>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government c-span is your unfiltered view of government. . >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions, building infrastructure come up pretty technology, empowering opportunity in committees big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up today on "washington journal," texas representative michael burgess will discuss yesterday's house gop vote to remove representative liz cheney as conference chair and other news of the day. that michigan representative dan killed the on the legislative

priorities for house democrats. later, cyber threat alliance president and ceo michael daniel talks about cyber vulnerabilities and critical infrastructure following the ransomware attack against colonial pipeline. host: good morning, everyone, on this thursday, may 13. on the "washington journal" this morning, we'll show you testimony from yesterday's capitol hill hearing on the january 6 attack. lawmakers heard from the trump administration's defense secretary and acting attorney general who were in charge that day. yesterday's hearing was one of many as lawmakers call for public testimony to get to the bottom of what happened. at the same time, republican and democratic leaders are in talks on setting up an independent commission to look into the storming of the capitol. as they debate, it's your turn

to tell them what you think should be done. is a commission to examine the january 6 capitol attack needed? if you say yes, 202-748-8000. if you say no, 202-748-8001. if you're not sure, 202-748-8002. send us a text at 202-748-8003. send us a tweet with the handle, @cspanwj. you can join the conversation there as well. the headline from "the hill" newspaper is that democrats are thinking of bringing to a vote, this idea of forming a january 6 commission similar to the 9/11 commission as early as next week. here is the speaker of the house late last month talking about negotiations over forming this commission. >> in terms of the ledge larkse the makeup of the commission,

the process within the commission and the scope of the commission, two objections that the republicans had was that they wanted to have it even instead of the president having an appointment, just have the house, the democrats and republicans, and we yielded on that. i think the president should have it, but nonetheless, the scope is what is important if that's where their discomfort is, i yield -- not i, but we yield on that. the second part was on process, where they had a concern about subpoena, the subpoena power. we had said that we would agree to subpoena power that i think they would agree to, that is that the chair and ranking -- not the ranking member, but the scommare vice chair would have to agree on a subpoena or a majority of the committee, of the commission agree.

that seems to address the subpoena -- we'll see. we still don't know where they will be on scope. but some of this is, shall we say, interaction among members on committees, etc., and if we can come to agreement on the first two, why would they object to the scope, which is to find the truth of what happened on january 6, when an insurrection descended upon the capitol, violently -- well, i don't need to describe it to you, but our purpose is to find the truth for that. it's not about investigating one thing or another that they may want to draw into this, but i'm optimistic. host: the speaker of the house last month talking about this idea of forming an independent commission to look into the

january 6 attack. she's going to hold her weekly news conference again today. she could be asked again about this commission and where the talks and the vote next week. if you want to watch go, to our website, c-span.org. you may follow us on twitter, @ cspan. yesterday, as we said, several hearings happening related to this on capitol hill yesterday. you had the current homeland security chief and the attorney general testifying and the headlines from their testimony yesterday were lawmakers' false narratives could fan the flames of extremism is what they told a senate committee. and then as we told you at the top, you had the former defense secretary under president trump and the acting attorney general on the day of the january 6 attack testifying on capitol hill, and the headline from "the hill" newspaper out of that testimony was there were a

handful of republicans on that committee, they say downplaying the january 6 violence, this is a quote, "like it was a normal tourist visit." listen to congressman from yesterday. >> this hearing is called the capitol insurrection. let's be honest with the american people. it was not an insurrection, and we cannot call it that and be truthful. the cambridge english dictionary defines an insurrection as, and i quote, an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence. and then from the century dictionary, the active rising against civil authority or governmental restraints, specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state, as one of the members who stayed in the capitol and on the house floor who, with other republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3:00 p.m. that day from the mob who tried to enter, i can tell you the house floor

was never breached, and it was not an insurrection. this is the truth. there was an undisdisciplined mob. there were some rioters and who some clit acts of vandalism. but let me be they're, there was no insurrection, and to call it that is a bold-faced lie. watching the tv footage of those who walked through the capitol showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the ropes taking videos and pictures. if you didn't know the tv footage was a individual free throw january 6, you would actually think it was a normal tour i was visit. -- tourist visit. there were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the capitol. also, the only shots fired on january 6 was from a capitol police officer who killed an unarmed protester, ashley babbitt, in what will probably be eventually, be determined to be a needless display of lethal force. we heard earlier her death certificate ruled her death to be a homicide.

host: that was the republican of georgia and his perspective on what happened on january 6. our question to you is, does congress need to set up an independent commission without lawmakers or maybe it includes lawmakers, but something separate from the hearings and the investigations that are happening up on capitol hill to examine what happened on that day. caroline, you say yes, in ohio, tell us why. caller: well, i watched a little bit. i watched -- and i'm association i don't remember the person's name that asked mr. miller this question, but anyway, he said that trump was -- or, no, no, trump told mr. miller at 1:30 that he should send help. and then the person asked mr. miller why he didn't send help

until after 3:00 or something like that, and mr. miller never answered the question. now, i think that would clear trump. i don't know why mr. miller didn't answer the question. that was an easy question. he could say why he didn't do what former president trump had asked him to do at 1:30. yes, i definitely think that there should be an independent commission. that's my opinion. host: who do you think should serve on it, lawmakers? caller: oh, gosh, i hadn't even thought of that. that's a very good question. host: or just out of their hands completely? caller: yes, i totally think you're right. i think it needs to be just no one involved, not the congressman, not mr. miller, not any of the former people that were the witnesses

yesterday. it just needs to be completely independent. and i don't know the names of people to tell you who should be on the commission, but definitely, i think you're right, i think it should be totally independent. host: care lirnings i'm not sure this is the moment you're talking about, but i want to show our viewers from the hearing, the former defense secretary, chris miller, defending the pentagon's response that day. >> on january 6, 2021, 8,000 local and federal law enforcement officers were on duty in the district of columbia. i was told during planning session that such a force routinely manages demonstrations well north of 100,000 demonstrators. that is what they are trained, equipped, and chartered and expected to do. many commentators mischaracterized my instructions, and army secretary ryan mccarthy's accompanying guidance is somehow contributing to the inability of the guard to respond or even worse that those instructions somehow enabled the mob to enjoy an easy path to the capitol.

that is completely false. we did not disarm the national guard. the request from the mayor was for unarmed support of local law enforments, and we authorized the support she and general walker requested. at about 2:30, it became clear to me that local and federal law enforcement personnel were insufficient to address the situation and the department of defense will be required to play a much larger role in re-establishing sandord maintaining security in washington, d.c. at 3:00 p.m., i approved the activation and mobilization of the full district of columbia national guard to assist capitol police and the metropolitan police department. at 5:20 p.m., national guard personnel arrived at the capitol and began operations in support of domestic law enforcement there. order was restored by 8:00 p.m. that evening, and the results were certified. those of you with military experience or who understand the nature of military deployments will recognize how rapid our response was.

criticism of the military response unfounded and reflects inexperience with or lack of understanding of the nature of military operations or, worse, is simply the result of politics. i suspect a combination of both of these factors. host: the former defense secretary, chris miller, who was in charge that day on january 6, defending his decisions and others at the pentagon. do you think an independent commission is needed to look into what happened? williamsburg, virginia you're not sure. caller: no, i'm not. my biggest thing is, if you go down that road of investigations and everything else, shurek the right wing say they want it, but they probably don't really want it. other stuff will come out, and for the democrats, what will end up doing is slowing down our agenda. what we need to focus on is our agenda basically legalizing

nationally marijuana and affordable housing. host: all right, got it. mike in buffalo, new york, texted to say, yes, a commission absolutely needs to be formed. we all saw what happened, but there's a deeper problem in america. the root cause was misinformation, conspiracy theories, and the former president saying the election was stolen. and to infect his followers with the big lie. detroit, you say yes as well? caller: absolutely. jerry from detroit, good morning. greetings yet again from motown. yes, there definitely needs to be a commission on the january 6 attack on the capitol. and i think that both the members of both chaimers will of commerce should be involved. i'd like to make a comment if i could, greta, i've been hearing a lot of white conservatives -- i'm black, by the way -- trying

to make what i think is a fault equivalency and apples and oranges comparison between what happened on january 6 and what happened last summer during the racial justice protests. what these congressmen are trying to do is these republicans, they're trying to compare white capitol insurrectionists and black lives matter protesters, and they have absolutely no proof that the violence and loothing last year was committed by black lives matter, whereas on january 6, groups such as the proud boys, the three percenters, and the oath keepers were sent by donald trump to march to the capitol. most of them even said so at the time of the attack. what i think these congress people are doing is trying basically white wash and downplay everything that happened. and i have a feeling you're going hear a lot of white people on the republican line try to downplay that as well.

host: bob in illinois, texted us to say, yes, there should be a commission. however, it must include black lives matter and antifa to be fair. steve in michigan, you say no. welcome to the conversation. go ahead. caller: i say no, because we don't need a commission to tell us what happened. we all saw it live on the part of television. donald trump initiated this. the republicans are lying about it. donald trump lied about it. and c-span, i have a question for you. why do you keep bringing this up? every day you have another thing about trump's lie. he lied. we don't need to see any more of it. host: there was testimony on capitol hill that lawmakers are holding public hearings to get

to the bottom of it. at the same time, they're debating whether or not to have an independent commission. our question this morning is an opportunity for americans across the country to tell these decision makers what they think, what they think they should do, what these lawmakers should do. that's what we're doing. caller: what they should do is admit that it was a lie and admit that the election wasn't stolen. these republicans keep lying, and c-span keeps broadcasting it. it's a lie. we saw what happened. it was an insurrection, what were they trying to do? they were trying to overrun the government. we don't need a commission to realize that. host: ok. steve in warren, am i correct the headline in "the washington post," the former pentagon chief, chris miller, blames riot on organized conspiracy.

listen to the back and forth he had with congressman steven lynch about what the secretary said previously about the role of former president trump and what he said yesterday. >> but for president trump's speech, do you think anyone would have marched on the capitol hill and tried to overrun the capitol without the president's remarks? i know you've answer this had question several times, but i'd like you to answer it for the committee. >> i think i'd like to modify my original assessment. >> why am i not surprised about that? >> based on, as the chief said, we are getting more information by the day, by the minute, about what happened, and to highlight some other observations that were made, it's clear now that although we're going to find out through the department of justice process and the legal system,

it seems clear that there was some sort of conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that intended to assault the capitol that day. >> reclaiming my time. i'm asking you the same question you've answered before. did the president's remarks incite members to march, people in the crowd to march on the capitol, or did they not? >> he clearly offered they should march on the capitol, so it goes without saying that his statement resulted in that. >> ok, i'm reclaiming my time. let me just share with the committee what you have said before. this is your quote. this is your quote. would anybody have marched on the capitol and tried to overrun the capitol without the president's speech? i think it's pretty much definitive that would not have happened. >> i think now i would say -- >> what's that? >> i would like to offer, i

have reassessed. it's not the unitary factor at all. it seems clear there was an organized conspiracy with assault elements -- >> in your written testimony for today -- reclaiming my time. again, for your written testimony for today, for today, this morning. you stated the following about the president. i personally belief his comments encouraged the protesters that day. so this is a very recent reversal of your testimony. >> absolutely not. that's ridiculous. floip yesterday's capitol hill hearing with the former defense secretary and the former acting attorney general at the time of the january 6 capitol attack. from what you've seen here this morning of those exchanges and the debate that's happening in washington, do you think an independent commission needs to get to the bottom of that day?

denise, you are in california, you say not sure, good morning. caller: well, no, actually, i don't believe so at all. i think that most and you and everybody else needs to just stop lying about the whole thing. first of all, it was the perfect time for somebody to just swoop in and stop them from debating on a world stage, the electoral votes. it would be the first time ever that they were actually seen and heard, because no court would even see or hear any election fraud issues. but what lucky pelosi is just at the right time, not only that, but pelosi introduced agenda 21 on to the floor. you notice, everybody noticed how you can't ever get a clear view of the capitol, just all these different views. first of all, most of that was staged, ok? you can tell, because most of those were not trump supporters. most trump supporters do not carry flags around.

