secretary dennis make donna testifies in the presidents 2022 budget request for the v.a.. that's live at www.c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled areas so students from low income families can have the tools to get 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. >> on today's "washington journal," we will discuss president biden's economic and infrastructure proposals with oklahoma representative kevin hern. more on that topic when we are

joined by democratic representative jesus garcia of illinois. later, james lamont from the center for european policy analysis on today's meeting between president biden and russian president vladimir putin in geneva, switzerland. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "the washington journal." it is wednesday, june 16, 2021 and we are beginning with the nine year anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. do you support or oppose the program? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are an undocumented immigrant, dial in at (202) 748-8003.

we want to hear your story. you can also text us with your thoughts, include your first name, city or state, at (202) 748-8003. join the conversation at facebook.com/c-span and send a tweet with the handle @cspanwj. yesterday in washington marked the nine year anniversary of when president obama started the daca program. here he is on that day, back out at the white house, announcing the start of it. [video clip] >> it makes no sense to expel talented young people who for all intents and purposes are americans, have been raised as americans, understand themselves to be a part of this country. to expel these young people who want to defend our country, start new businesses, simply because of the actions of their parents. or because of the inaction of politicians.

in the absence of any immigration action from congress to fix the broken -- broken immigration system, we are trying to focus the resources in the right place. lifting the shadow of deportation from these young people. eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. now let's be clear, this is not amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship. it's not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus resources widely while giving

aid give relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. host: president obama from june of 2012 announcing the start of the daca program. yesterday marked nine years since it began and we want to know from you this morning if you support it. if you do, dial in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, we want to know that, too. independents, (202) 748-8002. take a look at the most recent daca numbers. this is from the congressional research service. december of 2020 there were 636,390 active daca recipients and the average age is a little over 25 years old. 89% of them are employed according to 2019 numbers and the average hourly wage in 2019,

close to $20 per hour. and then you also have this from the government, the daca requirements are such that you have to be under the age of 31 as of june 15, 2012, came to the united states before age 16 and continuously reside in the united states since june of 2007. you have to be in school, graduated, of tainted ged or be a veteran of the coast guard or armed forces to qualify and you have not been convicted of a felony or three or more misdemeanors. those are the requirements. to participate in the program and to keep that status in the united states. as we said, yesterday was the nine year anniversary. on capitol hill the judiciary committee led by dickie urman of

illinois, someone who has been pushing for the daca program, it marks the anniversary by holding a hearing on legislation that would go beyond dhaka and grant citizenship to an estimated 2.7 million who arrived as children or who have temporary permission to stay in the united states. the chair of the judiciary committee, dick durbin, talked yesterday about the legacy of dhaka, 2012. listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> since 2012, 800,000 dreamers have stepped out of the shadows to enroll. the program has been a life changer and allow them to work, pursue higher education and serve in america's military. it has unleashed the full potential of dreamers. august 15 2012 is a date i will never forget. the first day that dhaka applications were accepted, i was at navy p or in chicago for

a workshop to help the dreamers apply. we were not sure if anyone would show up and we were not sure how many would show up. what happened astonished us. thousands, thousands of young people showed up on that day, filling the entire boardwalk. some gathered with their parents at midnight for the actual opening that morning. some drove in from neighboring states. that's how eager these young people were to officially become a part of america, even if on a temporary and renewable basis and that's the key word when it comes to dhaka. -- daca, it's temporary. there is still time for congress to packs the dream act because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two year increments. the two years have turned into nine years. over the years, the dream act

has been the victim of a low buster on the lore of the senate five different times. as the dream act languished in the senate, hundreds of thousands of young people have been left with their futures and out. that hasn't stopped them from fighting for their dreams and giving everything they can for this country. host: that was dick durbin yesterday at the hearing. tom cotton pushed back against the democrats idea of expanding beyond dhaka. the american dream and promise act. here's his argument. [video clip] >> we heard terms that we often hear about the children who were brought here through no fault of their own. who have never known another country. that's why we need a solution like the house bill. the house bill would give a green card, though, to say an 18-year-old who arrived here in december. so that's very different from

what the senator portrayed or what the democrats portray that this legislation would do. that's why this hearing itself is so ill-advised. we have a crisis at the border. illegal migrant flows that we haven't seen in a generation. the vice president gallivanting around central america and mexico last week looking for the root causes. i could have saved them the travel expenses. the root causes are up the street. joe biden and kamala harris running an open borders campaign and the message was heard across the world. hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens showed up at our border. not just from mexico and guatemala, but literally across the world to include europe, africa, and asia. because they know that our borders are open and as mr. ed low testified earlier, the very

fact that the united states senate is having a hearing on granting a massive amnesty under these conditions will simply exacerbate the crisis. it will be used tonight, tonight by traffickers and smugglers to induce more desperate parents to send their children to our border, to encourage more people from around the world to make that very dangerous trip. that will then put even more stress on our border and our law enforcement agencies, lead to more cloud crime in the country. host: senator tom cotton from the hearing. more numbers from the migration policy institute in washington, unauthorized immigration population estimated at 11 million. top countries are mexico, el salvador, guatemala, and 60% of

those here have lived in the united states for 10 years or more. 66% of those 10 years or older are employed. 5% are unemployed. 30% are not in the labor force. so, you have the numbers in the history and heard both sides of the argument this morning. now it is your turn to tell washington what you think. timothy, michigan, democratic caller, you are up first. >> i believe in the daca program. these people brought here as children, they deserve every chance to have a good life. we are all immigrants in this country. they should get all the help that is necessary. thank you for taking my message. host: timothy, would you stop there when it comes to expanding immigration? and only allow it for the children who were brought here by their parents? caller: i'm not sure i can answer that question intelligently. what i do believe is that we

need to use our resources to go into these other countries and help the people there. host: terry, broadway, virginia, what do you think? caller: well, i did support the daca program before biden opened the gates and started bringing them and by the hundreds of thousands. host: so, before president biden was elected, you were on board with the daca program? caller: yes. host: ok, so what if it just applies to the recipients that currently have docket status -- daca status? caller: i would support that. host: nathan, michigan, democratic caller. hello. caller: hi. host: good morning to you. caller: i personally believe in the dhaka -- daca program.

i think fundamentally every person deserves equal opportunity. i have full support of the program. host: do you know anyone who is a recipient? caller: not personally, no. i have heard many stories. host: when you hear them, what is your thought? caller: it lifts my heart to know that america is a great and loving country. it was founded on immigrants and there are so many pros, i don't see what the possible arguments against dhaka -- daca could be. host: as we talk in the united states about the daca program. -- program, in geneva president biden is getting set to meet

with the russian president. this is from moments ago when the russian president arrived for their summit in geneva. on the schedule today is a meeting, shortly, and then extended meeting after that and then the president will hold a news conference. let's watch. host: vladimir putin arriving in geneva for his one-on-one meeting with as implied in. we will talk about that more coming up with an expert on russia from 9:00 to 9:30 a.m.

eastern time and we will continue to monitor the meetings happening there this morning in geneva. they are six hours ahead. the president sitting down with the president of russia, they will have a couple of sessions. that is on the schedule, two sessions. and then the president of the united states will hold a news conference. here's a live picture right now of the president of the united states on route to the summit site as you saw the russian president already arrived. let's watch a little bit of this as well.

[cheering] host: president biden in route to his sit down meeting with vladimir putin as he learned from the first lady earlier -- as we learn from the first lady earlier, she said he's over prepared for his meetings overseas, his first as president of the united states. as he gets ready to sit down with the russian president, we are discussing what is happening domestically and yesterday in washington it marked the nine year anniversary of the so-called daca program. our question to you is do you support it or approach -- or oppose it? karl in new york, thanks for hanging on the line. what do you think about the program? caller: first of all, why did

you say my name was carl? host: i see it says carl. caller: no, it got changed and i spelled out my name and everything else. are you tracking me or something? host: ok, we will move on to ohio, maria. caller: i support dhaka -- daca. i have met many latinos and just hearing their stories of how they come over, you know, i support all immigrants, really. >> what story stands out to you? what have you heard? >> they can't do anything, legally, they don't have the papers. to me it's really broad. they came with nothing and were able to have good lives.

eventually all the borders will fall down and moved where they want to. i don't understand why people have these, you know, the borders, i just don't understand. host: ok, jim, richmond, texas, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm doing well. what do you think of daca? caller: i am a retired high school teacher of 30 years and i am a pretty conservative man. i support daca. i think those kids that were brought here by their parents and have lived here and gone to school here, become educated and are productive citizens of our society, they should be allowed to be citizens. but the caveat is close the damme border.

host: why do you say that, jim? by closing the border, what do you think that would do? caller: close the border so we know who is coming in here and why they are coming in here. we have got a wide-open situation now that is destructive to this country. we have illegals coming in that are bent on doing criminal activity. we have foreigners coming from all over the world that have, you know, and i understand why people want to come here to the united states. but we have to have an understanding of who is coming and why they are coming. host: ok, jim. the homeland security secretary wrote an opinion piece about the

nine year anniversary of daca yesterday in usa today, asking when congress will give dreamers the lives they deserve. he writes that thanks to daca, these young people built lives and our shared country, started families, launched careers, lived in america on average for two decades. no person who has daca has lived in this country for fewer than 14 years and on average they were six years old when they arrived. he goes on to write that more than 250,000 u.s. citizen children have a parent who is a daca recipient. nearly one third of docket recipients are essential workers like doctors, farmworkers and food service providers, helping the community survive and recover from the pandemic. the homeland security secretary writing in "usa today." let's hear from bruce in texas. republican line. high, bruce. -- hi, bruce.

