. they are still wasting money, as of right now on that, while we suffer without water in california, and our electricity

grid. whether that should be a government project or not, at least our electricity grid should stay on when the wind blows. we have to shut it off because they are afraid it could cause a fire, which is a real concern, too, because our forest service is not doing their job of trimming around fire lines. they have been taking the year off because of covid. host: is there in number you would be more comfortable with? guest: the number that focuses on infrastructure. infrastructure, while you are building it, creates jobs. but things need to be done. there is a commonsense approach to things that need to be done, even though it will be in a lot of cases borrowed money. at least if you can see you will get an economic return, from freeways that move raw material and finished products, and people who are able to do services, have them be able to move freely. having the infrastructure that protects areas from flooding, more infrastructure that might have to do with other avenues of public safety that we need to catch up on.

so, infrastructure looks like something that helps produce an economy and helps make people more safe. when infrastructure turns out to be things in the social services, you can debate that, but it is a separate item. we shouldn't be talking about childcare in infrastructure packages. host: we will let you chat with several colors already calling in for you. mark is from maryland, independent. you are on with congressman lamalfa. caller: simple question, albeit critical, universally applicable , not just legally applicable -- would you distinguish, please. i don't know if you have a legal background. would you distinguish, please, mere naked doubt from reasonable doubt, with a couple of examples? guest: are you talking about the trial situation in minnesota

when you are talking about doubt? caller: it could be that trial or in any trial. universally applicable, could be applicable in it, sense way, to what you are discussing now. guest: reasonable doubt, you are using reason, logic, available evidence. naked doubt would be more shoot from the hip thing, which is less productive. if you are talking about the issue with the vaccinations, we can talk about how our own cdc and dr. fauci says we need to still continue to wear the mask, still need to social distance, still need to take precautions because it doesn't actually prevent you from catching the coronavirus, so people are going, well, maybe there is reasonable doubt there on whether i should get the vaccine are not. what i am focused on in my legislation is to not force people to get the passport,

because it would be basically a mandatory vaccination. now, again, talking about the trial situation, reasonable doubt, i think the defense in the prosecution both have to make a case to the jurors what is reasonable to the jurors on evidence presented as well as -- i was watching the defense of little bit yesterday on the airplane talk about what is reasonable to a fellow officer or those in law enforcement of an action taken with the information they have with them a in this case, mr. floyd and what we saw in the shooting of the young 13-year-old, that story developing too. what does a copy in a split second in that case supposed to do, or one who is trying to subdue somebody who appears to be on a type of substance? i guess reasonable should be applied to making legislation or having an argument over a game of cards at her kitchen table -- use the evidence. used things that are knowable. use that in your argument. host: what is your

responsibility in your role as member of congress after the decision comes down from the jury, whenever it does come down? guest: well that will be debatable as to what the decision is. what we have to remember, the viewers, me, congress, we are in the room having the discussion that the jury has. the instructions from the judge. the whole body of evidence that each side has laid out. so i think you are wise to accept it as the people in the room that were the experts made the best case they could. my colleague from california, maxine waters, out there pre-judging it, pre-determining the sentence or the outcome, that is just causing mayhem and that is highly irresponsible for that to be happening. with the people in the room that are supposed to be the experts presenting as much as possible to an impartial jury the evidence that is there.

so a lot of it sometimes boils down to jury selection. i wish we could draw more from the people in the country that have a sense of common sense, instead of sometimes those that merely did the least good job of getting out of jury duty, you know. host: would you vote to censure maxine waters? guest: yes, i would. that is highly insightful what she's doing -- inciteful what she is doing. i think your previous guest said , they are still trying to keep that body of thought alive what. president trump said is tame compared to what mexia waterhouse said at that and previous conversations, where she says,, "g go get in people's face." when they are just trained to have dinner. that is anarchy. host: next caller. caller: i had a discussion

regarding the best question regarding the immigrant labor force. given the california districts, 16, 21, california 22 and 23 are so independent, i was wondering what agribusiness and big ag stays out of the argument, and what they want. every time this issue comes up, ag gets nervous. in june of 2019, the white house dispatched secretary perdue to california 16 to reassure them that i.c.e. isn't going after farmworkers, reported in the sun newspaper. it would seem that they would not stand on the fence and taken issue. host: congressman, go ahead. guest: thank you for that, tom.

