>> ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> if you think this is just a community center, it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi places so students can have the tools to be ready for everything. >> comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers too you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on " washington journal," we talk with charlie cook about his recent column in the national journal on the new era of social and political volatility. then amy peikoff, chief policy

officer for parler over the debate on free speech and social media. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it's wednesday, july 14, 2021. late yesterday senate democrats reached an early agreement to spend 3.5 trillion dollars to advance an array of health care, education, and childcare proposals sought by president biden. it remains unclear if the party can hold its members together through the complicated budget reconciliation process. this morning we want to get your reaction to that top line number, $3.5 trillion.

and get your predictions for the road ahead in congress. phone lines, democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text message, (202) 748-8003. catch us with us -- catch up with us on social media, twitter @cspanwj, or facebook.com/c-span. here is the lead story, the headline from politico.com, democrats unveiled $3.5 trillion go it alone plan to fulfill the biden agenda. senate democrats announced the top line number late tuesday, which they hope will propel their plan to enact the full array of the joe biden social welfare family aid promises without republican votes. the proposal sets a overall limit of $3.5 trillion with a

spate of policy ambitions that won't make it into a bipartisan deal of congress can reach one. if the still forthcoming budget resolution clears both chambers with lockstep support it will unleash the power to circumvent a gop filibuster using the so-called reconciliation process, the same move democrats used to pass the 1.9 trillion dollar democratic aid package back in march. this is senate majority leader chuck schumer, last night this video was from ryan noble at cnn. [video clip] collects the budget committee has come to an agreement. the budget resolution with instructions will be 3.5 billion dollars, added to the $600 billion by march plan to get the plan that is close to what president biden asked us for.

every major program he has asked us for is funded in one way and in addition we are making some additions to that. most important, something that senator sanders led, a robust expansion of medicare, included -- including fully funding money for dental, vision, and hearing. joe biden is coming to our lunch tomorrow to meet us on getting this wonderful plan that affect american families in a so profound way, more than anything that has happened in generations. we are very proud of this plan. we know we have a long road to

go to get this done and we will do it for the sake of making the lives of african -- average americans better. host: chuck schumer, that was late last night after meeting with senate democrats. here's republican reaction to the announcement and the top line number, yesterday. mike lee, -- this from rick scott, the republican from florida, earlier in the day yesterday, as the negotiations were taking place among democrats, he says -- host: in this statement released last night late from jason

smith, the ranking member on the house ajit committee, who would be very involved in this reconciliation process. republican from missouri saying -- host: that story noting that

u.s. consumer prices spiked in june, hitting the highest inflation rates in 13 years, emerging as a threat to the big spending infrastructure proposal ahead of the midterm elections, noting that the labor department noted yesterday that consumer prices rose from may to june over the last year, the highest jump in 12 months since august of 2008 with core inflation rising over the last year. the number was once again well above economists expectations and republicans have come to calling it the joe biden hidden tax on americans. that from the front page story in today's washington times. getting your reaction to all of this today again, we don't have the details of that proposal, just the top line number that was released by democrats late last night. they talked about some of the proposals that will be in it and we will go through that as we go

through the first hour of "the washington journal," but mostly we want to hear from you and get your reaction this morning. phone lines, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we start on the line for independents. steve, good morning. caller: good morning. i hope the democrats will listen to larry summers. he says inflation will be tearing off as we pass $3.5 trillion. it's just way too much money. $1400 checks have already been spent due to gas and food inflation. at least for me, and i'm on a fixed income. but i can see the families, it's

hitting the poor people more then what it really is doing. host: 3.5 trillion dollars, far too much, what are your thoughts about the bipartisan infrastructure deal, the legislation that could be moved perhaps at the same time as this reconciliation package. do you think that infrastructure spending negotiated among the group of republican and democratic senators, are you ok with that level of spending? caller: only if they deregulate and make sure they can build the roads and bridges that they plan on building. regulations matter as a part of spending.

what good is $700 billion if they have all the regulations? host: this is bruce out of cleveland. good morning, your reaction to this news out of the senate? caller: good morning. what i would like to know is, the democrats need to do a reconciliation on everything right now, because the republican nazis are not doing anything but fighting joe biden on everything he's doing. the health care plan, everything. the roads, the structures, all that. we have to have this stuff done. our roads and bridges are falling down. what's going to happen? i can't understand these republican nazis. they have no plan, they have no plan at all. host: before you call everybody

nazis, there are republicans working with democrats on an infrastructure deal. why not move to reconciliation on that? there's a bipartisan bill that is far along in that process. caller: well excuse me, but i'm watching my internet feed. mitch mcconnell already said he would try to stop everything just because of joe biden. host: that's bruce in ohio. this is steve out of fort pierce , good morning, independent. caller: we need to study history of it. nations destroy themselves from inside out, whether they are elected officials were not. there are some really important questions we need to answer. the first one is, what national

debt do we have to have where the company implodes on itself? second, at what point are we going to monetize our debt? once we do that, the nation will fall from the inside out. if you look at these countries where the politicians promised, and if you take a chance and look at the 1936 ussr constitution and what they promised to the people at the time, and communism only lasted 60 years, we are running down the same path. our political leaders promised for themselves, the political leaders become rich and inflation starts to, what's the best word, destroy the people it says it's going to help.

host: how much national debt is too much? at this point we are at over $28 trillion and counting, coming out to, if you divide it out among every taxpayer in the country, $226,000 per taxpayer. that from u.s.debtclock.org. are we already passed too much? caller: maybe we are, the interest on that loan is a huge part of the national budget every year and once we get to a point where we don't have any money to pay, we couldn't really pay off the debt. people, you know, talk about all these new things and the trouble being politicians can promise the world. but we have to pay for it.

politicians are getting rich. everyone that goes in, they get rich. these leaders of different groups, the black lives matter, all these different ones, they get rich. host: as you heard from chuck schumer and the announcement from yesterday, this package would include some expansion of medicare, he noted that it was a key provision that bernie sanders helped to negotiate into that budget top line number. these are the largest budget items in the u.s. debt from the u.s. debt clock website. medicare and medicaid accounting for $1.3 trillion per year. defense and war spending in the area of $729 billion per year. you who were concerned about the interest that we pay on the debt, at this point it's about $401 billion per year.

they break it down in a lot of different ways if you want to look at that website. getting your reaction to that announcement from yesterday for this array of education, health care, climate change proposals. democratic leaders in the senate ajit committee announcing the number last night, we are getting your thoughts as it is still very far away from being enacted and they would have to move through the budget really -- budget reconciliation process but yesterday there was a start to that process. sandra, columbus, ohio, democratic line, good morning. caller: i would like to say that we do need this budget. for 40 years nothing is done and i hear a lot of people now that are complaining about the costs of everything.

to pay all this interest and so forth. but i click on the tv sunday and the man is going to the moon and these billionaires, 45 years ago, maybe we had a few millionaires in that we had billionaires and they don't pay their fair taxes to help on getting some of this page. i look at it like this, we can go ahead and afford to let them get richer and richer and no one on the others in the last administration said one bit about getting any rates off on the house, interest, nothing, but they go scott free and get richer and they don't seem to mind but when it comes time to an administration trying to do something to the american people , than they are in an uproar. it's too much spending, too much of this. i say let's start by doing that,

like everything else, they don't want the people here from mexico, but they won't do the people making the money on the cartels in the united states. it's just totally greed and power. host: phone lines this morning as usual, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. chuck schumer in that clip from late last night mentioning the president on capitol hill today. this is their rollcall from that announcement last night, president biden coming to help pitch these talker test targets to the broader democratic caucus. the story noting that, the rollcall story noting that in a key selling point for fellow

centrists, mark warner told reporters that the plan would be fully paid for travel [video clip] >> this is the hard work they have done. in our view it's a pivotal moment in american history and for a very long time the american people have seen the very rich getting richer and government developing policies that allow them to in some cases

pay not a nickel, with corporations who in some cases are not paying a nickel in taxes and what this legislation does among many other things, wealthy and large corporations will start paying their fair share of taxes in this country. washington, michigan, wherever they go, they are scared about whether they can afford to send their kids to college. they go to work over a crumbling bridge. this legislation says we can create millions of good paying union jobs in this country, building it from not only a physical infrastructure but from the human need that has long been neglected.

anybody watching what's going on in california or the west coast today, they know that if we don't get our act together transforming the energy system away from fossil fuels, the planet we are leaving our children and grandchildren will be increasingly unhealthy. we will have to look our grandchildren in the eye 30 years from now, saying what did you do, did you know. just beginning with having this great country lead the world in transforming energy. this is a big deal. host: senator bernie sanders last night calling this agreement, again among top senators on the budget committee, calling it a big deal. we will be watching to see if senate democrats can keep their caucus together as they attempt

to move this $3.5 trillion package through the budget reconciliation process. one of the key members to watch will be senator joe manchin. this from "the washington times" write up about the movement of these packages, joe manchin being a key to any deal, last month he said that his feelings around reconciliation were between $1.5 trillion in $2 trillion providing that the tax hike to pay for it is limited to repealing trump era tax cuts.

host: that from "the washington times," focusing on joe manchin as we have so much as it moves through the senate and democrats try to move things with just democratic support to avoid a republican filibuster in the senate. getting your reaction to all of it, james, republican line, out of georgia, good morning. caller: i'm a little bit concerned about how we talk about taxes. joe manchin wanted a bill to illuminate the trump tax cut, but the trump tax cut helps the working people and when they talk about taxes, they talk about taxing the corporations when they ought to be taxing the ceos.

every time you tax the corporations, that's why everything goes up. everything don't go up. you tax the corporations and the tax is going to be added on and you are going to pay for it somewhere else and the people that's going to pay for it is the hard-working folk going to work every day. host: you are ok with increased taxes on high earners but not the corporations? caller: exactly. the corporate taxes hurt us. the same thing that joe manchin and bernie sanders claim they are helping. want to help us? leave the corporations alone so they stop going up on all the prices and give it to the ceos that's making all the money. host: got your point. this from "the wall street journal" write up, when it comes

to increasing individual and corporate taxes, joe biden has proposed raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%, tightening the net on u.s. companies, earnings, raising the top capital gains rate to 43.4% from 23 .8%. she -- 23.8%. as the phone call noted in their story, democrats say that the proposal would be paid for by tax increases on anyone making -- would not be paid for by tax increases on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. tom is next out of winterhaven, florida. caller: you know what?