you can tell most of them. you can't get a clear shot. what about all the footage from inside? the whole world knows that the election was stolen and that this was all drifmente not only that, but chris miller was a cy ops officer and supposedly so was ashley babbitt. we're having a -- host: all right. from facebook, yes,, if we hadn't had a commission for nixon watergate, we neighbor different place. i realize this after the fact, but it's important to have this on the record. you can see people already doubt reality. and then you have natalie from kentucky, no, committee needs -- no committee needs to be formed to investigate january 6. our congress, our employees need to begin working for the american people. they thought terrorizing looting and stealing was perfectly acceptable, a peaceful provide test, when being done to their

constituents. suck 2 up, butter cups, and move on. january 6 simple a peaceful protest. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. dot nye georgia, you're next, and you say yes. caller: yes, yes. if we don't, they're going to keep lying about what happened. people think we blind or stupid. now, we watch all these people attacking the capitol with trump flags, flag poles, baseball bats, and this man, clyde, is going to tell us this was a peaceful tourist tour. does this man think we stupid? host: all right, dotty. jerome in d.c., you're not sure. jerome, you're on the air. why are you not sure about forming a commission? caller: yes, good morning. i don't think a commission need to be formed at all. you know, the congressman

yesterday was trying act like they wasn't intelligent enough to understand the difference between marching on the capitol and attacking the catchly to. there's clearly a distinction between the two. donald trump clearly said to march to the capitol. there was no discussion about attacking the capitol. you know, the democratic congressman yesterday, they're a disgrace. they're a disgrace to this country. they're traitors to the country. they know that the election was stolen from donald trump, because i don't understand how from 2016 to 2020, you know, in 2015, there was all of this interference, all of this collusion that went on when donald trump was first running for president. but what happened in the last four years that now in 2020 it was the cleanest election in the history. how is this possible? how there was -- you tell me, let's say there wasn't anything eternal. democrats didn't do anything shady. all of them, ballot counters didn't do anything crazy,

because we know what they did. what happened to the foreign influences? what happened to russia? russia, russia, russia? see what i'm saying? the democrats are full of doo doo. me as a black man, i don't support them. they're corrupt. i don't support republicans. but i support conservism. all this welfare. all this money they're giving away to people to make them bums. host: all right, jerome, heard your point. charles jackson on facebook, a competent incident investigation of the january 6 insurrection would be better if performed apolitically by the d.o.j., the department of justice, or a special prosecutor. responding to congressman clyde, the republican of georgia, that it was not an insurrection that day and that the video footage looked like tourists going through the capitol. the republican lieutenant general of georgia jeff duncan sent out this tweet. hard to believe any elected official, referring to clyde,

could be this oblivious to reality. it's this type of blind ignorance that got our party into this mess to start with. lieutenant governor, excuse me, senate governor jeff duncan. let's go to deborah in west virginia. excuse me, kate in madisonville, tennessee, you say no. caller: i did say no, because i was watching it like the other man said he was. and i've also watched all kinds of footage. and first off, they attacked before the president was even done speak, ok? he was in his speech, and he said peacefully let your voices be heard. because they don't listen to us, we the people. we the people who pay them, they don't listen to us. the senators in my state, oh, there was a vote of no against it. they have the proof. i mean, why put it on facebook?

and then she went and said, oh, no, go ahead. it's like, come on. you swapped your vote because of that. i mean, it was all harry caray. it was ridiculously rushed. nobody will put mike lin de ll's proof on. nobody watched live hearings in penen and georgia and arizona, where thousands of u.s. citizens came forward, democrats, republicans, independents, liberals. i mean, it wasn't just republicans up there that was saying, oh, something was wrong, something was wrong. it was our whole country. and all these other americans are just thrown to the side. it's like people. you got to have all of the evidence before you can even start to decide whether it was right or whether it was wrong. and nobody's giving us all of the evidence. i have to hunt this stuff down by myself. news stations ain't giving it to us. host: where did you go, kate? where did you go? caller: where did i go?

thoip get your facts. caller: to get my facts, i have to search it out myself. i find live streams on facebook. i go, and i'll read everybody's papers. i watch everybody's news. i watch both sides. i try to decipher between the right and the left, because we're just getting right stuff and left stuff. we have nothing that is in the middle that just gives us the information and not their whole opinion on everything. we don't need your opinions. we need facts. host: did you -- do you not trust william barr, the attorney general for president trump when he said there was no evidence of fraud in the election? caller: well, actually, i'm very disappointed in that. maybe he doesn't --en may have to hunt down his information just the same as i did. i mean, did he not watch any live hearings?

host: ok. columbia, south carolina, you're not sure on this idea of forming an independent commission. caller: yeah, i'm not too sure, but i got an idea, communism. donald trump is a communist. he wasn't for putin. putin loving this. the chinese are loving this. host: south carolina now. "the hill" has a headline that liz cheney, who yesterday was ousted from the republican ranks, is breaking with republican minority leader kevin mccarthy on the scope of this potential independent commission. "the hill" writes that she believes that a proposed 9/11 style independent commission should narrowly focus on the deadly january 6 attack on the capitol. mccarthy, a close ally of the former president, has said the scope of the bipartisan commission should be broader and include other episodes of political violence, like black lives matter and antifa protest

around the country that have turned violent at times. who do you agree with? frank in florida, yes to an independent commission. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm well. frank, what do you think? caller: i think if anybody watched this, millions and millions of americans have guns that are republicans. not one gun was confiscated in this. when they said the officer who was from new jersey, where i'm from, when they said he died, he was hit with a fire extinguisher, and then it turned out a week later, actually, he had a stroke like four days later or three days later because they think the chemicals, like the pepper spray that he inhaled. everything we that, it was mostly a group of people that were regular republicans that were trying to show their support for donald trump.

and then the few, which if you see some of the video, you see the capitol guards opening up the gates and letting people in. i mean, a building should be that protected, who nancy pelosi is the one that is supposed to run the protection for that building, i don't understand how a group of people with flags, yes, some of them had scombacks all, and we really don't know who they were, but everyone has a feeling. some of them might not have been republicans. and i don't understand. a resurrection? host: if an independent commission is formed, and they say that they find and they prove, they investigate that the majority of the people there were supporters of president trump, will you believe them? caller: yes. if independent. but nowadays, finding independents is like finding a

needle in a haystack, because everybody has an agenda one way or another. and unfortunately, i don't know, but if you look at -- knot if you look at -- i mean, donald trump never said go there and start kicking butt. the only people hurt were trump supporters. host: he did say fight several times throughout that speech. he did say peacefully, but he did say fight several times. caller: right, and if you want to fight something, there are a lot of different fights. he did not say attack, go in, beat people up, which again, it all goes back to the beginning. how did this group of people with flags breach these buildings? if this bunch of people, whatever they were -- republicans, and tea for hidden in the crowd -- whatever they were -- -- antifa, hidden of the

crowd, whatever they were -- whatever these people were, if an organized group came there, they would have overrun that capitol and destroyed that building in an hour. host: we have to leave it there and we will return to this conversation in our last our full to we will get more thoughts on whether or not to form any and independent commission on january 6. we will talk to lawmakers about where president biden's legislative agenda stands when it comes to the economic recovery. michael burgess. later, chief deputy whip, covers men dan kildee of michigan. a senate appropriations committee with merrick garland, here is an exchange between the ag and senator richard shelby, the top republican on the committee.

>> criminal laws of the u.s. or any state that appears intended to intimidate. as i said in my opening statement, that was the case with the events of january 6, and the individual who committed those acts should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. i believe that. at the same time, sir, i'm trying to understand the difference between those acts and the ones perpetuated last summer by groups like antifa and others that vandalized and frankly terrorized cities like portland, minneapolis, and washington, d.c., all in an effort to deliver, as they say, a message. the question is this. sir, what is the actual difference between these acts, besides the groups carrying them out, and if there is not one act, can you ensure -- can you assure this committee and the

american people that the department of justice under your leadership is pursuing all who commit such acts with equal vigor? in other words, you are not selectively prosecuting, but you are going after all lawbreakers? >> senator, as i sit in my opening statement, and as you sit in your statement, the role of this justice department is to investigate and prosecute violators of criminal law, regardless of -- we don't care what the legality is. violations of the law are pursued and are prosecuted. i think it is fair to say that in my career as a judge and in law enforcement, i have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the capitol. this was an attempt by some -- i

want to be very careful to not ascribe it to all because every case -- until all, every case is sufficiently decided -- but it undermines the peaceful transfer of power. there has to be a hierarchy of things they reprioritize. this is the one that we would prioritize. announcer: washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning's republican michael burgess, republican of texas, a member of the commerce committee. i want to begin with yesterday's vote on leadership. how did you vote on the question of whether or not liz cheney should continue on as conference chair? guest: as you know, that was handled as a voice vote. i was prepared for us to move on from where we were, and as a consequence, i don't think i can

tell you that i was terribly surprised by the outcome. host: so you were a voice vote in favor? guest: yes, it was time to move on. the problem right now is not with republican leadership, the problem is with the democratic leadership in the white house, and had i predicted what things were going to look like six months after election day last november, i could not in my -- in the worst scenario that i could construct would not be as bad as what we face today. so people talk about what are republicans going to do to stop the problems that we are having, and it is very difficult with republicans and the majority, in the minority and the house, senate evenly divided, with president biden in the white house. but what we can do is make certain with a course correction after the 2022 election, and that is what is so absolutely critical, or all of us must he focused right now. we cannot continue to go down

the path we have been on over the past 112 days. it's been very destructive to the country. host: given what you said, is congresswoman elise stefanik the right person to fill the slot of the number three leadership position? guest: absolutely comfortable with that. my understanding is there will be perhaps additional discussion, and that is fine, that's a good thing. we should talk about these issues. i think before the end of the week, that will be settled and that will be a good thing. host: who else might jump in the race? guest: i've heard a number of names mentioned. look, what is the purpose of the conference chair? most people in the country don't really understand what our third position in leadership is, and why it is otherwise important. it is predominantly the primary communications arm for the republican conference. so someone who has the ability to articulate the republican message and get that out there

in a clear, concise fashion, that is what is going to be absolutely critical. i am told that at least can do that. -- that elise can do that. if other people feel they have something to add, we should hear from them, and we will get our decision made before the end of the week and carry on from there. host: let's move onto policy. you are on the energy and commerce committee, you are on the subcommittees of energy and oversight investigation. how serious was this cyberattack on the colonial pipeline? guest: i think it was enormously seriously. cyber attacks are not new. they have been going on for some time. they are more than just an inconvenience. they can actually endanger people. they can jeopardize people. we have seen that with ransomware attacks in the health care space. it is affecting the entire --

the entire universe of ransomware attacks is not known because some places will simply pay the ransom and be quiet about it and not want to advertise the fact that they were hacked. it can be deleterious to somebody running a business to disclose that. i have argued in the past -- and this goes back several years -- that we ought to make this a no-fault foul and a no-fault situation so our law enforcement agencies can appropriately investigate these things and bring the perpetrators to justice in a very visible and serious way. you can see from the films of the people who have been stuck in those gas lines on the east coast, a terrible situation. when i referenced the difficulties we are facing -- look, we have gone from energy independence to gas lines in four months? does anyone think this is a good idea? are pipelines really the

problem, or is it a problem with our administration's energy policy writ large? host: we are showing footage from c-span producer: nate -- nicole nin, who found those lines right outside the nation's capital, in arlington, virginia. what do you say to people who are filling up not only their tanks but their reserve tanks? what do you say to them? people who are nervous about this? guest: i understand why they are nervous. i lived through the gas lines in the 1970's. i understand the anxiety of you do not want to go to bed at night with your gas tank near empty because you don't know what the next day will bring, so you always want to start the day with a full tank of gas. i have been there and i have done that. i think there are some instances i have seen where people are using unsafe containers to hold onto gas, and please don't do that because that is --

remember, gasoline is an extremely flammable product, and it can cause an absolute crisis or disaster in a moment's notice. the good news is that we were told at least as of last evening that the operators of the colonial pipeline had begun to restart. there was product in the pipeline, not like you have to fill this massive structure with product before you can get it to customers. i think the situation may begin to resolve now fairly quickly, but no question about it, it is enormously disruptive. if anyone doubted how important it is to have that energy security, that energy independence, here was something that put a fine point on it. host: what do you think congress should do? how should congress respond to the potential for more of these types of cyber attacks? guest: cyber has been the weakness that has concerned a lot of us for some time.