caller: no republican or democratic politician has ever told me why the american taxpayers should support doc out or any other -- daca or any other immigrants coming to the country. ellis island is a false narrative, immigrants came in from one point in did what was necessary. these people are flooding across the border. i'm waiting for an explanation from any politician about why american taxpayers should support doc or any immigrants coming to the country. host: all right, bruce, thank you. the president has arrived in geneva at the site of his summit in the water -- the russian president. here this morning we are spending the first hour talking about whether or not use of it or of rose the daca program. president obama created it nine years ago yesterday in an announcement in the rose garden yet yesterday on capitol hill the senate judiciary committee

held a hearing on the anniversary and on legislation to go beyond daca and allow a path to citizenship for the recipients and the others who are here who are allowed to be here temporarily. here is john cornyn questioning one of the witnesses yesterday. a dreamer and a medical doctor on the realities of finding a pathway to citizenship for certain unauthorized populations. [video clip] >> there is no question that you have made incredible contributions to the country as enemy or -- an emergency room physician. the reason you are here is because you are exemplary of the type of young person who has applied for and received doc up whose life -- daca because of the fact that this is something that resulted from consensusbuilding and i personally support trying to provide a solution for people

like you. there are a number of infant iterations this would provide a path to citizenship for 4.4 million people. it is politically unlikely for us to be able to pass something like the american dream and promise act, which i believe it is impractical and unlikely to happen. would you support congress passing a bill for relief for a smaller population? >> i can only speak on behalf of

my personal experiences. i have personally watched the dream act throughout the years from the beginning. i remember watching c-span as a highschooler when the dream act was first being talked about and discussed on the senate floor and in congress. personally i would support such legislation if it meant a permanent solution for me and all the other daca recipients currently. it's been many years and frankly we are all tired of waiting and having our life up in the air. we are ready for a permanent solution. host: from yesterday's judiciary hearing on capitol hill, marking the nine year anniversary of daca? paul, what do you say? caller: yes, i do support daca. i was working for the u.s. census this past year. they were working and it seemed

like they were really good people. i did want to say that i agree the border should, we should stop people coming in the border. i went to ireland a couple years ago and anybody that has been out of the united states to come back to the united states knows that where you go, i went through u.s. customs at three checkpoints, was really hassled about it. i'm an american citizen. it makes you think here's just people walking across the border and we are able to stop people in other countries from coming in. anyway, that's my thought. host: tell us the story that you heard from that young daca recipient? caller: he was working in a store. i was a census for router and trying to get him to and he explained, well, i'm a daca kid and his parents yeah i had brought him over here and he was, there was some ways he

could apply for this is -- for the census, actually. or sign up for the census and be able to be counted. anyway, he was just, he was over here in south carolina down in a place called hardeeville. there was a mexican community there and he was working in a store there. so, we have a lot of those here. good people who work hard and we support them. host: what do you make of him having the confidence to tell you, i miss -- i assume, that i'm part of daca? caller: that was surprising. i have worked for vocational rotations in my career and we have tried to reach out to hispanic communities and they were always hard to get in touch with. so. host: all right, paul there in

south carolina. some reaction on social media, this tweet them a viewer. the daca kids should stay, be given a chance for citizenship and allowed to add to the diversity of the country. a text from russ in texas, dr. kids are americans, they know nothing else, worked and lived with many since i was 14 and the dream act must pass now. larry in milford, no one should gain advantage by breaking the law. send all immigration violators home, no daca. john in lawrence, massachusetts, i support daca, not only because president obama explained it clearly but it is humane to do so. the alternative is un-american and unacceptable. wesley, republican line, new york, what do you say? caller: i say the country is over populating. it was 184 when i was a nice. and coulter's right, we will be a third world hellhole and i

think all illegals should be forced out. there are people across the border that will never work. they are older, some of them. i have seen it myself. the good intentions of the democrats, it's a road to hell that's paved with good intentions. host: how do you respond to the homeland security secretary who wrote that nearly one third of daca recipients are essential workers? helping our community to survive and recover from the pandemic? caller: i disagree. host: do you know otherwise? caller: well, i like doctors, especially some of the doctors i have around here from india and like that, i like them all right, but they came here legally. when you have got people just flooding the border, you are going to be overpopulated. we already are. it will be for hundred million before i pass away and i'm 75. host: ok.

rob, independent in michigan. rob, your turn. caller: thank you, i support daca, we don't need to make war on children, but it's a band-aid and we need immigration policy that welcomes workers. you apply for a permit through state and federal income taxes and you get the permit renewed for next year. the worker comes across, not an entire family. the way we would discourage that is to eliminate any sort of welfare that would support a family and after five years if you have filed federal and state income taxes you could apply for citizenship. the test would be given in english. anyone who hires an illegal worker would be fined $10,000 per person. i think that we need to be welcoming people who have the american dream like our ancestors had, coming from the old country, you save enough,

you establish enough, you send for the rest of the family and you welcome -- and then you are welcomed into this nation. another alternative view is if you serve in the military and you see combat upon discharge, you get your citizenship papers. host: all right, rob's thoughts they are from michigan. mary, democratic caller. what is your view of daca? caller: you should absolutely support daca. we made a promise to them. are we going to keep our promises? also, i'm sick and tired of hearing the republican people call in and talk racist. that's all it is. what is this hate for hispanic people coming over the border? we don't have a crisis. the crisis is with the politicians who want to use it as a talking point for votes. we need to support daca. the people came out into the public and put themselves at risk for being deported. we need to honor that. i don't see anything wrong.

we need to fix the border but we need to fix it in a humane, progressive way, not acting like people are coming at us the border to bring crime and things like that. it's not true. many professionals are coming over that border. i want to ask the people who are just hateful, if you had the same situation, what would you be doing? how would you like to be treated coming over the border into another country? the united states could split in half by a meteorite any day. where would the haters go? would you go to mexico? i would hope they would say no to you, but they probably wouldn't. i would like to ask people how you would like to be treated if you were an immigrant. thank you. host: the future of daca remains in peril as a federal judge in texas ways down a court challenge to strike down the program entirely, sealing the fate of hundreds of thousands of young immigrants who have spent the majority of their lives in

the united states but may be forced to return to countries they haven't seen in years. that court case is before a texas judge right now. for president biden's part in january, january 20, 2021, one of the first actions by this president is signing a memorandum that said the following. daca reflects a judgment that these immigrants should not be a priority for removal based on a humanitarian concern and other considerations. work authorization will enable them to support themselves and their families and contribute to the economy while they remain. the secretary of homeland security with the attorney general shall take all actions deemed appropriate consistent with applicable law to preserve and fortify daca. don, missouri, independent, good morning. caller: good morning.

i think that why are we the united society of the big daddy in the world, why do we need all these people coming in? we are all born into the united states. we are here. and like the lady said, we are here, but our country is supporting the other people instead of us. that medical doctor you had on. you know, no doubt he had help from the united states government to pay for his medical education while a lot of american people are have to pay through the nose for years and years to come. host: if you are interested in his story, you should watch yesterday's hearing. you can go to our website, c-span.org, you can find if you click on the video player from yesterday's hearing the part where he testified and was asked questions by senators.

for reaction from our viewers, here's nathaniel with a text to us. it's a waste of resources to deport the individuals, the united states has invested so much, congress needs to get together. the left sees them as future voters, the right sees them as a cheap source of labor. the immigration problem won't be fixed by building fences and walls. maryland, pennsylvania, democratic caller, good morning to you. caller: i'm calling to tell you i think they should be allowed to stay. host: ok. caller: they should work. if they can work, we need workers appear. that's all the casino needs, they need workers and they could work and coordinate to stay in. host: you are seeing workers wanted signs where you live? what kind of work? caller: it's

all in the news around new city, a lot of places are hiring. they could get a green card and after a while get their test. for american. caller: if you are -- host: if you are a daca recipient, you have to be a job and be in school. that's one of the requirements. you can't have any felonies or misdemeanors to have that qualification. there it is. you have to be under the age of 31 as of june 15. you have to have come to the united states before age 16 and continuously reside in the united states since june of 2007. as we said, in school, graduated, obtained a ged or veteran of the coast guard and armed forces. take a look at the docket numbers so far from the congressional research service. as of december 2020 there are

over 636,000 recipient. their average age is a little over 25 years old. 89% are employed and their average hourly wage is near $20. steve, massachusetts, republican. we will go to you next. what do you have to say? caller: good morning, greta. this is not a binary choice, i don't believe. i think we are a little myopic when we look at the situation and our troubled past between the united states and latin america. we can go from nixon's trip in the 1950's where he went and met 2500 marxists in peru to where they ruined his car in venezuela and eisenhower had to end in a ship to get him out there, to pinochet and again with kirkpatrick doctrine.

going past even as far as the alamo. when we had american migrants go into tech this and they were slaughtered by a general dictator by the name of santa ana. i feel for these people, however on the one part i would like to see them stay. on the other hand we are a nation of laws. we just can't have an executive branch say it's ok. the congress needs to settle this. i believe that this is not an immigration issue. it's a migration issue. it's such a, we have vice president harris going into look at the root cause. we have had soviet influence in this hemisphere. since, you know, the 1940's. it's just more complicated than saying yes or no. i think that this needs to be discussed in a cogent manner by congress.

not something you're pointing, which is what we have going on now. i think we can solve this problem. i feel for these people. to call this a racial issue, that's not the issue. the issue is government and politics, ok some markets are choice between what i call americanism, what we all do, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or life, liberty, and property, which is why we need a wall. host: as you talk you say there is russian influence in the hemisphere and as you say that doesn't biden is sitting down right now ahead of closed door meetings with the russian president. let's just listen a little bit and then we will come back you, steve. [video clip] >> as i sit outside. [inaudible] [inaudible]

[many cameras clicking] "-- [inaudible translation] host: a lot of chatter in the room at lake geneva, the side of the summit between vladimir putin and our president, president biden. you might have heard him say there that it is always better to meet ace to face. two leaders flanked by the foreign minister of russia and our secretary of state, anthony blinken. steve, let me go back to you. you said migration and the issue that we are talking about, daca,

influenced by russia. what did you mean? >> take for example the soviet influence in general. we have of course cuba, cuban missiles during the missile crisis. we have russians after, i forget the guy, i know that maduro is in charge of venezuela. the other guy there, the less, you know, the socialist, not the communist like maduro. russian troops went into venezuela when that occurred. also, you have got bolivia with more alice. -- morales. i used to listen to russian radio right a bit. the right kicked out morale is -- morales. ortega in nicaragua, these are marxists. russians are in the area of

venezuela and you have again the marxists, the chinese road initiative. my point is, if you want to look at the root cause, look at our contentious relationship and our troubled past, let's say. some latin americans have considered it to be a monroe doctrine that is arrogant. there's a history there that we don't discuss. saying that we are racist, republicans don't want them in. democrats aren't racist. we are open minded. i used to be a democrat, i switched to republican. there's a lot to discuss here. host: thank you for the call. jamie texted to say that she supports daca and that the border must be controlled, the usa should never be put in the situation to make this choice in the future.

terry, independent, your thoughts this morning? >> the gentleman from massachusetts stole my thunder. it is complicated. i think my point to democrats, and i used to be a democrat, is that they are going to lose if they don't handle this whole issue correctly. they should stop pushing immigration so forcefully the way that they do. trying to understand, like the gentleman said, it's complicated . another point for me is that the whole immigration issue is weighted towards latin america. i can understand that because of the proximity, but there are people in africa that want to come to the united states. we have to do with the right way and we have to, we just, the daca people, we can understand, they were children.

they didn't know any better. but their parents were probably illegal. again, the gentleman, we should all listen to the gentleman from massachusetts. host: alright. fill in ohio text to say that they need to come here legally. the daca folks here should be allowed to stay and the rest should be made to graduate high school and if they can't, back to where you came. idell, springfield, illinois, good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: all right, alright, alright, how are you, greta? host: i'm doing fine. caller: let me comment on the gentleman that spoke before me. i thought that there was a historical point of view that was legitimate, but he was also talking out of both sides of his mouth. he knew the monroe doctrine, new our involvement in the nana republics of south america but then that says that there is infiltration of russians and communists.