i'm not here to condemn or be a proponent of, but there seems to be this obsession with income tax. the donald, for example, i don't like the man, ok, but the properties he buys, he pays property tax on. the cars, the boats and everything, he pays sales tax. he pays capital gains tax. there is more than just income tax. i understand why some people get frustrated, but i mean the man pays more in taxes than all of us combined will ever even earn. it's just an income tax. do you understand what i'm saying with this? host: so, what are your thoughts on the three point $5 trillion in spending on

a variety of social, health care, and green energy programs? caller: i think that, you know, if it is something that betters, then yeah. we are in debt, but we are a debtor nation. we had a balanced budget act when it was regular clinton, i can't remember, it's been so long. we need to make an investment. but as far as the tax thing goes , host: host: -- we got your point -- goes -- host: we got your point. there's a meeting -- there was a meeting among democratic senators last night. this from russ, "spend, spend,

spend." "the more that we destroy your financial stability, the federal government should [indiscernible] host: matt, bladensburg, you are next. caller: how are you doing? host: i'm doing all right. caller: i'd like to point out to people that when the little bitch boy bankrupt the country, republicans insisted that the deficit didn't matter and it went up. the other thing i think is that i think it's about time we started spending money on the people. we send all this money overseas. tell the republicans that mexico will pay for the whole thing and they will buy it. thank you. host: henrietta out of fort

pierce, republican line, good morning. caller: i find it hilarious that bernie sanders is talking about union jobs when the first five minutes of the biden administration, what did they do? they [no audio] host: did not hang up on you if you're going to use that language, you can't join us on the program. victor, good morning. go ahead. caller: hey, just want to say that i'm a 14 year vet. the thing is, these people have not taken care of the united states. they have sent money overseas. the thing is, yes.

host: you've just got to turn down the television and keep talking. i hear you. caller: ok. it's off. host: alright, finish your comment. caller: the democrats are the best people in the world and the thing is that the lady that call that was democrat that said the budget is fine where it's at? we've got too many presidents that have done nothing for the people. that's my comment. host: steven reed know, nevada, good morning. caller: hi, how are you? i wanted to express concern around spending but also something else, there is an intent to it -- intent to

intimidate and frustrate people who think differently than democrats do. it's tied up in spending, rhetoric, frankly into some bigotry i have seen from them. people who question elections are not insurrectionists. people who want reform, frankly, are not insurrectionists. getting back to spending, i would suspect it's all wrapped in, there are many things in there that the american people don't even know about and someday we will get that transparency. we will get back to genuinely sharing of ideas with each other . a lot more civil rhetoric that doesn't include calling 75 million people stupid. host: it is 7:30 on the east

coast this morning. this is the topic for the first hour, three point $5 trillion budget reconciliation proposal released by democrats last night. we don't have all the details, but we know there were major biden proposals on what they call human infrastructure, like families and climate, helping with education. also including what they call a robust expansion of medicare, again waiting for more details on what exactly will be in it but the top line number was released by democratic leaders last night and that is what we are getting your reaction to this morning. democrats, call to join the conversation at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. president biden expected to be on capitol hill today to meet with democrats to ensure the senators are on board to approve

the legislation through the process on capitol hill today. yesterday he was at the national constitution center in philadelphia and the topic of his speech there was voting rights in the country and one of the headlines from "the new york times," biden portrays the right to vote as under siege in america. [video clip] >> we have to be clear i'd about the ups -- clear eyed about the obstruction we face. legislation is not the only measure of an obligation to defend democracy. for example, attorney general merrick harland announced the u.s. department of justice would be using its authority to challenge the onslaught of state laws undermining voting rights in old and new ways. the focus will be on dismantling racially discriminatory laws,

like the recent challenge to the georgia vicious anti-voting law and the department of justice will do so with the voting rights division by doubling the size of its enforcement staff and civil rights groups, civil rights groups and other organizations have announced plans to stay vigilant and challenge these odious laws and the courts. in texas for example the republican legislature once to have partisan poll watchers to intimidate. they want voters to beef in fear to the point of wondering who is watching and intimidating them, wait longer to vote. drive a hell of a lot longer. they want to make it so inconvenient that they hope people don't vote at all.

that's what this is about. this year alone, 17 states have enacted, not just proposed, but enacted, 28 new laws to make it harder for americans to vote. not to mention, get this, nearly 400 additional bills that republican members in the state legislatures are trying to pass. 20 jim crow israel. it's unrelenting. we are going to challenge it vigorously. host: that was president biden yesterday in philadelphia, you heard him speak about the texas voting bill, a bill that caused democratic legislators in the state to flee to washington, d.c. to the statehouse from having a quorum to move the

legislation. yesterday in an interview with kay vue that greg abbott had a different take on what the bill would do them president biden. this is governor abbott. [video clip] >> there were a couple of issues that not just democrats but republicans wanted to achieve, that souls to the poles would still be allowed on sundays and not have the provision to overturn elections. that said, it is also important to point out that this law adds more hours, not fewer, for people to vote. we still have the same 12 days of early voting but more during early voting and get this, far more hours of early voting then in the state where president biden votes in delaware, where they have exactly zero hours of early voting. anyone who suggests that it deprives anyone of the right to vote is flat out wrong, it

provides more hours than ever before allowed. >> so, why is a need for these bills? was there fraud involving 24 hour mailing locations? have there been widespread issues? >> you need to understand, there is actually a federal district judge that was appointed by barack obama who wrote what i'm about to tell you in a legal opinion involving voting in texas where she wrote that voter fraud occurs in abundance with regard to ballot harvesting and mailing ballots. that's an obama appointed federal judge saying that and that is exactly why the one issue the legislature is focused on around making the voter election system more sound involves mail-in ballots. i will add that members of the texas house of representatives on the capital floor have said that the mail-in ballot situation is one with

possibilities abroad and shoring it up as a way to ensure election integrity and this is something that does have bipartisan support. host: that was texas governor greg abbott earlier this week and here's the news out of texas regarding those state legislators, the democrats who left the state, arrest warrants approved for democrats who left the state to try to bring them back to have a quorum in the statehouse to discuss and vote on this legislation and we will be talking more about voting rights in a little bit later in the program, in about an hour or so, have that discussion on your thoughts on what's happening in texas in the issue of voting rights in general. for the first hour this is the story we have been discussing, democrats with a $3.5 trillion plan proposed package for health care and poverty relief coming

near the original biden target amount. the 3.5 trillion dollars, adding in the $600 billion, the bipartisan infrastructure bill is looking to achieve, it would come to over $4 trillion in spending on these various programs and that is what the senate is going to be talking about, democrats in the house and senate trying to move that over the next couple of weeks. we are getting your reaction to all of it and the path ahead this morning. as usual, democrats, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001,. independent -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. this from audrey, there is never a penny for the people, and act universal basic income, beat the rich.

this from michael in pennsylvania, congress needs to keep spending to infrastructure only and eliminate everything else. jim in ohio, there's too much money, you can't fix everything all at once. temper the request to fix one thing at a time. this is quite the sticker shock. bruce out of old saybrook, democratic line, what do you think? caller: yes. host: what do you think, bruce? caller: what i think, what i think we ought to do, and i would do it, i would call, they should call on donald trump and get him back in. they are so pathetic it's unbelievable. this poor country. i remember calling texas because i wanted one of those nexgen are eight or when trump was president and i called down and they said we are so busy, trump has made us so busy, we need more people down here to work.

host: bruce, you are calling in on the line for democrats. are you a democrat who voted for donald trump? caller: i would give the keys to the white house and i'm glad they did, that building there with all them people, they are right. host: what makes you a democrat, bruce? caller: well, i'm democrat, i'm republican, i just want it done the right way. host: alley, massachusetts, independent out of wister, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i feel like this is the only interactive mode of communication and i wanted to talk about how i feel, there were extremes on both sides of the aisle.

you know, having c-span, having objective sources of news, it's the only way to moderate the extremes of the republicans and the democrats. both sides touch upon important issues. it can't be shipped from one to the other. host: make sure your television is turned down and what are your thoughts? caller: like i said, it's important. i just wish there were more, you know, cross communication and compromise. it's an important issue. infrastructure is an issue i

repeat, we really have to have some kind of moderation to the extreme polarization of the parties. the moderate way. the middle way, that's what i learned. host: do you think that there are many moderates left? what about the influence of moderates in congress? caller: i think, i think it's going to grow. there are a lot of songs that people are tired of hearing, these extremes from both side and i really believe in the opportunities that america provides to always change and introduce objectivity. host: how do you feel about joe manchin? caller: i don't know him too much, sorry. host: he's one of the key

moderates to watch in this process as democrats move through the reconciliation process. he's been a key member of all of these spending debates that have been happening during the biden administration. next, tennessee, democratic line. >> good morning. i think that these corporations could afford to pay more taxes. according to the colonial pipeline, they paid off the hackers that hacked their software, their computers and stopped the pup and they paid them off a few million to get that gas flowing back to people.

and now they have raised the prices of the gasoline. they should have had more security on their pipeline there when it comes to our places where we had to pay for the gas and everything. you know? they should pay more taxes. they should have their security better. why should we have to pay more for gasoline because of their stupidity? host: surely, bloomington, indiana, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. here's how i think about the budget, as a homeowner. if you live in a home for decades and you don't to

anything for the maintenance and upkeep of the home until it's falling down around you, your bill is going to be higher. if you have a wealthy aunt and uncle living with you who have never contributed to the up heap and maintenance of your house, well maybe it's time they start to help with that maintenance. so, that is how i look at the whole budget thing. we haven't done anything for decades and decades and this is our house, the roof needs fixed and there are leaks in the basement. yeah, the bill is going to be higher. host: who is the wealthy aunt and uncle in this situation? caller: the billionaires, the people who pay no taxes at all or help to contribute. host: where are the biggest fixes that we need? what leaks would you like to see this include? caller: all of the human resources that the democrats are trying to get through. not to mention the roads, the

airports. i think infrastructure includes everything. when you are living in a house with people, infrastructure is the health of the people living there, the happiness of the people living there, making sure they have everything they need to. it hasn't been done for decades so along with the roof, the costs will be higher. maybe once we get these things taken care of in future years, these budgets won't have to be this way forever, but this is something where we are kind of in a catch-up mode. host: so, you think that one of the leaks right now is the climate change issue? major spending on charging stations for electronic vehicles is an immediate leak that needs to be repaired? caller: i absolutely think that. it's like living in a house with no roof. if we don't take care of that, everything will be spoiled. host: thank you for the call

this morning. bruce, wisconsin, three $.5 trillion reconciliation bill includes action on climate change, saying it's our most pressing national security problem. sealevel rise in coastal cities could destabilize the economy with heat wave in heavy rain falls comparing agricultural productivity to stabilize and reduce carbon emissions. that is from bruce in wisconsin. 15 minutes left in this segment of "the washington journal," getting your reaction to this budget plan that senate democrats are discussing. talking about the key influence that moderates in the senate democratic caucus will have in the weeks and months moving forward, a focus from the politico right up in their playbook this morning about another aspect of the democratic caucus on capitol hill, aggressive, particularly the squad and the role they may have

in the weeks to come on the legislation, this politico write up notes that just because sanders is on board, it doesn't mean that house progressives are going to follow. we should get a better read when they hold their afternoon call with reporters today. we know for certain that this falls short of what they wanted, not to mention what biden one -- promised on the campaign trail. schumer boasted last night that the plan would include robust expansion of medicare, including coverage of dental and vision, that's hardly the public option biden had promised. still, progressives coming including some members of the squad, insisted they are no freedom caucus. they ask if the squad will follow a higher number or swallow like sanders did. they noted that connors on tuesday night said it might be a good sign for democratic leadership and that they needed

to see the details and the climate provisions that were in their. debbie is next out of williamsport, pennsylvania. republican, good morning. caller: my concern about the budget, i know that both parties like to spend and spend. we have spent trillions giving money to other countries. why when the infrastructure is falling apart? if there is any left over, held out the rest of the world. it's up to them to start picking up the slack for the rest the world.

