infrastructure, and at 8:30 rhode island congressman jim langevin on the establishment of a select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. >> on this vote the yeas are 222 and the nays are 190, the resolution is adopted. host: and with that the house votes to establish a select committee to investigate the events of the attack on the capital on january 6. only two republicans voted with democrats to establish that. liz cheney from wyoming and a representative from illinois. this is the washington journal in our first hour today you can tell us what you think about this group to investigate the

events of january 6. if you support the creation of the select committee call a set (202) 748-8000 and tell us why, if you oppose it you can call (202) 748-8001 and also tell us why. you can also text us at (202) 748-8002 -- text us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on facebook or twitter. if you want to follow our show you can do so on instagram @cspanwj. here's what the some act -- what the select committee will look like, it will have subpoena power, 13 members, eight appointed by speaker pelosi, and five appointed after consultation with the minority leader of kevin mccarthy. as part of the select committee's work no end date has been specified. that's just some of the framework of what this committee will look like, a couple more announcement as the days go on.

yesterday on the house floor a lot of debate before the vote. they heard from the chairman of the rules committee, democrat jim mcgovern. he led the debate for democrats and talked about why he saw the need for this committee. rep. mcgovern: i'm tired of the indifference, the delays, and sick of the fact that there are too many in this chamber who continue to put already over country and propagate the lies, distortions, and falsehoods that led to january 6. it's disgusting. for congress to do nothing in response to a literal insurrection would allow our democracy to be chipped away at from the inside, not on my watch. our system of government is fragile. it is not a given. it is a choice. looking down on us from the gallery right now are representatives of the d.c. metropolitan police and the u.s.

capitol police. i want to thank them and their colleagues for their service and for protecting us and our democracy on january 6. and to my colleagues on the others of the aisle about to vote no on this, please no lectures on respect for the police. a no vote is a vote to cover for those who brutally attacked the police on january 6. i say to my colleagues in this house they will be watching as we cast our votes. history will be watching. i pray that we have the moral courage to do what is right, that we choose truth, and that we choose to defend our democracy. host: more of this debate available at c-span.org where you can see republican congresswoman michelle fishbach of minnesota, who led the republican debate against the committee. rep. fishbach: there is no doubt

that what transpired on january 6 was a dark day, but instead of a good-faith effort to reach an objective conclusion, speaker pelosi and the house democrats have placed partisan divisive politics ahead of the interest of the american people. most fundamental to any objective investigation is being free from political influence and partisan bias. unfortunately this resolution fails to meet that basic benchmark as democrats refuse to put together a truly bipartisan commission. with equal authority given to all members, not just the majority. it appears my colleagues are more interested in reaching the predetermined outcome of their own narrative then truly investigating january 6 attack. the resolution it self is full of charge to language that implies an outcome.

in fact, to bipartisan committees in the senate have already conducted wide-ranging investigations and issued their joint report. their report which is more than 100 pages outlines the timeline of events and a series of recommendations for moving forward. the architect of the capital has also already been given $10 million to investigate the security failures on january 6. why are we replicating that work? the department of justice and the fbi have already arrested and charged more than 500 people for crimes ranging from disorderly conduct to theft of government property to assaulting a federal law enforcement officer. those individuals are being adjudicated by the court as we speak. that process will continue for some time. that's the way it should work. instead democrats are injecting partisanship into the equation

hoping to stretch out an investigation long enough to distract from their abject failure to govern. host: if you want to tell us you support the formation of this committee and call us and tell us why (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . on facebook, dolly wilson says 190, meaning the republicans who voted against the commission, guilty by omission missed their chance to be good in the process, judgment and critical thinking are rare in this republican party. from stephen in lexington, kentucky saying he supports the creation of the house committee, we need to find the source of the escalation at the capitol and find the organizations coming up with the plan. if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't fight against the investigation. stephen from kentucky texting us. you can do the same. from florence, kentucky a

supporter of this effort, you are up first. tell us why you support this effort. caller: when we looked at the 9/11 commission we looked at all kind of aspects including how to prevent it from happening again. we absolutely need to do this with january 6 insurrection. kevin mccarthy has high demands and the democrats gave into them right away. he pulls his cards back and says he's not playing anymore all we need to do this. we need to take it all the way up to the actions of the rally on the mall at january 6. we need to prevent this from happening again. it wasn't insurrection. thank you. host: ben opposes this effort in woodstock, connecticut.

ben, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i oppose it for one reason. who are these unindicted co-conspirators that they are not doing it they are not looking into. they are fbi agents, they are cia agents. host: as far as the commission that was voted on yesterday, why do you oppose that? caller: because they are not going to do anything to these unindicted conspirators. host: ok, that's been in woodstock, connecticut. when it comes to the idea of the republicans that could end up on this committee vote yesterday the washington post takes a look at it as far as breaking down who might serve. they ask the question, they say the second interesting question is which other republican serve on the committee. the language in the proposal does not appear to give kevin mccarthy carte blanche to appoint whoever he wants. it says the gop members would be selected after consultation with

him. many noted it echoes language though then republican house used in the selection of democratic members for the benghazi select committee. it goes on to say about the washington post that after kevin mccarthy declined to say he would appoint members that minimize the event -- or even that he would choose republican members at all, the language would seem to give kevin mccarthy the option and allow speaker pelosi to choose the republicans if kevin mccarthy refuses to. it raises the question about how selective speaker pelosi will be if the house minority leader moves to pick more extreme members. a breakdown of move -- who might serve on this committee, the yeas and nays 222 to 190. republicans joining along with democrats liz cheney of wyoming and a representative from

illinois. bill is up next and hero -- he supports the creation of this committee. bill, tell us why. caller: good morning. in 1993 they tried to blow the world trade center up and failed. bush was told, look, 9/11 we might have some problems. after that they investigate. and what happened. we lost firemen in new york city because bush forgot to investigate. what kind of guy will forget to investigate. host: that said, for the actions of yesterday, why do you support those? caller: i support a good investigation. if you've got nothing to hide you want an investigation. you want your people to see a clean investigation. you have witnesses. you have film, you have footage,

you have informants. you have people that know what happened and have said nothing. the staffers are in danger, they're not going to come forward. the staffers must come forward, pedro. host: let's hear from oklahoma who opposes this. caller: i think we have had enough of the investigations. host: what do you mean by that. caller: we have had too many investigations. it's already been done four or five times. i don't know what else they think they can find. host: on the support line bob from logan, utah. next up. caller: good morning. i'm an old guy, 83 years old. the most patriotic i've ever

felt in my life, i served my country like most people my age, but on 9/11 there were no blacks, whites, republicans, and on 9/11 we hung together. right now i'm quite sure that 75% of the people would like to see this investigation go through. this is our country. i've voted both ways. right now i'm totally ashamed of what's going on with the republicans. host: when it comes to the committee, why do you support it? what do you think it will accomplish? caller: just pulling it out in the light. -- bring it out in the light. i know a lot of republicans are afraid of mr. trump. we are a laughing stock right now. and it's got to be stopped.