and it is very difficult to stay one jump ahead of the people who mean to do folks harm, but the good news is we do have a robust cybersecurity force within the department of justice, within the fbi. i am one who would argue that, bring these people to justice. don't pay the ransom, let's find the perpetrators and hold them accountable. they are the ones who are the criminals here. it is not the person who was the recipient of the hack, but on the other hand, on the side of people who -- whether it be health care or a pipeline, we have got to have the absolute top-of-the-line in cyber hygiene. you cannot afford any weakness at all, because people are out

there, they are willing to exploit that. they communicate that knowledge between themselves, and you have always got to be on the ready. you have always got to be on offense. host: let's go to calls. robert and greenville, north carolina, an independent. go ahead. caller: yeah, congressman. do you believe the election was fair? guest: well, thanks for the question. i can speak from the perspective of the election in texas, and i do believe it was fair. i've had a number of questions about things that have been raised along the way and i hope we will get a full accounting of all of those issues. it is important that people do feel confident in the election. if you do generalize across the country, there is a significant number of people who do have questions. i want those people to be put at ease, i want their questions to be answered, and i want people to have confidence in our system. host: how do you do that,

coppersmith? -- how do you do that, congressman? guest: speaking from the perspective of the voting machines -- they can hack a pipeline or other structures that can be hacked on a network. the answer is yes. there is no reason to have a voting machine on a network. a paper ballot backup is necessary. i arrive, show my photo id, they run it through the processor, and the ballot prints out for me for the elections at which i have showed up to vote. i mark my ballot, it goes to a scanner, but the paper ballot is retained so that if there is the necessity of doing an audit, it can be not only the electric on a counting carried out, but the paper -- it can not only be the

electronic counting carried out, but the paper as well. there are plenty of situations where the paper by the ash paper ballots were counted and counted correctly. president biden was inaugurated. the answer is yes. host: jd, arkansas, democratic caller. caller: yes, sir, congressman. let's say for the sake of argument that president trump calls you and says, michael, i want you to help me rig this election. what is the first thing you would do? how would you go about rigging a national election with 50 different states? wouldn't it involve tens of thousands of people, all expected to keep a big secret, which couldn't be done? how would you go about doing it? guest: looks, the elections are of course run state-by-state, but if anyone were to call me and say i want to rig the election, my next call would be to the department of justice or

the fbi. that is a pretty simple approach there. host: montreal, a republican. hi, richard. caller: good morning, congressman. liz cheney and mitch mcconnell and other republicans like to call the allegations that president trump and others are making the big election fraud, the big lie, the cover-up for "the big guy." as you see what is going on in arizona, why are the democrats fighting tooth and nail to stop this audit? last night it was reported that the democrats destroyed evidence for this audit. so are the republicans in congress going to help the arizona republican party get to the bottom of this? because the american people, if they cheated in arizona, they cheated and the other swing states also. guest: thanks for the call. i had not heard the information

that there was an allegation of destruction of evidence or destruction of property. i hope that didn't happen because clearly that is not the way to get to the bottom or get to the answer that people will be comfortable that everything was on the up and up with the election. but elections are held on a statewide basis, and it is up to and the responsibility of every state to set the parameters for their election and to do the appropriate evaluation or follow-up afterward. so the fact that that is going on in arizona, i don't think people should be trying to prevent that. there is a question that needs to be entered, and we will go on from there. host: from shirley, new york, independent. caller: hello. i live in new york, and a lot of people are saying that joe biden is to fault for these gas prices. i know it doesn't have anything to do with the president. guest: i don't know that i understood the question, but the

president doesn't set the gas prices, that's correct. host: she said people are blaming the president for what happened with the gas prices and the pipeline and the lines we are seeing. is he at fault? guest: the president's energy policies are really where i would -- what i would question. as you know, the president in literally the first hour after the inauguration put out an executive order to stop work on the keystone pipeline. he is the one who was put out there -- who has put out there front and center that his policy was going to be absolutely ok with america not being energy independent. well, i'm not ok with that. i think energy independence was a big deal for this country. i've lived through other times when we were not energy independent, and it is better to be energy independent then energy dependent. for that, because of the policies that have been performed by the president, no,

perhaps did not cause the acts on the colonial pipeline, but certainly the energy policy promulgated by the president -- anti-pipeline, anti-energy,, and that is a dangerous place. host: keys, democratic caller. caller: i talked about it before. the fuel shortage started in the 70's. and it was nothing but a bunch of garbage, because my uncle was out in colorado. he was drilling for oil out there, he said they were hitting gushers, capping them every time they hit oil. they were looking for uranium instead. so we got all this reserves over here of oil. there is no reason to have the lines of people at gas pumps. it is starting all over again. and the gas companies need to

quit lying to us. that's all i got to say. i'm tired of them lying. guest: of course, the oil embargo in the 1970's was caused by political unsettled situation in the middle east. the good news, and what we have seen over the last four years with energy independence, was that we not only had the natural resource to produce our energy domestically. by doing that, whether it be in north dakota, the basin out in west texas, we had the domestic supply here. the technology has changed since the 1970's. wells that were thought to be no longer able to produce can now produce quite abundantly with newer technology. they can do so in a much more environmentally sensitive fashion. so there is lots of good news on

that front. the problem is if you begin to lock things in and say we are just not going to produce, pretty soon you are going to get into difficulty. the problem with the pipeline, that relates to a correct amount of cybersecurity, but it really underscores for people, you cut off our energy supply and you have hurt the country in a big way in a pretty short order. i do think the president should be were sensitive to that. host: eddie, millbury, massachusetts, republican. caller: good morning. the reason the pipeline was hit is because we were blocking the russian pipeline from russia to germany. that's why they are hitting us. but you misquoted -- before by saying he found no evidence of fraud. he said he felt no massive evidence of fraud. we don't need massive evidence.

all we need is a few thousand in the swing states. so the recounts in arizona has been flawed already. they found that the seal has been broken, where there were supposed to be 200 votes in there, there are only 150. so there is fraud. thank you. host:, rissman, any thoughts? -- congressman, any thoughts? guest: number one, i don't know that we know -- certainly know the thing i have been in has attribute of the perpetrator of the cyberattack. yes, the russians unfortunately do have a history of this type of behavior in the past, going back to the 2014 olympics, i think. so there is a historical precedent, and i think the gentleman is correct, you don't want fraud in your elections, and we want people to be confident in the election results. so in order to do that, you need to assure people that everything

was counted and counted correctly, and here are the results available for all to see. host: do you think that there was enough fraud to overturn the outcome of the election the? guest: the gentleman just brought up the point that if you are showing that there is a fraudulent result in the election, than to be able to quantitate that becomes more difficult. there should not be any at all. it should not be tolerated. host: todd, go ahead. caller: you know, the republicans and fox keep talking about the president stopping the quito pipeline. that is dirty fuel coming from canada. it's going to go down to texas, where it is refined, and then it is going to be put on ships and sent to asia. that isn't going to be our fuel,

so it is just malarkey. and it is really dirty fuel that is going to add to climate change. and what have you got to say about that? guest: number one, it was wrong to interrupt the completion of the keystone pipeline. the agreements had been made, those communities had thought they were able to depend on the revenue coming from construction and also the maintenance of the pipeline. but if you think for a minute that canada is not going to continue to produce that oil and get it to market in some way, that is just a pure fantasy. in fact, they will construct the pipeline to the west and sell oil to the chinese off of the coast of vancouver. i mean, that is an inevitable result of not completing the keystone pipeline. or it will be shipped by rail, or it will be shipped by trucks,

witches inherently more carbon intensive and inherently less safe. the pipeline being completed down to the refineries in houston was -- look, who was the one who stood on the hills in cushing, oklahoma, and requested that the pipeline be built oklahoma to texas? that was barack obama. he said i want this pipeline to be built, i want it to flow. there were difficulties going on in the northern side. hillary clinton, when she was secretary of state, hirsch state department -- her state department undertook an enormous environmental study. there were massive documents in 2011 when this thing was approved by secretary of state hillary clinton. so it is not that this issue has not been studied, it has been studied and studied and studied again. the fact of the matter is the safest way to bring that crude

and get it to the market is to bring it down through the keystone pipeline and deliver it to the refineries, to the good people in houston, texas, who know how to deal with the heavy crude. the fact that oil has been marketed at other parts of the world, that is actually a good thing. that is one of the things that has allowed us, as i referenced energy independence, but it has also allowed our economy to flourish in the years, the pre-pandemic years. we have the best economy, the envy of the world in terms of how our economy is performing. it is all tied together. but the keystone pipeline was a critical part of that network. host: a tweet from a viewer who writes, "you provide a strong argument for nationalizing out the energy grid, including petroleum. private ownership is a national disaster." guest: i don't think so because the operators of the colonial pipeline had a problem. they are going to correct the

problem and they will be stronger for it in the future. the last thing i would want to see is for us to nationalize the grid. then we are dependent upon one agency, one collection of bureaucrats who is then supposed to be responsible for everything . it only invites weakness to go in that direction. it is far better if it is a diversified portfolio, a diversified mix of energy providers. they are going to correct the problem, and we will soon move on to other things. but i honestly believe that nationalizing the national energy grid -- again, you're asking for a disaster there. host: fred, a democrat from irvine, you are on the air. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call, and thank you, congressman, for showing up.

congressman, one of the things that was said is that donald trump had a full and fair ability to challenge the results of the election in our courts. he did that, and no court that looked -- and some of them looked abroad, some of them looked at other issues. he had a full and fair chance to challenge the results in court. none of them supported him, including the supreme court, who said that they don't have a right to survey a. after that, liz cheney said said anyone who does not agree with the election results is challenging the very rule of law that our country is based on. i am wondering if you agree with her, and how you voted on her ouster yesterday. guest: here's what i will tell you. we live in a political system, and the political system right now as it exists, president biden is the president. you look at the policies of the president, the policies of the

ruling party, the democratic party, and in four months' time, a little over four months' time, we have gone from energy independence to energy scarcity. we have gone from full employment to rising unemployment. we have gone from rising unemployment with still jobs to be filled because we are paying people to stay home. the policies of this administration are what i have the objection to. the good news is, in our system the american people can provide a course correction, and i pray that they do. the midterm elections are not that far away. this will be an opportunity for that course correction, and i believe that the republican party, the house of representatives, at least the one that provided the course correct -- is the one to provide that course correction. host: are you saying, congressman, that she is a distraction? guest: there are always distractions. we live in the capital city of distractions. but the reality is the direction of the country right now -- and

i don't care whether you're talking about energy, whether you are talking about employment -- the direction is not -- we are not going in the proper direction. the only thing that was working real deck that is working well right now are the vaccines that were developed by the previous administration, and thank god that they did. thank god they decided we are going to cut some red tape and cut some bureaucracy and get these vaccines done. not only that, president trump signed an order that he is going to purchase vaccines before he knew that they were going to be approved by the fda. a very courageous move. but thank goodness it happened. that is the only thing that has given us the light at the end of the tunnel as far as the pandemic is concerned. host: david from mississippi, independent. caller: hi, yes, ma'am. i would like to ask mr. burgess if energy independence is so important, why does saudi arabia -- i believe they do -- owned the largest refinery in texas?

isn't that a national security threat? guest: the refinery -- thanks for the question -- but the refinery in texas is one that can refine the type of crude oil that comes from the saudi oil fields. the better answer is we do need the first -- mix. fortunately in the state of texas you have that. you have resources that will refine the oil imported from the middle east, but also the oil produced in the permian basin. the oil, if allowed to come to us, would be in the canadian sands. a diversified mix is going to be a more robust energy structure that we are -- we don't want to depend on a single source, a single type of crude, or a single refinery. that has really got to be the message. host: congressman michael burgess, always great to have you on.

we will have you back again. when we come back, we will with chief deputy whip, democratic congressman dan kildee of michigan come on president biden's legislation. and we will turn to the cyber hack on the pipeline this past weekend. cyber threat alliance's michael daniel will talk about how to better protect critical infrastructure in this country. john kerry testified wednesday before the house foreign affairs committee on climate policy. here's a portion of what he told lawmakers. [video clip] mr. kerry: 22 weather and climate disasters costing over $1 billion each. last year's tally of 22 hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires shattered the previous annual record of 16 such events.

these natural disasters across the united states cost taxpayers one point 1.97 showing dollars since 1980. the wildfire season burned more than 10 million acres, an area greater than the state of maryland. we saw five of the six biggest wildfires in california history last year, as well as the single largest wildfire in colorado's history. 20/20 was the warmest year on record. the last decade was the warmest decade on record. a decade before that, the second warmest. the decade before that, the third warmest. you don't have to be a scientist to begin to feel that we are looking at a trendline. for the first time in our country's history, fairbanks, alaska, is considered a warm summer continental climate

because for four months of the calendar year, the average temperature is now 50 degrees fahrenheit or more. as my friend sarah get terry blinken noted recently, we are -- as my friend secretary blinken noted recent, we are running out -- of records to break. that is why i support the president's effort to ensure that the united states is once again a global leader in combating the climate crisis. as the special presidential envoy for climate, it's my job to make sure that the rest of the world sees that the united states is reengaged, reenergized, and rededicated to tackling the climate crisis, both at home and abroad. in practice, that means marshaling all of our resources to ensure that we can keep a 1.5 degree celsius within reach. that is the target. [end video clip]

