create wi-fi so students and families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ferrechio is the chief correspondent for the washington examiner. the house is in recess for the week. the senate is back in session. i want to begin with the headline from the washington examiner, senator joe manchin saying that the democratic election bill would further divide us. i will play some sound from fox news sunday. housing is this? guest: he is doubling down on the idea that the senate should be working in a bipartisan fashion, on everything, and not trying to do things unilaterally. democrats controlled the senate right now and there is a big push from the party base to try to move the president -- president biden's agenda through

the house and the senate. in the senate, you have the filibuster rule, which means you need 60 votes to advance legislation. you need republican cooperation. democrats are considering a move that would get rid of that rule and they would in the filibuster. there are several democrats, including joe manchin, who is the most vocal, who don't approve of doing that. they want things to move forward in a bipartisan way. the voting rights bill, which is a big deal for democrats, the house is pushing the legislature forward for several years. now that the senate is in control by democrats, they think that now is our chance, let's try to get this through. joe manchin says if we reform the nation's voting laws, unilaterally, without any republican participation, that will divide the country. he is saying both parties should work together on something that is more of a compromise. he has said that a few times now in the past few weeks and he

doubled down on it this weekend. the reason why it is important right now that he says it is the majority leader, chuck schumer, told us on capitol hill that he plans to bring up the voting rights bill this month. what joe manchin is saying is unless they change that bill to the liking of at least 10 republicans, it will fail. they will bring it to the forward in the senate and it will not make it to the bait. -- floor in the senate and it will not make it to the debate. you will not see joe manchin voting for it. that means there is no chance of getting rid of the filibuster. it is a big deal that he is not doing it. he is not the only one. joe manchin is one of, i think, a few moderate democrats who don't really want -- like the idea of getting rid of the filibuster and having this unilateral approach to passing everything, a one-party approach. he is the most vocal and

provides cover for other democrats who either agree with him or are on the fence. that is basically where the democratic party stands right now in the senate. you have a small group of moderates who are ruling -- using quite a bit of leverage at this point. you need unanimity among the parties to try to do what they are attempting to do. so far, they are not there. they cannot account was that yet. host: an op-ed in the charleston gazette mail was published yesterday, headline with why he was voting against the voting rights act. -- against the for the people act. >> we show and observe voting procedures in a democracy. now, we can't practice what we preach and we are going to

basically do an overhaul, and 800 page overhaul of the voting rights for the people act, i think there are a lot of great things that i agree with in that piece of legislation. there are a lot of things that don't pertain to voting. >> just to put a button on this, you will vote against that bill? >> i think it is the wrong piece of legislature to unite our country. i am not supporting that because i think it would divide us further. i don't want to be in a country divided any further than we are right now. i love my country and i think our democrat -- my democrat and republican colleagues feel the same. if we separate it more, it will not be the country we love and know. it will be hard because it will be back and forth, no matter who is in power. host: that is from democrat joe manchin, the for the people's act will include the following. automatic voter registration,

early and absentee mail-in voting, protecting against bought purchase of voter rolls. -- flawed purges of voter rolls. it prohibits coordination between super pac's and candidates, requiring states to use independent redistricting commissions and enhances resources to stave off more threats on election. the argument we are hearing from democrats is that republicans, already have weakened voting laws in georgia and texas. guest: there is the argument from republicans, which is that the changes in georgia are meant to strength voter -- strengthen voter integrity and make sure there is less voter fraud. there are incidents where people are voting fraudulently. it is not a fantasy. it is definitely happening and republicans want to curb that.

the part about purging voter rolls, often times that includes people who no longer live in the area and have moved away, are not eligible for some reason or have died. it can enable fraudulent voting. some of the changes in georgia were meant to ensure that did not happen again and to make sure that people are who they say they are when they are voting. democrats have done a good job framing that as a restrictive law, that it would stop people from voting. they have done a good job with messaging on that, i think. there is definitely an argument to be made about improving voter integrity. that is where the two sides are on this. republicans also believe, and i think there is some truth to this, that whenever you have one party writing voting laws, you can bet they would be shaped in a way to benefit that party. this is politics. politics is the overlay of everything that happens in washington.