wouldn't you think that would be a reason to help the people in dire straits, in an area that was entrenched? in response to mary's question, she said what would you do if you were in the situation and you were fleeing those countries to mark guess what, mary? everyone that just called, all of them are immigrants. they came a century or two before. these people are coming from those places where they don't have jobs, there's violence, there's human trafficking. there is a legitimate reason for them to come. if those kids were not the young age at which they were brought, it's legitimate. a reason we should honor our promise to them. we have a tendency to forget the history. let me just refresh a couple of

those. the immigration act of 1924, we told the people from italy and the jews that they can't come. this is part of the law. we did that with the chinese. we rounded up hispanics. this is a nation of laws. listen, if we believe it's a nation of laws, if it's used against donald trump, do you still think it's a nation of laws? everybody said this. would you then say that we are a nation of laws, right? we are talking out of both sides of our mouth. host: there is news on ration front as well to share with you on the reporting from "wall street journal." michelle hackman said they are expanding a program designed to

let children and teenagers from central america come to the united states legally as the government continues to grapple with migrant children crossing the southern border illegally. the expansion is part of the administration's effort to find more pathways for central americans to migrate legally make tens of thousands of children newly eligible to participate in the program according to a state department spokesperson, allowing them to board flights to the united states with government permission. carrie, new berlin, wisconsin. you are a republican. what do you think about daca? caller: first of all, oh my goodness, the new news you gestated. wow, ok, that's a big part of the problem. was there an ending date daca? -- for daca? when president obama did the executive order or whatever, and

we also need to close the borders. certainly the kids that grew up here, they can't sent back to where they were born if they have never known that, that doesn't make sense. of course. but if we don't close the borders now or put an end date daca, someone made the point that every day and every week people are coming in and the problem is becoming worse. the number of people is becoming worse. the folks who came in the last couple of months, those children, are they automatically part of the daca program? we are talking about making it a bigger problem. host: not under the current requirements. not under the current criteria for daca. you would have to have been here, what is it, continuously reside in the united states since june of 2007 and be under the age of 31 as of june 15, 2012. you had to have been here and

residing june of 2007. doesn't seem like it under the current criteria. caller: ok, so folks who came, kids who were brought over since june of 2007 in the last whatever, 14 or 15 years, they are not a part of the daca program? host: and you have had to have a job. the current number is 636,390 orting two -- caller: and then with their family members. ok. well, as long as the folks, i wasn't understanding that. i thought it was just like nine years ago and he said they had to be here 14 years ago or maybe that's the case. as long as it doesn't apply to the people of the last 15 years. but again, what about all those poor children? they will be in the same situation. we just need to put -- we talk about causes, let's suspend the root causes, not going back to the original, but you have got

to close the borders. host: let's listen to a bit more from the senate judiciary hearing. here is a california democrat talking about the history of daca with the former director of immigration services during the obama administration. [video clip] >> the program was first announced by president obama nine years ago today. he said that the program was not a path to citizenship or a permanent fix. it was a temporary stopgap. but it would provide some relief and hope to talented young people while congress works on the permanent fix. daca was rescinded by president trump and has been litigated in the arts for years. so far it has been largely upheld by the federal arts. those are the fact. so, my first question for mr.

rodriguez, you were part of the obama administration when dr. was announced. why do you think the obama administration focused on this specific population and why do you think the program has largely remained intact over the last nine years, particularly in light of the legal challenges? >> i think that members in this committee have alluded to the reasons and it is that it is a population that is viewed as blameless. they came here by whatever different means as children. therefore, there is actually a broad consensus among the american people and among our political leadership that this is a population that deserves relief. for that reason, this was meant as a stopgap in two ways, senator. one was as a stopgap for the

recipients themselves, but the other was a stopgap or addressing this population first, not saying that this video only population that would enter for drum, from, from relief. host: the senate judiciary committee yesterday marking the nine year anniversary of the daca program. this morning, our conversation with all of you on whether or not you support it. here's a text from linda in georgia, saying they do support it. republicans have been dancing around the issue for too many years, one of the many reasons i will never vote republican again. michelle, kansas city, missouri, what do you think? caller: i'm very frustrated with this conversation. my best friend came here from the people country of england in 1989 and her mother brought her at the age of 15 but her mother never got the papers. my friend is still fighting to get her citizenship to this day and every six months another

$500 in fees. these people who act like you can be an immigrant and come over and say i want to be a citizen, this is since 1989. she didn't even know she wasn't documented until after high school when she went to get a job. she is still fighting in these people act like it's just all these mexicans coming across the border. she didn't even know. what is she supposed to do. greta, thank you so much for your time? host: ohio, independent, we will go to you next. caller: i agree with letting the daca people stay but we need to worry about the people coming across the border now. we have to worry about corporations letting more people in. this means corporations bringing

foreign people in. host: ok, bruce, dearborn heights, michigan, good morning. caller: you are looking very color-coordinated today, greta. host: with the sky question mark [laughter] caller: that, too. 25 years ago i ran against john dingell and one of the things i ran on was a 20 year moratorium on legal in illegal immigration. i feel the same way today. you know, biden did this on purpose. in the trump policy like in mexico, none of this would have happened. half a million to a million immigrants. this is all part of the u.n. globalist agenda. they, they, they want all these immigrants in this country and i just gets awful because in the wake of this plandemic, we

haven't seen the economic tsunami yet to come. tens of millions of americans out of business. and it's just not right. the thing that is not being discussed, and i'm going to say it, i think that every one of these immigrants should be sent back. i would, i would actually allow 11 million immigrants to stay here if it stuck at 11 million. i don't think we should bring in anymore legal immigrants either because of the reason, this plandemic. host: we have heard your thoughts. tim, independent, minnesota, how can you not support action for childhood arrivals? for most the country that they return to is foreign to them. brutal, he writes. richard, independent line. hello, richard.

caller: if we are going to grant them citizenship, it should be with the caveat that they are never allowed to vote in any election. host: why do you say that? caller: there should be a price for coming into this country illegally and the rice -- and the price should be paid. if they are willing to give up their right to ever vote, ok. host: how are they citizens, then, if they can't vote? caller: are the prisoners in jail not citizens? we took away their right to vote. it's not unprecedented. host: ok. richard, maryland. california, this text, it is one more incentive to illegally immigrate here. done by executive order it's unconstitutional and as illegal as it that's. carolyn, smithfield, virginia,

independent. caller: it's not unconstitutional. it's the constitution. they protect the immigrants. y'all started in the end, then in the beginning. they are never going to stop. property, owned. that's right, property owned. y'all came in and took us with guns. tell the truth about it. ok, bye. host: michigan, republican line. caller: i think that all people should be deported. you had a guest on within the last week who stated that $800 is spent per child per day. i did some math and found out that it waits to be $120,000 or five children for a month.

i want you to also know that i have two adopted children from el salvador because i wanted to adopt from mexico and when i visited there after being a missionary there, they don't adopt children out because you could take the child out of mexico, but you can't take the mexico out of the child. i don't understand that but now they don't mind pushing her children across the border without parents? that is unbelievable to me. it goes against their own theory, supposedly. i think we should follow the laws that were made for our country to maintain our sovereignty. all i can see is cranking out money like and his whaler and we are going to be a communist country if this keeps up. i think that's the democratic plan. they can call it marxist, the marxist are communists. host: well, here's a text from a

viewer. as a staunch democrat i couldn't be more opposed to daca. no daca until people come here legally. the democratic party immigration stance will ensure that there will be a need for daca every decade. enough, he writes. george, tennessee, you are also a democrat. go ahead. caller: yes, i'm for dr., but they had better slow down. -- daca, but they had better slow down. it's like in world war ii, with germany, to come up with, but have a job. before you come, before you come over here. the other thing, the republicans , the voter rights and everything, they are doing

something about it. the democrats are sitting on their hands doing nothing. they had better watch it. did they ever hear of atul hitler's, putin, the kid from north korea? that's what the republicans want , they want to dictatorship in this country. host: you mentioned employment. according to the congressional research service, active daca recipients, that population, 89% are employed according to 2019 numbers. jeff, new york, republican line. caller: the daca program is basically unconstitutional. obama knew that when he made it. until congress comes up with a plan to stop illegal immigration , nothing should be done with daca. illegal immigrants are illegal. we have enough legal migrants waiting to come to this country.

they are in line. they need to be dealt with prior to dr. p. also, all it is is a priority for the democrats, has been since they know they are going to vote democrat. and if they are allowed to stay, there should be rules. there should not be full citizenship given. they should be given, you know, be able to stay, they can be here, but they should be -- there should be limits on their rights because they are not legal citizens. host: and that's the way it is right now, jeff. jeff and new york. when we come back, two members of congress are joining us. up first, representative kevin hern and we will talk about the biden economic proposals. later, democratic

>> coming up today on c-span, the houses back at :00 a.m. eastern for general speeches followed by legislative business at noon. members are working on a package of bills that create disclosure requirements for public companies on environmental, social, and governance issues. on c-span2, the senate returned a 10:30 a.m. eastern to consider the nominations of -- to be assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency

and to be a district judge for maryland. on c-span3 10:00 a.m., treasury secretary janet yellen testifies on the president's between 22 budget request before the senate finance committee. also, more streaming live on our website. a senate judiciary subcommittee looking at proposed legislation to protect abortion rights and health care needs for women. that is that you: 30 p.m. eastern. at the same time, federal reserve chairman jerome powell holds a news conference to discuss monetary policy and the state of the u.s. economy. at the :00 p.m., veterans affairs secretary on the presidential ps budget request for the ba. that is all ipad c-span.org. -- all life at c-span.org. host: joining us now is congressman kevin hern, a republican of oklahoma to talk about the presidential ps economic and infrastructure proposal, let's begin there

because whether it is a bipartisan group in the senate, by republicans, five democrats working on proposals that they hope could come to the floor and get support. of what you heard of it so far, would you like? guest: i like the fact that they are redefining the presidential ps original definition of infrastructure, it was not 2.2 5 trillion as he put out and he doubled down on itself and negotiated against himself and reduced it to 7 -- the republicans came with something more traditional, roads, bridges, airports, and water raise and i think -- and waterways. somewhere between 700 billion and a trillion dollars right now. host: is this something you can support at that came to the house floor? guest: i am cautious when i can say something i can support because as i learned in my two years in congress, the devils

are in the details. as far as defining infrastructure, we have the start there and we are yet a good place. host: what would you like this see in an infrastructure bill? guest: as i just mentioned, i served five years in the finance committee chairs up i am familiar with what it cost to build a mile of road and to maintain a mile of road. what i will tell you, it is much more expensive to maintain the infrastructure over his life than to build it initially and that is what we are struggling with, the highway trust fund, getting the money to where it needs to be to rebuild our infrastructure. we have a response ability to the american people to do so. host: what about raising the next -- the gas tax? guest: if you use a highway, you should pay for it. electric vehicles pay very little to no tax to drive on the highways. we know that ev's are growing at a rate that is going to put them somewhere much higher where they are right now.