i've said my say. my god, america, wake up. host: rick in ohio opposes this effort. you are next. caller: when i was growing up in the 50's the 1% had maybe 2% of the wealth, today the 1% has 70% of the wealth. that's called fascism, we went from capitalism to fascism. when you look at what happened on the sixth, you had militias, militias that were backed by not only biden but by facebook. this story gets interesting. biden, schumer, pelosi, harris, they are all part of silicon valley, california, billionaires. facebook, schumer, pelosi,

biden, the clintons, obama. host: to the events of yesterday in the formation of this committee, why do you oppose it? caller: because they are not going after facebook. because biden and schumer are responsible for facebook. cnn and msnbc are partners with facebook. facebook is worth $800 million and is run by jews. host: ok, we are not going to accept that and we will cut you off there. from georgia on the support line. caller: hey, pedro. is something wrong with your sinuses? host: thank you for asking, i've been fighting an allergy, i hope it hasn't been too distracting. caller: i just didn't one of mistake you for one of the other moderators. i support this 100%. this will be public. the lady was talking about all these other things, they aren't public.

it will take a year or two for those findings to come out. this will be a public hearing where people will see. there will be subpoenas all the way up to the president once they prove he got out there and told them to go fight the capitol police and raid to the capital, and he ran to the white house and watched it on tv and had a giggle. host: do you think politics will get in the way of this? caller: politics is already in the way of this. they've been coming for this man since 2016. bless the republicans for having the guts to keep covering up for donald trump. host: this is a democratic led effort. do you think politics will get in the way? caller: oh yes. the democrats are going to come out hunting for answers. the good thing is that nancy has

the opportunity to veto out the jordan, gaetz, greene, and all those others that don't have a clue. this will be better than jim jordan harassing hillary clinton. let's get something straight about the benghazi hearing. that was 40 years of harassment for hillary clinton prosecuting richard nixon. that's all that is. host: let's go to richard in cincinnati, ohio who opposes. richard, you are next. richard in cincinnati, hello? caller: hey, pedro. thanks for taking my call. i wanted to talk about nobody wants to talk about it, and i know polo see ain't gonna look into it regarding the fascination of ashli babbitt. for just that i oppose this. host: what's the relevancy

there? caller: the relevancy echo well we had a veteran that was unarmed that was assassinated, by its coming out it was some kind of security regarding pelosi, and nobody knows what happened. host: beside your thinking on that one about the formation of this committee, why do you oppose that? caller: because it's all political. straight up, come on, this is all political stuff regarding democrats trying to hurt them in the 22 election and trying to keep the republicans in the news instead of letting the country know how biden and his administration is doing so terrible. they just want to keep this stuff in the news so nobody talks about anything else. host: that's richard in

cincinnati, ohio. as far as who speaker pelosi might appoint for the effort the washington post highlighted the fact that ms. pelosi is considering picking a republican who acknowledges the gravity of the attack on her options are exceedingly slim. adding that many have speculated that ms. pelosi might select representative liz cheney of wyoming who was removed from her house leadership host after she pushed republicans to hold mr. trump responsible for fomenting the riot after the 2020 election saying it had been stolen. liz cheney was one of two republicans who voted along with democrats for the formation of the select committee. you can see all of that play out on c-span if you want to go to our website one of the people approaching the house floor and speaking on the formation of the committee was speaker pelosi herself leaving the door open when it comes to compromising on the commission. here are some of her thoughts from yesterday.

>> i'm heartbroken we don't have the bipartisan commission. we yielded on every point. numbers, the process for subpoenas, the timing, and further yielded on the senate side on timing again as well as complication on staffing. that was never in doubt but they wanted further clarification. the republican senators thought they could win the day over there. they thought they could. and they thought they had the votes. until the majority minority, the newly minority leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell asked them to do him a personal favor

and vote against the commission. too many of them chose to do mitch mcconnell a personal favor rather than to perform their patriotic duty. and hence, despite the fact that seven republican members either voted or said they would vote for the commission, it was defeated. they said, give us another week, give us another week, give us another week. now it's 4.5 weeks and we must go forward. it does not appear at this time that we can have a bipartisan commission outside commission. hopefully that could still happen. in the meantime we will have a select committee. host: the washington post highlights the fact that the select committee is similar to the one the

republican-controlled house formed to investigate an attack on a u.s. embassy in libya which damage the presidential prospects of hillary clinton who was secretary of state and became one of the most long and bitterly partisan investigations. the washington post highlighting that fact. jimbo from bakersfield, california says now that the new york times has released its video on the insurrection at the capitol building on january 6, trump reporters who -- kennesaw, georgia, we need to know members -- he referenced a video investigation you can find online if you go to the website of the new york times and check it out for yourself there. this is from mary in south dakota saying that speaker pelosi is pretending she has the country in her best interest,

her agenda is always to shine light on herself and spend our taxpayer money. again the select committee now formed in the house of representatives. if you support this effort, 202 -- (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it (202) 748-8001. you can also text us as many of you have already, (202) 748-8003 . other news happening as far as the associated press reporting. in top trump organization executive surrendering ahead

of tax crimes. of tax crimes. he surrendered earlier today after prosecutors secured grand jury indictments against him. i do not support the way it is going about. speaker pelosi has stopped our house of representatives from acting in our behalf, the people of the country, and the constitution calls for for a year and a half and they are not even talking about. this is not a committee to find out anything. this is a committee to let them

continue to propagate the awfulness of, our laws get made in a dark little corner and then brought to them and given three hours to debate. 70% -- because of the closing -- there was a chance for an independent investigation, ultimately senate republicans voted against that in the senate. if that was closed off and it could be truly independent that way why not pursue it this way? caller: because this is totally political. that speech by the representative from massachusetts, i watch that

yesterday when it was happening. he was awful. he hates this country. he is the most self absorbed person i have ever had to listen to. i'm sure the people of massachusetts love him, and that's fine. host: let's hear from larry in north carolina who opposes this effort. larry in gaetz, north carolina? one more time for larry. we will go to john in mooresville, north carolina. a supporter of this effort. caller: good morning, pedro thanks for taking my call. i approve of this if it can be bipartisan. but i also think it's important to understand that those people who overran the capital, there

were enough of them in so few police, the police were not expecting trump, number one, number two if it'd had been an organized attempt to take over the government to overrun the capital, they would have been armed, they would have had everything from flashbang grenades to all kinds of munitions, they would have taken over that capital in a matter of minutes. now just think what we will be talking about looking at the inside of the capital. it looks pretty good. if it was really an insurrection they would have shot up the inside of that place and you would have seen terrible damage and the government would still be reeling from that. host: 13 members to be appointed to this commission, eight appointed by the speaker with a

possibility of a republican being one, five appointed after consultation with the minority leader, do you think bipartisanship can be achieved with that framework? caller: no i don't. not if they are going to, in the end, produce a document that will certainly condemn trump, and i don't appreciate mr. trump 's position on this thing at all , but i do kind of understand that he was picked at continuously his whole presidency, and it was pick, pick, pick. now things are so different. host: that's john in north carolina. josephine in florida on the oppose line. caller: hi, how are you? host: good, thank you. how about yourself? caller: i'm fine, but i'm

disturbed about this happening. it's nothing but another dirty trick democratic play for publicity to trash trump and try to make the 70 million people who voted for trump feel like they didn't know what they were doing. like ease so terrible why did you do that? i'm telling you that he's not terrible. and they are terrible. and they proved it by all the things they did to him over the four years that were lies. host: as far as the committee itself what do you oppose? caller: the committee would be nothing but these rino republicans like romney and people who are attracted to him and his bunch of republicans which there are very few of now if we can get rid of all of them we can get something done. i'm telling him they keep with

the democrats when it hurts us. that's wrong. the whole thing is wrong. what they need. host: as far as you saying it's wrong, why is it wrong? do you think it does not need investigating? caller: because it will cover up what pelosi did or did not do. i think she did do it on purpose leaving the police out of it because she wanted to make this an issue to affect the 2022 elections. and that's exactly what this is all about. it's nothing but a play and political tricks. that's all they do. host: that's josephine in cape canaveral, florida. for about a half hour we been asking your thoughts on the select committee voted on by the house of representatives yesterday to investigate the matters of january 6.

