facebook.com/c-span. this would be formed in a commission styled after the september 11 attacks. the summary says that it would investigate the facts and circumstances and influencing factors of the january 6 attack.

comprised of five commissioners in a chair. five commissioners in a vice chair appointed by republicans. it would have subpoena authority and as part of its work, a final report would be due september 31 of this year. this already garnered a lot of reaction on capitol hill, particularly from comments made yesterday. kevin mccarthy, republican or california said this about the formation of the commission, "while the speaker has wasted time playing political games, numerous interagency efforts have picked up the slack

host:. also, comments made on the house floor yesterday and around capitol hill, one of the people commenting, chair jeffries commenting on the commission and how it's different from the other commissions and bodies investigating january 6. [video clip] >> the honorary review was convened appropriately by the speaker in the immediate aftermath of the insurrection to ascertain the on the ground security conditions and gaps that existed and making a series of recommendations with respect to securing the complex, in terms of the committee reviews, which i expect to continue, those are all limited of course to the various jurisdictions of

the particular committees. the intel committee presumably will look at any intelligence failures. the judiciary committee can take a look at the role of the fbi in a going forward basis and the prosecution of the insurrectionists. the homeland committee will presumably take a look at the rise of domestic terrorism and its various manifestations, including toxic white supremacy. but those committee reviews are of course limited to the areas of jurisdiction. a bipartisan commission will take a holistic look at the events of january 6, what led to it, and how do we prevent a violent insurrection and attack on the capital from ever happening again. in the aftermath of the december 7 1941 attack on pearl harbor,

america had a bipartisan review in commission. in the aftermath of the september 11 attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon, america had a bipartisan commission. in the aftermath of the january 6 violent insurrection and attack on the citadel of our democracy, it seems reasonable that america should have a bipartisan commission. host: again, that comment taking place on capitol hill yesterday. we will show you others as well, when it comes to you in the audience, when it comes to support or opposition of the new commission, an independent body to investigate the january 6 attack. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001

. from facebook, catherine says "support, merely political. since 1992 congress has been in a state of war due to the inconsiderate opposition to others with a measure of objectivity brought to the question of what happened on january 6 and why. stan pierce saying that he opposes forming a commission that prosecutes many of the participants with property destroying democrats in the riots. facebook, you can reach out to us there as well. and texting. susan starts us off this morning and supports the formation of the commission. susan, thanks for calling. tell us why. caller: good morning. i supported and anyone who does not, it's because they have something to hide. kevin mccarthy has something to hide. this was a devastation to our

country. the people that enabled it should be brought down and brought to justice. host: so, when you say that everybody has something to hide, what do you mean by that? caller: well he was in cahoots with the former president. he had something to hide. there were people in our government who enabled these insurrectionists to come in. they were enabled. he has something to hide. they wanted to steal the election and this is how they went about it. this is worse, this is worse than 9/11. those were foreigners that attacked the country. these people were our own citizens. host: ben, state college, pennsylvania, go ahead and tell us why you oppose the effort. caller: good morning. i want to start off by saying that i believe every representative and senator should be safe in the capital regardless of if they are

republican or democrat. i just don't understand the comparisons to pearl harbor or september 11. i'm not discounting the fact that people did pass away on january 6, but i don't think the comparisons are fair. number two, they want to have a commission to establish security guidelines and fill the gaps in security, there's already barbed wire fence around the capital. having soldiers in the nation's capital. host: they have been largely reduced to date but as far as the independent cap nature of the commission, why not have someone outside congress take a look at it. caller: i believe they should. people in congress, the house of representatives, it wasn't a small thing that happened on

january 6, but like i said in the beginning i don't think it's fair to compare it to something as tragic as pearl harbor or 9/11. host: george, you are next. caller: i don't see how mitch mcconnell and these people can walk on both sides of the line within a few days. these people defecated, urinated in the capitol building, rubbed it on the walls. this was just a you know, some tourists coming along? my god, how could anybody with a sane mind call this thing just a simple thing. as far as the previous caller talking about pearl harbor, pearl harbor has nothing to do with it. host: so exactly why do you

support the formation of this commission? caller: sir? host: why do you support the formation of the commission? caller: because, we need to get to the bottom of everything that happened. we know that there is plenty there. host: another supporter, this is ken in illinois. hello. ken, illinois, hello. one more time for ken in illinois. caller: yes, go ahead. good morning, pedro, good morning, c-span. this is purely about politics, as far as the republican side doesn't want to be caught having a honest probe into why, and this is important, the president of the united states and the

minority leader kevin mccarthy were conversing and what the nature of the conversation was and that mr. mccarthy was opposed to what was going on and saw that president trump was encouraging this insurrection and doesn't want to have an honest accounting of that. host: if democrats are already investigating these things on many fronts as they control both houses, why the need for an independent body? caller: that just gives it more stature, more reliability as far as accountability and honesty that the people of the united states can look and see about what is going on. host: someone who opposes the effort, this is steve in

kentucky. hello. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: yes, i would say just leave this man alone. i mean he had the best economy going, everything. that was a great economy. seems like there's someone in the background always leading around mr. biden. i don't have anything against -- host: what does this have to do with the commission being voted on today? caller: well, i would say that i don't think mr. trump had that much to do with it. i know he made a statement about it and later on he made a statement about people not, you know, doing it. so i don't, i think he was the best thing we ever had on the economy. host: that's steve they're in kentucky. this vote will take place in the house of representatives today and we invite you to follow along as you watch our main channel, c-span.