sounds like you are probably from the central valley, where ag labor is desperately needed. secretary perdue at the time was trying to keep the solutions flowing. i am a member of a group co-authoring a bill called the " former workforce modernization act." it will keep the labor we have in the country. the problem is so much of the country relies on the ag workforce but has come here illegally. i am a strong advocate for a strong border, continuing to build the fence, have the staff and personnel to protect our border and have nobody comes in that doesn't have authorization. we have a situation where we have ignored the country, as a people, for 30 years, ever since ronald reagan in 1986, in good faith, did the last bill to try to solve immigration. the democrats supported the border wall at the time. even not that many years ago. you can find video of president

clinton at the state of the union talking about illegal immigration, president obama, leading democrat members. that changed in the last few years when the political wind changed. president biden finally admits that they have a crisis at the southern border after weeks of a giant problem. that said, we have a lot of farmworkers in this country that did not come here illegally. the farmers know them. by and large, these are good, hard-working people. we have to continue to put them through a process that the , " farmworkers modernization act would provide" that would give them status. those are some of the fears and some would say, mr. lamalfa, well, that is amnesty. not if you see the legislation. we have to acknowledge that these folks have been here for quite a while, in a lot of cases, decades, even. they are known for their workers

they work with and valued by those farmers and they are by and large, good people. if you have criminals, they need to be kicked out. but at this point, this is stabilizing that workforce, giving them legal status so they don't have to sneak back-and-forth around the border, put their life at risk. and the women involved, the horrific things that happen to them. i don't know how we look at what we have now as compassionate when we still need ag labor. i would challenge anybody that is a longtime american citizen that would want to come out and do some of that ag labor who says, they are taking jobs away from americans. well, come out there and do it. i have a farm. we are heavily mechanized. i am in price grower in my real life -- rice grower in my real life. we don't have that kind of labor, but for those who do come by the people who come out of

town and say, i need a job, you put them out there and they last a very short amount of time. a couple of days. we value these, what they would be called "certified ag workers." to answer your question, tom, agriculture industries are supporting what we're trying to do by a large. you got pockets of the country that aren't happy with the legislation because they didn't get this or that, but a lot of california ag, the debris people are really -- the dairy people really support it. a lot of agriculture has come on board. we need the southern states to look at the big picture that we need to get a certified workforce. host: brought in trenton, new jersey, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for your service,

representative. question about covid-19. correct me if i am wrong, but you said you are against for people that don't want to take it, that have to take the vaccine. my concern would be, if you don't take it, this thing, for what i understand, it is so contagious that you could spread it to other people if you don't immunize yourself. so where is that balance for our country and our neighborhoods and our stores and everybody but people, if they don't take the vaccine and go around and spread it and get more people sick. on the other side of that coin, is to make sure that everybody gets the vaccine so that they can stop the spread of this disease. that is my question. thank you and have a good day. guest: thank you. that is a very fair question in this debate.