if you support or oppose the creation of the committee, if you supported (202) 748-8000, if you oppose it call us at (202) 748-8001. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. post on our facebook page if you wish at facebook.com/c-span. you can also post on facebook. one post yesterday was a result of historians consulted by c-span. the result coming out, usa today's take on it saying donald trump rank near the bottom of all u.s. presidents by a group of historians, given the lowest grade of leadership for any commander-in-chief that served in the white house for the past 150 years. the ratings of the 10 leadership qualities in the series conducted by c-span includes assessments up 142 historians and professional observers of the presidency. stir trump ranking 41st on that

survey, saying among modern presidents barack obama has risen to number 10 compared with number 12 in the last c-span historian survey. ronald reagan ranked at number nine. bill clinton at number 19, george h. w. bush at number 21. george w. bush at number 29. it also asks richard nixon, the only president forced to resign from office rated at 31. you can go to our website under the section of presidential historians surveyed. you can find out the 140 two people that participated and ultimately gave their own assessments of the various residents and you can also look at some of the methodology and the advisors and everything that went into the creation of the survey which was released yesterday. if you want to learn more about the survey and have a chance to talk with the people and advisors that led to the release of it for two hours you will

have a chance to talk with four of the advisors. all of them will take your questions and give their assessments of how the survey rankings and where they come in on it. you can see that on sundays washington journal starting at 8:00. go to the website if you want to find out more and dig deeper. baton rouge, louisiana on our support line for the creation of the select committee. this is cj. go ahead. >> i do support the investigation, but only if they also investigate the burning down of about 10 or 12 cities that happened before that by the american democrat communist

party and its acolytes blm and al qaeda. we need to find out how much of george soros money was involved in the millions and millions of dollars being spent to destroy american cities that are run by a bunch of democrats. host: why is the investigation of those outside events important to the investigation of the capital in d.c.? >> i believe the people in d.c. saw what was going on and that there was no retaliation for burning down american cities and they said they could get in on it too. this was all brought about by the blm bunch and also antifa communists. host: so you are calling the support line but you oppose the

creation of this committee? caller: it's being done by a bunch of democrats who don't know what they are doing. host: we will go to bill on the oppose line from columbia, maryland. caller: good morning, pedro. the democrats have four branches of government. they had the supreme court up until trump came in and helped even it out. they definitely have the media and this is just serving up fodder for the media to push the democrat narrative to make the republicans look bad and weaken their chances for taking back the house and eventually taking back the white house. the previous callers have laid it out beautifully. if it was going to be an investigation and there are multiple investigations going on now and they will find out and

they probably already know what happened. if they did a real investigations into why the capital was not protected. was nancy negligent, like the other gentleman said what if it'd had been a real insurrection. what if real terrorists rolled up in buses and came out of their guns blazing. >> aside from the hypotheticals why not have an overarching investigation into this? >> because it won't be overarching. it will be targeted towards the democrats narrative. that's all it's going to be. they are not investigating, this is just political theater and it will be put out there so there

will be a constant drumbeat anti-trump anti-republican and it's just going to be like the russia hoax investigation. it's just to drive their poll ratings up and to drive the conservatives poll ratings down. host: we will hear from alex in erie, pennsylvania who supports this effort. caller: to the last gentleman those were terrorists that attacked the capital and the police did a good job to stop them. i don't want to be negative, but i have a group of people, i think we are up to almost 10,000, and we are called the birthday gorilla people. we are going to start with mcconnell and mccarthy's house, but anybody that wants us to come and celebrate their birthday with them we will come. don't be afraid when we show up

with flak jackets. host: ok stop. we will go to monty in spring, texas on the oppose line. caller: yes, i oppose this only for the reason because without a bipartisan commission this will be a flop, which is impossible because there was a bipartisan commission put together which was torpedoed by mitch mcconnell. none of the republicans or so-called conservatives on your show seem to be aware of anything that is not on fox news. the conservative movement in this country has become woefully aigner and as made obvious by the fact that people ought that the vice president could be certified by state electors in total violation of the separation of powers. this alone proves how aigner and the republican party has become and how invested they are in conspiracy theory. anyone who supports trump is not an american patriot but a member of a cult of personality. >> if you oppose this commission

how should these events be investigated or gone about investigated by those on capitol hill? caller: we will have to let law enforcement take the reins. right now there is no bipartisan -- bipartisanship in washington. the events that have been started with the last president, i'm not an obama supporter, independent voters since 2000, but what i have watched started this country with president obama, the birth tourism, communism, all of the -- right now they are claiming that the former president -- the michelle obama is a man. this is a prolific conspiracy theory. host: so how should the investigation go about? caller: we will have to rely on the fbi or doj. charges should be brought up and only then when the republican party can have a moment of truth and look at what role its own

members played, not nancy pelosi, another prime example of the aigner and suffer republicans to think nancy pelosi has anything to do with capitol police. host: that's monty in spring texas. we will continue with your calls on the select committee to take a look at the events of january 6. contact us and post on our various social media sites. the news of the passing of former defense secretary donald rumsfeld. highlighting some of the events of his 10 year especially concerning iraq saying his tenure at the pentagon which began with mr. bush's inauguration mr. rumsfeld sent out -- in a bid to make the armed forces more agile and technologically savvy. september 11 terrorist attack

led the u.s. to invade afghanistan where al qaeda operated the invasion in october of 2001 showcasing mr. rumsfeld's approach to

democratic evaluation. republicans and liberals were submitting everything they had. the thing that concerns me about the investigation is that they control too much of it. the reason why we are doing an investigation is because people could not sit there and watch what was happening. what i saw was a group of people walking slowly down the alleyway, most of them old. all of the sudden, there are military trained tactical forces

approaching. and then there are people saying, come on in. the only person killed is a trump supporter. trump supporters are called white supremacists. host: dozen debt -- doesn't that need an investigation? caller: not the investigation that has been done on trump that is totally biased and has not amounted to anything, no matter what they do. they cannot find what they want to find. they just want to divide the country. host: one of those congressman going up on the house floor yesterday, giving reaction to the formation of the committee. he said what he is opposed to it. [video clip] >> i have heard it mentioned

today, democrats telling us why we voted against the bill. they did not ask us. i can tell you why i voted against it. i think it is known by the other side because i offered at amendment to the commission. if you are serious, curious about the posture, the defense posture of this building, those that work in it, would you please include in this commission to investigate a look at the events of june 14, 2017. at the baseball field. there were not any democrats there that day. except for one, the one the tried to kill us. you talk about an insurrection, if not for the capitol police being there that day, 20 to 30 members of congress and the house of representatives on the republican side may have been

assassinated, changing the balance of power in this congress. that is an insurrection. why is that the democrats voted that down, to include that as part of the commission. no one can explain that. it all has to be about one event. i do not condone for one second what happened here on january 6. not for one second. if you are serious about looking at what we need and what goes on, and what inspires people to attack this building and the people who were care, then let's take a look at everything. why are we not including the event on good friday, when the gentleman drove up and killed a capitol policeman. he could've had a car full of explosives and pulled a timothy mcveigh type of event. why are we not looking at this, as well?