they weigh about 50% more than a traditional car or truck and so they need to pair -- pay their fair share. because of my time on the turnpike authority, we did not take any federal money, we did a lot of bonding so there is a lot of conversation around bonding projects, creating bonds for american taxpayer entities to buy the bonds. as i have seen, all of these things are on the table. host: according to reporting on capitol hill, the administrator yesterday said that this bipartisan group of senators has seven to 10 days to come up with something that could pass. if not, it looks like a biden administration who democrats to go at it alone and that means using reconciliation, not requiring 60 votes. your reaction? guest: i still think the american people need to be thanking the two most powerful people in washington, d.c. and that is senator manchin and senator sinema.

they are going to stop anything moving forward unless it is bipartisan. the president can say what he likes to say, but the facts are, while we still have the senate and the house in play, we still have to do our bills that way. that is not going happen. host: you heard the president and democrats say that there is the caring economy and the other part of infrastructure they want to invest in, childcare, eldercare, those sorts of things. why not invest in those? guest: we do every day. we spend $1 trillion a year right now on programs to help those who cannot help themselves and need help, need a handout, many of us in america, myself included early on in life need that help, we have to help those folks move on to jobs. the american jobs plan as the president has pushed and the american family plan as you referenced in that the american family plan is over $4 trillion of spending and the american jobs plan, it was just pushed

forward, is over a trillion and five. when you look at these programs together with what else is going on, we are talking about a $6 billion budget. -- $6 trillion budget. they are sending a letter saying we have to get our fiscal house in order. host: the may jobs report shows it taking down to 8.5%. wages grew 59,000, jobs added, the president says that is through this economic proposals are working. what you say? guest: i spent 35 years in business before i came to congress in 2018. it is funny how we use different baselines to justify our responses. the facts are, if you go back to february of last year and you back up six months prior, we saw the greatest job growth in america, the greatest economy in our history. we saw wages growing at the lower end of the scale the worker, nonskilled workers,

across all diversity groups, we saw what it looks like when you get american government out of the way, that businesses create jobs and put businesses to work. we need to get back to the work. there are 10 million job openings across america and we have 7.5 million people looking for jobs. we need to quit incentivizing people not to work and al them to get back into a job. host: you introduced the help wanted asked, what is it? guest: i have done this on multiple occasions, different components of this, but i believe that the federal assistance, the federal checks on top of the state and implement, the traditional unemployment, needs to be phased out and that this bill is on the floor and pushed out and passed in 14 days afterwards, that extra $300 a week would go away. host: let's talk politics, the washington post editorial board with an opinion about the news that surfaced in the last week of emails from the trump administration my from the president's assistant to the chief of staff to the justice

department, the trail of his oath. a right that given mr. trump's reckless actions after losing the boat and the violence they spurred them the newly released emails are unsurprising, given that fact, it is unsurprising that the president of the united states leaned on the justice department to seal an election. they cannot pretty get that he -- they can forget that he betrayed his oath. it could be worse next time. do you remain loyal to him guest:? i do not know if i am a lawyer -- to him? guest: as long as they want me to boat away -- vote in a way that is consistent with the constitution, i will represent them in washington, d.c.. i do not represent those of president trump. my standpoint is that the president, he asks the justice department to do something, if i were in that position, i would not have been that cometh we

have seen this with every president in past history whether it was president obama, president clinton, we have seen these types of behavior go on to investigate those who are investigating them. it is highly political charged actions in washington, d.c. and i do not think there is any surprised when we are seeing these things come forward. host: you are one of the republicans who met with president trump last friday, what was the purpose of that meeting? guest: he has been engaged. he wants to help us anyway he can, meaning the republican party to take back the house. he was curious about the policies. he gave us no indication of whether he was ready or not, we did not ask, he did not talk about it. he wanted to know what policies the republicans were working on and he felt that in the minority, it is difficult to get your messaging out. he wanted to know about our budgeting process, that i was the budget chairman onto. he wanted to know about how we were looking into voting a

regularity's and how we were pushing on -- back on the -- into voting irregularities. host: talking with congressman kevin hearne, we want your questions and comments. please join the conversation. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000 and independents, (202) 748-8002. text us as well, city and state, include that in your text, (202) 748-8003. congressman, what did you tell the president about your budget proposals and what was his reaction? guest: i have been critical of both republicans and democrats and i was not real pleased with his budget early on because the balance in 15 years, it is silly to think we can look 15 years down the road and think any budget is going to be looked at that far down the road. 10 years is too far. we worked on a process where we cap the jobs act permanent for

individuals across the country. we look at how we can fix medicare and social security. medicare is in about three years going to be insolvent. we have to fix that, do the tough work. we have worked on large budget -- large budgets in my career. there are a lot of politics around the policies in the budget process. and so i went through all of this with them in the time we had together. i talked about how we need to restore fiscal responsibilities, our fiscal claim, taking care of the american taxpayer dollar better than what we were doing in the past. i have been critical of republicans and democrats as i am critical of president biden's budget, i was critical of president trump's budget. caller: how are you doing this morning? i would like to say that the republican party is much more

socially accepted fascist movement. it is led by a person who wanted to nuke a hurricane. they are the most unintelligent people in the country and yet they have a stronger voice than the people who won the election. host: do you have a question for the congressman? caller: i do. $141,000 last year, i think $29,000 of federal income taxes under trump's tax credit. can you tell me where in that federal income tax bracket that i pay where my tax cut was under the so-called donald trump tax breaks? guest: i have not seen your tax return, i hope i never see and it leaked as we have seen in the last few weeks, but to do that quick math, you paid 22% of your

federal wages in texas. across-the-board, it has been proven many times over this -- 84% of americans got tax cuts, we want from some 30% of americans that had zero to know taxes paid to getting refunds over 50%. we saw businesses become competitive around the world. there's a lot of great things happening and that is why you some more money in american people's pocket and more job creation and an economy that came roaring back. host: mike, north dakota, democratic caller. caller: good morning, sore -- good morning sir. numbers are going up and it is -- what i want to know is why in -- why are the corporations demanding that they do not want to pay taxes or a living wage and they are sitting in the money that you over the last 40

years shoveled into rich people's pocket making us depended on the bank and financial institutions. where is the living wage? if you do not want to pass a $15 minimum wage, it is obvious that the republican party has no interest at all in a living wage. guest: that is a great question and i have been a huge proponent of minimum wage increases. when you talk to democratic colleagues about this behind closed doors and off camera, they try to figure out the areas of the country that need adjustable -- adjustments to the minimum wage. in fact, one prominent democrats said we finally figured out these areas and i said, i have as well. and he said, you have? and i said, states. they compete for workers, to have their economies grow and right now, we have a patchwork of minimum wages across the country to meet the economic basket of goods they have in their states, select new york has a much higher minimum wage than $50 and my state of

oklahoma is $7.25 and so is president biden's state of delaware. the minimum wage should be determined by the legislature and the people in the states make themselves competitive. host: to west virginia, a republican, did i pronounce your name correctly? you have got to it -- if you can hear me, you have to turn off the television. all right, west virginia, are you there? i have to move on. port charlotte, florida. independent. caller: hi, good morning. who on the last presidential election -- who won the last presidential election? guest: who won? president biden. did you vote for the investigation of the insurrection of january 6? guest: i did not. caller: why not? guest: we had three different

investigations going on, when you saw past this last week. one thing most do not know is that we said in hearings, classified hearings, that democrats and republicans alike listen in to the new acting sergeant at arms, the new acting head of capitol police, the national guard police sergeant general -- first our general, nancy pelosi led the hearing. -- first star general, nancy pelosi led the hearing. we were listening to all three of these new leads that replaced the ones that either quit or got fired talk about the lack of communication, the lack of information sharing, not one time he this two hour hearing did they ever mention anything about president trump having anything to do with it. if you are talking about bipartisan commission and there were a lot of things that were talked about, how this compared to the 9/11 commission. the only two comparisons when

you go back and read -- the 9/11 commission happened 14 months after 9/11 when a lot of things were going on. we did not interfere with the investigations that were ongoing democrat numeral -- ongoing, criminal investigations. we wanted to do this three months after the fact and the only comparison of the two was the word commission. there was no bipartisan staff as there was in the 9/11 commission, so it seemed like it would interfere with the ongoing commissions going on between the senate and with outside police. host: why ask these questions? what are you getting at? caller: the specific reason is the prior guy, former guy, is still perpetuating this big life that the election was fraudulent. and republicans -- either you are a constitutional -- believe in the constitution and you will not perpetuate or allow him,

enable him to tenure these lies. host: let's get a response. guest: i am not sure what the question was. it was more of a statement. i cannot control what president trump says. he can say whatever he likes to say as any american can say. host: do you agree with them? guest: do i agree that the election was stolen? what i do agree with, if you look at article one and article two, it states the time, place, and manner of the elections and it should be determined by the legislators of the state. there has always been improprieties in elections in america, when you have a free society like ours and military men and women watching over ballots like in other countries that we have bought, you will have improprieties. that is no question. whether there was enough to overturn the election, i have no idea. i know there is a recount going on in arizona. but long past -- again, we have

to move on. i think the president knows -- president biden knows that there were things done as there are in all elections. we have to move on. we have to fight the next fight, which is winning back the house next year, winning back the senate where we have a majority and we will have the battle for the presidency in 2024. host: alex in miami, a republican. caller: hi, good morning. i want to thank you for the comments he made about infrastructure and as a republican, -- specifically state what the party as for and against in terms of infrastructure and have a plan of the projects across the country that the party stands for and thinks should be funded and what projects have the democrats advocated for that do

not make sense or do not belong? stating what the party is for. sometimes the republican party does not have a good way of articulating its message and they let the democrats make the message for us, but we should be more clear and as a former intern in congress, i interned for a few members in the ways & means committee and i know it is important that republicans have a clear message and i know president biden seems to be somebody that is open to other points of views, so i know there is debt or some senators meeting with them that will make a deal, -- i know there are some senators meeting with them to make a deal. there is a lot of infrastructure here that are decades-old. especially in different parts of southern florida, so we can always work on that. host: thank you. guest: you are exactly right. i am one -- i am probably not as political as most are in

congress, but i am about defining who we are as you describe. we cannot have the democrats and not democrats and i know that is what it seemed like in many of my republican colleagues out there wanting us to have a plan moving forward. i can tell you that it is often difficult to get your message through as you are having served on capitol hill, you know this about what you are unless you are political about it. i can tell you right now, the republican is about restoring fiscal accountability, about getting more money back into your pocket as individual americans. it is about getting our job growth back where it was at. it is about infrastructure, looking at the american workers, repatriating manufacturing back to the united states of america. so that we can control our destiny. it is about bringing semi conductors to the united states so we do not have this incredible dependency on china. it is about making sure we do our fundamental responsibility, which is protecting the sovereignty at our southern

border and with our military around the world. host: gregory, connecticut, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i am a patriotic, liberal american and i feel it is part of my patriotic duty to pay my fair share of income tax to the federal government as well as my state and local taxes. jeff bezos has not paid taxes in years. donald trump has not paid taxes in years. you paid more taxes than donald trump, i paid more taxes than donald trump. where you stand on that -- where you stand on this? guest: as you are aware, you sound like a person who studied this tax issue. i know there are all kinds of tax -- i am getting rid of a lot of the stuff so special interest deductions out there, there are

way too many special interest tax deals in our federal government, that is one of the problems we have. nobody wants to push back on it because it is about how you keep your job and i had budgets -- every person in america has a budget. every community, every county, every school. every state has to have a budget. he had to be responsible about that budget and it is the same with our federal budget. we need to do our job, we need to have transparency in the process, we need to look at the things going on, you mentioned jeff bezos, he did not pay any taxes, but he has the money to go with a spaceship and take people to space. it is appalling what we are seeing right now across america with these uber rich people not paying any taxes and are as critical as anyone about us trying to fix the tax for -- tax code for all americans. host: we saw the numbers one probably got was published, the tax rate and payments by some of

the most wealthiest in the country, what did you make of it? guest: again, i am assuming like most large businesses, uber wealthy people have banks and banks of tax attorneys and tax accountants looking for every loophole on how to move wages overseas or product development overseas to circumvent tax paying. we have to look at these things as we are going forward. i know the president -- i got on their two month ago and i am looking at these. we have to close these loopholes. it is a right that every american pay their fair share of taxes. i am actually a person that believes every american should pay at least one dollar -- at least $1 at the end of the year to make them feel like they are a part of the process and they can have a voice, i am not saying you have to have a voice only when you pay taxes, i am saying it makes you part of this and when you look across the table at someone, you know everybody has skin in the game.