host: this comment, no one cares about balancing the budget, what happened to the line item veto. caller: the problem i'm running into is how is this going to be paid for? there will probably be a fair amount to take from the millionaires. but the millionaires know how to avoid taxes. if it comes where we are just putting money in without saying where we will get the money to, the inflation rate, which now is starting to get pretty high, that will get to the point where we won't have any way to pay it. we can put it in the bill to get

money, but how are we going to get it out? people are pretty good at hiding it and getting it away from us. host: the labor department reported yesterday that consumer prices rose .9% from may to june , the highest in twelve-month inflation since august of 2008. caller: that's what i'm saying. if we don't have a way to get the money out from where the money is coming in, we will just, i don't know if we will hit the prewar germany inflation rates, but we will hit something like it. host: bob in illinois saying that inflation is approaching carter era levels and the democrats changing definitions of random words, this won't entice enough seniors for us to throw the children under the bus.

steve, tennessee, you are next. caller: i have a comment from the last segment you had to the black guy, democrats are so great? host: i'm not sure that any callers today have identify themselves by race. you are saying it was a black caller? how would you know? caller: i can tell by the voice. host: all right, we will go to david. silver spring. caller: i'm disappointed by the lack of pushback from democrats. this is obviously a lot of money. inflation is obviously a problem for everyday families struggling. i'm just disappointed. it's like people don't understand basic -- basic

economics. you are putting a lot of money into the economy. you call it a tax break for americans, that's just backwards. it's not going to matter if you are food costs go up 30%, 40%, 50%. it just doesn't make any sense. host: what are your thoughts on the child care tax credit? we will start to see checks going out to americans with younger children, the federal government will be distributing more than $100 billion in financial assistance to parents at the end of this week, part of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package passed in march. caller: i'm going to be getting some of those checks. look, it feels good to get money, but will this fix the underlying problems in the economy, with our politics, when you do it in a unilateral manner like this? i don't think so.

host: how are you and your family going to use that money, if you don't mind me asking? caller: it will probably go to the bills, save some of it. i'm not in dire need, to be honest. my wife takes care of the child full-time. it's whatever. host: amelia, you are next. caller: i think a lot of people don't understand this. it has nothing to do with the infrastructure bill. it's two separate things. it just pains me to hear how americans don't have critical thinking skills. all they say is my grandchildren and children is going to have this.

but republicans have been using those talking points for 20, 40 years. when it comes to the rich people , they don't have a problem with how much they spend. trump's last year budget proposal was to cut $1.6 trillion out of programs that help the poor and the working class. when is america going to wake up and realize the republicans don't care about us, the working class. use your critical thinking skills. host: here's where we are now in the national debt. we showed this a little bit earlier, the u.s. debt clock. $28 trillion and counting. debt per citizen in the united states for every person, about

$85,000. i guess the question is, what is too much? how much debt is too much? caller: i understand what you're saying, but with the biden proposal, he's trying to do things so he can put the american people back to work. that way you will have more people paying taxes. so it will contribute. but if we not doing anything at this point, not doing nothing, all the republicans who come on this show, you can pretty much know what they want to say. they talk about the border, they talk about the mexican cartel. you will never hear them saying a proposal to help the american people. so, if we don't work, don't do anything, biden is trying to propose jobs.

the more jobs, the more taxpayers. so we can get things leveled off. but if we not doing anything, the same people that are for trump, they cut. host: got your point. that's amelia this morning. john, republican line, you are. caller: i would like to say that this voting thing, we could make it simple. barack obama and bill clinton were voted in. they used the old system. just go back to that, before the pandemic and everything will be fine. host: you may want to tune in, in about an hour we are turning to the topic of voting in this country and the question we will be asking callers in the segment, just a preview what we will be talking about, is which is more important, expanding access to voting or protecting

voting integrity. how would you answer that question? caller: its integrity, that's the most important thing the american people do as an individual, your integrity. it's not just giving the vote out to everybody. in california, illegals can vote the drivers license. that's not integrity. that's fraud. host: stick around for that discussion at around 8:45 eastern is when we turn to that topic. a few more calls in this segment on the budget plan released by senate democrats yesterday. joe, buffalo, new york. caller: hey, john. host: go ahead, joe. caller: i think they should spend more money on the budget. we are, we are hurting. the reaganomics hasn't done anything to the roads and

bridges for 40 years. i mean what the heck, buddy. john, i don't understand how you get so many republicans, how do you run the calls? independents? they listen to fox news, too? host: we have phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independent's and we asked the people to call in rotate through the lines and create a forum for people who want to have a civil conversation, they can call in everything will day. it's one of the few places where people can talk back to washington as opposed to hearing washington talk to them. caller: you don't have any callers calling with anything to say? they listen to you go on and on. host: at 21 calls today,

probably we will get to 60 over the course of three hours, but that will do it for this first segment. stick around, up next we talked to the editor of the cook political report, charlie cook joins us to talk about how voting rights in the budget battles might play out in the midterm elections and beyond and later we will be joined by a top executive at parler about another kind of battle, this one about free speech and big tech. that conversation coming up in the 9 a.m. eastern hour stick around, we will be right back. ♪ >> coming up today on c-span, jerome powell testifies before the house financial citizen -- house financial committee. and on c-span two, executive nominations for the equal employment opportunity commission and the labor department solicitor.

on c-span3, the senate foreign relations committee holds a budget hearing at 10:30 with samantha power, head of for intl development. that is followed by a senate judiciary subcommittee on voting rights at 2:30 p.m. eastern. announcer: saturday on the communicators -- >> the reason ransomware has become such a problem, it has become such a huge threat, not only a cyber criminal threat, it also as you mentioned, because of the implications for critical infrastructure like pipeline companies or the largest meatpacking supplier in the country. they have increasingly become something that cyber criminals are targeting. ransomware has -- as a concept is simple. unfortunately, defending against it has become increasingly complex. announcer: he oversaw the national security and cyber

crime investigations during the trump administration. he discusses recent ransomware attacks and other cyber threats, saturday on the communicators at 6:30 p.m. eastern, on c-span. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: it is always a good day when we are joined by charlie cook, publisher of the cook political report. good morning to you. i want to start with the topic we began our program with today, the news last night that senate democrats announced the $3.5 trillion budget plan. the details are still to come. and the road ahead to move it through, budget reconciliation. what would the battle mean for election 202022 coming up -- 2022 and the politics coming forward. just a thank you for having me on. you have this in politics, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. you have to on the one hand keep

your base satisfied so that they will -- on the other hand, you have to reach over to the middle , to 10% or less of people that are true independents, are not terribly political. it is almost like a balancing act, not too hot, not too cold. when they do enough to ignite their base, they know they are not helping themselves with independents. if they are with the swing voters, you knows they are not helping themselves with their base. so it is a delicate balancing act going on, and i think one of the challenges we have these days -- and it is true both ways -- we are in a period where the parties look at everything as a zero-sum game. winner take all.

no matter how small your election victory, you have a big mandate. the republicans in 2017 2018, democrats right now -- even a tiny mandate, or a tiny margin, they see as a major mandate to do big things. but i think democrats are having a hard time balancing. president biden, keeping both wings of the party happy -- that is a real challenge. and it will be a challenge in the next election. host: let's go to a different issue -- voting rights. president biden goes to the national constitution center in philadelphia, a big speech on voting rights. democratic members of the texas state legislature in d.c. to push that issue, to not be in texas to avoid a quorum on the texas law. but f1, the for the people act, all but dead in the senate?

it doesn't have the support to move on its own. do you see that balancing act there? guest: i wish chris would stop doing these kitchen sink bills where they put everything but the kitchen sink in so their individual assets -- aspect of individual legislation that people will hate, and rather take each one one at a time, up or down come each provision. and have a better chance of getting things like that through. i'm going to alienate both democrats and conservatives right here because i think the size have gotten a little bit over there -- on both sides of the issue, fraught on one side, suppression on the other, that at the one hand there is very, very little voter fraud in this country. just look at the convictions under president trump and his justice department for four years. eight years under george w. bush. at the same time, very, very few

people are encountering any obstacles to voting. i was looking at a survey taken right after this election where the voter study group -- they gave people a list of eight possible problems that they could encounter voting. among whites, it was missing the registration day, unable to get to a polling place, arriving too late. were told they did not have the right identification, was told the registration was not on the list. among whites it was 1% to 2% for each of these problems. for african-americans, it was 3%, 4%, or 5%. for hispanics, it was six, or 7% with the leg which barrier counting along the way. i'm not saying there are not some elected officials that seem to be more republican that seem

to be trying to make it more challenging for satin segments that for certain segments of the electorate to vote, and that those segments happen to be more democratic. no question about it. but when you look at the voter fraud number during the four years under president trump, there were only 184 conventions during the entire four years. and things about the election -- you had 90 different federal and state judges, where nine of them were appointed by president trump. basically none of them found anything here. think about the eight years under president bush. george w. bush. they did a major voter -- what they call the voter integrity ballot act, the voter integrity initiative. they only charged 119 people, 86 convictions, over five years.

we have seen the heritage foundation do a study where they found that there only 56 -- 563 convictions in the last 10 years voter fraud. or any kind of fraud of any kind, election fraud or voter fraud. in the last 40 years, a study found 1300 22 proving cases over 40 years. how many billions of votes were cast during that time? i think just to point out, we are at a point in politics where nobody ever loses anything. either i win, or i have been cheated. one way or the other. we see that in both parties on both ends of the ideological spectrum. in part this is political segregation. sony people live, work come and socialize with people like themselves, so everybody they know votes, and their

readership, listenership, viewership, day get to the point where they don't hear anything other than what they want to believe. it is a challenging time, no question about it. but, you know, i think it is deplorable to keep anyone who is a legitimate voter from voting, but the caller today who said if it legal image strengths -- if illegal immigrants have a drivers license they can vote. show that to me. don't just tell it to me because you heard it on a talk show or read it someplace. show me something concrete. there is not a state in the union who allows illegal immigrants to vote. it just doesn't happen. host: i do love it when the callers say that -- charlie cook, the cook political report, his 176 appearance today, dating

back to 1985, back when we were still calling you charles. it was november 1, 1985. if you want to join charlie cook this money, democrats can call in at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001, independents, 202-748-8002. you were talking about razor thin majorities who govern as if they are not in razor thin majority. when did that start? you went back to republicans under the trump administration. but when did they act in the old days, as it were? guest: that's a great question, john. i think our entire political system basically started changing about 30 years ago. around 1991, 1992 -- this was sort of the ultimate reach. the thing is, in the old days,

you saw a fairly substantial percentage of people in one party which say they approve of the other party. eisenhower and kennedy, each of them had 60% job approval ratings among people in the opposite party. and starting in the early 1990's, we started seeing things get more and more partisan. the opposition to bill clinton when he was elected in 1992, over the next eight years, you had a positive view of republicans toward his administration. it reached proportions we had never seen before. during the next debate with george w. bush, you saw the exactly same thing happened the other way around, where the level of animosity among republicans. it keeps building and building from that point on. so that now you have got the

vast majority of voters that are just voting straight ticket voting, all republican, all democrat. now we are in a parliamentary system for the most part. i think it is remarkable that in 2016 every single u.s. senate race was won by a candidate of the same party that carried that race. every single one. then in november, it was all but one. 34 out of 35, with one exception. 96% of all members of the house represent districts that their party carries. so we are going one way or the other. if it is a between party vote, then one vote or the other side is taken as a mandate. but i think it is the culmination of escalating waves of partisanship that sort of hits the system, and it used to

be that we had, going into 1982, republicans had won four of the five most recent presidential elections, and i think it was seven out of the 11 at the end of world war ii. at the same time, democrats going into 1994, democrats had won the house 20 times in a row, and the senate, 42nd -- 30 consecutive years. in 1994, you saw partisanship kicking in. the political behavior today bears no resemblance to what it did before 1991, 1992. host: joe is up first out of maine. you're on with charlie cook, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. good morning, charlie. it's my understanding, you keep

talking about past elections. in the 2020 election, there was one person charged with fraud. he was a republican from pennsylvania who had repeatedly voted for his passed away mother. that went through the court. he was charged and convicted. there was no hugo chavez that interrupted in the elections in 2020. there was no martian vote. there was no fraudulent vote. there was one case. could you comment on that? my other question or comment, quick is, the republican senators all took an oath during the impeachment to be a fair and impartial juror. i know that's not exactly what you're talking about. but then let's say they'll use that for toilet paper.