it is incomplete and insufficient. host: the vote took place yesterday. as far as today is concerned, one activity president biden will do is travel to florida to meet with families associated with a collapsed building in surfside, florida. the president and the first lady plan to thank search and rescue teams and meet with the families of victims. the president's visit coming one week after the towers fell in surfside. look for that visit to take place today as the president heads down there. this is from linda in akron, ohio on our support line. caller: good morning. i support this 1000%, as they say. really, the reason why i want to see this done, i watch all day,

too, and i watch different stations. i listen to the speeches of trump jr., rudy giuliani, donald trump, i cannot remember the other gentleman, but they all have the tone of violence. from the beginning of trump calling this rally, speeches, i turned the channel, too, and i saw the president and the first lady sitting and watching tv with trump jr. and his girlfriend standing behind their laughing. i saw everything, too. host: how does that associate with your support of this committee? caller: i am hoping for -- there are a lot of things, if they are

truly researched, that were on tv. my eyes were not lying eyes. my ears were not lying ears. i heard and i saw the day. trump needs to be called out for his activities and those around him because i do not think this would have happened if this rally had not been called. host: that was linda in ohio. ralph on our opposed line. go ahead. caller: yes, i opposed, and i want to ask you a question. host: let's start with why you oppose it. caller: because it was made up, you know it. now, may i ask a question? host: go ahead. caller: why are you not doing the hunter biden situation, with

his dad, joe biden? host: we have done segments concerning hunter biden, but not our topic today. caller: it is all in the news. it is a top story in the news at present. host: but today, because we cover congress and congress is one of those bodies we watch specifically, considering we provide gavel to gavel coverage, this is our topic today. why do you oppose the committee specifically? caller: because it is made up. it is made up. host: what exactly is made up? caller: the whole situation is made up and you reported as you see fit to get the people excited. you understand where i am coming from. host: let me ask you this

specifically so i know where you're coming from -- do you feel the events of january 6 are made up? caller: yes. host: even as you saw it play out -- as many others did -- on television? caller: yes. you understand where i am coming from. please get the hunter biden story on. host: we will go back to bonnie on our support line. bonnie, you are next. caller: good grief. it is important that think it would be wonderful if liz cheney was on the panel. host: what do you think she would do for it? caller: as far as the republicans are concerned, she would probably would not add any credibility. i think they need her. she is a tough woman. she is strong.

she seems to me to be one or two of the only republicans to be taken seriously. host: do you think that would make it a political move, as far as the commission's work? caller: they want republicans and that is when they should have on the panel. host: specifically as far as the commission itself, why do you support it? caller: they need to investigate. sure, they are doing some, but follow the money. host: you say they are doing some. there are several entities investigating, why add one more to the mix? caller: follow the money, follow the emails. why all these white supremacist groups gathered there. follow the money. host: bonnie in minnesota giving us a call. you should know today, the supreme court's term coming to

an end. it is this morning that the justices are set to hand down the last opinions of the current session after 30 rulings were issued in recent days. only two cases are left to be decided. in typical years, the court decides the most high-profile cases when the term ends in late june or july. this year, the most notable rulings were handed out a few weeks early or, the end of the term marks one of the most transformative supreme court terms and memory because it was the first to take place after the death of liberal justice ruth bader ginsburg and her following by amy coney barrett. when it comes to matters of the supreme court, president biden's commission taking a look at

potential changes to the workup of the court's, saying effort by progressives is starting to fizzle. the stalled progress is not on welcomed to democratic leaders in washington who are happy to avoid a fight over court expansion which could end up being -- this set congressional democrats prefer to stay focused on president biden's infrastructure agenda and conserve for a confirmation fight if justice stephen breyer announces his retirement. let's go to liz in texas on our support line. caller: hi, how are you? i like your glasses. second, one of the last guys who was talking about how that could not be taken seriously, he is a total lunatic. host: he gets to express his

opinion like anyone else. as far as your support of the commission, why do you support it? caller: honestly, i do not see why not. i do not see what the hesitancy is. if that was a group of black lives matter or antifa that stormed it, republicans would be completely down to sit there at investigate all of this fully. because it was people waving trump supporter flags and they have people like matthew gaetz and marjorie greene, they want to act like, we do not want to touch it and make all these excuses that all these other people are investigating. they were with 9/11, too. you still had an investigation then, so what is the problem. host: mount pleasant,

pennsylvania on our opposed line, bernard, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i hope you feel better. host: thank you. caller: my reason for opposition to it is they are doing investigations right now. they have been doing investigations. i did not agree with what transpired on the sixth. i would like to put that out there right now. i go with our younger republican congressmen and women. they do not see the need for this commission. something that would help with this, actually, they also support -- a lot of them support term limits on themselves. if we keep rehashing and rehashing things when we are having an investigation, we do not get anywhere.

the democrats -- i do not like seeing this, i really don't -- but they have to look at their leadership. start looking at what is important and they should also accept the idea of term limits. thank you and you have a good day. host: we need another committee to investigate because the seven committees that launched investigation into the federal government's handling is not enough. our government is so efficient at wasting taxpayer dollars. look out from brooklyn says republicans are blocking this because they know the political game of just rhetoric and no substance will be exposed. truth and transparency will be revealed. america first, right. texting us is a way you can

reach us at (202) 748-8003. north carolina, tom on our support line, good morning. caller: yes, i do not think there should even have to be an investigation if republicans would do their job. just a minute -- host: you are still on. go ahead. caller: recently, north carolina state's baseball team was eliminated from the ncaa tournament because they had covid-19. it was in the protocol that if players had it, they would be eliminated. but, in the paper this morning, republican lawmakers -- answers why they were eliminated when it was actually in the rules. republicans in congress will not

or do not want to know what happened on january 16. host: ok. steve, columbia, south carolina. caller: the last guy, really. if you really, really want to know what happened on january 6 and who the agitators were, go back and look at what happened in washington on january 5. just go back and see what happened and it will answer all your questions of who the agitators were. host: what do you mean by that? he hung up. that will be the last call for this segment. a two hour program today. congress coming in at 9:00. two congressman joining us from the morning. we will hear from republican john curtis from utah to discuss climate change and infrastructure. they are on, democratic congressman jim langevin of

rhode island. we will talk about the select committee to investigate the january 6 in suresh and. we mention the passing of donald rumsfeld. he sat down in 2011 talk about his book. here is what the former defense secretary said when asked about what he hoped to get out of writing the book. [video clip] >> i hope to have produced a book, which i think i have, that will interest people in public service, it will inform serious people about how decisions are made in the fact those are tough jobs and the people in them are honorable people and they have to make decisions within perfect information, inevitably. i hope they will have a glimpse of what the times i have lived has been. i was serving in congress during the vietnam war and the civil rights marches.