host: pro public has come under criticism for publishing that information. in a statement, it they concluded -- at this pivotal moment raises concerns about privacy violation. taxes are a kind of collective sacrifice. no one lives -- loves giving their money to the government but the government works as long as it is perceived to be fair. we will hear from propublica on friday. let's go to sabrina, north carolina, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. the truth is that before the pandemic, we were facing economic hardship and after the pandemic, we were facing a financial destitution. stimulus checks every six months for the next two years, it does

not matter if it is $1000 or $2000, as long as we have relief coming to the bottom. second, understanding you guys are wanting to do student loan relief and i am for that, that i do not think you are helping enough people. those direct stimulus checks you gave to the people were phenomenal and have helped a lot of people. with that being said, i do not know how much you know about the federal income tax return. they are designed to rise -- raise people above the barbie level. the problem is the -- above the poverty level. under u.s. financial, you are not allowed to -- with that being said, this is a proposal, ask the federal lane department to take any 5% of the federal income tax returns. if you do that, you will be accomplishing three things, one, people cannot file for the income tax returns, two, they

can use it to rise above poverty levels and the debt will be paid and that is what i have to say. guest: thank you and we will take a look at that. host: indiana, democratic caller. caller: good morning. thank you for washington journal and lovely to see you. republicans are not responsible. you have before the pandemic, about three years where the economy was good, but each federal budget had over $1 trillion in deficit and you added to the debt rather than taking it away. i do not know if you are aware that they were fighting that trickle-down economics. it is great for the top making

1%, but for the majority of the people, it takes their money away as more money goes to the richest and it causes huge wealth and economy -- huge wealth and equality. the biggest economic boom was in the 50's and 60's, the tax rates was 91%, kennedy dropped it to 70, if it was over 108,000, it was 70% and a corporate tax rate of 52%. that came to a halt in the 1980's and ever since then, we have seen huge wealth inequality , unemployment, and recessions. they used it to balance the budget in the 50's and 60's. they only did it under clinton when he raised taxes and cut military spending. you want to try trickle-down economics again. host: let's get a response from

kevin hearn. -- kevin hern. guest: if you remember, president clinton had a republican house and republican senate that he had to do bipartisan work at which is where i am at. we have to do it bipartisan. you're right, for four years, we had budget surpluses and that is a great thing for america, but in addition to his modest tax increases a part of the bargain, he did the 1996 welfare to work program, which is when he moved people off of welfare back into jobs and job creation, we had the tech boom and people went into these jobs and we started seeing our economy growth ideas more people were working than ever before. you go back to the 50's and 60's, we had a much younger group of people in america, citizenry, and fewer people taking our medicare and social security, our population is older now and the burden on our medicare and social security is

such now that we have to do something very quickly in the next two or three years or we will have a problem for those folks who waited their entire lives to get their benefits that they await. host: columbia -- south carolina, independents. caller: how are you doing? i am an independent, not a democrat or republican, the worst thing that ever happened to this country in a long time was january 6, the republicans will not admit it, -- that people will never forget. people will never forget what happened and why it happened. we have to pay for it. host: we will get a reaction. the worst thing that ever happened, january 6. guest: there are a lot of worst

thing, but it is an embarrassment on our democracy. with every hearing we have been in, bipartisan hearings, nobody has implicated the president on this. president trump and so i know while there are some half of americans that want to blame him for january 6, it has not been proven. i disagree with the caller that republicans never win, there are 75 million republicans out there that supported president trump and they are as strong as ever and they will be a force to be reckoned with in 2022 elections and the 2024 elections. host: we appreciate the conversation with you, come back again. guest: thank you. host: we will take a break, when we come back, illinois congressman jesus julie garcia, a member of the -- jesus jesus g. garcia. later, we will talk about

president meeting with the russian president vladimir putin, which is underway right now in geneva. >> dan autobiography is titled, laughing at myself, subtitled my education in congress on the farm and at the movies. former representative both served in congress for 18 years, a native of wichita kansas, he went on to serve as president clinton's agricultural secretary in 1925-2001. in 2004, he replaced jack as chairman and ceo of the motion picture association of america until 2012. in our interview, we spent some time talking about his interest in humor. >> listen at c-span.org/podcasts

or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome congressman garcia, a democrat of illinois representing the chicago area and a member of the -- we learn from reporting on capitol hill that the white house told democrats at a bipartisan bill is not struck,

that in seven to 10 days, democrats should be ready to go at it alone, in other words using reconciliation, only requiring a majority vote, not 60? are you comfortable with that approach? guest: i think the president has done everything possible so far to strike a bipartisan deal. it does not seem to be working yet, there is still the prospect we may do so, but i remain skeptical. the bill that we passed out of the committee last week, the invest in america act, i think is a great starting point for infrastructure investment. it is an ambitious undertaking that would bring our transportation system into the 21st century and especially began addressing the challenges of climate change and the climate crisis while bringing equity to communities that for

too long have paid a steep price because of the investment that has occurred that brings a lot of bad things into to communities of color and working-class communities as well. host: why not just stick to infrastructure, bridges, and roads? this bipartisan proposal, according to the hill, as 579 billion, much less than the president wants to spend, sticking to traditional infrastructure. why not try to do that and try to get that passed and use reconciliation for the other proposal that the president would like to see? guest: it is important that as we think about transportation investment in the 21st century that we address the climate crisis. it is real, it is urgent and we need to do something about it. the bill that we are bringing to the floor at the end of this month begins to do that, but is also very important that we not

only pass a significant amount to scale to meet the challenges of our crumbling infrastructure system to both address the physical infrastructure and i believe, the human infrastructure as well, the biden family's plan, but it is also important that we take steps to begin moving away from all of the carbon emissions that we are producing, transportation produces almost 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions in -- into the atmosphere and this bill begins to do that. i am open to the idea that we made has a smaller bipartisan -- we may pass a smaller bipartisan bill as it relates to hard infrastructure, roads, bridges, transit, and possibly broadbent, but i think we need to go further to begin the process of

decarbonizing our systems across the country and to invest in both a rural as well as urban communities, especially in the area of transit, but we have to do it in a sustainable manner. so, i am open to the idea that we can pass a smaller package that has the policy that would innovate our transportation systems and later, if we have to go it alone, then for a larger package, but one that invests in a transportation system that modernizes and that makes us a sustainable economy into the future. host: for our viewers, joined by dialing in at (202) 748-8001 if you are a republican. if you are a democrat, (202) 748-8000 and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us with your question for the congressman, (202) 748-8003. just include your first name,

city, and state. congressman garcia, we are waiting for the calls to come in, explain to our viewers what infrastructure needs there are in the 4th district of illinois? guest: in the 4th district for example, the majority of people who worked -- who work use public transit to get to and from their jobs to go to school to take advantage of the cultural amenities and to have a greater more ability. -- greater mobility. we have transit systems still not ada compliant, so people with disabilities cannot use those stations in addition to that, buses that go up and down our arterial streets, they still use fuel that emits air pollution. this only aggravates the situation in communities that have historically suffered from the highest levels of air

pollution from respiratory problems and other pollutant types of situations that this bill seeks to address. we also have an antiquated rail system that causes great delays for people for driving to and from work or students going to work or to school. we need to modernize our transit system and that is what the bill that we passed out of committee last week will do. it will make a historic investment in transit to the level of $110 billion. this is an -- a very important investment. transit agencies from coast-to-coast, north to south, say they have great transit needs just like chicago and the 4th district has. the bill we passed out of the transportation and infrastructure committee in the house is a good beginning to

begin addressing the challenges of transportation systems in the 21st century. host:, as a democrat in duluth, minnesota. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning and thank you for listening to me. i have some concerns about the roads and bridges and stuff in my state. we have had a major bridge collapsed, killing people and it seems to be forgotten here. our roads are in bad shape, our bridges are in bad shape, minnesotans are getting hurt and no one seems to be taking this seriously. host: congressman? guest: thank you for your comment. yes, it has not been that long since we had that catastrophe of the bridge in minnesota falling before our very eyes, causing several deaths. that is why we need to invest in

that type of infrastructure, but at the same time, we need to be cognizant of the types of materials that we will be using. we need to ensure that there will be less carbon emitted into the atmosphere and that is what this bill seeks to do. it would provide guidance and requirements for a state to begin tracking greenhouse emissions in their states and for states to come up with plans to address the emitting of these pollutants into the environment, so as we deal with these reauthorization bills that will be in effect for the next five years, it is the first step that we can take and then we can come at it by investing a larger amount of investment in a larger bill, the one that is more controversial and let me be clear, it is controversial for the most part because it takes climate -- the climate crisis

seriously, it invests in the systems we need in the 21st century, it invests in having buses and rails that can move people more freely. it seeks to move us away from a constant investment in highways and invests in other systems of transportation, public transportation that would bring it to parity with the historic investments that we have made. the interstate system was an historic investment that did wonderful things for our country. now, it is time to be smarter, to reduce the emissions that we are producing, to move away from the reliance of vehicles that contaminate the air where there are passenger cars or buses or trucks. as i sent them a percent of emissions come from the transportation sector -- as i said, 30% of emissions come from

the transportation sector. they passed a bill that lays the basis for us to drive in the 21st century while protecting the environment. host: earlier on the program, we were talking about the nine year anniversary of the daca program. you called that a floor, not the ceiling. what did you mean? guest: it would help provide a pathway to citizenship to the young people that voters across the country have said should have a pass -- a path of legalization to citizenship. many of them are essential workers. this is the country that they have known and loved our many years. i believe that they should be allowed to stay here and we passed a bipartisan bill out of the house that would help them, that would help people who have temporary protected status and others legalized -- legalize their status and we passed another belt with greater levels

