tilt members what they saw and experienced on that day. watch the hearing live tuesday beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and online or listen with the free radio app. host: mike debonis joins us now about activities in congress. good morning to you. guest: thanks for having me. host: were both sides at and

getting the build on the person effort? guest: it is a big week. a big day. the senate left last week having agreement on this infrastructure framework. democrats and republicans have both said we are closed, give us the weekend. we understand it is still not there yet, but there is some optimism that they will get back together today, and hopefully there can be a reckoning on both sides and bridge some of the divides that are left. they are dealing with the democratic side, a limited of set of patience in terms of letting these talks drag on. most democrats are really eyeing this other package, the reconciliation package, a wide variety, economic, climate, other programs that they went to move on. every minute this doesn't come together is delaying something that is a lot closer to the heart of many democrats. it is a big day today, and we will see whether this comes together. host: what is the major sticking point as far as current negotiations? guest: there are a bunch of little sticking points, not necessarily to the people caring

about them, but in the grand scheme of things details. , the biggest is transit funding. typically the federal government in transportation service funding bills has split funding between highways and transit, 80-20, and there is some sort of bickering over whether it should be more, less. republicans want to go a little less than that. less for transit. democrats want to keep that. that's probably the biggest sticking point. there are some other things. structure for broadband funding, whether to observe the wage requirement which basically requires paying union scale wages to federally funded projects. those are all open issues, and we understand democrats sent the final offer over the weekend, they did not call it that, but they suggested this is a final offer, there will be some sort of meeting today and

some decisions that have to be made. host: say a package emerges and we see a text. what happens then? guest: last week the senate took a preliminary test vote that failed that sibley would have started the process of getting on the bill. senator schumer changed his vote in the end, giving his vote the ability to come back and say that any time. he could do it tonight, tomorrow, or later this week and that could start the process of putting the bill on the floor. i think democrats, senator schumer, are eager to get that process started, certainly this week, wrap it up next week, then move to the other bill, which we have to pass a budget resolution. that is next on the agenda. host: if you want to ask questions about the process of

congress, --202-748-8000 free democrats, -- for democrats 202-748-8001 for republicans. , nancy pelosi reiterated yesterday that she has to see certain things before moving forward. plus eco--- plus eco- -- speaker pelosi: i'm enthusiastic about the fact that they will have a bipartisan bill. i hope that it will be soon. i stand by it because the fact is that the president has said he wants to have a bipartisan bill, and we all do. but that is not the limitation of the vision of the president. he wants to build that better, to do so in a way that again, that involves many more people in the prosperity of our country. we say build back better with women. that is why we need home health care funding. that's why we need the family

and medical leave. so building a human infrastructure is part of building a physical infrastructure. that is why we will have something further to add. the bill is not as clean as i would like it to bill, the infrastructure bill, and i think that it is something we could have passed a long time ago, even before the climate crisis was readily known to everyone. nonetheless, i hope that it will pass. i will not put it on the floor until we have the rest of the initiative. host: your take from there. guest: the speaker reiterated her strategy, which she has been talking about for months, which is the bipartisan infrastructure bill is only going to pass with this other bill that contains the rest of it passes alongside it. there is policy and political reasons for this.

the policy reason is, you know, there are things in the other bill that democrats really want, and they are afraid that if you pass a bipartisan bill, that sort of saps the willingness. those particularly in the moderate wing of the caucus, to go along with some of these more ambitious, you know, climate and social net, safety net spending, things like that that see it as this is the opportunity to deliver some of these agenda items that they have been talking about for decades. the political issue is that she is not going to get liberal votes for the bipartisan plan in the house unless this other bill is riding alongside it. remember the progressive caucus, folks that are really counting on this $3.5 trillion bill to become law are not going to wave their hands and let the

