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, on

that i think the president should have it but nonetheless the scope is important if that's where the discomfort is i yield -- not i -- we 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 the ranking -- not the ranking member but the chair and vice chair would have to agree on a subpoena or a majority of the committee. 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

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: steve, there was testimony on capitol hill. 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

decisionmakers 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 michigan. 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 stephen lynch about what the secretary said previously about the role of former president trump and what he said yesterday.

mr. lynch: but for president trump's speech, do you think anyone would have marched on the capitol and tried to overrun the capitol without the president's remarks? i know you've answered this question several times, but i'd like you to answer it for the committee. mr. miller: i think i'd like to modify my original assessment. mr. lynch: why am i not surprised about that? mr. miller: based on what chief conte said, we're getting more information by the day, by the minute about what happened. to highlight some other observations that were made, it's clear now although we're going to find out through the department of justice process and the legal system, it seems clear there was some sort of conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that intended to assault -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021]