♪ announcer: washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is congressman dan kildee, democrat of michigan, mary barra -- member of the ways and means committee, also chief deputy whip. republican and democratic leaders met with the president yesterday at the white house to talk about infrastructure. i want to get your thoughts on that, going forward how that is going to happen. first, listen to the minority leader, kevin mccarthy,

republican of california come out of that meeting yesterday. [video clip] i think there is an opportunity to work together on infrastructure. we are not interested if there is anything about tax increases and dealing with infrastructure, that we start with the concept of what is the definition. and that we are able to make reforms so that you can build the roads, not decades away. that you modernize the law from the 1970's so that roads get built and faster. what i really want to work on is making sure turning this economy around, getting people back to work, back to school, back to health come and back to normal. i believe in the vaccine. i want people back in school. the other thing, too, you have to understand those numbers we heard today on inflation, that should terrify every american. it's not a question of whether there is going to be a tax increase. you just had the biggest tax increase we have had in more than 10 years, and it hit you already. for those with lower income, you are getting hit harder.

that's why we have to incentivize people to get back to work, if the economy moving again and stronger, and stop this inflation. part of what congress has recently done by spending those trillions of dollars is the wrong action to take in the economy we have today, that you can propel inflation even greater, make people's money work less, affordability is more difficult. those are the things i want to discuss and correct. all right, last question. [end video clip] host: after listening to him, what are the prospects of a bipartisan agreement? guest: i think we have to still leave open that possibility. it will be difficult, but it is in president biden's dna to find common ground and get to a bipartisan agreement. as leader mccarthy said, if we have a conversation about what we want to put in an infrastructure bill, if we are honest about the definition of what belongs in an infrastructure bill in the 21st century -- broadband, water

infrastructure, the things that i have become so familiar with because of my hometown, what we have gone through, if we define the infrastructure as broadly as the infrastructure needs of the 21st century really are, then i think we can find common ground on what we need to do. the issue of how we pay for it is another question, and i think that is a more difficult question. i think at this point in time, we are open to the conversation. so if we can find common ground, if we can get as big as we need to get on infrastructure, i think we can get there. but, you know, i fear that the divisions within the republican conference and the divisions on capitol hill, make it in the way of that. host: if republicans reverse the chump tax cuts, if that is off the table, how do you pay for it? guest: that is an interesting point. i'm not going to predict where i

would land on the issue of taxes, but i'm certainly open to addressing the pay for it by -- to pay for it by looking at the tax code honestly. let's be candid. the 2017 tax cuts that republicans put through the house and the senate using the reconciliation process resulted in massive benefits to people at the very top of the economy. listening to leader mccarthy, i share his concern that working-class people get hit hard, but they got hit hardest are the disparate impact of that tax cut that benefited the top 1%, with 83% of the benefit. we have to fix that. we also have to make sure that american corporations with global operations pay taxes. some of the largest companies in this country, with a huge global footprint, paid little or no taxes, and that leaves the rest of the american people to have to pick up the tap for them. we can argue about the details, but that is a fact that is just

inarguable, and we have to address it. host: we are talking with congers men dan kildee. we want you to join the conversation. 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. an independents, 202-748-8002. congressman, the president's infrastructure plan includes -- and i want to read this for our viewers, $621 billion for bridges, roads, public transit, and other chaz petition. he wants to spend 80 billion on -- 580 billion on manufacturing, research and develop and job training. $300 billion on drinking water improvement, more broadband access and electrical grids. and for elderly and disabled americans. what from that list do you think

republicans could agree to? guest: i think they could agree to everything because those are priorities that the american people talk to all of us about. that list is a list of things we need to do to have a 21st-century society, a 21st century economy to win the future. so we may argue around the detail of some of the, but what we have is the opportunity to make a once in a generation investment and stop trying to compete with our global competition -- china being the most obvious example -- stop trying to compete with them with 19th century and 20th century infrastructure, where the health care system doesn't guarantee every american access to health care, with drinking water that is compromised, with roads and bridges that make it difficult for our manufacturers to get their products to market. for the lack of broadband -- literally locking billion and millions of americans out of the economy.

in rural america but also in some communities like the ones i represent in urban america. if we do those things, we will get paid back. if we don't, we want to talk about who will be stuck with the bill. a shrinking economy come as a result of the failure to invest in infrastructure, put set -- puts us at real risk. china spends 10 times of their gdp on infrastructure than we do. we cannot win the indianapolis 500 driving a 1950's chevy. it's not going to work. host: our first caller, a republican, go ahead, pat. caller: i would like to talk to him about the taxes. he's talking about raising taxes, and we know that once taxes are raised, it's going to come all the way down the line to me. instead of raising taxes, why doesn't congress fix the

loopholes in the text system so these corporations cannot write off all the stuff? that's where you need to put your energy at. host: congressman? caller: the caller makes a really good -- guest: the caller makes a really good point. i do believe we should not increase taxes on low income earners. the plan president biden has opposed would only increase taxes for top earners, people making over $400,000 a year. what the caller's point is an important one. when we look to 2017 when tax rates were lowered for use -- for high income earners and corporations, we did not see an effective way to close loopholes. that's why so many of these really wealthy, highly profitable corporations are still able to escape any tax obligations. not because the tax code doesn't have a tax rate, and

theoretically applies it to them, but that they don't really pay that rate anyway. they don't pay in some cases anything come and i think the average is in the single digits in terms of what these corporations pay. so the caller makes the right point. i do think we have the obligation to have a tax system that does require those who do really well to carry their share of the weight. but the way they escape that very often, individuals and corporations, is by using the tax code, using the loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying any tax at all, and that's not right. again, that leaves the rest of us to pick up the tab for them. host: marion salinas, california, a democratic caller. mary, you have to turn down the tv, ok? listen and talk through that phone. mary, are you ready? caller: are you talking to me? host: i am talking to you. you have to turn on -- turn off

your tv. caller: it is off. by my name is anita, that's why i did answer. host: anita, democratic colorful some go ahead. caller: i'm sorry. go ahead. good afternoon. i'm concerned about the misinformation that is going out with the other congressmen. how does that affect your ability to reach across the aisle to get these important bills through your -- the agenda for the biden administration's agenda? host: ok, we will take that. congressmen? guest: obviously it is something we are struggling with here because this place is designed to bring people from all over the country, different life experiences with different opinions, under one roof to sort of argue through those issues

and come up with some common sort of path forward. it is intended for us to disagree over a common set of facts. but i think what we have seen in some cases -- it is not true of everybody, but certainly in some cases, we have members of congress, other leaders inventing facts out of thin air, believing that if you repeat them often enough, that somehow they magically become true. it is just not the case. the caller didn't ask this specific question, but i feel like i should answer in this way. the question about the attack on the capitol on january 6 -- i was there. i was stuck, trapped in the house gallery when the capitol was evacuated. i know what happened. i was there. i was there when the gunshot went off. i saw the whole thing with my own eyes. but now i see members of congress quite literally saying

that if you did not know it was january 6 -- this is what a member of congress said yesterday -- if you did not know it was january 6, you would think it was any other capitol tour. what? this bizarre bending of fact is not the basis for a rational conversation to express different points of view and to try to find some common ground. so sometimes we are put in a position of having to argue with somebody who is quite literally inventing fantastic ideas about something that makes no sense whatsoever, and then if you argue with them, it looks like there are two sides to the story. there is no two sides to the story. there is a common set of facts and we disagree about the path forward. that is why so many have lost faith in what we are doing. there are too many crazy ideas floating around out there that have no basis in reality.

two front page of "the wall street journal." we are seeing a 49.6% rise in gasoline. energy is up. used cars and trucks, airline tickets, furniture, the price of corn, all rising. what can the president do in the short term to combat potential inflation? guest: the most important thing we can do to combat some of the drivers of inflation right now is to get the economy back in gear. much of this is explainable. we knew there would be some inflation. there was quite an open conversation, potentially modest inflation short-term, part of the price we pay for keeping people from losing everything they have worked to create for themselves. the infusion of money into the economy could have some inflationary impact. there has been a specific set of circumstances around building materials, around fuel come around some other commodities that are in some ways affected

by sectors of the economy being shut down. for example, the demand for used cars has been significantly increased at a time when the supply has been significantly decreased. that price is going to go up as a result of demand. we have seen that impact the cpi. that is a short-term issue. i think where we have to be more concerned is whether we are seeing something structural in the economy. if that is the case, then we have to rely on the tools at the federal reserve and our own decision-making to minimize that impact and hit the sweet spot so that we are getting the economy completely out of the seat, making sure americans don't lose everything they have worked for, keeping small business open. but there is a small price and potentially some inflation we might have to pay in order to have that. the alternative, however -- and this is the real important point in this -- the alternative would

be widespread business failure, home foreclosures, the kind of economic pain that is far more, i think, significant than trying to navigate our way through a period of some inflationary pressure for which we have tools , and we ought to be using those tools. host: i want to share with this -- share this with you, congressman. jennifer granholm tweeting out that the restart of the pipeline went well overnight. this should mean things will return to normal by the end of the weekend. she says we will keep you posted. your reaction? guest: that is an example of one of the short-term drivers that affected fuel prices. i have known ms. granholm for a long time. she gets it right. it will take time to get things back to some sense of normal over some -- and over some short-term period of time we

should see some price stabilization as a result. so that's good news. host: rich in pennsylvania, a republican. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i have a question for the kind rissman. we are talking about taxes and the fairness in the system. you know that most americans care about their pocketbooks and what affects their pocketbook. all i can say is, i am retired. h&r block has been doing my taxes now for i don't know how many years, and after the trump tax cuts, i saw my tax return go from about $370 consistently every year to about 22 hundred dollars. so i saw a net gain of about $2000. i saw people at h&r block, how could that be?

they said that as a result of the trump tax cut. i was very happy. $2000 isn't a ton of money, and i understand that maybe the wealthy got a lot more, but to say that i just got -- that the people didn't get anything were received just a pittance is not quite accurate, too. so my question to the congressman would be, if you adjust the tax code, i understand you don't know my income and everything, but how much more of a refund would i get? would i get $3000 or $5,000? if we are talking about fairness here. guest: well, i don't know your income, but let me just say this. if you make more than $400,000 a year, you may have to be prepared for some tax increase. the other issue, though -- the caller makes a good point -- there are a lot of people who did receive some reduction in

their tax obligations. but the disproportionate benefit to the people at the very top is not justifiable. and that is the issue. this is what i'm concerned about, that i think it is somewhat of a cynical use of the tax code in 2017, when many of my republican colleagues pointed to middle income earners, upper income earners getting some modest benefit -- a few hundred or a couple hundred thousand dollars that a few hundred or a couple thousand dollars. for some that is a -- a few hundred or a couple hundred thousand dollars. but many did not get their proportionate benefit from that but he disproportionate benefit, and we borrow the money in order to make that tax change. that is one issue. the other one is, cynically, the individual tax cuts that were included in the 2017 tax bill

expire. they are only good for a few years. the corporate tax cut, the cuts that went to the wealthiest corporations, many of whom do not pay taxes at all as a result of this, those were made permanent. so why did the republican congress decide that the mile -- that the amount of tax breaks that would go to middle income earners would only come for a few years? the massive tax cuts that for gave tax obligations to some of the wealthiest corporations in the world would be permanent? you know, the tax code, the budget is a statement of our values. i don't think those are american values. host: jerry in florida, democratic caller. you're talking with con rissman dan kildee. go ahead. caller: good morning. these tax cuts go all the way back to the reagan administration. it is trickle-down economics.