host: you bring up a couple of different issues. guest: i tend to forget what happened before. whether it is just one case, i was reading the other day about a case in texas where a guy had served some time in prison and was on parole. under texas law, while you are in jail and while you are still on parole, you are not allowed to vote, and afterwards you are allowed to vote. this guy was apparently at his local polling place, the last person in line to vote, was quoted on tv or something for having waited six hours to vote. he votes, and then it comes out somebody investigates and finds out that he shouldn't have because his parole wasn't over. when prosecutors have looked at a lot of these cases, and a lot of it is just that someone thought they were registered to vote or thought they did and

didn't. you know, the vast majority of these people were born and raised in the united states. there is no reason to challenge them, but people do. personally, i would go for a universal voter registration for anybody who is a citizen. when you get your drivers license or id card or welfare or whatever, you show it, and after that nobody can challenge you. you have to vote in the right place, but there is a lot. on the democrats' side, there is a feeling that people were having to walk over broken glass to vote, or that certain people are. on the other side, that people are stealing votes left and right, when there are very few cases. it is like the sworn affidavit. it is all garbage. host: go ahead and finish her comment. guest: i forgot where i was

going there. eight years under george w. bush with no republican justice department, four years under trump. if there was significant voter fraud in this country, i suspect that 12 years we would have seen more than the few cases we saw. host: we will head over to the chesapeake bay out of annapolis. scott, republican line. caller: i would like to challenge the idea that illegals are not voting in the election. i have a personal experience where i was renewing my driver's license at the dmv, and i was chatting with the lady behind the counter about it, and she goes, "oh, we give it illegals drivers license because they all have to prove residency. the next question on the screen says, do you want to register to vote? she says i know for a fact there

are illegals, many hundreds of thousands in americans that have come in, they get residency status, they get a drivers license, and then they also at the same time our signed up to register to vote." guest: have you personally witnessed a noncitizen vote? have you witnessed this, or is it secondhand? caller: i did not watch the vote, i watched a person sign up to vote at the dmv. guest: and you knew for sure that they were not a citizen? host: i think we lost the caller. guest: it is all hearsay. i heard this, i read this, somebody told me this or that. when judges, when prosecutors go to really look at the details, they find out that that doesn't wash. you had nine different trump appointed federal judges look at these things.

either hearing motions or cases. and we did not see anything. over half of the federal judges are republican appointed. why the heck happened they found more? host: gulfport, mississippi, is next. democrat, good morning. austin, are you with us? we will go to samantha in washington, d.c. go ahead, samantha. caller: good morning. two points. i am a navy custodian, six generations. i'm african-american, and at 1.i was a republican, and when the clan took over the party, i became a democrat and proud to be. i -- my concern is the lies that are being perpetrated by the likes of the current governor.

the lieutenant governor in texas, the governor doesn't run the state. the lieutenant governor runs the state. this guy is quite questionable, this dan patrick, who was -- who is out of the state american -- state of maryland, who has a shaming background and is coming to texas and had a talk show alex jones. is very racist and race -- it is very racist and anything beyond what democrats would give people their rights. he would tax the attorney general, who has been under federal indictment since 2017, i believe, maybe earlier than that, on criminal fraud charges and so forth. and of course trump's justice department did not want to press the issue. these are people who are the

worst kind of criminals you can possibly have. host: mr. cook? guest: my dog is in a nearby room and is not happy. host: we understand that. we get television. guest: when i am not talking, i will be muted. under the texas constitution scum of the lieutenant governor really does have more power, constitutionally, than the governor does. with the legislature and all this. so that is absolutely true. and the only exception to that is if you have a governor who is very assertive, and like george w. bush, a democratic speaker, sometimes a governor can become -- constitutionally, technically

speaking, that is absolute true. and the attorney general under indictment -- i don't know the d's case -- the details of the case. i'm not saying texas is getting more democratic, but it is getting less republican, and is sort of moving toward the middle. it has not moved as much as some people thought it might by november. as other people from other parts of the country move in, it becomes lex -- less texas, less southern. that's what you're seeing with north carolina and other places, the influx of other people from other parts of the country. and its suburbs are growing, and the small town rural areas, which are the most conservative republican right now, those areas are contracting. that's why you are seeing real changes in voter behavior in some of these states.

and conversely, in some of the midwest industrial states, democrats are having to peddle harder and harder because they are having more challenges with working-class white voters. there is a push-pull going on in different parts of the country. i know i didn't get into specifics, but i'm trying to stay away from subjective stuff. host: what is an example of one of the democratic states where they are pedaling harder? guest: look at pennsylvania and had -- what is happening in those states. they were competitive, better off than where they are now. we are seeing college-educated whites, specific college education white women moving away from republican centaur democrats for the last 20 years. at the same time, working-class whites, particularly working-class white men, that

are migrating to the other side. we are seeing that in state after state after state. we are going to a realignment. this country is not just an one direction realignment. host: fort collins, colorado. charles, an independent. good morning. caller: my contention about voting is gerrymandering. because what i see in gerrymandering, where a politician can make districts that severely favor them, then we get to a point where, ok, i'm a guy, a republican in a 90% district. and i want to vote against donald trump because i don't believe he is doing something great. then everyone that districts yell rhino, and your career is

over. to the extent that it was balanced, i think we would see more people coming across the aisle and be more pragmatic because their jobs are not on the line. and we we come to a better america where the republicans or democrats on either side to speak out, and that's why i'm so adamant about hr and sr one. i want to see that done. i want to see citizens -- thank you, charlie. guest: you made one of my points for me, that hr one, i think the mistakes made was because they put everything but the kitchen sink -- gerrymandering, finance -- they put all of it into one thing and gave lots of people different reasons to oppose it. where why don't they just do gerrymandering?

gerrymandering for most people, it is when the other side draws the line that you don't like. now, if i had a magic wand and i could do one political reform in this country, it would be the whole country goes to an iowa-like system where you have a commission of statisticians draw the line, ignoring where incumbents are. they are in a position of as contiguous and compact as possible, trying to respect county and municipal lines to the extent that you can. that is the gold standard. having some other commissions that are not bad in those sections. but to me, both parties are guilty of this when they are empowered. maryland, where i live for almost 30 years, democrats control the legislature and did horrible things in terms of trying to diminish republican voting.

just as republicans are right now trying to do that to them. the joke is instead of voters picking elected officials, we have election officials pick the -- elected officials picking their voters. this is a much bigger problem than campaign or voter fraud or voter suppression or anything else. i think this is the number one. i don't know of any -- i can only think of one state legislature that voluntarily gave up the right to draw maps. they don't like to give that away. so in the states where they have been forced to buy ballot initiatives, for example, to draw maps independently, that is the places that has happened. there is a trend, but most states do not have ballot initiatives where you can force that over the objection of the state legislature. but it is a huge problem, and

when you look at the votes cast for president and how many state legislators from each party, or house member, that sort of thing, you can see some pretty bad things happening that personally i am not a lawyer, but i would think under one vote would not be allowed. we will see federal courts coming in sometimes when you have really bad cases, but in my judgment not nearly enough. you did not see it in north carolina and pennsylvania before the last election. host: on the issue of redistricting, there is a guy on twitter, the twitter handle is @ redistrict. i wonder if he would be a good twitter follower. guest: that is david wasserman, the house editor at the cook political report. he is a walking computer, just smart as he can be. and he is sort of our, our

quantitative person. david is very good. you cannot go wrong if you have the slightest interest in politics, to follow to become a particular on election nights when he will say watch out, you know, ex area has not come in or something like that. there are not a whole lot of people that can do that, and david is definitely one of them. host: and he will always let you know when he has seen enough to call a race. this is tom, a republican. good morning. caller: hi, charlie. i suggest you put your hands in your pocket, it's distracting. host: it's also distracting when you say something like that. so let's go to palm springs, california, on the line for democrats. caller: when we are listening --

an interesting point. host: yeah, bill. with the interesting point. are you still with us? john, elbow lake, minnesota. independent. good morning. caller: yeah. i would like to mention a couple things. the voter fraud cases are one of the least prosecuted cases in the country. we have a secretary of state here in minnesota that doesn't even look into these cases. and then the mention of lower numbers. when you're in swing states, it doesn't take much to change things. people should be aware of that. guest: i'm very aware of it. it is pretty hard to prosecute things that are rare, and

prosecutors do from time to time find it, but it doesn't have -- take the george w. bush-john ashcroft, and later alberto gonzales after ashcroft -- five years, they had 300 investigations, and only 119 were charged, 86 convicted. under president trump, it was 184 convictions total. the thing is, it is not that these people -- certainly the trump administration, they were looking for it. they didn't find it. it is hard to prosecute something that hardly happens. i think this is part of that people cannot accept that they lost an election. and after the 2004 election, democrats were convinced that

george w. bush and republicans stole ohio. they did not steal it. they lost an election. you can lose elections legitimately. it does not have to be theft. i keep coming back -- if there was a problem of democrats, minorities, liberals, whoever committing voting fraud, why in the world would the republican justice department's, republican attorneys general, presidents, and a republican appointed federal judge -- why would they not have found some? i mean, some more than the microscopic numbers that we have had. i think people are just living in an alternative universe because they are absolutely convinced that when they don't win an election, it had to be stolen from them. host: 15 minutes left with charlie cook. you can continue to fall -- to call in on phone lines. 202-748-8000 for democrats,

202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8002 if you are independent. who are the people, however small it is, the people in the middle? who swings the elections back and forth? guest: that is a great question. the people that are the puritans , independence, that do not even lean. they vote 90% of the time straight down the line. the only question is do they show up or not. and then the vast majority will confess that they lean democrat or republican, and 80% that lean democrat will vote democrat down the line. they are really not independent, they just like to call themselves that. so between 5% and 10%. there are exceptions to this rule. i should put my hands down.