bipartisan bill pass without this other bill coming together. that may change, but by sending this message, she is saying, really the mainstream of her caucus who wants to see the bills passed, it is not going to happen. i'm not going to let them do a bait and switch, and we will just pass this bipartisan bill that doesn't quite do as much as you guys want it to do. host: how did republicans on the senate side react to that? guest: so far it has not derailed bipartisan talks. there was a lot of complaining the last few weeks when speaker pelosi first said that, when leader schumer first weighed out this two-track approach. the tying of the two together certainly gives a lot of republicans, most republicans, quite a bit of heartburn. but there is still a group of 10, perhaps more senate

republicans who want to do this bipartisan infrastructure deal anyway, and there is some deal, a calculation that if you take this easy, popular stuff off the table with the bipartisan bill, it makes it harder on the margins for democrats to pass their big agenda bill. and, you know, that is something we will see play out. we are already seeing some end fighting within the democrats on how to structure this bill. this will probably play out over the next couple of months. host: mike debonis joining us. our first call comes from peter in massachusetts. democrats line. you're on with our guest. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the things about january 6, or perhaps i misunderstood -- why there was no mutual aid amongst the four major law

enforcement agencies in washington, d.c., in good numbers that could have offset and perhaps pushed back on the crowd that descended on capitol hill. you had the capitol police, you had federal protective service, the uniform brass of the u.s. secret service and the much smaller police contingent that was trained in counterterrorism. and why we have to go and reinvent the wheel and put more money into more manpower when adjustments to mutual aid packs was achieving the same objective, something we need to be scratching our heads. thank you. guest: that is a great about the point failures of january 6.

they were massive, obviously. he raised the question about ritual aid, particularly the other federal police forces who were present in the district. i am not up-to-date on the specifics of those mutual aid packs between the park police and our protective service. there was mutual aid with the metropolitan police and some of the suburban departments, but they came in late after the , capitol had already been lost. you know, what this gets down to is that -- and the bipartisan senate report found, but this is -- at its foundation, with a -- this was a massive intelligence failure. they did not take the threat to the capitol. they treated it like any other sort of protest, small-scale protest, where there was not expected to be an actual threat to the building. they put up barriers that obviously were not up to the task.

they did not draw on whatever mutual aid arrangements are in place until it was too late. we have heard from many metropolitan police officers -- the d.c. municipal police who fought very bravely that day. we will hear from a couple of them tomorrow at this first select committee hearing. other departments helped and were there, and they helped clear the building and allowed congress to do its work that day. but it was much too late. host: the first of the select committee, you can watch that tomorrow on c-span3, c-span.org, and our radio app. what message do you think the speaker sent with the representation of kinsinger that

was made yesterday. guest: on a political level, she is trying to drive a wedge between republicans and their sort of, for lack of a better term, fealty to fallen president trump. the fact that one generous six, there are a number of republicans who are quite uneasy with the approach they have taken, and some of them quite vocally. liz cheney and adam kinzinger being at the top of that list. she's also dealing with the fact that after making her move last week to reject the later mccarthy picks for the committee, that he pulled all of the five picks that he is entitled to, he wants it to have as much of a bipartisan look on it as possible even though it , certainly doesn't have the republican leadership. she can reasonably say that this is a partisan probe.

there are two republicans joining the democrats on the panel to investigate this. now, leader mccarthy and many other republicans will say they are not our republicans, but it remains to be seen how much that is going to matter to the american public to the extent they are paying attention to this. i think that speaker pelosi has very much made a calculation that, you know, she is not going to be party to engaging in some of this what about-ism, complaints that have come particularly from the republican side, saying that we need to look at this, this, and this, not the causes of what happened on january 6. she seems completely comfortable in that. she has the backing of her caucus. they have the majority. they can do this and they are doing this. host: joseph in florida, independent line. you are next up. caller: good morning. i have two questions relating to infrastructure and the other

related bill. i appeal to you to give me a chance to express both of them, please. the first one on infrastructure , my understanding is that a week, 10 days ago, the bill ran into a roadblock because the republicans wanted to renege on an agreement that they had made to provide funding for the irs, in order for the irs to be able to collect unpaid bills. one number i heard was up to $400 billion. and for whatever reason, for a moment there they walked away from that, and that has created a roadblock. that is the problem with collecting unpaid money. the second part is regarding the other bill, the $3.5 trillion one. i have an idea or suggestion.