republicans call this -- this is the democratic election security bill. make sure they win elections. you are not going to see any democrats vote for this. while there may be some things in there that republicans can pick out and say that's not a bad idea to make sure we have voter integrity and people have access to voting, they will certainly not approve of the entire package which has been around for a few years. it was written and passed in the house in the last congress. it sat there, obviously, because republicans controlled the senate and they had no interest in it then and norwell they now. that is -- nor will they now. that is why you hit this roadblock. unless you get an end to the filibuster in the senate, which is a big hurdle right now, we know. or, you get a change to this bill that is significant enough to bring in 10 republicans. the changes would have to be fairly significant. that bill is going absolutely

nowhere. we are talking -- host: we are talking to susan ferrechio. our open lines are -- our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. negotiations continue today. the president will be talking to shelley moore capito. yesterday, jennifer granholm made her appearance on cnn's state of the union and was asked about energy issues and where that is or isn't in the infrastructure bill. here is how that unfolded. [video clip] >> this has to be done soon. and without putting a specific date on it, you know they talked on friday. the thing is, it is just a bit perplexing, why the republicans haven't moved further on critical pieces. i will say this. in my world, in the energy

space, republicans have pushed for pieces of the energy infrastructure that the president put into the american jobs plant that are not in their counter offer. they have been talking about investing in the transmission group. that is infrastructure, making it more resilient and cyber proof and standing capacity. that is not in their counter offer. they have been talking about expanding and supporting nuclear . that was in the president's plan. it is not in their plan. they were talking about energy from west virginia, touring west virginia with joe manchin. there is so much despair there in terms of loss of fossil fuel jobs. the president put in his plan the ability for workers like coal miners to be able to put to work in reclaiming abandoned coal mines and oil and gas wells. republicans have talked about that and they voted for it. that is not in their bill and it is not in their counterproposal,

including removing carbon pollution from fossil fuel industries by putting pipes underground to take the carbon pollution that is stored underground. republicans have voted for that and talked about it. it was in biden's plan and it is not in theirs. it is strange why there isn't more coming together. the president has hope, joe manchin has hope. we all have hope that it can happen. the house will start their markup on wednesday. host: senator granholm is the former michigan governor and energy secretary in the biden administration. susan ferrechio, can you parse what she was talking about and where that leads the bill? guest: yes. there is a big difference on the bill. the bidens latest offer to republicans, he started at $2.3 trillion. he has lowered it to $1.7 trillion. republicans have made an offer that is about $923 billion.

they are willing to go up by another 50 billion. they are off by approximately $700 billion. that is just between republicans in the senate and joe biden. that is not trying to seek consensus from the rest of the democratic caucus who want a much higher number. they want the $2.3 billion. -- $2.3 trillion. what the secretary was talking about was not the heart of the disagreement between the two sides. if they wanted more money for nuclear or carbon captures, i don't think those are areas where you would get a ton of resistance from publicans. the big difference that she was not mentioning is about what biden is calling human infrastructure. there is about $400 billion in the biden offer for eldercare funding, helping people who are caring for others, the caring community.

that is part of this. there is also, i believe, $100 billion in tax credits for electric vehicles. those are the kinds of things, that is a lot of money we are talking about. republicans say that doesn't belong in an energy infrastructure bill. we should stick to the basics and that can include broadband, waterways, roads and bridges and other areas of infrastructure. that is where the scope of the disagreement is between the two sides. cost is another huge issue. republicans are saying we don't want to raise taxes, which biden is proposing. forget it, you are going to raise the corporate tax rate and we will not participate in this. you will lose all the republicans, not all, but most. not all of the eight has been spent.