for the most part, these are people that don't follow politics that closely. and a lot of them don't reduce papers in any form or listen to news or watch news. they tend to not be interested in politics. attention not trust politicians or political parties. they are just not terribly engaged. they tend to get interesting -- get to elections very late, when the election is getting closer. are they more centric than they are, then people who are conservative? yes. but it is not right between the two 40 yard lines, philosophically. a lot of them just don't have strong opinions. having strong opinions about public policy, the chances are pretty good, they are conservative or liberal. one or the other. it is not of their -- it is not

always, but more often than not. so these people in the middle are somewhat disengaged. part of what has happened in the process is that our policies -- and i've got to use my hands on this. our parties have become more ideologically sorted. when i came to washington almost 50 years ago, you had a lot of conservatives, moderate democrats particularly from the south and rural areas. at the same time you had a republican party, liberal moderate republicans from the north to east, from the west coast, the suburbs of chicago. there was a substantial overlap between the two parties. but what happened in congress, what happened in conservative come and to a certain extent moderate democrats, they died, they retired, they lost general elections, they lost primary elections, or they switched parties.

the same thing with the liberal circumstance, with moderate republicans dying, losing parties, whatever. then the electorate, you kind of have the same thing. where conservative democrats sort of leave the party or stop voting democratic. same thing with liberal republicans. so now the two parties are largely artificially sorted, where we have a liberal and conservative party. it is what it is, but the people -- each party that where the ballast that kept their party from going off into a ditch on the left or the right are for the most part gone. to the extent that you have gerrymandering and to the extent that you have people who want to watch or listen or read news from the perspective that they already agree with, so it reinforces their point of view,

you see this gap between the two sides getting bigger and bigger and bigger. host: what would it take to have something other than a super tight margin in upcoming elections? is that what you first see for the foreseeable future? guest: we are in an era now that because the party is so evenly divided. narrowly divided and evenly divided, each party is within striking distance, nationally speaking and in competitive states and districts. each one stays in striking distance of the other. so the ability -- in the past we have seen -- and whether it was ronald reagan or richard nixon winning huge landslide victories, or on the other side lyndon johnson winning a

landside and 64, winning in 48, 49 states, winning big percentages of the vote, toward 60%, that cannot happen now because each party has a higher floor because they have got so many people that are going to vote with them no matter what. but a higher ceiling because of people just like that on the opposite side. so our two parties are just -- they are locked in with high floors, low ceilings, and small things that can happen can shift that little slice of independence, push them over one way or the other. i friendly see that what -- think that is what we saw for the last election. it certainly looked it was headed toward a certain outcome, and then i think for the

independents, they don't trust politics or political parties. they are thinking -- they are at home talking about a democratic wave. and democrats building up a bigger majority in the house, taking on a big majority in the senate. and taking over the white house. they started thinking, what was this i heard about democratic socialism and medicare for all and this and that, and abolish the police, abolish ice, defund the police and all these things. i think they just kinda got scared, and you saw biden to put numbers coming down a little bit at the end. you saw democrats for the house and suddenly they are coming down. democrats came down. a month out before the election, you had people, as republican

and conservative as ted cruz, and ed rollins, who managed president reagan's campaign in 84 who were saying that -- in crew's case, suggesting this could be a bloodbath of watergate proportions. that is where this race was one, i think, a month out. again, it doesn't take many votes among those independents, to push the election one way or the other, in a competitive state or district, with the high floors and low ceilings. host: about five or so minutes left. larry has been waiting from pennsylvania, he democrat. -- a democrat. caller: i want to say to mr. cook, do whatever you want to do with your hands, but i have a question. what do you think about the grassroots of your community that you live in? this is where you go to vote.

when you vote there, it more controls the destiny of your state or the nationalism or which ever you want to go. i have a statement for you, too. i have not heard you say, and we have very good presidents. of all the presidents that we did have, do you think that guy put us in a state of emergency, that we all need to know where we want to vote and 80 judges say, hey, no, there was no voter fraud, and yet if people keep saying the same thing, i bring up a lot of points. guest: before you get off, could you explain the front part of your question about people in your neighborhood? i did not get that part of the question that i focused on. host: my apologies, i cut in on

larry, so he is not with us. guest: ok. there's is an old expression, words of a feather flock together. we could move to places that we feel comfortable with, people like ourselves. it is that political segregation that i was talking about earlier , but i'm not going to go into which presidents were good or bad, because it is my job to stay in the middle. but i think the one encouraging -- i think -- we just had a record -- back to back record high election. we had the highest presidential turnout since 1900. in 2018 we had the highest midterm election turnout since 1914. one of the biggest things in this election -- it is how did those independents go, but the

other thing is, which party suffers a bigger -- do the trump low there is, that hate president trump that turned out in big numbers vote against him? did they decline more? and the trump lovers, the people that turned out for him, now that he is not on the ballot, literally or figuratively, could they turn out in lower numbers? if so, how does the group in the middle -- how do they go? and which side suffers the greatest drop-off? in politics, it is when a party is feeling it is going too far. in my mind, going too far is when parties tend to get his problems. i would point out that for the first time in american history, we now have had four consecutive presidents lose control of both the house and the senate during their presidency.

four in a row. clinton, george w. bush, barack obama, donald trump. and it is because the parties are getting closer and closer together. we are seeing these swings. but the parties are becoming so monolithic, so parliamentary, and what happens as a result is public policy, what i call ping-pong policy, where it sort of careens from too far left to too far right, back and forth, which for everybody in business, you know that is kind of hard to plan for, hard to count on. john, let me turn it back to you. host: nelson, hollywood, florida, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. cook. i'm going to have to start reading your news later that your newsletter. i'm 22 years old, i've been voting for a long time, and i have never questioned the

results of a presidential or any other election, for that matter. what scares me about this last election, what makes me wonder as to what the results really were was the fact that a number of states appeared to have violated their own laws and even constitutions. i have been hearing for a long time that the united states of america is a land -- is a country of laws. when you disregard your own laws and your own constitution, you cease to be a country of laws. that is what i believe to be the biggest threat to the future of american liberty and freedom. host: let me turn it over to charlie cook. guest: toward the violin constitutions or laws, we have to get specific. but was the united states in 2020 facing the biggest public

health disaster in a century? yes. the biggest since the spanish flu of 1914 -- 1918, sorry. there were things done to accommodate getting more people a chance to vote, either by mail -- and there is absolutely no evidence, and ask any republican secretary of state or elected official that had the vote by may election, for example, or to go and vote early so they would not be in long lines, where they could catch the coronavirus. but, yes, there were modifications made. but the thing is, we were moving toward vote by mail already. you may not know, there are already -- we were 100% vote by

mail before this last election. the convenient voting, allowing people where it is 24 hours where you could drop your ballot box off, where there are libraries or low-flying mail. i personally like to vote in person, but a lot of people do not. the thing is, i defy anyone to show me any evidence at all where a state or local government violated their laws, violated their constitution, and it may help them to change the outcome of the election. host: we will have to end there this morning. you mentioned your dog. i want to ask your dog's name before you go. guest: it is penny. we inherited the dog from our daughter.

he doesn't like to be cooped up. host: penny is a good dog. thank you for joining us this morning. charlie cook with the cook political report, cookpolitical.com. we will see you back again soon. guest: thanks, john. host: up next, we turn the phone lines back over to you, a question on voting rights in the country. how we are freezing that question. voting in the united states -- which is more important to you? do you think expanding access is more important? 202-748-8000. if you think voting integrity is more important, 202-748-8001. go ahead and start calling in. it was yesterday that president biden spoke about voting rights, legislation in the united states, and the impact they are having on democracy. pres. biden: so hear me clearly. there is an unfolding assault taken place in america, in an

attempt to suppress the right to vote and fair reelections. an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty. an assault on who we are full of who we are as americans. make no mistake, the peddlers of lies are threatening. it gives me no pleasure to say this -- i never thought my entire career i would ever have to say it. but i've swore an oath to you, to god, to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. that is an oath that forms the sacred trust to domestic and -- two protect against all threats foreign and domestic. [applause]

the assault on free and fair elections -- i have said it before -- we are facing the most significant test of our democracy since the civil war. since the civil war. the confederates back then never reach the capital as insurrectionists did on january 6. i'm not saying this to alarm you, i'm saying this because you should be alarmed. i'm also saying this -- there is good news. it doesn't have to be this way. it doesn't have to be for real. we just need the will, the will to save and strengthen our democracy. we did it in 2020. the battle for the soul of americans -- in that battle, the

people voted. democracy prevailed. our constitution held. we have to do it again. host: that was president biden yesterday in philadelphia at the national constitution center, talking about this issue of voting rights. voting in the united states is our topic in this half-hour of "washington journal." which is more important, access or that expanding access, or expanding opportunity? if you say expanding access, 202-748-8000. if you say expanding integrity, 202-748-8001. this is the lead editorial in the wall street journal. this is what the editorial board of the wall street journal rights. mr. biden is escalating his rhetoric about jim crow and the civil war after republicans made gains in 2020 among nonwhite

voters. it might be the reinforcement message that the you p is racist, but mr. biden is also distorting the truth justifying the passage of hr one, what they call a constitutionally dubious takeover of voting rules in all 50 states. he is trying to appease -- they write, "for democrats, hail -- they're trying to pass the most radical agenda in decades, really undermining democracy. that is the editorial board of the wall street journal. voting in the u.s., which is more important, spending access or protecting voter integrity. alan texas says it is protecting voter integrity. caller: it all comes down to voter id, period. we have to make sure who is voting as the right to vote, and is legal to vote.

that is our biggest problem. there is too much fraud in trying to do without id. we have to have id. host: before you go, your take in texas on what is going on in texas, and here in washington as well after texas democratic legislators left the state to keep the state house having a quorum. caller: i have said it before. i think it is a mistake. they seem to stay in there and do the -- they need to stay in there and do their jobs. they are not doing anything different in texas than any other state. they just want to make sure it comes down to the id. restricting people to do this and that, i don't see it. there just following the rhetoric of suppressing the vote . show me where in there that it

is suppressing the vote. they jerry pick whatever they want out of their come and that is it. host: the headline in today's u.s." headlines. deborah in alabama says expanding voting access is the more important of the choices we are given. why is that? caller: i believe our elections were fair. i was a poll watcher. i was the only democratic poll watcher. everybody that was running the elections were republicans. we had two questions whole day, and there were no republican watchers there. the elections were fair. i live in alabama. it is a republican state. i would have loved friend biden

to win it and he didn't shy would have loved for biden to win it and he didn't -- i would have loved her biden to win it and he didn't, and i understand that. they could have early voting for people who cannot stand in a line for six to eight hours. you know, the people that are complaining about the election -- how many times do we have to go into court to prove that the election was fair and honest? i hear the republicans, what why aren't they at the polls watching? host: this is cheryl from provo, utah, saying protecting voting integrity is the more important. go ahead. caller: when i was helping with the elections, counting votes inside provo, what i found is that there were questions about whether we should -- you know,

that it was done fairly. i think it is not an assault on our election to question if the votes are being done properly. it is called a checkup. we are doing a checkup. we are making sure that the next election we are going to have things in place to make our elections valid, and we will have all of the people working towards that. i think there is dishonesty in the voting. host: in your case in provo, how were those questions resolved? caller: well, first of all, because i worked counting the ballots, i was not supposed to be political in any way. and yet, even though we had that rule, i knew exactly who voted republican, who voted democrat, because -- just because they

required that didn't mean they could shut down our discussion about it. andand i never did see poll watchers. there should have been poll watchers.