there was a leak at the irs, whatever you want to call it, that revealed that most multimillionaires and billionaires for years and years have not been paying any income tax, zero. ok, so we could pay for all of this. i know 3.5 trillion is a humongous number, but it could be done just by having everybody, including millionaires and billionaires, paying their fair share. host: we have to leave it there because of time. we will let the guest respond. guest: joseph is very well performed. the infrastructure talk, they came back after the fourth of july, and one of the we refer to these revenues or spending that represents the offsetting of the spending that we want to do. one of the big items on that list was irs enforcement. there were estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars that investing in more auditing

capability, more investigative capability, if the irs could produce those returns. so there was a political and mathematical problem, the mathematical problem being that their estimates it would create all this revenue, and the congressional budget office did not necessarily agree. they were specifically very conservative in their estimates of what these things will generate. it did not really produce the number that i think a lot of the members were counting on. so the problem is political, which is the republican party has campaigned for years on weakening the irs on campaigning that it is irs overreach. their view is that the irs should be weaker, not stronger. that is the mainstream republican view. while no one is going to stand up and put it in terms of we

think we are going to keep allowing rich people to cheat on their taxes, you know, this is kind of where this discussion goes. democrats are completely comfortable, saying that we need more resources at the irs because the wealthy are not paying their fair share. we don't have enough investigators and auditors to look at the returns and make sure people are following the law, paying what they owe. but as a political matter, republicans just cannot countenance putting more money in the irs. i think what you likely to see is allowing up in the other bill, perhaps a more aggressive way, requiring disclosures from banks so that people who do bank transactions, more of that will be reported to the irs so they tracked the money better and perhaps more closely figure out how much people really owe. then on the other part, that ties into the other part joseph

is talking about, about taxation pay-fors on the other bill. you can rest assured that democrats are looking at new ways to tax the wealthy. there are sort of mainstream democrat ideas around, you know, raising the corporate tax rate, eliminating some loopholes, and then on the individual tax side, there is a possibility that they could look at raising some of the top marginal rates. some are talking about a millionaire surtax that can be levied on the very rich. these are all ideas that are in circulation right now, and very likely could end up in a final package. host: this is a story about new jersey democrats and how they play into what is currently going on. guest: i appreciate that. i did a story about how one state in particular has a lot on the line. that is new jersey.

you know, they have an attitude that they sort of took it on the chin during the trump administration. in the 2017 republican tax bill, a big offset was getting rid of the state and local income tax deduction which was used disproportionately in new jersey, and that was scaled back immensely. a lot of middle-class households saw their tax bills go up because of that, in a bill that was really supposed to cut taxes across the board. on infrastructure, the trump administration held up one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country, the gateway tunnel, between new york and new jersey. thousands and thousands of commuters use it daily, really the entire eastern seaboard. that is not only moving again under the, but now new jersey democrats see this as a way to make things right, but there is an issue.

this is very expensive, hundreds of billions of dollars. there are ways to do it partially, but they want the whole enchilada, and it is expensive. they have another problem, which is one of the big offsets that the democrats are looking at, prescription drug pricing reform, allowing medicare to negotiate with drug companies, that potentially could generate hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for medicare, that can offset other things. the pharmaceutical industry is really centered in new jersey, the largest -- something like 13 of the largest 20 pharmaceutical companies are in new jersey. the delegation has historically been very protective of the industry, and there is already a lot of pushback on using drug pricing to pay for other things. that is why the garden state is in the middle of this. the delegation is very influential. they have the chairman of the

house energy and commerce committee, bob menendez, a very influential member of the finance committee. you have a number of lawmakers who are very influential. host: this is elaine from washington state, republican line. thanks for waiting. calder: i am asking about the video of the woman who got shot. i watched that, and two guys who i guess were security guys were standing in front of the double doors, one on each door. a man was standing on their right with some kind of walkie-talkie or telephone. he gets a call, puts it up to his ear. he hangs up, looks at the two guys, he says something to them, they walk about 20 feet away, and then the window gets broken, and this woman who ended up