what i hope we can have is more of a debate on the nuances of what the bill is doing. when i see big-tech and other media suppressing the conversation that is counter to what the pro-vaccine narrative is, when people are getting kicked off twitter and facebook, people with a counter argument, this is not doing much to help with the trust people are looking for to say, yes, they will take one of these injections or not. what do we know about the injections right now, is that dr. fauci and the cdc and others ours a it doesn't provide you immunity. they still say you can't just go out and move freely. the evidence so far is a small percentage of the country so far has had both. that number is increasing each day, but i don't think we have enough evidence to say, yes, the people who have been vaccinated are part of the downward numbers so far. it is a very small part, percentagewise. i am not a statistician or dr.,

but what i would infer is what we see happening is a herd thing going on right now. states that have opened up like texas, they are already seeing their numbers go down. the problem states like michigan and under areas -- and other areas, their numbers continue to go up. we have seen small bits of evidence, again, not with 100% conclusion yet, but people that have had the vaccine that are encountering the variants, whatever they might be, in some of these cases, they are even more susceptible to the variants of the virus. so we still have a lot of work to do on determining what it will really do for us. as i mentioned earlier on, it doesn't make you immune, it doesn't mean you get to take off one or two or three masks you might be wearing, and you still have to stay out of large clouds. than the vaccine hasn't really delivered immunity. so many people, after being

pent-up for a year want anything to get out -- i see anecdotes from people who say, if i take it may be a can become free again and do the things i want to do, the normal things we used to do. go to the theater, take my kids to the ballgame, social distance. we still have these rules in my home state of california. they are climbing down on simple things like that. the vaccine is not providing that. so my legislation, my focus is not forcing people to get a passport to do certain things. and i will not be part of anything that supports people getting a vaccine either. i think our country, our finding ideals are much more about liberty, about individual choices on this, especially something that has not shown that it will do the miraculous things that it is being activated by people just looking for hope and want to get out of their caves.

host: there are requirements on capitol hill for members or staff to receive vaccinations to do certain things. have you yourself been vaccinated? guest: they have not been a requirement for members of staff. . again, a lot of people are doing it by their personal choice. we do have a mask mandate when doing anything inside the building. it seems to be 50-50 outside. so we have to do it in much, especially on the house floor, we have a mask mandate on the house floor. on the senate side, for example, they are not required to wear a mask when giving a speech. i wish they could loosen that, because when trying to give us each in front of your colleagues or ceased in or any other national forum like that, it takes away from our ability to deliver and communicate an idea or concept. it is an inhibition towards that. i don't want for us to be forcing our staff or fellow members to do this either.

host: have you been vaccinated? guest: i have chosen not to do so yet. host: one minute or two before the house comes in at 10:00 a.m. the house and senate vote in at 10:00 today, a busy day on capitol hill. one last question, as a republican who has 1, 5 times in the very blue state of california, one viewer wants to know your thoughts on 2022 and 2024. he says it looks good for the geo the. he is on twitter -- he says it looks good for the gop. guest: my part of northern california is what you would call a very red. i call it the normal heart of california. but we just want to be left alone. we have four-wheel drives, we like hunting, just doing the normal things country folks like to do. so they elect me because they seem to agree with a lot of the things i have articulated here today.

for 2022, watching the democrats overreach on everything -- this week we are on a debate making washington, d.c. the 51st state. i know northern california would like to be the 51st state. that goes against the constitution. d.c. is a 68-square-mile area, one 20th the size of rhode island, and about the most the same size as the city of fresno. they want to make that a state? we know this is a power grab to get more democratic u.s. senators. the other stuff is ridiculous. that overreach by the house democrats will probably end up losing them seats which will put them in our side, may be kevin mccarthy as our speaker, and mrs. pelosi would be on the outside finally. because what is going on here is harmful to our country, the way these people are overstepping their bounds, whether it is the house, the senate, the white house down the street, and the agencies they have unleashed. i got out of my state out of

water because of regulations that just came down recently. host: congressman doug lamalfa is from the first district of california, republican, joining us this morning for the first time on "washington journal." we hope you will join us again down the road. guest: great to be on. thanks, john. host: that will do it for us this morning. we take you live to the house floor. for coverage beginning momentarily. the speaker: the house will be in order. the pure r pursuant to the order of the house of january 4, 2021, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and normer minority leaders for morning hour debate. -- minority leertsdz for morning hour debate. time will be equally allocated between the parties and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall the de c