>> i am in connecticut. i think everyone should be able to vote, but they should present a valid identification to show who they are and that they are

citizens of the usa. it is important, i know, because i have traveled throughout the world in countries like turkey, jordan, china, india, where people do not have that right to vote, and it is one of the most precious things we have in the usa, and it should be protected by showing that you are a citizen of the united states with a valid id. host: charles in ohio on the line for those who say expanding voter access is more important, go ahead. caller: yes. no taxation without representation. everybody living in the united states is paying taxes on everything that they buy. so, if you are living in the united states, you ought to be able to vote. that is it.

thank you. host: back to texas. michelle in houston. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am calling in on the expanding voter access, but i think i am on the question because if we don't expand, we won't have integrity, and i don't think that is true. i think everybody should have the opportunity to vote. there are many ways we should be able to offer that. this country is too big, people have busy schedules, so we should offer flexibility and expand voting. thank you for taking my call. host: to tallahassee, florida, philip. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, philip. caller: yes, i am definitely in favor of making sure the vote are american citizens.

this right is given to the states and in the constitution. we have people in florida who also have homes in georgia interlocking they voted in both states. i would like to see every vote also include our social security number, so we can only vote once and only citizens have voted. too many people who are not citizens are sneaking through the >>. i am really up -- sneaking through the cracks. i am really upset about this, really upset. host: someone said, to me, it is a false choice that everyone is given easy access, i think we can and should have full access for all citizens while also protecting the integrity of the system.

caller: i think it was a twitter responder, why can't we have integrity and expansion for all question mark and why can it create a program that makes it easier for people to get identification, you know? we have 30.5 years here to prepare for the next -- three and a half years here to prepare for the next election, and it can be cheaper to get an id. why does it cost $100 to get identification? host: this is a caller from out of fredericksburg, virginia. caller: my answer to the question is both. i kind of support what the lady said before the previous caller, you can have access to the ballot and still have

integrity. it should not be which one is more important. both are important. make people have access to the ballot if they are qualified to vote, and make sure it is in such a way where it will be trusted. one person said people are lacking because they voted in both states, if somebody comes to you and laughs and says i voted in two states, you have to go and report them. let the authorities find out if it is true or not. host: that is examined fredericksburg, virginia. the question we are asking, which is more important to you, is it expanding ballot access? protecting voter integrity? you can keep calling in on our

phone lines as we take you to the headline from "the austin american statesman" on the latest out of texas on the voting rights site in texas, texas house ok'd absent democrats and senate takes up gop election bill. a state politics reporter with the newspaper, take us to the first part of that headline and explain the latest news out of the state legislator out there in texas. guest: we had a big event on the floor of the house yesterday, as you were explaining earlier. in the house, basically the house cannot do anything, they cannot vote on bills, but one of the few actions that is afforded to the remaining members, in this case, all of the republicans and four democrats to stay behind, one thing they can do is vote to send texas law enforcement officers to compel

members for absent ones in the chamber, including the option to arrest members if necessary. the word arrest is scary, but to be clear, this isn't a criminal receding. you are not being handcuffed and thrown into jail. the attempt is to grab the members who are not here and compel them to come back to the state capital so they can continue. host: when do we expect democrats will come back? what have they said about how long they will be in d.c. and when they are willing to step back into the state? guest: that is the question everybody is asking. an important thing to note is texas law enforcement doesn't have jurisdiction in d.c., so that is the whole point of crossing state lines. as long as they stay there, texas law enforcement cannot compel them to come back. what we have heard from democrats is they are planning to stay there through the end of the special session if necessary , special legislative sessions in texas last for 30 days and have to be called by the governor. governor abbott says he himself plans to continue to call special session after special

session until he can get priority items past, even if democrats have to stay in d.c. for months and months to complete their goal. it is hard to say how this will shake out from where we sit right now. it has been a few days, and everybody is waiting with rated breath to see what happens and who blinks first. host: and the news out of the state capital down there, house chamber doors were locked yesterday and members needed to ask permission to come and go? guest: right, so that is part of the parliamentary procedure. they voted to approve a call to the house, which means doors are locked. members cannot leave without permission from the speaker. they have to do that in order to vote, we talked about, authorizing law enforcement to get absent members. it is part of parliamentary procedure. this is not about an issue of state law. democrats are not violating state law, but they are by --

but they are violating the laws of the recession. around 2:30 yesterday, the house speaker gave everybody permission to go home, take a shower, eat food with the promise they will come back today at 11:00 a.m. host: who are those four democrats who stayed behind? guest: we had four democrats stated, a few from more conservative districts, that is what they cited as the reason for staying at the capitol, and we had two democrats who were in their offices. i spoke with representative moore alice, one of the democratic members who stayed behind, and he said he fully supports the democrats and their mission, but to best represents his constituents, he thought he needed to be at the capital fighting the measure there. host: it has been a busy few days at the capital for you and we appreciate your time. what will you be watching for

today? guest: we know the senate in texas has a forum and if you democrats have gone to d.c. in a show of solidarity with house democrats, but enough, cats have stayed behind in that chamber that they can continue with their business. so we will see the senate continue to pass these bills. yesterday, they approve the elections bill that is at issue in the whole debate, and they will pass the legislation. the governor has given them 11 items this special session to tackle, like border security, and other issues, and they will continue to move through that agenda. on the house side, they cannot do anything, so members will come into the chamber at the least to make a point to democrats and they want to be able to say, we were here when you were not here, look it up, they will be in the chamber every day, but they cannot do anything. democrats in d.c. are continuing to take meetings with folks. we will see them on television a lot. a big part of this is not trying

to kill this bill in texas, but generating published to the issue and trying to get national folks to pay attention to the bills moving through congress. host: the website for the "austin american statesman," you can find all of the work of madeleine mecklenburg there, at statesman.com. madeleine mecklenburg is a state politics reporter joining us through a busy week. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: you heard madeleine mecklenburg describe the scene yesterday in the senate chamber with a vote or to issue warrants of arrest for democrats. she describes it as a look at how it went down. [video clip] >> thank you, mr. speaker. the sergeant at arms, or officers appointed by him, since were all absentees, who in attendance is not excused for the purpose of securing and maintaining their absence under

warrant of arrest if necessary? remember, you heard the motion representing the bill. all members voted. 76,000, motion is adopted. [end video clip] [video clip] >> members, you are appointed to send all absentees whose attendance is not excused for the purpose of maintaining their attendance under warrant of arrest is necessary. while the house is under a call, any member who wishes to have a written permission of the speaker. [end video clip] host: that was the scene yesterday from the state house down in texas. about 10 minutes left in this segment as we ask you the issue

of -- ask you on the issue of owning, which is more important, gaining ballot access or protecting border integrity? if you see the former, (202)-748-8000 it is. if you say the latter, (202)-748-8001. out of georgia, moore says expanding voter access. caller: good morning, c-span. i am a 73-year-old african-american, and the voter id and voter restriction, i did two tours in vietnam, and i cannot vote until 1974, so voting restrictions have been around forever, and it is time for it to stop. america, we have the right to vote. america, we do not have to show you all of our ids, it is our constitutional right. it is our constitutional right,

and it is our constitutional right to vote. have a good day. host: bob out of new york, good morning. caller: good morning. obviously, protecting the integrity of voting is supremely important. if you expand the access but don't protect the integrity, you are defeating the purpose. they are jumping up and down, this is the biggest turnout ever, they turned election date into election week, the turnout every year is dismal for a reason, no matter who gets voted in, they don't spend our money financially prudently. they don't do that job, and both parties are responsible for the way things are today. just getting people more chances to vote, it is a privilege to vote. you know when the election day is, you know exactly when it is going to be. people would be happy to vote if

they had a little faith and the people they are voting for. host: from alexandria, virginia, steve, good morning. caller: this is steve. i have been watching and hearing what the people are saying, and everybody has an idea to go to the bank or presenter drivers license. in europe right now, only one country does not require an id. go to india, and those millions of people, they vote and have ids. i believe you should have an id, and if you want an absentee ballot, you apply for it with your last four digits of your social security number. but everybody did not get one in the mail. i was a mailman for 31 years. mail presents an opportunity for fraud.

right now, the democrats from texas, this is all theatrics, trying to push through the national election. host: charlie cook in our last segment pointed out there are several states before 2020 who did all mail-in voting, states that have conservative, republican and democratic state legislatures. do you think those states need to rethink mail-in ballots? caller: it does present an opportunity, and i believe, they say 70 million votes, and that was more than obama got, which was a massive turnout. so, if he won by that many, why don't they want to review it and make sure so we do not have these problems? the pandemic ain't going to be here in the next election. people who go in vote, there are

plenty of opportunities in virginia to go vote, and right outside of d.c. in alexandria. every saturday, some evenings you can go up here to the supervisor's office, but i present my id, when i go in, and they make sure i am on the voter register, and it is a secure vote. host: next out of new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i know everybody is concerned about who shows up to vote, but i find it interesting. my complaint is in people who are wealthy, and i consider someone wealthy with two different residents, like one in florida and another state, i cannot trust them. how can they prove to me they are only voting in one place? my prediction is, what they should do is, when you have a vote, let's go back physically

to the state you are a permanent resident to vote. you cannot vote in any state you visit. i know they do it all the time, you have votes in florida, do not believe it. they cheat like you cannot believe. host: how do you feel about overseas voting? members of the military who are deployed and having a ballot and sending it in? they are not in the states that their residency is when they are sending it in. caller: do not believe it, or they do is they vote twice. they vote twice. you are telling me these seniors do not vote twice? who are you kidding? host: ronald in philadelphia, good morning. you are next. caller: well, they need to extend the voting for 30 days, 24/7. if you really care about voting, texas doing like akamai day, if you deny my id, what happens? they say, down to the police station and fill out an affidavit.