of bipartisan support -- another bill with greater levels of bipartisan support that would help people legalize their status. these are the essential workers that kept our country fed, that kept our country working during the pandemic, people have come to recognize it. these two bills would help provide a pathway to legalization and citizenship for many of the undocumented population in the country. these are bills that are in the senate, we need their action, i know that senator from illinois is working to try to achieve 10 votes. it would be historic. it has been nine years since dr. was issued by since dr. -- it has been 35 years since we have done immigration reform under president reagan. it is time that america modernize its immigration system and enable these individuals to legalize their status while we

continue to work on other immigration reform. host: wall street journal reporting that the president wants to allow tens of thousands of children from central america to board flights with the government's permission to come to the united states as a part of an effort to expand more pathways for central americans to migrate here legally. do you support this? guest: the president is responding to a crisis that has been -- the policies under the trump administration will end asylum and the asylum system. this is what created the conditions on the border where you have tens of thousands of people having to wait on the border in terrible conditions. i visited some of the camps that

were established on the mexican side of the border. i saw the suffering of children and moms and families who simply wanted an opportunity to make their case for asylum. i think the president is responding to creating a more humane, orderly way of enabling people to make their cases before immigration judges. we reduced tremendously the number of judges. if we increase that, we will have a system that works a whole lot better than what we saw under his predecessor. i do support efforts to enable people to make their cases for asylum and also, to our reno 53 families -- to reunify families that have been separated. host: a republican in port charlotte, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. second-generation c-span watcher. i am so happy to be able to get

this off of my chest. i saw chuy dressed down when she was head of homeland security and you want to talk about hypocrisy. if a republican ever did that to a democratic women, they would have been -- there would have been held to pay. i remember that and if everyone -- anyone wants to go to c-span and look it up, i am sure it is there and i would like to give him an opportunity right now to apologize to her for how he treated her. and i hope he does that. host: congressman? guest: i conduct myself in a respectful manner. even with my most vehement opponents. i have asked tough questions of government officials, especially in federal branches. i do not comport myself, i do

not recall treating anyone disrespectfully. i have asked tough questions, i do not have any reason for offering any apologies. thank you. host: cement that in ohio, independents. -- samantha in ohio. caller: i have two questions. one, or they still proceed with the next stimulus check? and is there anything coming up for senior citizens living on fixed income before -- below the poverty line with prices and everything going up, it is a struggle. the other stimulus checks really help and i am wondering if there is anything that they are planning in the future for seniors. thank you. guest: thank you for your call.

there is not specific conversations about additional stimulus checks, especially for seniors. however, as the negotiations proceed, as we seek to pass the infrastructure or the american jobs act that president biden is championing and engaged in conversations about, as we talk about addressing that human infrastructure and that is families and people who live in poverty, it is possible that there can be additional relief efforts in upcoming legislation. but one of the provisions that many progressive democrats are fighting for is the expansion of the medicare program to ensure and provide coverage of hearing aids, dental work, that many seniors need. coverage of eyeglasses and other

optical needs that senior citizens may have. and of course, to consider the possibility of expanding -- reducing the age that one needs to meet the eligible to be eligible -- to be eligible for medicare. i would recommend to watch that carefully and reach out to your representatives and convey to them that seniors need additional assistance and of course, i would hope that you would favorite like i do the expansion of medicare services to more people. host: charles bennett raleigh, north carolina. -- charles in raleigh, north carolina. caller: when you do away with the gasoline, what will they cover -- government do with the taxes that are not going to be

collective? how are you going to offset those taxes that are collected on gasoline? thank you and have a great day. guest: thank you. with the gasoline tax, the amount of revenue has been diminishing over the years because cars have become a lot more efficient. the amount of knowledge that we get -- mileage we get from our gas tanks has increased significantly. there have been conversations recently by the bipartisan group in the senate to possibly tie -- they cast tax -- they cast tax to subsidize a package they are now -- a gas tax to subsidize a package they are advancing in the senate, a small package that relies on an increase in the gas tax, the white house has said they do not favor increasing the gas tax.

it remains to be seen what will happen. i think the transition away from fossil fuels and from gasoline as it relates to vehicles will be one that takes several years to occur. and that we will find other ways to replace the reliance on gas taxes, especially as it relates to the possibility that we will transition into a system by which we tax people on vehicles miles traveled is that technology develops and as we assure that we protect the privacy of individual citizens as we transition into an age where we are reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. host: a text from donnie in louisville, kentucky. he writes that infrastructure is not daycare or welfare, it is roads, bridges, that are carbon neutral. if you want daycare, open

schools and daycare facilities. open up the job market, not eliminate good paying jobs. guest: and opening up the job market, expending the -- expanding the job market is what we would do. if we engage in an infrastructure investment that meets the scale of our needs in today's economy, that is why i am a strong proponent of a larger investment in infrastructure, but i also think in order to help families and lift families out of poverty, it is very important that we talk about providing childcare because women have been among the most impacted by the pandemic. they have the hardest time returning to the labor force. if we want our labor force to be humming at its full potential, we need to deal with issues like daycare. it is fundamental and ensure

less people are living in poverty. some of the relief efforts we provided in the covid relief packages have done just that. providing the child tax credit to families across the country is one of the most significant things that we have done to lift people out of poverty and that is why i believe we have a responsibility to address both physical infrastructure as well as human and family infrastructure. it is essential to have the best possible economy that ensures our greatest productivity in the most prosperity that can be shared by everyone in our country. host: philip, indiana. democratic caller acorn. -- democratic caller. caller: i think we ought to do -- the rivers overflowed in the midwest and down south, created

a pipeline for water to be piped all over the united states during the job season would be beneficial for the western states, missouri floods in the spring, send that water -- develop a good pipeline to the west. that is my statement. host: congressman? guest: thank you. i think those are the comments -- common sense ideas that we ought to be discussing as we talk about how to make our infrastructure resilient, green, and thoughtful about being the best stewards of our natural resources possible as a member of the committee on natural resources, water is a topic that we are constantly conversing and thinking about.

the water shortages in the southwest and in many western states, i think our pleading with us to think about what kind of things we can do to best -- to be the best stewards and think about potentially in the future water refugees if we do not make the best use of our natural resources as wisely as possible. this is another reason why our infrastructure investments need to be future-looking and taking the measures that are required today to make sure everyone has access to one of the most precious resources, water. host: john, virginia wants to know, do you think the president and vice president or the vice president should visit the u.s.-mexico border in the next few months? why or why not? guest: i think the white house, whether it is the president or

the vice president, will make that visit. i think it is more than just a talking point that has been just hampered on by republicans, in particular. it is important that we understand why people come to this country. it is important to not lose sight of the role that we played in creating the conditions in central america by supporting military governments, by supporting governments that have violated human rights, governments that are very corrupt and governments that have failed to create economic opportunities for people, that is why people are fleeing that region. we have a historic role that we have played that we cannot lose sight of and we also have a responsibility as a country that historically has been a place

for asylum-seekers and refugees to make their case, to consider their cases, and that is why you have this dynamic situation at the border. i think the white house has said some of their top officials there, they are engaged, they have made progress in addressing the large numbers of people that are seeking an opportunity to make their case and i think that we will see that end in a better situation. i also think that the top representatives of the white house, including the possibility of the vice president or the president will visit. host: vary in williamsburg, virginia. what you have to say? caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about a couple of things. one was, if everything is going up and they want every -- every one to go back to work and not

pay raises, -- my second thing is, the way that the country is running right now, and the rich is not their fair share of taxes, maybe we should go to a call in government where you vote on things and skip all of the politicians. guest: thank you for your call. i am a big supporter of a minimum wage that is a living wage for working families and i am hoping that as we move forward in the next couple of months that we will be able to increase and have a national minimum wage. i think it is essential to ensure prosperity for everyone in our country with respect to affordable housing. there is a great shortage of it.

as a member of the committee of financial services, we have purview over housing matters in our country. chairman -- chairwoman maxine waters has been a big champion of expanding efforts to increase affordable housinghousing for f, people who live in public housing. modernizing public housing. making it best coffin -- making at the best possible system. i think these are some of the other issues that i'm hoping we will include in an economic package as we talk about infrastructure investment. i do believe that housing is a part of infrastructure. it is vertical infrastructure. it is needed in places all over our country it should not be a partisan issue and i'm hoping that it will be one of the components of investment that we

achieve as we move forward in the next couple of months. host: congressman jesus chuy garcia. we hope you come back and talk to us again soon. happening in geneva, president biden and russian president vladimir putin are behind closed doors for a one-on-one summit. cnn is calling it tense and high-stakes. we will get inside of the meeting from james lamond. he will talk about this meeting and the dynamics of it. after this, more of your phone calls. we will be right back. >> american history tv on

c-span3. exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, william fowler on early atlantic exploration. christopher columbus and the discovery of the caribbean and the americas by europeans. the 1975 nasa film, who's out there with orson welles and carl sagan exploring the possibility of extraterrestrial life. sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american artifacts. see amaq world war i trench and a reconstructed german bunker. part of the living history exhibit in carlisle, pennsylvania. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency. here how jaclyn katie --

jacqueline kennedy worked to preserve the white house. watch american history tv this coming weekend on c-span3. c spends landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions. and for the next few weeks, watch key episodes from our series. sunday on c-span, korematsu b united states -- v united states. the court voted six to three in favor of the united states. watch landmark cases sunday night on c-span or listen on the c-span radio app. >> washington journal continues.

host: you are looking at a live shot of lake geneva where the summit between president biden and russian president putin are taking place at this moment. they went behind closed doors earlier this morning. they will meet and they are scheduled to possibly meet again today. and president biden will go before the cameras and hold a solo news conference. there's a possibility they could hold a news conference together. joining us this morning is james lamond from the center for european policy analysis. i'm going to go through some headlines in the paper this morning. this is front page of usa today. can biden and putin these cost extensions? -- ease caustic tensions?

guest: one of the goals moving into this is to not have a summit for some it's sake and improve relationships for the sake of improving relationships to target real out comes. one of the things that is different from past summits is there may be more of a confrontational tone to this. in part because we need to reestablish the contours of the relationship and then we can have the stability and then the more productive relationships. host: the u.s. has a long list of grievances. what are they? >> russian interference is a big one. it is something that looms over the entire relationship. we have the war in ukraine where

russia and its proxies are still occupying major portions of a european country. there's cyber attacks. the solar wind attack that was revealed earlier this year as well as the series of ransomware attack's that happened over the last couple weeks. in addition to cyber there is also more traditional espionage and behavior from assassinations on nato soil. there is a crackdown on human rights in russia. alexei navalny had a sham trial and his current detection is going to be a hot button issue. host: do you agree with the new york times headline, president biden's priority in facing putin is digital, not nuclear.