there is a lot sitting there, not used. let's take that money and spend it that way. let's also encourage money in the highway in for structure that is sitting there. the bill that jennifer granholm was talking about today that the house is about to mark up is not the my did -- biden plan. they are marking up the highway infrastructure measure that is an appropriations bill that says -- that dixit makes -- designates peer is what we want to spend on the highway bill. it is about $547 billion. it lays the groundwork for congress moving forward on highway infrastructure spending. an almond and sign is this -- a sign here is this bill was written by democrats. the only sign of hope is what you mentioned at the beginning of this segment, which is that joe biden is talking to shelley

moore capito. they are still talking. they talked several times last week and they are talking today. biden is striving for a bipartisan deal at this point. they are running up against the clock. they think if we will move this thing in the summer time like we want to and not push into next fall, we have to act now. we are in the final moments. the problem is they are saying the republicans are not coming up high enough. i contend, if they came up higher and added some of the things that jennifer granholm was talking about, that would be a lot easier than republicans agreeing to the $400 billion for eldercare, things are outside of the scope -- things that are outside the scope of infrastructure. if they can bridge that gap, i think there would be more of a chance at this point of a bipartisan bill happening. host: look for more of that on the senate floor later today as

chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell deliver remarks after the weeklong senate recess for memorial day break. susan ferrechio joining us. she is the correspondent for the washington examiner. we will bring in our viewers and listeners. from portland, oregon, carl, thank you for waiting. what's on your mind? caller: good morning. hi, sir. i just wanted maybe to put it out there that i believe it is corruption in the voting area and having these bills being passed to keep people further and further from access to their voting rights seems like a bait and -- blatant sign of it. that's all i have. host: thank you for the comment. guest: i think what you are talking about is any voting changes that would appear to limit access.

that is the argument democrat are making that you should have access expanded, no matter what. be it through automatic voter registration, same-day registration, mail-in voting, things that make it so easy and you don't have to show up at the polls on a certain day and stand in line and be late for work or leave work early. or, not show up at all because you didn't have time, these are the types of things that democrats are trying to overcome in their bill to expand access. they are trying to limit the purging of the voter rolls which they think can push people off the voting rolls who should have access. on the other side, republicans are saying this has opened it up to more fraud because mail-in voting is less secure, in their view. and that not purging voter rolls leaves the opportunity for voter fraud in another way. there could be people who are no longer living or have moved away. we know there are cases of that

and they are document it all the time. we should keep voting in a traditional, secure way where people cast a ballot at a polling location. and then they put their ballots in the machine and it is secure and it is regulated and that is the way they want it to remain. i think that there is a big difference there. there is also a lot in the election reform bill that is not related to voting that has to do with how districts are set up, in terms of who votes and what district, which is a really important thing. and about campaign finance, and who benefits from that more, will republicans be hurt more by some of these campaign-finance changes and may be restricted donates to their campaigns? that could hurt them. that is the way republicans see it. they see it as a political power grab the democrats. there may be -- there is a lot in that bill. it is a really big bill.

it is labeled hr one in the house and s1 in the senate because they consider it the most important piece of legislation. why wouldn't they go for it if they have -- why wouldn't democrats go for it if they have the majority and the ability to do that and it would benefit them in future elections? -- they have long been the beneficiary of the mail-in voting practice, because democrats tend to participate in it more. that is maybe one reason they are like let's expand mail-in voting. politics are always part of it. republicans make that case and they are not wrong. democrats make the case that there should be better access to voting, so that people are participating more. we don't get 100% of the people voting who are eligible in every election.