you can also follow along on our radio app if you want to download and listen to the proceedings of congress, particularly on the house side, as they take up this legislation. one of the people speaking out, yesterday, as you heard, marjorie taylor greene, talking about her opposition. [video clip] >> mystery speaker,, ah rise in opposition to these commission and spending $2 billion in security. the question that comes to mind is this. what about all the riots that happened during the summer of 2020 after the death of george floyd. what about all the damage caused to federal buildings, churches, people's businesses, and the innocent people that were killed like david dorn. this past summer, minneapolis city officials estimate 700 buildings were damaged, burned, or destroyed, including 360 local businesses.

riots caused an estimated 300 and $55 billion in damages. blm, nt for establishing autonomous zones and attempting to burn government buildings in portland. is that not insurrection? host: you heard the representative talk about the supplemental spending bill. to give you a breakdown of what it contained, $500 million would include reimbursement to the national guard and $350 million for fencing, $160 billion for windows and were heartening, as it is known, and to protect judges and courts, $40 million to protect prosecutors. front page of "the washington times," the national guard presence there in washington, d.c., thousands of national guard troops were stationed at a rotating basis at the capital and will head home this weekend as they can -- weigh whether to create a permanent unit, with a mooted demilitarized the capital

receiving cheers from downtown businesses and officials. this as postelection riots in the risk of covid-19 received. one restaurant owner said that it definitely did impact the business in the area. that's the front page of "the washington times," if you want to read about that. your calls, on the support of this independent commission styled after the 9/11 commission, as you heard legislators say. massachusetts, robert, hello. caller: i supported very much so. but i know nothing is going to happen. nothing. if they had that commission, that would mean bill barr had to testify, mitch mcconnell would have to testify. mccarthy would have to testify.

these people, if they testified in the commission, they would all be caught in a lie. right? look at things down there in washington, steve scalise is always in the background behind mccarthy. look at the smirk on his face. he got shot at that ballgame. you would think he would have learned a lesson. republicans, i know you are not racist. i'm not going to call you all racist, but i will call you all prejudice. every time you talk about black lives matter, and you respect a crime family? donald trump's children. look at really -- look at rudy giuliani. host: opposition to the effort from tennessee, hello. caller: first of all, you let that man just sit there and say that skill lease should have

learned his lesson after being shot? i cannot believe that such a statement was made. host: you are still on, go ahead. caller: i agree with marjorie taylor greene 100%. i believe the black lives matter riots and the nt for riots go hand-in-hand with the attack on the capital. after watching these attacks from blm and nt for for over a year, the capital being attacked, our president being forced into a bunker at the white house from blm and nothing done with that, i believe that there must be an investigation into black lives matter. i believe the people at the capital felt they had free reign that nothing would happen because it is standard now in

this country to be able to burn businesses to the ground, attack our monument. host: the vote on the commission, you oppose this effort specifically why? caller: because of black lives matter and nt for, which had insurrections on capitol building's on capitol grounds and at the white house are not being investigated the same way. they are one in one. host: that's teresa darren tennessee talking about other issues concerning today's commission, relating it to other events taking place across the nation. when it comes to the subpoena powers, if you go to the law fair blog it talks about the bill that will be voted on today and specifically talks about the powers of subpoena that will be granted to the members of the commission if it's formed, saying that the requirements for subpoena track those on the 9/11

commission and allows for subpoenas to issue on the agreement of the chair or vice chair or the majority vote of the commissioners and some commentators have pointed out that this could potentially give republican members the ability to block any subpoena if they vote together and it means that only one of -- one republican appointed commissioner will be required to make the commission go through the commendable feature from the bill that is not compromised on the premise that it represented something ugly and dangerous that requires investigation and there is no false equivalence here with violence at other protest. bill is a long section declaring the purpose of the body, which is to investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the domestic terror attacks on the u.s. capitol hereafter referred to as domestic terror attacks on the capital, relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer look power and facts and causes related to u.s. capitol police and other federal state and local law enforcement in the capital region and other