>> i think that's right. there are certainly going to be nuclear talks. in february, the leaders decided to extend the treaty for five years. that was something done immediately after biting coming into office. -- biden coming into office. we have those structures and conversations. but we don't have are the structures, conversations and rules of the road on cyber. that's where the more meaningful conversation can take place. the rules can be established. we have seen cyber attacks on everything from health security, energy security, food security. not to mention election infrastructure. when americans on the east coast

can't get gasoline, that's a significant issue and that is something that will need to be addressed. host: the washington times says that biden is ready to confront pruden. how should president biden respond to present pruden if he takes that defiant stance? >> this is going to be one of the key issues and one of the trickiest coming out of the summit. president biden has said that he will establish redlines going into the summit. we will reestablish redlines in the relationship and respond in kind to things like cyber attacks. the question is pruden will almost certainly deny these. and may very well -- putin will almost certainly deny these and

may cross the redlines in the future. host: president biden's flexible stance on russian stokes internal divide. do you degree -- do you agree he has shown a flexible stance? >> he had a campaign that ran on a stronger posture on russia. coming into office he has been a bit more balanced. there is a need for reestablishing the relationship in a more productive way. i do think there is an internal debate between those who are advocating for more forceful line on russia, greater sanction , greater isolation.

rebuilding the alliance and the transatlantic lines to help establish a containment policy. and others who want greater cooperation on climate change and the arctic is a big area where there could be contention moving forward as new resources are opened up and new routes for travel. this is the debate that's happening inside the administration and around the world. understanding the balance between containing russian bad acts and engaging with them on areas of necessary cooperation. host: the wall street journal echoes what you are saying.

guest: this is one of the great tools that america has that frankly were squandered the last couple years. we have alliances. america's alliances, france, poland, germany. we have incredible allies and we are coming to the summit directly from the g7, the eu and nato. and there is a clear message sent that america is working with our democratic allies. there is a democratic lock pushing back and standing up against the authoritarian block run by russia with their allies in belarus. and that is a key tension in the transatlantic security

arrangement, understanding that these visions for how to structure society and visions of government are at odds with each other and america has a much more established network of allies in russia has. host: the washington post says the u.s. -- biden says the u.s. allies have a common agenda on russia. >> they are also concerned about election interference and overall interference in democracies. france, germany, netherlands. i think ron nickel creations will be part of it. humanitarian action in syria is something that is going to be on the foreign policy agenda ukraine -- ukraine is really an

important issue. a common understanding of where we sit on sanctions policy, kleptocracy and anticorruption efforts. and cyber attacks. those are some of the main issues that are dealt with and essential to the european conversation as well as the american one. host: we want our viewers to join this conversation. your questions or comments. dial in. republicans (202) 748-8000. democrats (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. send us a text at (202) 748-8003 . this headline, kremlin same for the talks, respected as an adversary. >> i think that is spot on. what pruden seeks to gain from

the summit is to reestablish himself and russia as a major global player. he wants to be at the table with the big boys. he wants to be a global player and someone who is seen making important decisions with other powerful world leaders. both for domestic and international purposes but primarily domestic. he likes the images of himself sitting down. we all watch these grand images of biden and pruden sitting together in this very elegant setting of important statesmen. that's what he has to offer. that's because the economy is failing. the stalled growth. and there's not a lot there in the society that the government is helping create and provide. so what he has to offer is an important role in the world. host: helen in fullerton.

publican. what do you think president biden should be saying or acting. what should his tone be towards the russian president? caller: i think you should have a lot of humility. here's what they are saying about biden's with putin. he has cast russian policy as part of a broader global contest between democracy and dictatorship. now he's taking the stance that he's morally superior because we are a democratic/republic. the problem with that argument is the united states foreign policy for a very long time have reflected more of an empire than it has a democracy republic and they know that. pruden knows that this is hypocritical of biden to say especially with bidens interference in the ukraine and so forth.

so i think if biden is going to go for any concessions from pruden, he's going to have to play really nice. he's going to have to realize most of his requests will not be met. pruden has the upper hand. host: does putin have the upper hand? >> in some ways he does, in some ways he doesn't. we are not expecting huge deliverables. partly for the reason that the caller outlined. what putin seeks is to be seen as a great statesman on the world stage. so i think what the biden white house is trying to prevent is creating these sort of deals or

grand bargains that will be presented to the world. in some ways because putin will be pushing for some sort of establishment as a big important player making grant agreements, if there's any sort of agreement that is reached, it will be spun as that. host: earlier this morning before these leaders went behind closed doors, what did they tell the press?

>> the u.s. and russian relations have a lot of issues. i hope that our meeting will be productive. >> thank you. i think it's always better to meet. host: you heard the russian president say we have a lot of issues accumulate. >> president putin is taking much more cordial turn than he is known for. in addition to the tone in the video which was very conciliatory and welcoming, even just the tone is different. he also arrived on time for the meeting. this is something vladimir putin is known for is always arriving late to any meeting. it's a power-play where he tries

to make people wait for him. he arrived perfectly on time in a way that i don't think he's ever done. that is a signal that he is potentially willing to be a bit more conciliatory in the meeting with president biden and that can be reflected in the relationship and actions overall after the summit. host: he arrived before president biden this morning. edward texts us with this question. is this meeting happening in secret with no records? guest: no. there two meetings. one is going to be a larger meeting with a series of staff on both sides. kind of an entourage on both sides from the state department and that will be the big meeting. then there's also the small meeting where it's going to be

just the two leaders. antony blinken and sergey lavrov be there as well and that will be a conversation primarily between the leaders. the aids of the secretary and the foreign minister won't be there to be part of the conversation. they are there to read out the conversation that happens between them. there will be a clear readout and this is how these summits are traditionally done. host: are they also there as witnesses? >> yes. that's part of the idea, too. it's there as an implementation mechanism where they can take what was said and help implement it. also clearly understand what was

discussed. in these conversations there may be area for interpretation. the president having the secretary to go to afterwards to help interpret and discuss and relate what was happening is helpful. host: there was also reporting that advisors did not want biden to meet alone with president putin because then putin could spin it without any witness to say otherwise. >> we have seen this a couple of times over the last few years especially under the trump administration for their work one-on-one meetings and there was no american readout that was issued. there were no american press present. what we had our the public display of what was discussed was coming out of the kremlin. and it was, that was the readout

presented to the world. so i think having witnesses and having traditional state department protocol of issuing the readout of what happened in the room will be very valuable moving forward. host: james in virginia. independent. caller: the topic of putin coming up constantly is a huge distraction from china and xi jinping. putin is not even close in comparison. i think biden has shown himself in multiple different videos since he has been over there for that summit. completely unaware of his surroundings. it seems like he's reaching deep into senility.

i am not surprised he didn't want to be alone with putin. i think his inability to follow simple conversations where he reintroduced the african leader and he was unable to look at his own notes and follow along and when he was asked a question on stage, he left uncomfortably and then was quite for 10 seconds and then didn't even answer the question he was asked. he seems totally unaware of what's going on around him. people in the media want to dismiss questions about his senility, but the more you watch and listen to him, the more he is just totally unaware of what's going on. it's pretty obvious that he's not actually running the administration. it's kamala harris and probably obama from the outside. host: he started out by saying russia is not the real adversary here.

guest: i think the caller raised a good point on china. who is the greatest competitor to america on the world stage in terms of national power as a whole, it is china. it has a much more vibrant economy. the way you measure a state's power, china is absolutely much more of a concern in terms of competition. i would not underestimate russia's ability. russia has a powerful military, it has about half the world's nuclear weapons. it has a powerful intelligence service that has invested cyber and information warfare. it has a powerful network of oligarchs who are distributed around the world who able to exert certain nontraditional forms of power. and with these do, these particular tools are powers of

disruption. and so russia has an ability to really play spoiler. we have seen that time and time again. just recently, the military buildup on the border with ukraine was something that could have potentially played a huge spoiler in terms of diverting attention of the administration and europe towards a potential war and crisis in ukraine again. that is something that i think should not be underestimated in large part because putin is willing to use those tools. he's willing to push the line and exert that sort of nontraditional influence. host: in kansas city, democratic caller. caller: i think president biden should speak on cybersecurity and interference in the election, definitely.

we have things going on in our country and we need to be specific. our last president really opened the door and gave putin everything he could have wanted on the world stage. so people calling and not giving biden a chance is really ridiculous. he hasn't had a chance to even talk to him yet. so i just think we probably need to take a deep breath and allow this to happen. he needs to get in there and confront him on all that happened over the four years and we saw how it interfered with elections. so cybersecurity is most definitely we have to protect that. host: what would be a successful summit? guest: of a successful summit is

really establishing the redline. that biden can go to putin and say, you interfere in our election again, this is what is going to happen to you. there is ransomware attack emulating out of russia. this is what will happen. and establishing a clear strategy of how the united states with support and coordination of its outlet -- allies. the key is they have to be credible threats. so the ability to present what we will do and the willingness to follow through on them. that's how a successful summit will take place behind the scenes.

no deliverables, no real agreement will be reached. this is not meant to be a sort of reward for putin where he is able to benefit politically from being on the world stage. i think the idea and the hopes of the administration are to deliver a firm message behind closed doors. see where we can cooperate where we have to end and have a relatively tame public display. host: should president biden hold a joint news conference with the russian president? guest: now. that was a really smart decision that the administration moved forward with. it is the imagery of standing on the stage and it forces a more cordial and collaborative approach. you when you are up there on stage with somebody.

you are giving your own press conference and your own readout, then you can be more stern and honest about what was discussed in the room and not worry about offending the person on stage in a way that is kind of forced on you. host: president putin has used past conferences as an opportunity to surprise the other leader standing across from him. guest: we can remember from the helsinki summit when there will offer -- offers of cooperation on cybersecurity which was kind of humorous. it's a bit like the fox for -- offering to cooperate on guarding the head house. there was a prisoner exchange but it was political dissidents.

he likes to throw these kind of curb balls. that's a style in person and policy wise. this is part of the putin dynamic on the world stage where he likes to get people caught on the back foot. have people be responsive to his activities. to his surprises whether it be invading, intervention in elections. these things often catch us offguard and then we are responsive to that. this is an opportunity to take hold of the relationship and be the ones directing it and driving it rather than being responsive to putin. host: sam in texas. independent. caller: it's brad. that is a very bad line we had between me and that lady. question for james.

do you get out of d.c. very much and if so, where do you travel to? because as an independent, i've been to russia. i have been around the world. been in an aircraft. host: your point? caller: are you a democrat or independent yourself and do get out of d.c. much? caller: -- host: what is your point? i'm not following it. caller: my point is here is a man, biden who promotes will ideology. he's proud to have a black, a

woman, a this or that. anything except the most qualified. caller: deborah in california. caller: good morning. how are you? i am so glad to get on the line. i'm a democrat calling from california. host: you have to meet your television please. caller: ok. it's muted. host: please listen and talk through your phone. go ahead. caller: i am happy to meet you. my tv is muted. host: what are you watching for out of this first meeting with the leaders? guest: there's obviously the press conference.