now, i'm going to look at your mug shot and see if you a criminal. if you deny my id or say my signature was not right, i want you locked up. host: let's go to mickey in vineland, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i will tell you what, you need to ensure an honest vote because if your vote is an honest, then it means nothing. and, also, anybody who stops somebody from voting should face a fine and prison time. that is all i have to say. host: our last caller in this, segment of "washington journal" but about 45 minutes to go this morning and in that time, we will be joined by amy peikoff, a top executive at parler, to talk about the debate of free speech

and the power of big tech. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> peter has published hundreds of nonfiction books in his career and as founder of the new york affairs book, he has written a memoir called "an especially good view watching history happen," the national book review rights "he has not written a memoir so much as a report from the front, make that many fronts. the great news events of the past half-century." we talk with him about his time in vietnam and the soviet union, among other things. >> reporter, editor and author on this episode of notes plus. listen at c-span.org/podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 our

intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events on american history tv, on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors, television for serious readers. discover, learn and explore, weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our conversation now on social media on free speech with amy peikoff, chief policy officer for parler. explain what parler is for those who may not know. guest: parler is an up-and-coming social media network, and we differentiate ourselves from other social media platforms around two prongs, first of all, we promote free speech, and by that, i mean with respect to all legal

speech, speech protected by the first amendment constitution, we believe that the users should be the ones to decide what they're going to see or say, etc. the second prong is around user privacy, and we, unlike other social networks, do not track you across websites, and we collect and use the minimal data possible to provide service and to also have some sort of a modernization model. host: when did parler get started and how many people use it today? guest: it started in 2018. i do not have exact user stats today. as you know, we were deplatformed unjustly by amazon and others back in january of this year. at that point, we had between 15 million and 20 million registered users, and at that point, we had to rebuild everything, and then we rebuilt

the code base from the ground up, so we are in the ramp-up phase with recovery from that blow. host: why were you deplatformed? guest: allegedly because we had content on our site that contributed to the events of january 6 at the capitol but as we have seen and the months since, the inciting content was all over the internet on other platforms. there were stories in newspapers on all ideological leaning about facebook, twitter, particularly facebook, so the content was everywhere. the other thing that has come out in the month since, parler has referred to many of the examples, dozens of examples of this content in the weeks leading up to january 6, so the argument that we were somehow irresponsible with respect to this content and that it had something to do with the events

of the six that we somehow aided and that was a disingenuous argument and people still hold it. i could understand if maybe they thought that and they were reading the trolls on twitter about us or something, but i think the record has shown since then that isn't a valid argument. host: what about guidelines for the parler user today and how much content moderation do you do? guest: so, the guidelines just have to do with illegal speech, speech that is a rights violation. otherwise, we have something called a trolling filter, which will filter out what some people call hate speech, but what i have categorized more objectively as an attack on the base of race, sex, etc., that trolling filter on the web and android app is something that is in the individual user's control on whether to turn on or turn off. apple still requires, and i hope

to change their mind, but apple requires that hate speech be removed from all ios apps, so the trolling filter is turned on automatically on ios app. with respect to all legal speech, anything that doesn't pose a threat or violation of the rights of other people, that speech, we believe, should be controlled by the individual user and the individual user should decide if it is in his or her feed, and that is where they look at that information or any of that. host: folks more familiar with twitter or facebook, how do those guidelines compared to the amount of moderation and the rules on facebook and twitter? guest: facebook and twitter have taken it upon themselves, this is what is at issue in the trump lawsuit, right, they have taken it upon themselves to remove or to maybe reduce the spread of so-called hate speech and also

what they deem to be misinformation, and it is going to be very interesting to see going forward whether that practice is going to be scrutinized in the law, or maybe it is going to be further encouraged in the law if lawmakers get their way with respect to augmenting section 230. host: amy peikoff, let me invite the viewers to join us before we get too far into the conversation, if you would like to talk about big tech, parler, democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. as folks are calling in, amy peikoff, digging a little bit more to that from lawsuit -- that trump lawsuit and explain what section 230 is as you do that. guest: sure, ok, a big question. to be clear, i am a never trump or, so here i am, in support of

this lawsuit, and the reason i support it is my first of all, i believe it is correctly screening the problem. there may be some improvements that can be made in the way the case is made and that is what happened in "the wall street journal" recently, explain how the case could be made stronger, but the fundamentals of the case are good in this sense where they are saying they are acting as state actors and we have section 230 community, which i will explain in a minute. there have been threats to punish these actors in the case that they have not exercised that immunity, they have not sent to the content in accordance with their wishes, and this is -- they have not censored the content in accordance with their wishes, and there is even collusion with certain bureaucrats in the federal government with respect to our choice of target for

censorship for either the removal or restriction of breach of content. so, the lawsuit i believe is correctly framed. the other thing about it is i think it has a chance to give us the proper remedy to this problem because even though i do think some government action is necessary to address the problem, i think the problem itself comes from an entanglement between tech and government, and if we are not careful, we are going to propose as a solution to the problem something that will make it worse. in fact, it gives us big brother out of george orwell's "1984," and i can extreme more about that. what is it about section 230 that potentially poses a problem? it is a code section that grants legal immunity to platforms, social media's facebook, like us , they are immune from

liabilities from any content that is generated by users, that is put onto the platform by users. you cannot have such a thing as a platform really unless you have this type of immunity. i want to be court at the core principle of section 230 is something i agree with, but i agree with justice thomas and others who have recently said that this immunity has been interpreted in an overbroad fashion, and it has left the platforms largely unaccountable for their contributions, whatever they are doing as distributors to distribute this content, and the trump lawsuit has a chance of holding that accountable for their conduct with spect to the restriction of the content. that is what he is concerned with, and to do so in a way that is in accordance with justice thomas' interpretation of

section 230. that is the way to go, if you have a piece of legislation, if you start to classify them as common carriers, you are going to create further entanglement between big tech and government, and it is dangerous we are concerned about maintaining our privacy. host: a lot of section 230 focus in the big tech industry, and it states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. those are the words that have caused so much focus and tension. we will talk about it for an hour with amy peikoff, chief officer of parler, and plenty of calls already. joyce is up first in new jersey,

a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i did want to tell you that i feel like you should have identification when you go vote so everybody knows that you are a participant in voting, and i also want to add one thing that i wish vice president is -- host: we are talking about social media now, and a new you are talking about voting rights in this country, but do you use social media platforms? caller: no. host: you have concern about the entanglement between big tech and government? caller: yes. host: what specifically, if you have thought much about it? caller: no, i think everything is wrong. i am a republican and i voted

for donald trump, and i think he was the best president we ever had. host: joyce out of new jersey. anthony out of new york is next. caller: thank you for the opportunity. my query is for the guest and the moderator, perhaps you can follow up on my concerns. there was an at&t executive who had standing lawsuit with about 500 americans who had been unconstitutionally expired upon by big tech, and barack obama, when he came into office, his first signing statement was to dismiss that lawsuit, by disallowing the american citizen to have redress against what is unconstitutional. the patriot acts one and two need to be rescinded, if not reviewed, admonished and i would ask that you perhaps have cara frederick from the heritage foundation to speak on this

topic. the woman is brilliant, and she knows so much about what is going on. i do believe that this is orwellian beyond what george will could have imagined, and i think america needs to fight back against big tech by either getting rid of the social counts -- social accounts, whatever it takes, but we are in deep trouble. like i said, mark klein, at&t executive, he had been on c-span before, and i would ask you bring him back and ask his thoughts on what is going on, as well as mr. snowden or julian assange. there have been a lot of things framed around trying to from those people, which are whistleblowers. i appreciate c-span, and you guys keep up the great work you are doing and all the callers who are critical of you guys, it is because they don't understand the delusion of information you have to deal with each and every day. i am blessed to have you in my life. host: thank you. host:anthony, always appreciate

topic suggestions for this program, happy to take your suggestions. amy peikoff, i will let you respond to the several issues the caller brings up. guest: we can tie the privacy concern into this because my concern about social media and solving this problem correctly is the fact that social media both is a discriminator of crucial information and one widely used. a lot of surveys say most people get their news from social media, but the second thing that our competitors do is collect kinds of personal information about individual users. again, if we solve this censorship problem, and it is a censorship problem, and i agree with "the wall street journal" on the censorship problem, if we do not handle it in a way that

backs off that relationship between big tech and government, if we, instead, you know, supposedly, and section 230 to get government more power to regulate these platforms, or we give government more power in the many ways to support congress right now to break them up and do other things and how we have mergers and all of these things, if we create more entanglements than you have governments overseeing an industry that both disseminates and collects information, that is a recipe for big brother. i do not agree with the caller and a sense that we are not at orwell's "1984" yet, but we are moving in the direction. this is a crucial juncture we have to make the right decision. i believe a lawsuit, framed the way donald trump's did, has the potential to crack a narrowly

tailored solution to the problem that will solve it without creating the further entanglement the caller is worried about. one issue in respect to privacy and government regulation is that to the extent that a government regulates the business, it can demand ordinary business records and that is through something called the third-party doctrine. i have written about it extensively. i believe i have a common-law solution that is near and dear to my heart. this doctrine allows government to obtain information from the third-party facebook or whoever without a warrant, so no cause for suspicion. if we have more regulation of the platforms, we will have more government access to that information, and it creates a further risk. i think our planting our already, but it creates a further risk in terms of government packing -- hacking.

host: on twitter, they are asking does your for-profit website require users to provide social security numbers, who are you selling that to? who are your financial backers, foreign or domestic? guest: financial backers, foreign and domestic owners, i cannot answer. rebecca mercer was the initial seed investor and has been involved more recently in helping to get parler rebuilt after all of this, but i am not aware of the others, so i cannot answer those questions. we do not ask for social security numbers. sometimes if someone is going to be part of an influencer network , one of the aspects on parler is that when we monetize by targeting as to particular -- ads to particular users feeds,

we give them a cut of the business model. on facebook, if i was to choose to place an ad that would target then shapiro's audience, he would not get any cut of what i was giving an ad revenue. i was a small spender when i spend on ads there, but nonetheless he should get a cut. but as part of that, we would have to collect -- i forget what the form is, the w nine or something for tax purposes, and then someone would have to give a social or taxpayer id for entities on a form like that. but, no, we do not collect social security numbers. host: what makes somebody an influencer? guest: what makes somebody an influencer? that is the question anywhere out there. as we are rebuilding, another thing we are doing at parler is rethinking what is an influencer and, you know, in some sense, it

has to be in agreement between both parties who want to be involved in the arrangement. it has to do with having a certain amount of followings such that it would be worthwhile for a business arrangement that you would be targeting or following and the criteria is still in the works right now. host: parler.com is the website, @parler_app on twitter, and amy peikoff is taking her time to talk about parler. julia is in washington, a republican. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning, i would like to see free speech on all social media. we need that. host: define free speech a little bit more, any limits you would place? caller: to be able to get on social media and speak your mind

as a free american. host: amy peikoff? guest: on parler, we think about it is embracing the entire first amendment of the constitution. the first amendment is an issue in trump's lawsuit, but traditionally, we do not think of private businesses as being governed by the first amendment. nevertheless, parler's mission has been to operate our platform in the spirit of first amendment, and that is with respect to legal speech, all legal speech that doesn't pose a threat to or violate the rights of other people, then the control over that speech should be in the hands of the individual user. this is where the other aspect of the first amendment comes in, freedom of association. we also want to respect the ability of users who come on parler to rate their own

experience, securing their own feeds, so a lot of people do not want to see the trolls. they do not necessarily want to see what people called hate speech. they do not want to see attacks on the base of race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion. we like to work with a vendor skilled with this, and give their tool to the individual user to decide whether to turn on a filter to this or not. they can turn it on in a way that puts a splash screen over the content and then click on the content if they want to see if we are checking our work and being objective, but we want to let the individual user control whether they see that speech on parler. as to all platforms having free speech, some of that discussion can lead to what i am worried about, which is you are going to come in with a broad government regulation that is going to have

government supervising what these platforms do. i would rather leave it to the free markets. at parler, we think in the long-term we are going to win with our free speech market, but let the market decide that -- free-speech model, but let that market decide that. host: what makes someone a troll? guest: trolling, again, we have a narrowly defined category for that, and it is attacks or someone is making attacks on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion. these are ad hominem attacks, if you have taken your introductory logic class, and they don't add substance to productive discussion. many people complain, you go out there on the internet and it is the wild west, and people particular the complain about twitter with respect to that, but there are other places, as well, and people realize it does not help if your goal is to improve civil discourse and it