it didn't work then, it doesn't work now. the republican idea that we will take your tax cuts and create more benefits for the employees, make things better for everybody, that doesn't work out. they didn't invest the money. they continue to take businesses overseas, and in the meanwhile they are not paying their fair share. that could help infrastructure programs. you get this country back rolling again, it is just ridiculous in my eyes. thank you. guest: thank you. the caller makes a good point. these tax breaks, the tax cuts are a statement of our values come as i said. we really have to have an honest conversation about this. what is interesting is that we are having this discussion about infrastructure. we know that we have a huge infrastructure need. the american society of civil engineers, for example -- these are the experts, not political types -- they think the

infrastructure needs in this country, to get us up to the first century, are somewhere in the $4.3 trillion range. right now we are talking about something significantly smaller than that. maybe it is $1 trillion, $2 trillion. the interesting thing is, and listen to leader mccarthy, who points this out. there is no appetite whatsoever to pay for any this -- any of this on the part of some of my colleagues. i will agree that some of it may go theoretically unpaid for, which is not the right term to use, but will be essentially paid for by the growth that investing in 21st century infrastructure will create. expand the economy, tax revenues come in. even if the rates don't change, because you have more of the economy contributing to covering the costs of all this infrastructure. that is why it is important to make these necessary adjustments to the tax code to make sure that as we see growth coming from investing in our

infrastructure, that everybody who benefits from that growth will also pay for the cost of creating the growth in the first place. if we don't fix the really serious inequities in the tax code -- in other words, if we don't make sure that the richest companies and the wealthiest individuals in this country have to pay their fair share, when the economy grows, we will be able to recapture some of that revenue to pay off the cost of infrastructure. but we won't all be contribute into it. we will all, however, be benefiting from it. and where i grew up, if you sit down at the table and you share in the meal, you have an obligation to help contribute to it. i mean, i used to go to a lot of potlucks. you did not show up empty-handed. you brought something to the table. what we have in america's corporations are folks who want to show up and eat from our table, but they are not even bringing a castable. they are not even bringing a

jell-o. they want us to bring everything, and that's just not right. host: congressman brady sends out this tweet. democrats like to keep telling the story that no increase in taxes on those earning less than 400,000 others, but inflation and higher gas prices will be the tax increase on their watch. guest: i understand that. i think we get that. that's why we have to make sure that we manage this economy in a way that allows us to make sure that the people we are talking about have income, don't lose their homes, don't lose their small businesses. and then do what we can, use the tools we have to try to deal with the inflationary pressure that naturally will come from, you know, increased capital moving into the economy. we get that, but it is a false claim to say that the way to fix that is to simply let everybody lose everything they have, but at least there won't be any inflationary pressure. that's just -- you know, it is

an oversimplification. it is sort of a political shot. it is not really based on any sound economic principle. host: paul, your next, from indianapolis. caller: yes, good morning. i just have a couple of facts that i would like to point out. according to the irs, the trump tax law, the top 1% actually end up paying a great percentage of the taxes collected. ok, and my question for the congressman is, what is a fair share? right now 40% -- the bottom 40% don't pay any federal income tax. the bottom 20% get back far more than the federal income tax. which means that for those at the bottom 40%, they contribute nothing to national event's, nothing to national government, nothing to the national infrastructure. ok? so what is a fair share? that is -- host: ok, paul, we heard your

question. congressman? guest: one of the reasons that we can pick these data points, is that if we pick and choose the data, the broad set of facts can be ignored. the broad set of facts that if what the caller says is true, we have to look at the reality that under the tax law, massive wealth, massive income, has been accumulated by those people at the top. so while it may be true that some people are paying more in taxes, it is only because they have been able to confiscate massive wealth during this period. what we have seen is a return to what was referred to as the gilded age come at the beginning of the 20th century. massive wealth had been accumulated in the hands of a very small number of americans at the very top of the economy. now, maybe they were paying significantly higher total taxes, but it was against a massively higher assessment -- or amalgamation of wealth.

so these sort of fact i think kind of get in the way sometimes of the talking point. but here is the other point that i guess i would disagree with the callerthe 40% of americans e because the fact that they have children, expenses, a tax code that recognizes that there is a high cost to being poor in this country, it is not that they do not contribute to infrastructure. they build it. they go to work every day. these are the people who actually generate the vast wealth that people at the very top benefit from. the value of their labor, the value of their work, the contributions they make as a productive engine of our economy is often so dismissed that i think it is disrespectful. now, we have a tax code that says that you ought to be able to have the basic floor of

decency, you ought to be able to take care of yourself and your family at some decent level, and that is why the tax code says that if you need help because you have kids, because you are trying to keep a roof over your head, we are going to organize the tax code in such a way that you keep a higher percentage of your modest income to take care of those basic needs. but, if you do really well, because we all contribute to the highly productive society that we benefit from, we are going to ask you to chip in more. i think that is fine. host: on a lighter note, your favorite casserole? guest: cheese and potatoes, it is not a close call. host: we appreciate the time this morning. thank you. we will take a short break. when we come back we will turn our attention to the cyberattack on the colonial type -- pipeline. we will talk to michael daniel.

but first, there is a finance committee yesterday with trade representative catherine. james lankford expressed concerns about the judge -- the biden administration's support for world trade organizational proposal to waive intellectual property rights for covid-19 vaccines. take a look at that exchange. [video clip] >> just giving away the intellectual property does not solve the problem. j&j outsourced some of its manufacturing to a location and the manufacturing failed and they whole -- they throughout whole batches with millions of doses. just giving away on -- intellectual property does not solve the issue if manufacturing does not have good oversight. we have other maxi -- like malaria, that is what we would be talking about, finally a good malaria vaccine. that is also a global issue and the concern is for cancer and alzheimer's research, first so many issues if every

pharmaceutical company gets a positive investment thinking i will get a breakthrough but the intellectual property will be given away because it is also a global issue, that becomes the challenge of getting future investment. it is two fold, how do we protect the integrity of the vaccine, it is typically done with good oversight in the generic market rather than giving away the formula. we lose that ability to have good oversight, so we might not have good batches coming out as we have seen, or how do we make sure that we are continuing to protect future innovation for vaccines like malaria? is there any insurance for the administration that will not get the intellectual property rights for that. >> let me just say that the questions that you are asking are absolutely critical preston's and important questions. they are ones i have discussed with the heads of all of the manufacturers who are manufacturing or soon will be manufacturing for the u.s. market. in -- over the course of april i

think i had over one dozen consultations that i provided transparent readouts of that is all to say that i know how important this issue is. i know what the stakes are in terms of the global economic recovery and in terms of system of intellectual property protections. i look forward to continuing this conversation because it is so important to get this right and for us to show that the wto can produce results that are effective and relevant to people's lives. [end video clip] >> washington journal continues. host: here to talk about cyber security and critical infrastructure is michael daniel, the former white house cybersecurity coordinator that served from 2012 until 2017 and is the president and ceo of the cyber threat alliance. tell us how -- what the nuts and bolts of how this attack on the colonial pipeline took place. guest: i should first preface by

saying i do not have all of the specific details of what happened, so i can talk about how ransomware generally works, and probably worked in the case of colonial. and, what happens is that for the militias actors gained -- the malicious actors gained access through -- to the network either through a pfishing email or found a vulnerability in a website or something that faces the internet and exploiting that. and then they download malware that will encrypt the data on the network. the first thing that they do is they scan that network and find valuable data on that network and they make a copy. and, they take it off the network. and then, they encrypt the data. they will send a note to the

i.t. managers at that company and say you will now find that all of your data is encrypted, and if you want to unencrypt it you will need to send us money. all by the way we made a copy, and if you want us to not strew that all over the dark web and internet you will have to pay us for that. so, that is what we call a double extortion. so, that is how ransomware generally works. in the case of colonial what they did was because they were worried that the malware might also spread to their operational network, the part of the network that controls the pipeline, they also decided to proactively shut down the operations of the pipeline and shut down that software. however, there is no indication from any reporting that the malware that encrypted the business i.t. network actually

got onto the operational network. host: when you are looking at a company like colonial pipeline with the infrastructure they have in place and the obvious impact that it had when they need to shut down, what type of cyber security officials do they need to have on their staff? in their company and other companies with such critical infrastructure in our country. guest: i think that almost every company has to worry about cyber security some degree. obviously, if you are a significant provider, a large provider of critical services and functions in this country, you need to have a greater investment in cybersecurity. the amazing thing about the -- what you see with this recent wave of ransomware attacks it affects companies of all different sizes, and all different functions in our economy.

and, really no one is immune. host: who is usually behind these types of attacks? guest: usually these are criminal organizations. ransomware is big mill -- big business, hundreds of millions dollars of year -- a year. so, usually these are criminal organizations that are innate for the money. in some cases you see nationstates that will try to use these tools as well and we have seen russia do that. but, most of the time these are criminals. host: and so, the companies are paying the ransom? guest: some r and some do not. in many cases there are ways that you can unencrypt your data. there are companies that work for encryption keys that allow you to break encryption without having to pay.

there are incident response companies that help you figure out if you have additional copies of data that you are not even aware that you had that the bad guys could not find that you could use to restore operations. some companies are very resilient to ransomware and have designed their system so that even if they get hit, they can recover and not have to pay. but, as those numbers as i was quoting you say, clearly a large number of organizations feel like they have no choice but to pay. host: earlier this week cybersecurity infrastructure and security agency acting director testified about the colonial pipeline attack and talked about the need for private industry to provide information. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> if the fbi not brought you in, would colonial have contacted to ask for your assistance? >> no. >> do you think that is a problem? >> i think there is a benefit when assistance is brought in

quickly because the information that we glean, we work to share it in a broader fashion to protect other critical infrastructure. >> that is the point, you could have helped colonial, but number two, having this enables you to have -- to help other critical infrastructure and if there is other ransomware focused on colonial, there are other ransomware is focused on other companies. >> that is true. [end video clip] host: they did not reach out to the government for help. the government needs this information, what do you make of that? guest: this is a very common problem across a lot of the cybersecurity ecosystem. because, a lot of companies are understandably worried about the regulatory implications if they communicate with the government, they are worried about brand and reputation issues in many cases. although in colonial's case they

were not able to keep it a secret, clearly. what this points towards is a need to continue building those relationships between industry and government to encourage the sharing of information both technical data and other kinds of cyber threat intelligence, contacts, after -- attribution, and defensive best practices. and all of those parts of different types of information that would really benefit the ecosystem as a whole. this has been a long-standing problem in stiger -- cybersecurity and one that we worked on in the obama administration and biden administration. host: take a look at how prevalent ransomware attacks were in 2020. 130 municipal state governments, 560 health care facilities. 5081 schools and universities, and 1300 companies locally.

we are taking your questions and comments about cyber ransomware attacks, and cybersecurity for critical infrastructure. michael daniel is our guest. start dialing in now so that we can get to your questions. i heard the president say that there is a need for training in this country when it comes to cybersecurity. why? why is there a need. guest: i think there are several reasons. one is that we still have a huge workforce shortage. if you look across the country at the number of cybersecurity jobs that remain unfilled and the difficulty companies have in hiring talent, we clearly need to continue expanding the number of people who have cybersecurity skills. we just need to grow that cybersecurity workforce. i would argue that across the business community, just as almost everyone in the business community has some familiarity

with accounting, we need more of the business community to have some familiarity with cybersecurity. we also need to increase the general awareness of how you go about making yourself more cybersecurity, about how you do good password management, for example. and to have more of the basics broadly known across as much as our society as possible because we are a digital society, and that means we will have to live in that digital world, and in turn, having good cybersecurity skills. host: albuquerque, new mexico. brian is first. your question or comment. caller: good morning. another dimension to this is our government for decades has had a light touch with high-tech, and the internet and it has all developed aware now are -- developed aware all of our

biggest companies are involved in the internet, primarily, and they are sitting on mountains of cash, they are extremely wealthy, but they do not contribute to solving this problem. so, somehow, congress has to get its act together and come up with a way to force these companies to spend money making their software better and more resilient, and making the whole system stronger so these criminals cannot easily steal from us, and then the taxpayers get billed. the taxpayers always get the bill, and the private companies rake off of the product -- the profits and they put outreach -- weak products that can be exploited. guest: well, one of the interesting issues about when you look at the incentives in the software industry, it has been for a very long time the strong incentive has been to get

to market. there is not a strong incentive to invest in security from the beginning. that is starting to change and there are companies that are starting to invest in secure by design. but at the very fundamental level, it is very difficult. we do not know how to write truly secure code that does not have owner abilities in it. even using the best coding practices out there, there are still going to inevitably end up being bugs and vulnerabilities. that is one of the areas of research and development that would argue is actually being able to write more secure code from the very beginning. another issue is although the economics of security itself. people have not demanded it. consumers have prioritized convenience over cybersecurity.