instrumentality of government and the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on representative democracy engaged in a constitutional process. there's a lot more there on ball fair as far as the details of what this commission would offer as far as powers and other things if you want to read it there. mike, ohio, supports the effort. caller: i do support it and i don't think it's right for democrats to compare this to 9/11 or pearl harbor. nor should the gop compare this to black lives matter. you know what you compare it to? benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. host: why do you support the commission specifically? caller: according to kevin mccarthy, when ghazi was done by hillary clinton, a less popular candidate for oval office. if you can have hearings on

benghazi, which by the way, they, with all due respect, was a war zone. had we flown planes over and ghazi? maybe if those lives could have been saved, we don't know, but we do know that if president trump hadn't been at the capital, that would have been easier to prevent them benghazi was. host: let's hear from ben in baltimore city, maryland. caller: i just don't see how anyone could oppose this. the reason i supported is there's just a lot of questions that need to be answered and i think it needs to be done under subpoena power. the sad part of all of this is that i think bipartisanship and a middle ground is a dinosaur right now. host: what do you think, what do

you think this commission will accomplish if it goes forward? caller: some answers to some questions that linger out there about this being something that was preplanned or impromptu for a combination of both. someone behind the scenes, players, if in fact there are any. those are the kinds of questions i would hope that the commission would be able to get to the bottom of. host: politico reporting that while house gop leadership is not formal, top republicans are starting to grow nervous about how many members may wind up crossing party lines, a blow to mccarthy and it could enrage total trump. a bipartisan vote in the house could put more pressure on the senate republicans to get behind the proposal as one gop lawmaker put it, the genie is out of the

bottle and people are trying to put it back in. going to the senate side, the hill.com this morning, they have a perspective on what's going on with senators in this legislation saying that republicans are split over the commission of its ability to survive a filibuster, describing the chances of the bill as uncertain in the wake of the mccarthy opposition to the legislation negotiated by the top republicans on homeland security commission. going on to say it sounds like the wheels have come off. what does the vote look like? are republicans supportive of it? it's a weight the posture from senate republicans watching house counterparts. again, that's at the hill. when it comes to the speaker of the house, particularly the mccarthy statements on it, she had this to say. you can find the comments at

speaker.gov, saying that the commission is modeled after the 9/11 commission to get to the truth of what happens on january 6 and democrats may seek a bipartisan compromise but leader mccarthy won't take yes for an answer host: again, this is the day that the house side will take a vote on this commission. it's expected to pass and we are asking you if you support or oppose the effort. you can call us on the lines and texas -- text us if you want. courtney, pompano beach, florida, opposing the commission. go ahead. caller: high. -- hi. i'm not understanding incitement. look at maxine waters. a peaceful protest, trump said go peacefully, not terrorist, no weapons. these are pissed off american

seeing that democracy and constitution taken away. they cheated in the election. you all know it. host: so what about the independent commission do you oppose? caller: it's a witchhunt like russian collusion and the impeachment. host: why do you categorize it as a witchhunt? caller: because he did not do anything wrong to incite this. it's ridiculous. you guys are wasting our money and taking away all our rights as people to go against our government and peacefully protest. you want to tell me peaceful protest didn't happen in the summer of love? host: do you describe what happened on january 6 as peaceful? caller: i don't condone any kind of violence, destruction of property, or hurting anybody. the only person that got hurt was a woman who got shot in self-defense. host: do you describe it as peaceful overall?

caller: peaceful? what did they do? where were the weapons? is this like 9/11 like a terrorist attack? there were no weapons. they were not instructed to go. trump did not set up an organization to go in there. these people aree pissed off. they want what's fair, fair election. host: you made that point. chris, good morning. caller: hello, good morning. host: good morning, you are on. caller: well, i think everybody should just show the facts of what really happened, you know. a lot of us are sitting here watching on television, looking at president trump. he said he was going to go with them and he never did. we know what we are watching here and what's happening here, everybody does.

it's simple to see that -- host: when republicans make the point that it's being investigated, why the need for another commission, do you think? caller: well, i would think it would be a commission on an independent commission would be the best because apparently congress can't come together on it. host: chris in indiana, giving his thoughts on the vote taking place today. one of you calling this morning to support or oppose it on capitol hill. a lot of reaction taking place leading up to the vote. d.c., a tweet today, benny thompson, cosponsor of the legislation says he thinks that the gop minority leader has information that would damage republicans and that kevin mccarthy will do anything to stop it from getting out. let's hear from keith.

keith is in madison, wisconsin, supports the effort. hello. caller: hello. yes, the people trying to draw the false comparison between black lives matter and antifa, they should put to rest. it's not doing their cause any good. it's pretty stupid to be making that comparison. host: why do you call it a false comparison? caller: why? people who break things and smash stuff up are responding to terror and they are justified in smashing stuff up. the way to fix that is to simply reform the police so they don't have the ability to kill black people with immunity and impunity. host:4 >> "the wall street journal" is live every day at -- "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we'll leave this to continue our 40-plus year commitment of live