is just logically irrelevant. yeah, it would be nice to have a tool to filter that out of your feed, and that is what we try to provide you with. host: stephen in edgewater, florida, is next. a democrat. good morning. caller: yes, my concern is, like i cannot go into walmart and do something dangerous, going to a sporting department, get a gun, ask for bullets, put bullets in it, and do something dangerous, both myself and walmart would end up in a legal situation. i think it is basically the same thing that should apply to social media. if a group uses parler or facebook to organize something like january 6, i think you guys should be subject to legal spots ability, so that is why i agree

with facebook's attitude on censoring or cutting off donald trump's facebook account to prevent this kind of dangerous stuff from going on. host: amy peikoff. guest: that is a lot. donald trump himself is not responsible for all of this content, first of all, i do not believe that. he would be welcome on parler. second of all, with respect to facebook, if you read the news that has come out in the months since january 6, facebook had tons of this content on their platform. if you look at the indictments for people charged with crime, the connection to january 6, facebook is all over those documents. i am not going to do a number comparison because we are smaller platform but there was plenty of that content over there, and facebook has plenty of resources and has bragged and

has used the word, have brian to about their ability to identify and filter hate speech. they seem to be asking congress to regulate it, which i think is wrong. justice clarence thomas made an interesting statement and in the statement, he argued for a narrower interpretation of section 230. this is part of what i hope will come out of the trump lawsuit and be put into practice, without lawsuits that are an issue right now, i hope they listen to this. he talks about distributor liability that a platform like parler or like facebook could be held liable for their actions as a distributor of content. and the standard that he articulated and there is whether the platform or constructively

new of this rights violating content. you have to know that as a social media platform, it is impossible to be perfect at this. that is another thing congress knows, it is impossible to be perfect at this. if they do put an impossible standard into the platform that gives them unlimited control, as part of the danger here, nonetheless, if you can show that facebook knew that content was on there, or constructive, or they should have known given the resources available to them, they were being negligent somehow, and you should be able to hold them liable and that is part of justice thomas's relations with respect to section 230. host: in respect to the hearings where jack dorsey and mark zuckerberg testified, or you invited to the hearings? how much access have you had to members of congress to make these recommendations that you have made this morning?

guest: not at this point, we have not been invited. we would welcome that, of course. that is part of the argument, right, you have heard in hearing after hearing that the platforms are not doing enough to remove hate speech from the platform or doing enough to handle so-called misinformation. remember, with respect to the information, stte of this is legal speech -- information, most of this is legal speech protected by the first amendment. the only people who should have control over that are purely private actors. when you have this immunity and you have congress saying, hey, you better act using the benefit of that immunity in the way we see fit, other wise we might

take it away completely, you have a state action problem. host: belleville, new jersey, harry, republican. good morning. caller: good morning -- hi, i don't know if i am mixing up apples and oranges, but i used to work for at&t. i remember when the government broke up at&t as a monopoly. facebook and twitter through trump off the air, and it is a private company, so i guess they have the right to do whatever they want, but at what point does facebook have this much power as far as if you're go into a restaurant, and you are an annoyance, they the right to throw you out. it is a private restaurant. but my point is can facebook ever be broken up, like at&t

did, with a monopoly on speech, in other words? host: harry, things for the question. guest: there are a couple of different questions and there, so at what point is facebook not acting like a typical private entity anymore? that is at the root of this state action problem, and a case has been laid out where they talk about section 230 immunity, which is in our view, overbroad, and in connection with it, we have this pressure coming from government bureaucrats and telling them to exercise their powers in ways they like and that they approve of, otherwise, the immunity navy taking away or they might be broken up. they might be forcibly broken up, and when the platforms go ahead and start to remove types

of speech or specific targets in coronation with government bureaucrats, in accordance with government wishes, we have a hard time saying that is purely private action anymore. that is what is hopefully going to be fleshed out completely in the trump lawsuit. if the lawyers do a good job presenting that case, we can learn a lot and potentially solve the problem. host: charles and pennsylvania, in strasburg, pennsylvania, democrat, good morning. caller: yeah, i have a question about free speech, is free speech, you mean that you can go on any venue like facebook, parler, and knowingly right a speech about stuff that is not true, like joe biden is a pedophile, what do you have about that? if you are just lying or making

up things, how can that be free speech when you are just damaging people by saying stuff that is not true? is that good for our country? it is like standing up in a theater and yelling fire. if you are basically lying -- host: got your point, charles. amy peikoff. guest: charles, you are right in the sense that this is not speech that should be protected by the first amendment, and it would be called liable or defamation, and then the issue is, who would, legal liability, who would be -- excuse me, i have liable and liability, and it is early. who would be legally liable for the libel in that case? it is the individual user who should be held liable for any defamation or libel they post on the platform, that is legal speech and it is the

infringement of rights on others, and we have always supported civil liability for those cases. section 230 talks about the fact that if all business is doing is providing a platform and they themselves are not creating the libelous contents, then they should not incur liability for it. host: about 10 minutes left with amy peikoff, a parler chief officer, parler.com if you would like to check them out. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. i want to come to this article from cnbc, news from last week, house republicans laying out their antitrust agenda for tech giants, is the headline. this is the statement from house minority leader ted mccarthy in a letter to republican colleagues about the framework they laid out, saying it would rain in big tech and their

abusive practices, including changing the law so americans can challenge big tech directly further infringement of public speech rights. it starts by taking away the liability shield big tech has been behind for too long. section 230's decency act would be changed to limit liability protection from moderation of speech not protected by the first amendment and would preclude big tech from disseminating against americans based on their political affiliation. it would also require regular reauthorization of section 230, so congress may update regulations of the constantly evolving internet landscape a lot there, and anything you agree with? guest: i do agree that this is a real problem, and i do agree it is a censorship issue. so some sort of government response would be necessary to it, but i do believe the response they are crafting there, that you just read, has that danger of creating a further entanglement between big

tech and government, which is the problem we had in the first place. we have big tech censoring content at the behest of government bureaucrats. the problem is only going to get worse over the types of provisions you have outlined. may think, well, these bureaucrats who are in charge of reauthorization every so often, that those people will not abuse their power, and they are just going to go ahead and do it in the spirit of the first amendment like at parler, but government power seems to have this way of creating the potential for corruption. a lot of times, to bureaucrats charged with this don't get a lot of checks and balances against what they do. moreover, it is just wrong. i am a capitalist.

i voted libertarian the last couple of elections, and i believe a truly private business as far as acting in a private way, should be less free to make decisions about running the business themselves. and the principal at the root of section 230 is a proper principal. it is something they have a right to. it should not be the case for someone providing a mere platform for speech and is not knowledgeable about or has no duty to have known the exact content of the particular post or whatever. that person should not be legally liable. so the core principle of section 230 is correct, and the idea that government has the power to everything taketh away and take winners and losers accordingly, that is one of the problems, one of the actors doing evil. ted cruz has gotten up a number

of times and said they are given this immunity. that thing they are given potential he is an overbroad community, the thing they might be given depending on how the section is worded or interpreted in the overbroad community that has done some wrong, but that can be corrected. justice thomas seems to believe it can be corrected merely by reinterpreting section 230 properly. i would go that route before. host: are we going to hear more from the supreme court on this in the upcoming supreme court session? guest: i do not know if there is a particular case coming up on the docket. i am sorry about that. i am very busy with my stuff at parler, but i just heard of a case recently in which i think it was only at the district court level, in which they are allowed to bring a case against facebook for its role in allowing trafficking content on its platforms. this is a case that has the

potential to call into question the interpretation of section 230. we will see it but it is a matter of when. host: in michigan, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me have a phone call. right now, the government and the platforms are arguing in congress and trying to divide up the power lines, and their struggles like you talk about. my question is this, if you look forward to the next 20 years, do you see the possibility of the day where the government comes in and shuts down the platform like they did in cuba? i will take your answer offline. guest: you know, sure, shutting them down entirely is a possibility. as it is right now, i think the government is very happy to have some open so they have the

ability to push leverage with respect to the publishing content and also, as i said, under the third-party doctrine, which has not yet been -- have not had the carpenter role expanded to address the third-party doctrine as such. the third-party doctrine gives them access to the user data without a warrant. they do not have to have probable cause in order to access user data, so i do not know that they want to shut them down, they want to keep them on, like the screens in 1984 and have that flow of information back and forth. host: do you have parler users in cuba? guest: i do not know that we have parler users in cuba. i know we have some in brazil, the u.k., and other places, i am not sure if that is legal. host: what happens if you have ever experienced a foreign government trying to dictate what can be on parler guest: guest:, cannot be? not at this point -- parler,

cannot be? guest: not at this point. interesting question. host: have you thought about it? guest: i am trying to cross each bridge as i come to it. host: connie in new jersey, democrat. good morning. connie, you with this? medford, new york, then, paul, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. amy, you are a breath of fresh air. i want to say from january on to the current time, i have been suspended from facebook for telling the truth. they do not like the truth. they accuse me of being a bully, and i would like to hear comments about that. guest: ok, so bullying is another category some platforms try to do something about. we on parler will leave it to

the individual user. so we do have a different policy in that regard. i would assume that many of the users on parler, if you are a bully, they would lock you, a mute you, put on the troll filter, and maybe you would lined up behind that and you would never see it, but again, what we believe is all legal speech should either be in the feed or not in the feed according to the decision of the individual user. the individual user should not be outsourcing their thinking to anyone, no matter how many layer of oversight boards facebook would create. it is still people outsourcing their critical thinking to other people and at parler, we think that is wrong. host: we have about three minutes left in the program. i would let you respond to this comment on twitter, dog canyon

writing "social networks was not be designed as arbiters of truth." guest: and i agree. that is the point i just made, so navy my ear was burning or something, but, yeah, no, we do not take it upon ourselves to think for you. we encourage you to think for yourselves. we offer you tools that we think people who are thinking critically would use, but the decision is up to you. host: it is parler.com, amy peikoff, chief policy officer with parler, we appreciate the conversation. guest: thanks, john, for having me on. host: that is going to do it for "washington journal" today, but we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great wednesday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021]

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center. no, it is way more. comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, even ua a front row seat to democracy -- giving you a front seat to democracy. >> federal reserve chairman jerome powell testifies today on monetary policy and the economy before the house financial services committee. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span, online at

c-span.org, listen on the free c-span radio app. ♪ >> peter aust most has published hundreds of nonfiction books in his career. he has now written a memoir about his own life. the national book review rights, he has not written a memoir so much as a report from the front. the great news events of the past half-century. we talk with him about his time in vietnam and the soviet union among other things. >> on this episode of book notes plus. listen at c-span.org/podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. >> u.s. postal service inspector

general tammy would come was on capitol hill to answer questions about postal service operations and the agencies 2022 budget request. the hearing included a postal worker and two small business workers testifying about postal delays and the impact on their jobs. this senate appropriations committee meeting runs an hour and a half. >> [inaudible conversations]