getting shot is almost picked up in the air by somebody and thrown forward. but i would like to know who gave them the standdown order? somebody had to. it is on video. host: ok, caller. guest: i haven't seen that video recently, so i'm not entirely familiar with the walkie-talkie traffic. i'm not aware of any standdown order. i do not think that -- i have no reason, no evidence to believe that anyone in any position of authority told anybody to stand down. to give the context of that video, that was taken in what is called the speakers lobby, the hallway directly behind the house chamber. members of congress were inside the house chamber, staffers, colleagues of mine. this was a moment of great

tension. no one knew what the mob had in mind. there were, as that group was bearing down, trying to get inside the speaker's lobby, and thus have access to the chamber, they were evacuating people out the other side of the hallway. i think that any examination of that has to take that into context. there was a mob of people at the doors of the capitol, smashing windows. some of them, we have seen video, threatening violence against the speaker of the house, other members of congress. and, you know, there is a debate certainly about whether lethal force was justified in this. i have heard very few members of congress -- there have been a couple. i have seen very few members of congress suggest that lethal

force was not justified. host: on our independent line, jason from falls church, virginia. caller: first of all, the mob was absolutely no threat, so there is no cause to say there was a need for legal the force. -- for lethal force. that's insane. second, regarding the fires, i wonder if members on the hill had backed trump with what he said they needed to do exactly what -- host: that was a different guest. new guest entirely. do you have a question for him? caller: when it comes to january 6, i think that any republican should avoid giving any legitimacy to it.

black lives matter and antifa burnt down the country for over six months, and nothing was done to try to stop or investigate it. right now there are people held in the d.c. jail that are being treated as subhuman pretty much on the level of guantanamo bay, terror suspects, people who were trespassing and did not commit any kind of violent act or anything, so i think that the right idea is to not give it any legitimacy to the sham, which is basically being used as a political stunt, to fuel the democrats' hopes for 2022 and 2024, and make republicans look as bad as possible. host: thanks for the call, jason. what is the republican messaging going forward, especially in light of the commission going ahead with his work? guest: jason summed it up pretty well, as far as the republicans are concerned, this is a sham, created and being directed by speaker pelosi and her top lieutenants. this is going to be a democratic product at the end of the day, even with liz cheney and adam kinzinger on board.

they can certainly claim it is bipartisan, but this is going to be a democratic product. the question is, does that matter? we have seen these congressional investigations take place in the past. we all remember benghazi, the many probes that culminated in a select committee. in that case, the democrats participated, and there was that minority report that the majority made findings and we certainly see that in a political context. i think that will be the case for what this panel comes up with, and i think the speaker has been cognizant of that and she has made her choice. host: the writing of our guest can be found on the washington post. >> coming up, the president and

the vice president give remarks on the 31st anniversary of the americans with disabilities act, live coverage from that rose garden starting at 11:10 eastern here on c-span. the u.s. house returns today at noon eastern, and work starts at 2:00 p.m. two-state members will take up a spending package for 2022 including funding for labor, education, energy and transportation. the senate returns at 3:00 p.m. eastern dude debate the nomination of the assistant attorney general for environment and natural resources. off the senate floor, negotiations continue on an infrastructure bill the could be voted on later in the week. watch live coverage on c-span and see the senate on c-span2.

the house committee investigating the january 6 attack on the capitol holds the first hearing tuesday. officers from the capitol police and washington police department will tell members what they saw and experienced on that day. watch the hearing live tuesday beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3 or listen with the free radio app. >> the cdc has their covid tracker online, and it tells us that among the united states, 163 million fully vaccinated and it breaks it down to percentages trade when you look at the people who have at least one dose, 188 million 472,188, about 56.8% of the population of those with at least one dose. but even if you take that number, it only shows