what i'm really looking for is there is the length of the meeting. both president putin and president biden are known to speak at length. if it's very short, that's a sign that things do not go well and that is a signal that it was a very awkward conversation and they had been frustrated with one another. so if it's anything shorter than four or five hours. i'm also looking at the body language and the overall feeling coming out of the room where if it's tense or awkward. laughing or big smiling, those are the sort of things as they leave the room that are helpful to watch. and what is agreed to in the

room and what is announced at the press conference. for example, an agreement on continuing the nuclear strategic stability conversations. that is likely what will happen, that is what is expected. there is some conversation or agreement on climate, iran, afghanistan, those are all helpful and to be ecstatic -- expected. host: the first round of talks between president biden and president putin have ended. james lamond, thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: when we come back, we will return to domestic issues in our conversation we had with some of you earlier. if you miss the opportunity to call in, do so now. do you support the dhaka -- daca

program? we will be right back. >> in breaking the news. exposing the hidden deals. mainstream media is credibility. in her book race and guns. in a university professor carol anderson examines the second amendment and argues that it was designed in a way that denies rights to african-americans. sunday at 11:00 p.m. eastern, look at the impact of john glenn's earth orbit mission in 1962 on the space race between the u.s. and soviet union.

watch book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse to see what's new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations and you still have time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. >> washington journal continues. host: do you support the daca program. yesterday was the anniversary of the creation of it. >> it makes no sense to expel talented young people who for all intents and purposes are americans. they've been raised as americans.

understand themselves to be part of this country. to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents or because of the inaction of politicians. in the absence of any action from congress to fix our broken immigration system, we have tried to focus our resources in the right places. today we are improving it again. effective immediately, the department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. let's be clear, this is not

amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship. it's not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure that lexus focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. host: president obama in 2012, creating the daca program. democrats on capitol hill yesterday pushed to expand beyond the daca program. republicans (202) 748-8000. democrats (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. text in at (202) 748-8003.

and if you are not undocumented immigrant, you can call in at that number as well. during the conversation on facebook.com/c-span or send a tweet with the handle at c-span wj. take a look at the numbers from the congressional research service. they estimated 636,000 390 active daca recipients. 89% of them employed at the average hourly wage. you have to be under the age of 31 as of june 15, 2012. you have to have come to the united states before the age of 16 and continuously reside in the country since june of 2007. you have to be in school, graduated, obtained a ged and

not be convicted of a felony or three or more misdemeanors. a republican. you are up first. go ahead. caller: hello. host: do you support it? caller: no i don't. i don't think it's right. my wife had to spend $10,000 to get over here from finland. if she gets her money back, maybe i might think otherwise. other than that, i don't. host: she had to spend $10,000 on her immigration process. getting all of the paperwork and court fees, lawyer fees. caller: pretty much. she had to have a sponsor and code to college and everything. it's a big deal. it is for her.

host: is she a citizen now? caller: yes she is. she has been one for quite a while. host: stephen, what is your view on this? caller: i believe we should support it. these young people have in here for many years. and they are working jobs. many of them have had the opportunity to go to american colleges, graduated. they are in our armed forces. why not give them the opportunity to become citizens of the united states. we've done this for many other refugees who have come from other countries. cuba, haiti. and from european countries, too.

so why not? something's got to be done for these young people and we've got to get them in the system. plus some of them are already in the system, probably paying taxes that we don't know about. host: speaking of seeking asylum and refuge, wall street journal is reporting that the biden administration wants to expand the immigration program for central americans. it's part of the administration's efforts to find more pathways for central americans to migrate legally. it could make tens of thousands of children newly eligible to participate in the program. that would allow them to board flights to the united states with government permission. joe in brooklyn. republican. what do you think? you are up.

one must call for joe in brooklyn. charles in north carolina. independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: what do you think about dr. -- dr. -- daca? caller: it's not my responsibility to deal with all their stuff. they take jobs. the education system. there's not enough money going around to begin with. but we can't afford this. they don't want to secure the border. they want to cheat labor. it looks like to me apparently enough folks in washington and everywhere else want the drug money, too. because they are not securing

it. it could have been secured years ago. this should have been stopped years ago. host: this is the committee chair. senator dick durbin. they held a hearing on the nine year anniversary of daca to talk about going beyond daca. this legislation is passed in the house. the biden administration is pushing the senate to pass is well. >> since 2012, more than eight hundred thousand dreamers have stepped out of the shadows to enroll in daca. the program has allowed them to work, pursue higher education and serve in america's military. daca has unleashed the full potential of dreamers. it was the first day that dalke

applications were accepted. -- dr. -- daca applications were accepted. what happened astonished us. thousands of young people showed up on that day. filled the entire boardwalk. some gathered with their parents at night for the actual opening that morning. some drove in from neighboring states. that's how eager these young people were to officially become part of america even if on a temporary basis. that's the key word when it comes to daca. it's temporary. presto obama said because this is temporary, congress needs to act. these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two year increments. that year has turned into nine

years. over the years, the dream act has been a victim of a filibuster on the floor of the senate five different times. as the dream act has language in the senate, hundred and thousands of young people have been left with their futures in doubt. that hasn't stopped them from fighting for their dreams. host: that was centered been yesterday. listen to the republicans about this house legislation that passed. it would grant citizenship to an estimated 2.5 million children. listen to the republican reaction from senator tom cotton of arkansas. >> we heard terms that we often hear about children brought here through new fault of their own

who have never now -- known another country. the house bill would give a green card to an 18-year-old who arrived here in december. that's very different than what the democrats portray. at legislation would do. that's why this hearing itself is so ill advised. we have a crisis at the border. illegal migrant flows that we haven't seen in a generation. the vice president gala vented around central american and mexico last week looking for the root causes. the root causes are right up the street at 1600 pennsylvania. it's joe biden and kamala harris running on an open borders campaign, that message being heard across the world and hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens showing up at our border. not just from mexico and guatemala but literally all

across the world to include europe and africa and asia because they know that our borders are open and as mr. ed lowe testified earlier, the united states senate is having a hearing on granting massive amnesty for stadium will exacerbate this crisis. it will be used by traffickers and smugglers to induce desperate parents to encourage more people from around the world to make that very dangerous trip that will then put even more stress on our border and law enforcement agencies. host: from yesterday's senate judiciary committee hearing marking the nine year anniversary of the daca program.

go to tonya. support or oppose? caller: i oppose. i don't oppose the dreamers. they deserve to be here. they were brought here through no act of their own. i support that. my thing is the border being open right now and harris going over to guatemala last week or so, she wants to know why the root causes of them coming here? it's because washington is opening the borders when trump had and everyone around the world that wants to come into this country are coming into this country and we don't know who's here. they could be here to kill us. we do not know.

host: the vice president saying i work with dreamers and other immigrant women who work in the care economy. we must insure a pathway to citizenship for dreamers, farmworkers and tps recipients. larry in phoenix texas to say daca is not something that has historically made our nation the strongest in the world. they may become an american citizen, but they will not be americans because they have never had a dog in this hunt. caller: i do not support daca. if you are already here and you are an immigrant, you get yourself squared away with the right documentation and go to work like the rest of us. as for the immigrants coming through our southern border, it's a crisis. i fought for this country for 18 years as an infantry officer.

you don't see anyone running to australia or cuba or russia. they run to the greatest country in the world. when they are coming through uncontrolled, when we take people to walk into our country and give them housing and food and everything they need to start a life. and i walk past homeless veterans in this country -- look for help. you go through san francisco, you can't walk through the street because there is feces and food droppings and everything. we need to close the border. host: as a veteran, if somebody is an immigrant that joins the armed services should they get citizenship? caller: absolutely. if you are an immigrant and you

come to america, america is built on immigrants. i've got italian friends, generations. where are they now, they are working. they stand right next to me as a soldier and i will protect them. host: here is eric in california texting to say i'm the son of an immigrant. my father fought in world war ii and became part of the search for a more perfect union. we no longer have our status as land of the free and home of the brave. leonard in naples, florida. democratic color. good morning to you. are you there? caller: hold on one second. host: we are waiting on you. it's your turn. you've got to go. caller: yes. i'm just really surprised that the democratic number i called, i was hopeful that that would be

supportive of daca. i don't think the politicians have any ability to convince me that this is a proper way to go. this is so self-serving. my father was a veteran in world war ii. he was a bombardier. i'm as patriotic as anyone out there. what i see is strictly politics. it is strictly for the dollar. these people have struggled to get away from their country. paying taxes, working in jobs and we have details as to what they've done and what they haven't done. if you don't allow people like this into this country, who are you going to allow? host: dante in d.c.. republican. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: i do not support daca or

the expansion of daca. we are incentivizing people to come legally instead of coming legally. what about all of our legal participants who are trying to immigrate here at the right way. we are incentivizing people to mistreat children and try to bring children over the border. that's why we have so many children without their parents at the border right now. we are incentivizing things like this and expanding asylum and things like that. that's why we have all these children at the border right now. i don't think there's any listener on this program who doesn't want to help those children. we need to fix our legal immigration system first. host: what about daca? caller: i don't support the expansion of daca. people are children -- bringing

their children here. host: people currently in the program, you support that? we want to know. here is william in kenosha, wisconsin. congress seems content to spew loudmouthed rhetoric. daca at least adds some semblance of order and encourages good citizenship. jack is an independent caller: i may not be the sharpest lightbulb in the sixpack. i do not support it and you have shown everyone that was on that hearing except for misses root. what we should be doing is asking families what they want to do about it. thank you.

host: if you missed yesterday's hearing and you want to go to our website, go to c-span.org. the video player on our website will show you points of interest. you'll be able to quickly go through that hour plus long hearing and find where certain people testified in the questions they were asked. john in beaverton, oregon. caller: i'm in support of the expansion of the daca program. i have a degree in immigration advocacy. i'm a person of faith and also an immigrant from canada. one of the things i see is when senator cotton talked about -- we know why they're moving up. he hasn't taken into account the corruption and a lot of these

countries, the lack of opportunity and the lack of issues dealing with various climate issues. last week i was in a zoom session with the uscis that was talking about changing our immigration system to one that provides pathways to citizenship. and when i hear someone say someone is illegally entering the united states, basically the collect legal term is entering without inspection. host: ok. independent in little rock, arkansas. your turn. caller: my first question is when is enough. how many people are we going to take into our country and try to

economically support industry -- instead of trying to help other countries be stapled to where people would like to remain at home. we seem to think that it's a logical movement to receive and accept the entire world. it is sort of disrespectful to the indigenous people of this nation. the african tribes. more's that were here for thousands of years that totally ignored. i think that might be where we would like to start first before we take the entire world and just exclude the indigenous aboriginals. host: more text this one from natalie in kentucky. dokken must end and the border must be closed. these folks are more than welcome to come back once they have gone throughout process. we have enough americans just

dismissed and not taken care of. we are not responsible for taking care of the world especially before taking care of our own. we also have scott, mexicans are not the only immigrants. and eddie in kennesaw georgia. good morning. i support daca. he did not have family in mexico or anything about the culture. and then you have homer in boston. this because the president says this is the right thing to do doesn't make it the right thing to do. that's an opinion. the house is about to gaveling for their morning session. thanks for all the calls, text messages and tweets. we will be back tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern time. proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]