the city of washington, d.c. was in flames after martin luther king was assassinated. president lyndon johnson could barely leave the white house for periods because of the demonstrators against the war in vietnam. we all have a tendency to think of the times we are living in a somewhat unique and distinctive, and of course they are different, but in my 78 years, i have seen a lot of turmoil in the country and difficulties in the country. i must say, i also hope people will read this and see how important the all volunteer military has been. if you think about it, back in the 1960's, before president nixon, a group of people pushed for a volunteer army and president nixon managed to get it through congress. there were people serving who did not want to serve in our military before that.

everyone today is there because they want to. every person is there because they put up their hand and said, "i want to do this. i'm a volunteer. send me." today, what is going on in iraq or afghanistan, the american people are proud of the military and the military are proud of what they are doing, they know what the are doing and why they are doing it. >> washington journal continues. host: our first guest is representative john curtis, republican from utah. also the chair of the conservative climate caucus. representative curtis, thank you for joining us. guest: great to be with you. host: talk about this caucus. guest: we were very strategic with the name because we wanted to be very clear that we were embracing the science with climate and we are conservatives.

we have a lot of good answers we want to bring to the table we draw think are being currently discussed. host: what is the goal of the caucus, particularly when it comes to climate change, what is the belief this caucus holds? guest: the first tenant of the caucus's climate is changing and years and years and years of the industrial revolution have clearly had an impact on it and we want to do something about it. i know people are not used to republicans talking about it, but i personally feel like it is time for republicans to be a little more aggressive with our message. i think the fact we have not been engaged in this left us to be branded about not caring about the environment and i do not believe that is true. host: how many members of your caucus and where do you go from here if you have establish the caucus, what you want to see done? guest: today, there are 65

members and a grows every day. that is one third of the entire republican conference. it is one of the biggest caucuses in washington, d.c. for republicans. a huge outpouring of support for my colleagues. as far as where we want to go, now that we have formed the caucus, the caucus' main mission is to educate republicans on climate related issues and be a think tank for solutions and things we want to advocate and put forward. host: when it comes to solutions, one of the topics that comes to the top is one about to do with fossil fuels. democrats and republicans have a different thought on what to be done. guest: i think it is very important that we ask ourselves, how do we lower worldwide greenhouse/carbon emissions? we have reduced our carbon

emissions in the united states on a dramatic level over the last decade. we have reduced more than the next 10 countries combined. we have done that with fossil fuel, natural gas. as we look at how we will impact emissions in china, india, russia, clearly there is a role for fossil fuels. another important point is, we have demonized fossil fuels and the people who have worked so hard to produce them. i think that is a dialogue we need to turn around and be very careful with how we villa nice people and fossil fuels. host: this administration when it comes to environment and climate change, rejoined the paris climate agreement, revoked the pipeline, conserving at least 30% of federal land and oceans by 2030, establishing climate change as a national

security policy, can your caucus go along with those actions of the biden administration? guest: we want to ask the question, does what they are suggesting lower worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and what is the cost to do it and are there better alternatives? you went through quite a list and most of those do not meet the litmus test. we need to be putting our ideas forward. host: if this is a focus on how other countries handle their clement process, what can your caucus expect to do? guest: i am not suggesting we should not do our part in the united states. i think sometimes republicans are blamed for thinking, let's put our head in the sand about what we are doing in the united states. it is important to be a leader in the world. it is also a mistake and the

paris accord is a good example, to give china a green light on increasing their carbon emissions for the next 20 years. we cannot obtain articles for climate if we are going to allow that to happen. host: our guest is with us until 8:30. representative john curtis, the chair of the conservative climate caucus. if you want to ask him questions, you can do so on the lines -- (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. also, you can text us at (202) 748-8003. host: let me play you a little bit about president biden addressing climate concerns. i will get your response to it. [video clip] pres. biden: i see autoworkers

building the next generation of electric vehicles, electricians installing nationwide for 500 thousand charging stations along the highways. i see engineers in the construction workers building new carbon capturing green carbon plants to forge cleaner steel, cement and produce clean power. i see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. by maintaining those investments, and putting these people to work, the united states sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases and have by the end of this decade. that is where we are headed as a nation. that is what we can do if we take action to build an economy that is not only more prosperous, but healthier, more fair and cleaner for the entire planet.

these steps will set america on a path for a net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. the truth is america represents less than 15% of the world's emissions. no nation can solve this crisis on our own, as i know you all fully understand. all of us, particularly those who represent the world's largest economies, we have to step up. those who do take action and make bold investments to their people in a clean energy future will win the good jobs of tomorrow and make their economies more resilient and competitive. host: representative curtis, those are the words of the president. what is your response? guest: quite frankly, there is a lot to agree with with what the president is talking about. i think he echoed some of the things i said at the beginning. the concept the u.s. is only 15% of worldwide carbon emissions and we have to get other

countries engaged in this. we have to develop innovations here in the united states that will deal with carbon and other countries and we have to be the low-cost provider for energy so other countries will adopt what we are doing. perhaps where we disagree a little bit is in our approach to some of these things. i believe, and i think many members of the caucus believe, you do not have to kill u.s. jobs to accomplish these goals. if we do this the right way we will enhance the u.s. economy. the question at hand is, we can agree with the goals of reducing carbon and we can understand the science to all of that. the question is, how do we get there? one of the main purposes for this caucus is to make sure republicans have a voice at this table. we have not had that voice in this debate. a lot of us want to be more aggressive in promoting our ideas. host: how did you personally arrive at your views on the climate?

guest: that is a really interesting question. i wish i had an hour to answer the question. for me, it has been a journey. i started out as a stereotypical conservative, dodging the question about the environment, i was uncomfortable about the question of whether or not the climate was changing. i tried to understand the science the best that i could and understand the solutions. what i found was, we do not have to be afraid of the solutions. they do not have to be as painful as some people advocate. they can be very good for us. the reality is all of us can agree, less pollution is better than more pollution. and we talk about it that way, it is a little easier to engage everyone, versus some of the divisive rhetoric that often comes into this debate. host: let's hear from ron new jersey on the democrats' line.