each side makes the artman. the problem is there isn't enough support for it right now -- the argument. the problem is there isn't enough support right now. it could lay the ground for a future bill that is more bipartisan, who knows, if they ever get back to bipartisanship, which they are not doing lately. right now, you have a partisan divide on that bill. when it comes to voting, a big partisan divide is not a good thing. host: next in myrtle beach, south carolina. caller: i had a question on the filibuster part with mr. manchin. why can't you just suspend the filibuster for a period of 30 months so that the next election would occur and then you would send the legislation through, get it approved and then reinstate the filibuster so that should republicans -- the

republicans come back and win the next presidency, they can suspend it and get things through that they want to get through. rather than have a logjam, it would entice people to vote next time as to whether or not went went through when the filibuster is suspended was worth it or not? guest: the senate and the house, they can do whatever they want. they want to get rid of the filibuster, they can but they don't. why? the president. if they want to paint the u.s. capitol bright purple, they can. they can do whatever they want. if they want to get rid of the filibuster, they can vote to get rid of it if they have a majority vote. they don't need republicans to help them. first of all, they don't have a majority vote. nor would they if they said that's just suspend it for a little while. joe manchin's whole argument is he wants bipartisan cooperation on big bills. that would not go with what he

is saying they need to do right now. if they say ok, let's get rid of it now for the next 30 months, as you proposed, and then we will put it back in place before we leave and then when republicans come in, they can do that, once you go through that door and you say let's get rid of the filibuster while we are trying to do our key legislation, that's it. it's over. republicans will do the same thing. you will not have a filibuster. it's done. that is really what it is about. it is about president. -- precedent. they have gotten rid of the filibuster on a lot of things, you used to need 60 votes to get those through the senate. over the last 10 years, those thresholds were removed. democrats did it for some of it and republicans did it for the other. the president was set and it --

precedent was set and then it creeps along. it slows down things that the house can pass with a simple majority. the house needs a simple majority to pass anything. generally speaking, they can pass what they want if they can keep their group together. in the senate, they are supposed to have bipartisanship read it is supposed to be more deliberative. they are supposed to come up with deals and they temper what the house does. that is how congress is supposed to work. once you say let's get rid of the filibuster when it is convenient for us, when we feel it is necessary, we, the party in charge, you're getting rid of all of that. it will not come back because each party will continue to use that, repeatedly, no matter when they switch back and forth, as congress inevitably does. it always leans back and forth. you wind up with republicans in charge and there will be no way mitch mcconnell or any other republican leader will be able to justify to his conference

that we are going to put the filibuster back in place, even though we are in charge now and the democrats got rid of it, it would be impossible. i think that is what you're looking at here. all the leaders know this. they know what they are doing. and i think they are kind of stuck right now, dealing with a big change in the senate that may not be a good thing. and then there base is staring at them, saying pass this agenda and get rid of the filibuster. the democrats are in a tough position right now. host: harry reid of nevada continues to defend his decision to change the filibuster. back to your phone calls, linda in orange, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning, everyone. how are you today? you know, on the voting, this isn't rocket science. all you have to do is, every

single town and city records their records. all you have to do is walk that down on the town circuit, through the voting registrars and pull the records. instead of this in this fighting about who is dead and who voted and who didn't, it is so easy. it's like they can't see it. the other thing too is with the senate situation right now, nothing makes the republicans, mitch mcconnell in particular, than to see nothing done. his only goal is to make joe biden a one term president. he is not foolish enough to say it at this time but that is exactly what is going to happen. in the meantime, the american people get nothing done. it is called obstruction. host: linda on the democrats line from connecticut. let's get a republican voice. jerry in minnesota, good morning to you. caller: good morning parade i

have two quick comments. i watched justin who left congress prayed he made a good point. he said i don't know why people are upset about voting rights. most of the people we vote for have no say when we get -- when they get to congress. it is nancy pelosi. that group of five people, everybody has to do what their leadership says. the second thing i would say about voting is if you are not willing to show up to make it, how committed are you to what you are voting for? host: thank you. susan ferrechio, what are you hearing? guest: it is interesting what you're saying about justin amash . he had quite a bit of power when he was in congress. he was among a group of new republicans who often fought