so, there have been a number of factors that contributed to us getting into the situation we are in and we will have to shift market dynamics over time in order to actually create the structure to invest in cybersecurity the right way. host: steve, florida. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i have a quick question/comment. i worked in the i.t. industry for 20 years and i worked for a fortune 500 company and for ibm. most major companies, large major companies have a recovery plan which consists of keeping a full set of your system data, and i understand it is different operational data and programs versus customer billing or information, but still they kept a full set of data off-site in the event there is a fire, earthquake, and hurricane that takes out the primary site, you go to the recovery site and

restore the data and you are up and running in a matter of 12 to 24 hours. does not apply at all to the situation? thank you for taking my call. guest: it is difficult to know in the situation at colonial exactly what all happened in the background. we do not have a lot of the details about exactly how example, how the ransomware were malware got into the -- or malware got into the network, and what was the nature of the encryption. how they were able to restore their systems, so i would say it is possible that they activated their disaster recovery plan and in fact this could have been worse. if they had not for example taking the step -- taken the steps to proactively shut down the operating technology, it might have spread to that and it might have taken longer to recover. since they started resuming

operations yesterday. without understanding more of the details, it is difficult to comment one way or the other. what i will say is that you are absolutely right. part of being cyber resilient is having a good incident response plan, because no matter how good you are at your cybersecurity or how good you are at employing good cybersecurity practices, you will occasionally have cybersecurity incidences. you want to make sure that you have a good plan to respond to the incidents, mitigate them, and recover as quickly as possible. that is a key part of having good cybersecurity practices in your company. host: robert, baltimore. guest: in the hundreds of millions of dollars cost, i heard you cite in a country with several trillion dollar budget, it sounds like money is not the object.

i would like you to comment on the old allegory in security where two guys are in the woods, a attacks them, one guy takes off running and his friend says you cannot outrun hebert, and the other guys says -- the other guy says i do not have to outrun the bear, i have to outrun you. i work for the greatest hospital in the world and our cybersecurity is unparalleled. we do not get attacked and my question is, finally, is if everyone had our level of security and expertise to keep cyber threats at a, -- at bay, what hackers catch up? we have the technology to stave off of the threat because we are better and faster than the average company and there are always going to be lower hanging fruit for the bad guys. if everybody were on the same par, would they just catch up and it would always be a race

between the strongest and always be survival of the fittest amongst companies? or is there the technology to basically end the problem were there enough resources and expertise? thank you. guest: that is a good question. i always argue that we are never going to solve the cybersecurity problem. it is a risk that we are going to have to manage. now, we can dramatically change the risk. and, you can drive that risk very far down from where it is right now. and, i think that the way that i think about it is it is always going to be an incentive for nationstates to conduct cyber enabled espionage for example. there will always be an economic incentive for cyber criminals to try and make money that way. so, there is always going to be

the race between the intruders and the defenders. but, we can do a better job of raising the overall level of cybersecurity across our digital ecosystem, making it harder for the criminals to make money. making other nationstates have to expand more resources to achieve their goals. so, we can definitely raise that level of cybersecurity, and make the drag on our economy and make the risk of catastrophic effects or even effects like what we have seen over the last week with the panic buying of gasoline and lines at gas stations. we can reduce the risk that -- the risks of those type of events substantially. host: richmond, virginia. you are next. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? i am nowhere near a computer

expert but i have been dealing with computers for over 30 years. and a lot of the time, the people who are in control of going on, are in denial of the attacks going on across the nation. these companies -- i am not going today many companies are or anything like that -- but when you contact people because they feel like you have a lack of knowledge, and because they have a lack of knowledge, you end up getting nowhere. what should you do in that situation? guest: i certainly -- i certainly think that most everybody is now in a position that you have been talking about. everyone has contact with and works with computers. my kids do, anybody who is working, even if it is just a mobile phone that you have,

which is really now a computer that happens to do phone calls. that is a kind of minor side note. what you really -- what you can really try and focus on is finding those sources of that information that can give you the best practices that you need to do, and in most cases, for most people they will not face an adversary that requires them to have sophisticated skills. following the best practices of using as much two factor or multi factor authentication's, so not just a password, but also having the text or authenticator on your phone. using a password manager, using a virtual private network where you connect to the internet, those are the best practices that most small businesses and individuals can do to better protect themselves. and, really, the level that if

you need to access that higher in -- andy expertise, that is when you can reach out to more the experts out there. host: londa in -- wanda in california. caller: i would like to tell you how you can found out how the election was hacked. if you go to michaeljlynndel l.com it lists ip sources, how the election was hacked from beijing, china. from pakistan, germany, and a few other places, and other cities in this country. so the election was stolen through computer hackery. you can see the evidence at michaeljlyndell.com. host: have you heard of this? guest: i have not. what i can say is that in my

experience, what we saw in 2016 and then again in 2020 was an enormous effort by the folks who are charged with protecting our election security to protect our elections and ensure our -- their integrity. what i can say in my judgment we had some of the most secure elections in terms of the actual ballot process that we have ever had in 2020. and, -- i believe that the elections in 2016, 2018, and 2020 properly reflected the will of the american people. there has been an enormous effort on the part of russia and other countries to try and influence our elections to trip -- to spread disinformation, and misinformation and show -- sew

discord, and to some degree that has been successful. but, overall, i am firmly convinced that the integrity of our elections. host: here's a question from eric foster in lincoln, nebraska who says "the cost for an organization to have the best cyber defenses have to be sky high. how have these costs increase as the attacks become more prevalent? what is the cost?" guest: i would say that the cost of implementing good, solid a6 cybersecurity is not that enormous. for good -- for organizations to have good network controls and to configure their network properly, and to install solid firewalls and other kinds of cybersecurity you know, technology, that is fairly basic. to do things like multifactor authorization and password managers, that is not that huge.

the bigger you get is an organization, the more that you have to invest in different kinds of cybersecurity and the bigger the network, those costs will go up. in the long run, the evidence clearly shows that the amount you have to invest in cybersecurity is far less than what you end up paying for dealing with and responding to incidents. host: henry, in michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning mr. daniel. i wonder if you can kind of give us an update and timeline regarding solar and wind. the enormous russian cyber security breach of all of our government institutions. did the hiring of mr. crebs by

donald trump, did solar wind precede that, or was it after the firing of mr. crebs. can you give us an update or in-depth information as to where we stand with the solar wind? host: i will have michael jump in. guest: you know, that was a very long-term operation. that is one of the hallmarks of a nationstate activity is that they are willing to be incredibly patient. they started the initial parts of that operation over a year ago now at this point. and, they started getting access to systems over the summer of 2020, long before chris krebs was fired by president trump. and then, it continued even to and really only became unraveled as the biden administration came in. those are long-term operations.

i think the interesting question is whether or not we have fully sort of come to understand the full extent of all of the intrusions and damage that could have been done as a result of that operation. and, i think it will take us some time to really do the full damage assessment and come to understand what really happened. and often times those take months, even going on two years to understand the scope, scale, and the full extent of the operation that occurred against us. host: thank you very much for your insight this morning on the cyberattack and cybersecurity in this country. we appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will take a break and when we come back we will return to our discussion from earlier this morning. should there be a commission like the 9/11 commission to examine that january 6 cap

attack. if you think one is needed or disagree, or are not sure those are the lines on your screen. we will get your thoughts in a minute. ♪ >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 9:00 p.m. eastern " nine nasty words, english in the gutter then, now, and forever." john looks at how profanity has evolved over time. sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, in her own -- in her latest book, " persist," elizabeth warren talks about persistence in her life as a professor, u.s. editor and a democratic presidential candidate. she is interviewed by " washington post" white house reporter annie linsky.

"the development of precision bombing during world war ii is the subject of malcolm gladwell's book "the ballmer mafia: a dream, 10 tatian, and longest -- temptation and longest night of the second world war." watch this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we returned to our question from the beginning of today's "washington journal," do you think an independent commission is needed to examine the january 6 capital attack. if you think so, dial in at 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. if you are not sure, 202-748-8002. the "hill" newspaper reports as early as next week house democratss could bring to the

floor a vote to establish such a commission. this would be similar to the 9/11 commission that looked into that attack from 2001. the speaker, nancy and pelosi late last month -- nancy pelosi talked about the negotiations between democrats and republicans to create such a commission. [video clip] >> the makeup of the commission of the process within the commission and the cash and the scope of the commission. two objections that the republicans had was that they wanted to have it even instead of the president having an appointment, just to have the democrats and republicans, and we yielded on that. i think the president should have it, but nonetheless the scope is what is important and that is where the discomfort is i will -- we will yield on that. the second part was on process where they had a concern about

subpoena, the subpoena power. we have said that we would agree to the subpoena power that i think they would agree to, that is that the chair and ranking -- not the ranking member, the chair and vice chair would have to agree on a subpoena, or a majority of the committee of the commission agrees. that seems to address the subpoena, but we will see. we do not know where they will be on scope, but some of this is we say interaction among members among committees and etc.. if we can come to an agreement on the first two, why would they object to the scope? which is to find the truth of what happened on january 6, when an insurrection descended upon

the capital. i do not need to describe it. but our purpose is to find the truth for that. it is not about investigating one thing or another that they may want to draw into this. but we are optimistic. [video clip] host: the speaker of the house. as she and republicans negotiate over this type of independent commission, committees on capitol hill are holding hearings about what happened that day, and also the questions around the 2020 election. on the senate side, lawmakers heard from the current homeland chief as well as the attorney general, and they told senators that lawmakers' false narratives could fan the flames of extremism in this country. and then, on the others of the capital, you had a house hearing

with the former defense secretary under president trump as well as the acting attorney general on the day of january 6, and the headline from that testimony is that a handful of republicans played down the violence, one of them saying it was a normal tourist visit. that congressman was congressman clyde of georgia. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> this hearing is called the capital insurrection, and let us be honest with the american people, it was not an insurrection and we cannot call it that and be truthful. the cambridge english dictionary defines an insurrection as "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence." from the century dictionary, " the act of rising against civil authority, specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons the power of the state." as one of the members who stayed on the house floor, who with

other republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3:00 p.m. that day from the mob who tried to enter, i can tell you that the house floor was never breached and it was not an insurrection. there was an undisciplined mob, some rioters and those who committed acts of vandalism. it was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection is a boldfaced lie. watching the tv footage of those who enter the capital and watch -- walked through statuary hall showed people staying between the ropes taking videos and pictures. if you did not know that it was a video from january 6, you would think that it was a normal forest visit -- tourist visit. there were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the capital. the only -- preach the capitol. the only police officer -- the only shot was from a capitol police officer who was -- who

shot an unarmed protester. we heard earlier that her death certificate was ruled to be a homicide. [video clip] host: that was the republican from georgia. in response to his comment, republican lieutenant governor tweeted out "hard to believe any elected official could be this oblivious to reality. it is this type of blind ignorance that got our party into this mess to start with." we are asking you, do you believe that there should be a commission to examine the january 6 capital attack. you heard what congressman clyde had to say. last evening cnn released new video that they obtained exclusively, showing attacks on police officers. take a look. [video clip] [shouting]

[video clip] host: that is from cnn reporting last night. jane from auburn, you say yes to an independent commission. caller: yes. it is really troubling. what i cannot understand is why the majority of white people in this country do not feel the difference between something that is really bad. if you listen to the defense secretary's yesterday, chris

miller, these people are running the government the american people talk down the american flag and put the confederate flag up. this is going to continue on. the federal government is weak on this. we have republicans defending this, and pelosi are talking like they are scared or something. these people are steering the government. the department of justice need to be corrupt. they found out that these people will do anything trump would do. he did not need to ask the question, if trump asked him if they could overthrow the election. the government was overthrown. that was an insurrection. these people need to be brought to justice.