good morning. caller: good morning. nobody is talking about fusion energy. we can burn our garbage and get back are natural resources. -- get back our natural resources. we can get the power we need without any pollution at all and without any leftover radiation. it seems to me to be a perfect solution. guest: good morning. let me echo the overall theme of what you are saying, there is some amazing innovation that we are on the cusp of. i will throw in hydrogen. there are a number of things u.s. innovation can lead out on. i do not understand the science of fusion myself, but i know there is a lot of innovation

just waiting. we are at a crossroads. as the united states, we can be the one who leads out with this innovation or let our competitors overseas do it. this is a time to seize the moment and make sure we are leading, as the united states. host: california, independent line, this is ruth. caller: good morning eared good morning -- good morning. good morning, representative curtis and good morning, pedro, and everyone. i have heard a lot of good ideas also about carbon capture. it sounds to me that you, in thinking creatively about cutting-edge technologies in general, that also there are a lot of good, productive things that could be done with carbon

capture. one more little point on nuclear power. if a nuclear power plant needs the cooling towers, even with the new technology, that has a significant impact on the surrounding area. i do not know if the newer technology requires that. i appreciate your interest and efforts, and your observation that since the industrial revolution, we have advanced much faster than natural processes in terms of our impact on the earth. host: thank you. guest: ruth, good morning. if you are on the west coast,

you are up bright and early. she made some very good points. we have carbon capture, something called -- we are pulling carbon out of the air. these technologies exist. they are not perfected on a mass scale. let me tell you why they must be part of the equation. so much carbon is coming out of china, india. we have one billion people without electricity who are burning wood. we will not reach our carbon objectives unless some of our technology on carbon capture is actually perfected. i think it has to be part of the equation. we have to be incentivizing and investing in that. i will touch on nuclear. at the same time president biden wants to cut our emissions in half, we will cut our nuclear energy supply in half. we will go from 20% of our overall energy to 10% because we are shutting down nuclear

plants. i think that is the wrong direction. we need generation nuclear, we need to innovate nuclear, as well, but we need to talk about nuclear, as well, if we are going to solve this problem. host: it was in an interview with another publication that the president's advisors said the white house would demand congressional democrats dictate carbon free after 2035. what do you think about that goal? is it achievable and is it needed? guest: you have to ask yourself, how does it impact the big goal? the big goal is not u.s. emissions. the big goal is worldwide carbon emissions. if we are going to kill our economy to reach that goal and not move the needle on worldwide emissions, we have to be careful. we are on a trajectory to reduce traumatically our carbon

submissions and when he to keep that trajectory going. the real question is, how did we get there? we just talked about nuclear, you will not reach that goal if you wipeout nuclear. host: illinois, republican line, this is cindy. caller: good morning. i would like to make one comment and that i will ask you a question. how many citizens out there that can afford maybe $80,000, $100,000 electric car. i cannot, and i bet you 80% of americans cannot. can you talk a little bit about a bill that the republican sound that the democrats were trying to sneak in, millions of dollars for a fund for china for climate change? can you let the public know about that? thank you very much.

guest: thank you for your call this morning. i am not sure about that specific bill, what i do know there is a strong feeling among my republican colleagues that we are giving china a pass. the paris accord allows them to continue their carbon emissions, increase their carbon emissions for the next 20 years. the very same people that want us to sign onto the paris accord tell us the world will fall apart before that happens. we have to look at answers that are tougher on china and find solutions that deal with not just china, but india and other countries who have large numbers of carbon emissions. host: how did you vote yesterday on the formation of this january 6 commission? guest: i voted against it. a couple weeks ago, i voted for it. i would like to see a

commission. i do not think the answer is to let speaker pelosi form one herself. there are questions unanswered. host: when you say the way that is going about on speaker pelosi, can you elaborate? guest: what we were voting on a few weeks ago had a shot of being bipartisan. there were suggestions on the senate side that would've enhanced it and made it better. i think it had a shot. we would have an equal number of republicans and democrats on the commission. as i understand, what speaker pelosi is putting together would have an 8-5 ratio. i do not think that would give the american people the answers. i am a fan of the commission, i supported it a couple weeks ago, but it has to be put together in a way that will give the american people the confidence that it is not just a partisan exercise. host: how much support should

kevin mccarthy give to this commission that was created yesterday? guest: i do not know the answer to that. it is a tough question. it will go on with or without him. to the extent he can influence it, i would love to see him do what he can to influence it but it is an impossible position to put him into say, come support this from the onset, you do not get an equal number of republicans. host: grand junction, colorado, republican. caller: hello, good morning to everybody. representative curtis, i have an item i heard a long time ago, it is called a catalytic converter. this is not an ordinary catalytic converter that does not do its job when you first start your vehicle. like the lady said, most people cannot afford electric cars. this catalytic converter was put up by nasa and it purifies the

air basically when it is cold and when it is at operating temperature. you might know about that, it is a little hard to find on the nasa site, but you can locate it, it can be used for industrial smokestacks, it can be used on diesel engines, gasoline engines. that might help in some respect if we can bring that to the forefront as far as a simple device that could be subsidized by the government to help people pay for it, change their catalytic converters out. guest: i am not familiar with it. you live in a beautiful part of our country. it is something i would love to take a look at. there is some amazing innovation out there, both ready to be discovered and ready to come to market. i think part of our solution has to be finding that innovation,

getting it to market and inspiring that innovation we do not have. most corporations that have committed to cut their carbon in half, and some completely, they all put an -- buy it. we are going out on a leap of faith. host: when it comes to the caucus' goals or desires, as you had a chance to approach house leadership to have these discussions? guest: response has been positive. we made sure we were not off causing a problem for the conference. they are very supportive. kevin mccarthy just formed a series of committees like the task force committees, and one of them is climate. i am serving on that. i think you will see in the

upcoming days and months, republicans being more aggressive with our message. host: from montana, great falls, peter is on our line for democrats. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning, congressman curtis. first off, i would like to congratulate you for your vote on the independent commission. the question i have for you is, does your caucus promote the eventual -- i say eventual -- elimination of fossil fuel energy production, that would include even natural gas? thank you. guest: thank you for your question. you can call me john. it does not. we said at the top of the hour, let me just say again, natural gas has been responsible for the most reduction in carbon of

anything i know of. we have reduced our carbon footprint in the united states by a dramatic level. we have done it by using natural gas. fossil fuels are part of the answer to reduce worldwide carbon. i know that is counterintuitive. something that is very important for people to remember is carbon itself is not bad. carbon in the air is bad. that is what we need to be talking about. how do we reduce the carbon in the air? i think there is a role for fossil fuels and i know that gives a lot of my colleagues on the left some heartburn, but it is just a facts. host: to what level do you think alternative fuels can replace what is provided by fossil fuels? guest: we need to be open-minded to that. when you say alternative -- host: wind, solar.

guest: it is an important part of the energy mix. the bottleneck is storage, and that is where we need innovation. we need to do a better job of storing wind and solar power. they will become a more dominant force in the mix. host: rick from providence, kentucky. independent line. good morning. caller: thank you, sir. this past winter, we had record snowfall, record cold, record ice storms, records that were set 100, or 150 years ago. 100 or 150 years ago, there were not millions of vehicles on the roads, thousands of airplanes across the skies day and night, there were no -- repeat, no -- coal fire plants. with that not going on 100 or