with leadership and forced them to make changes or give up on legislation they wanted to pass because they acted as a faction. that is how you can have leverage in congress prayed as much as it would be convenient for nancy pelosi, mitch mcconnell -- in congress. as much as it would be convenient for nancy pelosi or mitch mcconnell to run the show when they are in charge, they have to deal with factions. it is an important ingredient in congress now or at any time because, when they act as a group, they have influence on legislation in order to get it pass. you need a majority to pass anything in the house, for example. you have to have a simple majority. you will not have it if her publicans are participating at all. that is very much the case in the senate, where individual senators have incredible amounts of power. look at joe manchin right now. one of the most powerful people in washington, basically, because of his stance on the

filibuster and on the front of the legislation that biden hopes to pass. that has always been the case. it is true that there can be a lot of power at the top and they have a lot of influence on things. they don't have universal influence. now, the second part of the question is access to voting. democrats would argue that you need better access to voting because some people can't get to the polls. they have difficulty. this past year was a prime example. it was decided it was not safe for people to gather and you couldn't have everybody standing around in a gym, waiting to vote. they decided that was not a good idea and may be the poll workers would not want to do it if they felt their health would be at risk. that is what you -- where you have this incredible advance of mail-in voting in america. many states adopted it and did

it quickly. i think it led to a lot of the chaos on election day and the days following, because of the way in which the ballots were returned and the counting was staggered. that left a lot of people feeling like things did not go the way they normally did and they questioned the results. that played a big role in it all. the argument of how people show up and do it the way we have always done it is something many people think should continue. there is a lot of people think mail-in ballot inc., as has been conducted -- balloting, as has been conducted in oregon for many years, it can be adopted here and it would be more uniform than it was in 2020 and it would be smoother. you will see participation levels even out a lot more because you see democrats using it mostly now. we are in that process. there is not a lot of going back on that. once that door opens, you will

see expanded access to voting. it is just a question of how it will be done and whether it will be done under this big election reform law that democrats have written. i would argue no to the latter but that you will see expanded voting access. host: we have less than a minute but i want to get your reaction as a reporter, an op-ed by the publisher of the washington post and in the newspaper, the headline something appears to be simply, simply wrong at the biden justice department. in the op-ed, he points out that during the final days of the trump administration, they used extraordinary measures to obtain subpoenas to secretly seize the records of reporters in three leading organizations including the washington post. fred ryan says new revelations suggest the biden justice department not only allowed these to continue, it intensified the attack. that has just stopped. briefly, your reaction? guest: this doesn't surprise me.

it has been going on for years through various administrations. there has always been tension between the federal government and reporters who are trying to report on what is happening in the white house and other parts of the administration. a lot of the information reporters obtained can be through lease. they are frustrating to administrations. they -- through leaks. they are frustrating to administration's. they defined the coverage of president trump. a lot of serious things were leaked. there is an attempt -- there was an attempt to find out what was going on by seeking the data from reporters. it does not surprise me they went after that stuff. go back further to the obama administration, they tried to find out who was leaking to a fox news reporter, a new york times reporter, and associated press reported.

-- reporters. it is not any particular demonstration prayed the trump and obama administration did it. it is not surprising the biden administration is trying to do the same thing. it is about the federal government not liking the fact that things get leaked to reporters and there is a fine line between what we are allowed to access as members of the press and employees who leak the data. what's of a response ability is there and that is why you see the tension between the biden administration and the press that i think it is important fred ryan was speaking out on. we need to take a stand against this stuff. host: we will conclude on that note. susan ferrechio, chief federal >> secretary of state antony blinken discusses the 2022 budget request this afternoon

before a house appropriations subcommittee. watch live beginning at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen free on the c-span radio app. >> rational security advisor jake sullivan joined today's white house briefing, answering a number of questions. here is what he had to say. >> today, we are fortunate to have a special guest to give you a preview of the president's trip and then we will do a full briefing after that. >> thank you. thanks, everybody. so as you all know, this week, president biden will head off to europe on the first foreign trip of his presidency. certainly not his first foreign trip, but the first one assi