if those had been black people that did that, it would been shot and they would be dead. at kent state these people were shot. trump told his pit will to go -- his people will go get them. chris miller said that trump told him to protect this rebel insurrectionist traders. host: ok, we will go to anthony in arizona. you say no. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for c-span. i say this because as far as our capitol police officer's, we might as well put this quote out there for them, and it goes you do not see me until you need me. and, the reason i reference that

is that capitol police officer's out there every day, and people ignore them, the guests ignore them and elected officials. but, to have a commission would only do one thing, it would just be like a wound, and the reason i say that is because you get burned. there are layer's of burns. so, over time in the next 24 to 36 months, we are going to be electing new officials. where does our focus need to be? not on denying what happened, but on preventing what could happen again. so, therefore, local, state, and federal level we need to be focused on ensuring that we know what we can do to move this country forward. host: wouldn't a commission do exactly that? when you look at the 9/11

commission, part of what they did was come up with many recommendations to prevent another 9/11 attack. caller: and you know what? we still have a 9/11 attack. if you consider the colonial pipeline, a commission is going to first of all -- who is going to beyond it? how long is it going to be in existence? when is the final report going to go out? if you go with the normal projection of 18 to 24 months, that will put us in the middle of midterm elections, and the president's elections for 2024. you know what they teach, i cannot teach size and speed, but if you can come with one of those two characteristics we will recruit you. so why do we want to give

something to a reality that we know is either true or false depending on which side of the political spectrum you live on? host: i have got to leave it there. tom sends a text to say "why cant law enforcement agencies coordinate to find out the truth? why do we need a commission?" host: bob in new york, you say yes to a commission. caller: you have to look into what the causes are and exactly what happened. that is irresponsible not to. but if you look back at the 9/11 commission, after pearl harbor, and even the warren commission. it seems like the pursuits were not really genuine to take place, and in today's climate it is agenda driven. we live in a day and age where you have nancy pelosi ripping up the president's speech during

the state of the union address. the republicans when obama was in, i believe his name was tom wilson -- wilson from north carolina, the disrespect is so rampant. how can we as a society come to any of these people anymore? it just does not seem to be genuine, but of course you need to investigate and find the actual reason it happened. and, all the people that broke in, they should go to jail. if you break the law, you go to jail. what really happened is what the public needs to know. host: do you think that this commission should investigate the role of president trump in this? caller: i think this commission's responsibility is to investigate the role of everybody. capitol police. you know, for the most part,

trump rallies are not violent so maybe they laid back a little bit and did not have the concern, i think that would be wrong too, you have to be prepared for anything to break out at any time, that is their job to expect and look for everything. and, 9/11, somebody dropped the ball. pearl harbor, somebody dropped the ball. you cannot stop everything, you have to go forward and learn from what took place so that never happens again. and, the tsa and nsa making -- is making all of the agencies, and sure it is a tough job, but it gets to the realm where we are today when it seems like the political pursuit defeats the purpose of holding a commission, and a commission needs to be formed. but for the right reason and right purpose. host: you talked about the role of president trump being investigated the role of everybody. that came up the hearing, and a

congressman was asking the former defense secretary about the role of president trump that day. take a listen. [video clip] >> i saw president trump's speech. do you think anyone would have marched on the capital and try to overrun the capital without the president's remarks? i know you've answered this question several times, but i would like you to answer this for the committee. >> i think i would like to modify my original assessment. >> why am i not surprised? >> based on as the chief said we are getting more information by the day and minute about what happened. and to highlight some other observations that were made, it was clear now that although we are going to find out through the department of justice process and the legal system, it seems clear that there was some sort of conspiracy where there

were organized assault elements that attended -- intended to assault the cap -- the capitol. >> did the president's remarks insight members to march -- incite members to march on the capitol? >> he clearly offered that they should march on the capital so it goes without saying that his statement resulted in that. let me just hear what the committee, what you have said before. this is your quote. "would anybody have marched on the capital -- the capitol and try to overrun the capitol without the president's speech? it is definitive that that would not have happened." >> i think i would say that is not the factor at all. >> what is that? >> as reassessed, it is not the unitary factor.

it seems clear that there was an organized conspiracy with assault elements in place. >> reclaiming my time, again, for your written testimony for today, for this morning, you stated the following about the quote. "i personally believed his comments encourage the protesters that day." so, this is a very recent reversal of your testimony. >> absolutely not, that is ridiculous. [end video clip] host: from yesterday, after hearing that exchange between the lawmaker and former defense secretary in charge that day, do you think an independent commission is needed or do you oppose the idea. rick in texas, you are not sure. your turn. >> it is sort of like when the gentleman was just involved, that it would just talks -- cost

taxpayer money. if they set it commission up for this, they should set up a city -- they should set up a commission for blm. they never investigate them. i do not get it. they are really big on this two hours of -- i would not call it an insurrection, i would call it people getting out of control. it is just a waste of taxpayers money i think, personally. but that is just me. host: the leader of the republicans in the house, kevin -- kevin mccarthy agrees with you. liz cheney, who was just ousted from the number three post yesterday. she says the scope of such an independent commission should be focused on the january 6 attack. mccarthy writes "they said the scope of the bipartisan commission should be broader and include other episodes of political violence like black lives matter and nt for protests

around the country that have turned violent at times." linda in louisiana, you say no. caller: yes, i say no. i believe that it is a waste of taxpayer money to go into a commission. i would like to say, i am an evangelical christian. i am a conservative, and yet i am totally appalled at what happened on capitol hill. i am against anarchy and anything like that. and, those are the things that my husband and i have talked about is that a commission, i believe, might just lump us all together and say we are the trumpers and we wanted that kind of thing, because we do not. i am conservative, and i care about this country, and i care about people. and i care about every person.

and, my conservative views will remain the same. i am not a democrat and i do not agree with all of their programs and what they think is the right thing to do, so i will remain a conservative. i am very appalled that that happened with president trump and he embarrassed me many times. and, i did not like the way he said or did things in that way. but, at the same time i was for the republican platform. and i will remain conservative. so, i do not want to be lumped into one big group saying that you are just for anarchy and for all of this stuff, are bearing-ism that we -- barbarianism in the country and i am certainly not happy with all of the dissenting between the parties. it looks like nobody can figure

anything out, and with or without president trump, that should be something that we should do. on both sides. host: brand -- linda says no. charles says "i was not satisfied with the 9/11 commission. why should it be different? is being established by congress, so how independent is it really? in west virginia, why do you think one should be formed? caller: because it needs to be investigated, because something stinks. because, the security of the capitol, if anybody went in, their duties are tissue to -- are to shoot to kill. if you go to the pentagon or anywhere around you will see signs that say trespassers will be shot.

somebody instigated it. and did not follow through with the security of what the capitol police should have done. host: listen to yesterday's exchange between arizona republican paul gosar questioning the active -- acting attorney general and police chief about the death of ashli babbitt during the capital insurrection. [video clip] >> was a single individual at or outside the capitol on january 6 having been charged with the crime of insurrection? >> again, you are asking me about charges that were either made pending or are being investigated. i am not in a position to address those. >> to my knowledge not a single person has been charged with the crime of insurrection. do you recall the name of the young lady, a veteran wrapped in

an american flag that was killed in the u.s. capitol? >> i do. her name was ashli babbitt. >> was ashli babbitt armed? >> again, congressman i mean to be respectful of your observations but i do not want to talk about individual situations. >> i am reclaiming my time. she was not. she was wrapped in the u.s. flag. was a death a homicide? >> congressman, i am not trying to be unhelpful i cannot comment. >> reclaiming my time, as the death certificate says, it was a homicide. who executed ashli babbitt? >> congressman, i am going to have to same thing that i do not want to get into the specifics. >> thank you, i appreciate it. chief, what are the rules of

engagement at the d.c. protest? >> at d.c. protests? the only time that we engage is on -- with those kind of things is in situations where there is an actual attack. >> i appreciate. thank you for your service. chairwoman, my constituents demand answers but the truth is being covered up. as a result the doj is harassing peaceful patriots across the country. without accurate answers, conspiracies continue to form. [end video clip] host: congressman paul gosar yesterday. all of these moments we are showing you you can find if you go to c-span.org or -- and our video player and these points of interest will be highlighted with yellow stars. you can quickly go for us the four hour plus hearing that took place yesterday. barbara answers the question about whether or not an

independent commission is needed to look into the attack and says "yes, because congressional hearings will never get us anywhere. they remind me of my children, bickering." morristown, tennessee. you are not sure. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: we are listening. caller: the only way that a commission would do any good, from what i have listen to this morning, if it was appointed by somebody besides congress. all congress can this do is gripe. and, it needs to find the truth, which from what i've seen this morning, and thank you for presenting what you have presented. the truth is not getting out like it should. it is covered up. i do not think that anyone who went to washington went with the intent of hurting anyone. i think the officer that shot the veteran should be prosecuted. i am an old woman, i am 67 years

old, and if somebody came in and kill me -- killed me, i would pray that they would be prosecuted when i was defenseless and unarmed. something needs to be straightened out. those folks that protested peacefully, and we have had several protests regarding our government in tennessee. but, the people that protested without damage or violence should have that right. as american citizens, that is all right. it was not in insurrection. insurrection is when everyone bears arms. and i am scared to death that as a u.s. citizen, born and raised here, that that is what this nation is coming to if something is not straightened out. our government needs to listen and straighten things up. people have the right to their opinions. that is one of our constitutional rights. host: john, california.

you say no. caller: yes. i mean, perpetuating this -- the january 6 protest is all political in nature. all it will do is perpetuate hate, discontent, and political agendas which is one party against another. it is very obvious. if they were going to establish a commission to investigate all of the protests, all of the rights that --riots that occurred the six months prior to the election, that might be something worth looking into. but, to try and take this one picture and say, january 6 is the most hideous thing that has ever occurred, that is just a political posturing on the parts of the democrats and i think that is perpetuating more hate and discontent, and, listening to those congressman, if there

were any reason not to do that, just listen to the bickering. back and forth, you said this and how can you say that? it is nonsense. we need to move on. biden won, trump agreed, we are going to have another election coming up and things will change and we -- and trying to keep perpetuating this is nonsense. host: we will take a look at another moment from yesterday'se another look at the hearing from yesterday where they ask the former defense secretary about the meeting with president trump leading up to january 6. [video clip] >> at what point did you end president trump actually have a meeting discussing this? >> it was the third of january concerning international press.

at the very end, he asked if there were any requests for national guard support and i informed him of the mayors request. >> to clarify, did you tell the president, or did he ask if there were request? >> he asked if there were requests. >> what was the president's response to you regarding the request made by the mayor? >> to do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected right. host: from yesterday's hearing. back to the question, do you think an independent commission is needed to examine the january 6 capital attack? mark stone says he would rather have the justice department or fbi investigate the attack. don't need a partisan investigation that will mean nothing when released. terry, you say yes in pennsylvania. caller: yes, ma'am.

good morning, greta. people say peaceful protest? ok, peaceful protest maybe outside, but that's not going inside a building and doing damage like they did. and you said there about kevin mccarthy, kevin mccarthy needs to step down and get out of d.c. and get back to california. he's a joke. he wants to be speaker of the house? [laughter] fat chance on that i hope. host: todd, fort myers, why are you not sure about this idea? caller: i would like to first say that the woman who called earlier from louisiana who identified her as a -- herself as a conservative christian, i couldn't agree with her more. but i'm a liberal democrat but i agree with her sentiment. you are comparing this to the

9/11 commission. let's go back and look at that. congress first knelt with 9/11, representative graham, senator graham from florida and representative porter dobbs, from my district here in southwest florida. they did a fine job with it. but if you remember, the public then demanded that there be a commission and they finally yielded. they did a decent job, the former governor of new jersey, hamilton, representative hamilton from indiana, we were united behind that, americans with the 9/11, you remember, completely united 100%. with this commission insurrection, i will call it, we are not united at all. we are divided.

when it comes to congress some of us think that congress was complicit with it, along with the president. it would be a hard pull. i think that these folks should be prosecuted and get the three hots and a cot in a federal prison for 10 years and think about what they just did to us here in our country. think what they did to us in our country here for 5, 10 years. think about it that way. again, a commission might interfere with that process. the, the, the legal process, the court process might be disrupted by, by whatever work the commission would do. so, i'm not sure. but we need to get past this. and god bless that woman down in the christian conservative louisiana. she had the right sentiment all along. thank you. host: maryann owens with a tweet, absolutely, she says.

failure to do so is an act of treason. robin alabama says no. rob? caller: i say no. they, the capital riot, if you want to call it that, not an insurrection. none of the people involved, none of the protesters were armed. the only one killed there was one of the protesters who was unarmed and murdered by a capitol police officer in they won't even tell us who it is. if a police officer on the street shoots a man with a gun in his hand and is pointing it at the officer, everybody in the country knows that day who the officer is and the officer is immediately suspended and there is an investigation into that. this has not happened with this case. also, the riots out in seattle and portland, the ones in missouri, have had much deadlier

consequences, have caused much more property damage. buildings were looted and burned. the capital was not looted or burned. some things were broken, some minor things broken. most of the protesters were peaceful completely. none were armed. there were known and people leaders in with the group that were disguised as trump supporters who were not. host: the justice department has , reports have said that there, those that have been arrested so far, there are no ties to antifa. guest: yes, that's big -- caller: yes, because they are not arresting the ones tied to antifa. host: where are you seeing evidence -- caller: all the damage and the destruction took over part of a major city for months, killed people in that city, raped

people in that city. demanded ransom for people in that city. took businesses hostage by saying you pay us or we are going to destroy your business. host: where do you get your news and have seen this stuff? caller: i watch c-span, cnn, fox, newsmax, nbc news sometimes. host: hatti, reidsville, wisconsin. caller: there definitely needs to be a commission. i can't imagine walking into any federal or state building and doing this damage. what was revealing to me was when president came to the capital and, you know, encouraged in my opinion, for these people to be unlawful and then he stood back in a little white tent and he was smiling and moving his head. never once did i see him pick up a phone and say, we need help,

this is out of control. secondly, with the 9/11 commission it's my understanding that most of the terrorist that flew the planes into the towers were saudi arabian citizens and they were trained i believe in a rack and this is what happened. but my son-in-law was a marine officer in that war and he said that they were given orders to protect the oil. my slant on the first 1, 911 to protect the oil. look at how many lives were lost in the military. so may a commission be formed. thank you for taking my call and i hope this gets resolved. thank you. host: all right, patty. the hill is reporting that as early as next work -- next week there could be a vote as to whether to form this commission. the speaker of the house said late last month that there were negotiations going on between

democrats and republicans about this and she will hold another news conference today at 10:45 a.m. new stern time and you can go to c-span.org for the details of that news conference and she is likely to be asked about this again. or you can follow c-span on twitter to get all the news of what's happening at that news conference and across washington today. kristin, birmingham, republicans just voted to oust liz cheney and i don't see how any of them could offer any's -- anything substantial towards getting to the truth that we all saw with our own eyes. audrey, you say yes to an independent commission. good morning. caller: yes, i believe there should be an investigation and my question is, if lucy and the rest of them were offered the national guard on several occasions that day and before in order to protect the capital and they turned it down. my question is why did they turn it down? if the national guard had been out in front of the white house

at the time, it would not have happened. host: ok. caller: the responsibility is on them to protect the capital. host: you want to hear that? caller: i want to hear why they refused the national guard. host: ok. florida, dell, the january 6 attack was terrible but so was a years worth of writing and attacking buildings in many cities. police were killed and those riots. democrats don't seem to care about that, therefore this shows the hypocrisy of democrats once again. mary, louisiana. you say no. good morning, mary. caller: i hope you will allow me to finish what i want to say. no, i don't think there should be a commission about that. i watched donald trump's speech. he told those people to go

peacefully. do it peacefully. those people had already made up their minds before donald trump made that speech. now i hope you would allow me to say this. donald trump is no longer in office. i see c-span is still hopping on what happened back in january. but i noticed y'all do not bring up nothing about joe biden. why ain't y'all doing stories about what's going on with your boy? donald trump is no longer president. joe biden is. host: do you watch this caller: caller: program every day? yeah. -- caller: yeah. host: every day? somehow you have missed the interviews we have done and the questions we have done about the situation on the border. that is something we have discussed and have had all of you tell us what you think and the decision-makers here in

washington, tell them what you think about that issue. tony in detroit, michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. my comment, short and sweet. i hear the people coming in talking about black lives matter and that rioting. one thing they leave out is each property is protected with insurance. black lives matter doesn't really have a power to really do anything that bad. black lives matter is a movement . antifa comes in and destroys property. as far as the insurrection, that never happened in american history. not even the civil war, where people, here's what it is. white people think that when white people do wrong, it's not wrong, it's justified.

so, everyone of those people that stormed the capital, by law , should have been killed because that was treason. thank you. host: ok. pat, willis, texas, good morning. caller: hello, good morning. host: is an independent commission needed? caller: absolutely. host: why? caller: you see what has been going on. this is like day and night. i don't know. there's a saying that not all republicans are poorly educated traders, but just listen to who is calling in. these people are brainwashed. absolutely brainwashed. it's not going to get any better until we cleanse america of what the problem is. it's horrible. host: ok. from yesterday's hearing, congressman jerry connelly

pressed jeffrey rosen about conversations he had with former president trump about efforts to overturn the 2020 election. take a look at this exchange. [video clip] >> were you asked or instructed by president trump to take any action at the department to advance election fraud claims or seek to overturn any part of the 2020 election results? >> as just alluded to in your prior question, i can tell you what the actions of the department were. >> no, sir. >> i cannot tell you consistent with my obligations today about private conversations with the president one way or the other. >> we had an unprecedented insurrection that led to seven deaths and you are saying that this is a privileged communication? >> i'm saying my responsibility is to tell you about the

responsibility of the role of the department of justice. >> no, sir, your responsibility is to be accountable to the american people and this congress. i can't imagine a more critical question. did you have conversations higher to the six urging -- with the president urging you to challenge the election results of 2020. it's a simple question. by the way, no executive quest -- privilege has been invoked prior to this hearing and you knew you were coming here for over a month. >> congressman, respectfully i understand your interest in the issue and i will try to be as forthcoming as i can with regards to the facts from the department of justice but when you asked me about communications with the president as a lawyer i don't get to making the decision as to i can reveal those private conversations. i have been asked today to stick to within the ground rules that i have to abide by.

>> by who, by who? >> i will get back to you. >> that would be great, the american people are entitled to an answer and i think that you and i.s. public service -- servants have an obligation. host: that was from yesterday's hearing looking into the january 6 attack. committees on the hill have been holding public testimony since -- for weeks, but there has been discussion of holding an independent commission to look into it. is one needed? bob, you say no in louisville, kentucky. >> thank you for taking my call. no, i don't agree that they have to have this investigation. unless they are going to investigate seattle and portland at the same time. six is one day. it was months in seattle of burning buildings down. that's all i got to say. host: ok, bob.

all right. jennifer in oak park says what what it take for these republicans to take january 6 seriously? murdering the vp? torturing someone? they believe anyone can break into your house but that capital protection is wrong? it's vulgar. rick, illinois. caller: i've got a few things to say about the guy about three phone calls, the guy who said that people didn't have weapons. what do you think a flagpole is? beating people with a section of it? i think the people should take [indiscernible] i want to see them testify under oath and see what they say. ain't nobody cheap on that. i tell you, i'm a republican but

i don't know, we got, we got our ass kicked, i'm sorry, but that's it. host: ok. pamela, north carolina. caller: i say no for two reasons. number one, i don't believe a commission, whatever reporting and researching they do could be for change. the hearts of our congressman and women in this congress to break this divisiveness of treating each other or the other party as enemies. to me that's the source of the problem. the second reason, i do believe that some of the republicans are complicit with the fact that this supposed election was stolen from donald trump, those people, they don't want to admit

the truth. i don't believe a commission could solve that as well. to me that's where the area needs to be dealt with. if a commission can't do that. there's no need to have it. host: bill, marilyn, you say yes. caller: thank you for your wonderful program. i say yes because here in suburban maryland i watched with horror on that day as people stormed the capital and i watched the valiant efforts of the police and others to try and to protect members of congress. you cannot tell me that a commission is not needed to investigate those people who came in with tactical gear, ready to try and capture certain

members of congress. they had zip ties. and they were after who knows who, but we heard the crowd chanting to capture pence. that needs to be investigated. there's also indications that members of the congress may have been actively involved in this. there needs to be a massive investigation into this. for god's sake, the vice president of the united states was in danger. that needs to be investigated. all these people who say it's not an insurrection, not this, not that, well there were people in that crowd who were trying to get into the various houses, the two houses, trying desperately to capture people. that needs to be investigated. greta, thank you very much for taking my call.

host: some have said that this commission should model the 9/11 commission. from britannica.com, that commission was made up of five democrats and five republicans. the staff prepared the report, the 9/11 commission report, after interviewing 1200 individuals and studied thousands of classified and unclassified reports, 19 days of public hearings were held and of the commission findings were compiled in a book and the commission report was delivered in july of 2004. ralph, murphy, north carolina, you are not sure? caller: yeah, thank you for taking my call. i mean, you know, the election, the way the election ran for the presidential run, you know, there were so many variables during the election. changing the policies, talking

about constitutional law, changing it in pennsylvania. you go down to georgia and you don't want to protect of the signatures. turning this political thing into a junk mail situation where you just mail out the ballot and whoever gets it, fill it out, send it back in. this is the most sacred thing we have got in america, the voting, the election laws. if we don't have that, we don't have anything, we don't have a country. we must just let the political scheme take your candidates for you and let them be the winners and say forget about even voting anymore. host: so, tie that to january 6. is that justification? caller: that was the people that got mad about the fact they felt their election was stolen from us. it's as simple as that. host: you still believe that. what evidence do you see of the election being stolen? caller: look, two point 8

million people per year die naturally of this country. if you didn't take them off the voting log, that's 50,000 votes per state. we've got to tighten this thing up. if we can't do that, there's no point in voting anymore. they got mad because we picked donald trump because he wasn't an inside politician. they like that click up there. it's an entity that doesn't represent humans in america. host: all right. chuck, pennsylvania, you say no? caller: yes, i say no. you can have as many commissions as you want, but the end result is going to be that whatever the house of representatives is in session, the speaker of the house is in charge of security. that's nancy pelosi. she failed to provide a safe environment for the people in the building. i mean, you can blame this on

trump and everybody else, but that's the bottom line. host: news for you this morning, "new york times" saying that president biden spoke with benjamin netanyahu in israel about the escalated sightings between israelis and palestinians. he started his unwavering support for the rights of israelis to defend themselves. zeke miller of the associated press said out of cairo they are reporting that officials say an egyptian delegation is in tel aviv in an effort to negotiate a cease-fire in the escalating gaza conflict. also reporting that u.s. jobless claims dropped to 470 3000, a new pandemic low as layoffs slow further with the economy strengthening. we have got a little over five minutes left here of our conversation.

, do you think that one is needed? john, missouri, good morning to you. tell us what you think. caller: hello, greta. i think yes. so, they could bring out, it wasn't trump that really inside of the riot. it was donald junior and giuliani. if you listen to that rally. it was donald junior and giuliani who ought to be included in that. host: because of what words? caller: what? i'm sorry i didn't -- host: because of what words? caller: fight, take back your country. got to fight. host: all right. john, missouri.

carol, west virginia, why would a commission not be useful? caller: if you are going to do a commission, let's start with a commission from when the first building was burnt in minnesota. the first rock was thrown. i think, and don't get me wrong, i think that there's two or three different types of protesters. there are those protesters that are there, that protest and i don't care what they are protesting for. they are there to protest peacefully. so, you have that group. then you have the group, the group in this protest that just once somewhere to hang out and they want to be in the group. so, you put them in that protest group. then you have a group of protesters in this whole big

protest that is there because they ain't got nowhere else to go and they are just on the border of they can be enticed to do something and do it. and then you have those in the protest that just want to be there to do something, to throw a rock or to beat the crab out of people. that is in every protest. that 2% is the ones that ruin every peaceful protest for everybody else. host: so, carol, are you saying prosecute the 2%? caller: i'm, i want anybody that threw a rock all summer long last year, we seen, we seen police get assaulted, people get assaulted.

if we are going to do and have everybody held accountable, then those that does the damage should be held accountable. the rest of them was out there having their right, basically, their right to peacefully protest, having their right ruined and hijacked. host: heard your point. this viewer texted us, describing themselves as a white republican. i do not think it was an insurrection. what happened was a proper shooting. there is no part of my mind the things i could walk into a building on such a high tension day and not be shot in the capital. i'm surprised there were not more people shot. i feel bad for her family but she took the risk and died for a cause she believed in. as for the committee, it wouldn't matter. no one trusts the government to be fair. jean, georgia, you say yes?

caller: i do. i think that there should be an independent counsel and they should start with the riots and everything that started this past summer. let's hit them first. host: ok, so jean, what should happen with that type of investigation? how do you do that? caller: well, i'm not really sure about that, but let's start with police, mayors, governors, get to the bottom of it. host: we will leave it there for now. that does it for today's program. thank you for watching and enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] ♪

♪ >> coming up shortly, the homeland security secretary gives an update on unaccompanied minors at the u.s. mexico border. we will have live coverage of the homeland security meeting

hearing and we will show you as much of that as we can before the house comes in at noon. today the house is working on debt collection legislation with votes expected later in the afternoon. watch the live coverage here on c-span,