150 years ago, how were those records set if man is the cause? guest: people want to point to the extreme heat to the west as a sign of climates changing and we have to be careful here. single events are not an the climate is changing, but trends are. when we get a severe weather event, it is hard to know if it is the result of climate change or just severe weather. it is easy to point individual events. what we need to be doing is looking long term trends to really see what is going on with the weather. host: representative, a viewer tweets us, saying what is the u.s. have to teach china about climate change? china is far ahead of the u.s. all of their cars will be

electric by 2030. get real, he adds. guest: i want to be polite, but i think there needs to be a dose of realism all the way around. they produce a lot of electric vehicles and they charge those on coal fire plants. it is amazing the amount of carbon emissions not only coming out of china but increasing coming out of china. we are talking about smoke and mirrors if we look at their electronic vehicles as a signal they are somehow leading on this. they are certainly not. the evidence is clear on that. host: one more call from mike in maryland, republican line. caller: the premise is false from the beginning. you have to understand no oils or gasoline comes from fossil anything. when you start with this premise

that it comes from old plants or animals, it is a misconception we have to fix and science agrees with that. secondly, it is all pressure management and movement that creates energy, not this concept that you are pushing. if you understand that water can from of the workings of an engine, or you can use what comes from the explosion of water when it changes states, which stanford university supported when they saw water changes states and has an explosive effect, you really don't need to do anything but learn pressure. it is physics. host: we have to leave it there because we are running short on time. guest: i am going to leave it there. that one speaks for itself. host: republican john curtis, the chair of the conservative climate caucus. thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much. host: we have a half-hour before

the house of representatives comes in. our next guest is representative jim langevin, talking about the select committee. that, when washington journal continues. ♪ >> here is some of our live coverage today. on c-span, the house returns for more work on a surface, transportation bill at 9:00 a.m. eastern. nearly 150 amendments were offered on the legislation. on c-span2, a house oversight committee hearing on overcoming covid-19 vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccinations. that is also at 9:00 a.m. >> saturday on the communicators, >> i am talking about the ways information, communication technologies are being used to further autocratic political

agendas. the ways in which technology is being used via coercion and other means to accomplish political goals, particularly for those leaders who are not democratic. >> watch the communicators with a senior fellow at the carnegie endowment and the author of the rise of digital repression at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: this is representative jim langevin, democrat from rhode island. he is a member of the homeland security committee and served the second district. good morning. caller: good morning. -- guest: good morning. host: what do you think it achieves? guest: i think it is important to get the facts out about what led up to the insurrection. exactly what happened that day.

and how we prevent it from ever happening again. january 6 wasn't absolutely appalling, shocking, disappointing day. i am so angry and saddened by that day. being at capitol hill, locked in our offices because of an angry mob that stormed. we cannot condone that. we need to find out what led up to that, how were so many things missed. the capitol police were so underprepared. the resources we need to give them to make sure they are properly staffed. a whole range of things we need to examine and have on the record for history's sake and to understand how to prevent it from ever happening again. host: with 13 members, eight

being appointed by the speaker herself, will that be an issue going forward as far as anything the committee comes up with? guest: we tried to make this bipartisan and the republicans refused to go along with that. for a variety of reasons. i suppose they didn't not want to do anything that would upset former president trump. they should have stepped up and down the right thing for the country. when that failed, the speaker was left with no choice but to create this committee. i believe they will do the right thing and the people appointed will be of the highest integrity. the speaker in the minority leader, kevin mccarthy, have a role in appointing people. we can do a thorough job of

investigating the january 6 insurrection. host: i do not know if you have seen this, but cnn is reporting kevin mccarthy is threatening to strip any republican member of assignments if they accept an offer from speaker pelosi to serve on the commission. guest: it is appalling. difficult to hear that leader mccarthy would do such a thing. i hope the minority leader reconsiders that position, that threat. what is he afraid of? host: our guest will be with us until the house comes in at 9:00. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. i want to play some of the criticism from the republican side. she is talking about some of her

opposition. [video clip] >> january 6 was a terrible day for this institution, for the capitol police and staff serving here in the country. that is why the senate rules committee had a thorough investigation into the events that day and publicly released their findings. that is why there are still investigations going on at federal agencies. that is why the house committee of appropriations, financial services, homeland and oversight are still conducting investigations. the redundancy of another committee is not only unnecessary, but a distraction. a distraction meant to mask monitoring failures at the border, massive spikes in crime in cities across the country, and absolute inept leadership in confronting our foreign adversaries. the speaker's need to dominate this investigation is

concerning. potentially distracting from putting those responsible behind bars. because it is clear that is not the priority. the only priority here is a self-serving agenda to put d.c. politicians first and give them their cable news talking points. host: representative langevin, what you think about those criticisms? guest: i do not agree with the comments. congress conducting investigations is appropriate. i believe having outside experts looking at what happened january 6, as we had outside experts evaluating and conducting the 9/11 commission, well respected individuals who dug into every area, there was no stone left unturned. a bipartisan effort, that is what we hoped to achieve with a

january 6 bipartisan commission. when that failed, republicans opposing that effort, the speaker had no choice so the select committee was created. we hope that will accomplish very much the same thing as the 9/11 style commission investigating january 6. host: our first call come from tim, tennessee, republican line, you are on with representative jim langevin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask the senator on what his opinion is of electric cars. hydrogen fuel cells, the supplemental type. host: let me interrupt you. i think you may have been referring your question to our last guest, who already left us and we have changed to another topic. caller: what is the new topic.

host: the select committee formed yesterday by the house and the vote. caller: i do not think i would be able to comment. sorry. host: call back. guest: i will take the opportunity to tell the caller, i support all of the above. we need to transition to green energy technology. my voting record, transitioning to a green economy. getting us -- warming the planet. it is creating a climate crisis. the sooner we transition to green technologies, whether it is electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cells, solar, wind, all of

the green technologies create good jobs and help preserve the world. host: representative, there is a viewer on twitter asking, is there anything that would have prevented speaker pelosi from creating a committee with the same rose as the so-called bipartisan one that was blocked. if it was good enough before, why not now? guest: i would like this to be as bipartisan as possible. the speaker went as far as she could. the reality is, you mention the comments about minority leader mccarthy, -- seeing this process move forward. the speaker -- to ensure we would not have obstruction of the committee.

whether or not the minority leader will participate or supported. it does not sound like that at all. he will have the opportunity to weigh in. that is his opportunity to make it as bipartisan as possible. host: james in arkansas, independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. two things i want to say. it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what caused the insurrection. what regionally on a set and what trump said -- it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what caused the insurrection. men prefer darkness over light. that is why republicans do not want this done because there

will be a light shined on what actually caused it. that is my comment. host: representative, do you have a response? guest: i think it is important for history's sake to have outside experts look at all the facts and state their conclusions, unequivocally and in a nonpartisan way. i know what many of the factors were that led up to this. we know that president trump, as we witnessed on tv, assembled the mob. pointed at the united states capitol and incited the mob. i want the experts to look at the facts in painstaking detail. and going back and looking at

everything that led up to it. host: one of the features of what was voted on yesterday was the fact there would be no end date specified. is that a good tactic? should there be a definite timeframe when this kind of investigation goes on? guest: i believe it should be done as timely as possible. putting a date on it is not going to accomplish the goal of having the facts come out. i do not know how long the investigation will take what i want them to do their job and i want to be done the right way. i want them to reach their conclusion when the investigation has run its course. anyone the need to interview and hear from to assemble those facts and come to those conclusions, i want that to be

done thoroughly and effectively and not rush it because they have some arbitrary date by when they have to complete their work. host: from chicago, this is kathleen, democrats line. caller: i have a comment and a question. republicans had a chance from the beginning to have a bipartisan commission. mitch mcconnell -- you all need to remind people of this every day, representative -- mitch mcconnell said do me a favor, do not do it. let me say this. any time these same people were in that chamber who saw what went on that day, whose lives were threatened, and they still do not want to investigate? people do not care about their lives. another comment i have is, there were 150, 140 officers that day. six bullets in each gun.

how in the world did they not shoot in the air or do something to deter those people instead of them getting beat up, killed? i do not understand that. 150 police with six bullets and only one bullet was shot. if it had been us, they would have shot up the whole 10,000. host: we will leave it there. guest: the insurrection on january 6 was tragic to be sure. it is hard to second-guess the capitol police officers who were clearly overwhelmed and underprepared for that day. why that happened, that is something the select committee will answer.

so we can prepare the capitol police in the future. the last thing anyone wanted was to see further bloodshed take place on that day. my heart goes out to those police officers who were injured that day. there were somewhere between 140 and 150 capitol police officers who were attacked, some suffering severe injuries. some that led to loss-of-life. officer sicknick, who passed away. a terrible day for all of us, but certainly for the capitol police. none of us want to see bloodshed. the capitol police have a difficult job to do.

protect those in congress, the public, the capitol complex. they also have the role of concierge, answering questions to the public, trying to be good ambassadors for congress and interacting with the general public. they have dual roles they are performing. on that day, the last thing anyone wants to do was start taking out their weapon and firing indiscriminately at the protesters. it was a protest, and at some point a crossed a line from a protest to an insurrection. the capitol police were underprepared for that transition. we have seen protests at the capitol all the time. that is part of democracy.

freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. i have been in congress for 21 years. i have seen all kinds of vociferous groups come to the capitol to express their opinions and protest, especially during health care reform. it was one of the most vociferous protests i have ever seen. but that did not transition to an insurrection. who was involved in the crowd that was instigating that? my heart goes out to all of the capitol police officers who were affected that day. the response was not what we had

hoped. then a very difficult job that day. host: are cast until the top of the hour is representative jim langevin, democrat from rhode island. republican line from virginia, james, hello. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: my question is, what happened on january 6 was a disrespect to the capitol. a speech -- she is a leader. how can you expect the general public to respect the capitol when the leader herself has no respect for the office?

guest: first of all, i believe that all of us respect the office of the presidency. speaker pelosi has on many occasions expressed her frustration with president trump in the four years he was there. there was not a lot of agreement on many things. there are so many missed opportunities for president trump to bring the country together, do some big bipartisan things. i was certainly disappointed that there were not more opportunities. president trump could have been an infrastructure president, but he could not get it done.

he was more about dividing than uniting the country. i share speaker pelosi's frustrations with the former president. i am glad president biden is in the white house. he is a uniter. the bipartisan infrastructure package we negotiated, president biden knows what negotiation is all about. he knows what bringing people together in a bipartisan way is all about. a $1 trillion package, i am hoping that survives and makes it through the senate with a bipartisan vote. and we can pass a similar bill in the house and get infrastructure for our country.

it is important bill. we need to create jobs and grow the economy after the terrible year we had last year because of the pandemic. we need to continue to grow and strengthen our economy. a bipartisan infrastructure bill that has been negotiated in the senate. a once in a generation investment in our infrastructure. host: bronx, new york, democrats line, joseph, hello. caller: good morning. this is, for those of you who believe there is no such thing as white privilege, had that mob been anyone but trump supporters , black lives matter, majority black or people of color, you better believe the capitol would

have been protected. they would have had a different reaction. just like that summer. secondly, i think the republicans are afraid not only of trump -- they are being held hostage by him -- but was it an inside job? were there congresspeople? were there congressmen aiding and abetting? did they have some sort of inside job or give information to some of these people? that is the question. that is probably why they do not want to participate. host: ok, joseph. we will let our guest respond. guest: we do not know the answers to those questions. another case in point why we need a nonpartisan, bipartisan commission to answer those questions.

so that congress is not investigating itself. those questions have been raised, and i want the answers to those questions. whether there was anyone on the inside who is complicit, aiding and abetting the insurrectionists, i do not know the answers to those questions. but i think a nonpartisan commission, a bipartisan commission would answer those questions. host: you have legislation concerning guns can you explain that to her audience? guest: i am glad you asked. gun violence is affecting the country right now. it is a public health crisis. one of the things that has been researched and found is that 5% of gun dealers supply 90% of the weapons used in committing

crimes. that is a shocking statistic. i am introducing legislation keeping gun dealers -- it will ensure the guns do not end up in the wrong hands, by authorizing more frequent inspections of gun dealers, increase penalties for gun dealers. it strengthens the department of justice's ability and discretion at enforcing gun laws. it is an important piece of legislation. we want to make sure that gun dealers are selling to people that are legally allowed to have a weapon, a thorough background

check does take place and gun

dealers follow the rules. we have a small percentage -- 5% -- of gun dealers, those are the ones that have sold 90% of the guns used in crimes. clearly something is wrong. not complaining background checks. the atf's hands are tied in a lot of ways. we could give them the resources to do their job. host: let's hear from james in texas on the independent line. caller: i have three quick points. first, if we are going to do a commission in the fairness for the american people to buy into it, should we not have an equal number of republicans and democrats on the commission so they do not want to seee facts come out. speaker pelosi made the decision to have a select committee. that is the way you want it, we have to make sure the facts come out. well-respected experts in law enforcement. they will be on the commission and do their job, people of integrity. they will do a thorough job. the second part of the question? host: it was about this idea of having structures around the u.s. capitol effort happened but not taking the same kind of approach to the southern border.

guest: i take border security seriously. we need to make sure we are putting resources in the right place. you can use technology to secure our borders. we also have to get to the root causes of why people are coming to america. i cannot imagine a parent being so desperate that they would send their child on a 1000 mile journey to come to the united states alone. i take border security very seriously. i take immigration laws very seriously. we have a number of challenges we have to deal with. i look forward to hopefully working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to achieve immigration reform. i am looking forward to bipartisan legislation. several years ago, the united

states senate passed a bill. we did not get a chance to vote on that legislature. if we got a phone on it, it would have passed. if we had a chance -- if we had a chance to vote on it, it would have passed. host: we have about 30 seconds left. what is the measure of success for this commission? guest: letting the truth come out. a thorough account. the new york times did a recent piece looking at what happened on january 6. video depicting everything that led up to how the insurrection

transitioned from a protest to an insurrection. i want the facts to come out and get conclusions from there. so an accounting. host: representative jim langevin, democrat from rhode island. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you. host: that is it for our program today. the house of representatives is coming in. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. july 1, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable earl blumenauer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain