download c-span now today. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> right now, we are facing our greatest challenge. that is why sparklight is keeping you connected. we are doing our part, so it is a little easier to do yours. >> sparklight support c-span as a public service, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> here is what is coming up on today's "washington journal," house republican congress vice chair mike johnson of louisiana on the potential shutdown, and the house votes to suspend the that limit. then jonathan bydlak, r street institute's director, discusses

infrastructure and social programs. later, houston, texas democratic leader al green discusses migrants at the southern border. be sure to join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: the running joke on capitol hill is that it is always infrastructure week, and mostly sarcastic not to the reality that congress has never been able to significantly take up significant infrastructure legislation over the years. today is different. the house will vote on a bipartisan infrastructure bill, passed by this and it was 19 the publican bills included. we hold up in the house, however, will likely be in the hands of its most liberal members, who vowed to block it, unless that $3.5 trillion social spending packages also passed.

all of this happening on the last day of the fiscal year, with government funding set to expire at midnight, and the senate points to -- poised to pass a short-term spending bill. good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this last day of the month, september 30. we will hear from you this morning, your thoughts and comments on those issues and what may be ahead. 202-748-8000, the line for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents and others, 202-748-8002. and you can text us. that is 202-748-8003. we will look for your thoughts on facebook and look for your posts on twitter and instagram @cspanwj. just to let you know, the timing of things this morning, the senate comes in first at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the house at 10:00 a.m. eastern this morning. action shortly thereafter on that continuing resolution in

the senate. of course you can follow the senate over on c-span 2, follow the house live here on c-span, and follow both on our new c-span now mobile app. we will stream the house and senate, as we always do, stream both of those live. the reporting this morning from roll call, on the infrastructure vote ahead in the u.s. house, "infrastructure vote still on despite reconciliations go make," if their headline. "speaker nancy pelosi said the house will move ahead with a thursday vote despite massive uncertainty that the house can pass it. the plan is to bring the vote to the floor, the california democrat told reporters, after she and schumer met with president biden at the white house. asked if she would have the votes to pass it, pelosi promised nothing. "one hour at a time," she said.

" the headline from politico this morning, "white house gives a wink to progressives as they threatened biden's instructor bill." they write, "progressives in the house all revolting. one by one, liberal lawmakers will vote to defeat a bipartisan infrastructure bill of moderate democrats and the white house do not offer a firm outline for accompanying social and climate spending packages as well. and just as tensions within the party were within a boiling point this week, senator bernie sanders turned it up even further, urging house democrats to vote against a bipartisan interceptor bill when it hits the floor and thursday. some of those same progressives have complained that biden has not done enough to reach out on his legislative agenda. the white house seems utterly unbothered by it. comments from the press

secretary of the white house, jen psaki, on the infrastructure plan and the $3.5 trillion spending measure. [video clip] sec. psaki: the president has been clear about getting both piece of his legislations past, so right now, what we are navigating through and working through is how we can get agreements, 50 votes come in the senate on a reconciliation packet that is what we are discussing here. we will see if every body can get enough votes to get it across the threshold. >> senator bernie sanders incentive vote it down, kill the whole thing. sec. psaki: i will not speak for senator sanders, but i will say there is more context for what a number of progressive members of the caucus are saying. they want a number. they want to understand with the path forward as i reconciliation package. does millie come our objective years to work toward an agreement. that is in process.

we are not there yet. >> on the other and, senator manchin has said he does not think the tax and and subsidies for renewals are needed right now, that they are not necessary. do you commit to keep those? sec. psaki: the president proposed those in his initial package. he proposed a range of ideas in his original package. what we are looking to do it is determine how we can get the 50 votes to get this historic package across the finish line. >> no commitment on those? sec. psaki: i am not negotiating from here. i could otherwise say, "this is in, this is out," we are obviously at a precarious, important time. host: curacao the "washington times" reports on that -- "president biden gets nowhere. president biden was making progress on his make or break

plans. now that infrastructure bill is set for a vote in the house today. they have already debated that mostly. when there were vote, that is uncertain. house comes in at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they will begin legislative work at noon. this and it will come in at 9:30, and they will get to what is underway on the fourth term continuing resolution that will fund the government through december. that was passed. they stripped out the debt ceiling language, it was passed in the house yesterday. your thoughts on all of this. democrats, it is 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

and for independents and others, 202-748-8002. let's go to new york city first coming here on our democrats line from rob. hello there. caller: hey. good morning. thank you for c-span. you know, it goes without saying that the republicans and fox television, they are drooling and waiting and hoping that the democrats screw this up, and they are already pouncing. it has been messed up. if the democrats -- bernie sanders is old enough to know better, and so are these, even though they are young, aoc -- i am a democrat, please, but the three women that mean well, but they don't understand negotiations. they think they understand. young people always think they understand, but they don't

understand that they are engaged in a negotiation where they have got to get something out. if they don't let this one point $2 trillion infrastructure package pass and work on the other one later, can anyone say hello, president trump? he is going to sink biden over not pushing the infrastructure, and you are going to strengthen trump, and you have got to be nuts. and that is the part that they are being so naïve about. bernie sanders knows better. i do not know what he is thinking, if he wants to put on his poker face until the end, but they have got to let go of what they are looking for, this $3.5 trillion, they are trying to put manchin on there and get manchin to say what he is willing to say. can anyone repeat "president trump"?

it is nauseating. host: the caller mentioned fox, and chad with a series of tweets about the actual capital today, specifically on speaker pelosi, writing "speaker pelosi usually does not bring bills to the floor that will fail. her acuity is so accurate that she often muscles through major bills with the narrowest of margins." again, that is set for a vote, time tbd. on independent line, this is derek. caller: i disagree with everything the last caller said. the democrats are standing up for the people. that infrastructure bill, we need childcare, we need all of these mental care. give me the time the last person was could sizing the bill. the progressives who are doing this, standing up, this is their leverage.

you must hold onto your leverage, because if you don't, joe manchin is not the president. anything you put in there for gay marriage and for gay people, you know, the lgbt community, what the democrats need to do is hold the line can we activists voted, we put you in to do this. joe biden ran on the things. joe manchin is not the president what we need to do is go to joe manchin and tell joe manchin this, either you vote for us, you go along with us, you are not the president, the people in wasn't in any more aid than anyone. it is the poorest state in the union. they are on government aid. they need all this help. joe manchin has got all these issues in the last bill. host: ok, derek. we go to jerry and broadway, virginia, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: everything this administration has done since

taking office has wound up in pure disaster. what makes them think this boondoggle spending spree would not be another disaster? host: our caller from virginia, the "washington post" with a story about how the debate from capitol hill may affect that state's governors race. maccallum's party. raising the risk the democrats could lose the governor's race, according to party insiders, who fear it could spark reader legislative and electoral problems in the coming year. the party's nominee and virginia, terry mcauliffe, has import to resolve disputes and enact a sweeping infrastructure bill that has passed hurdles in the house. he warned wednesday that voters had spoken. he had spoken to are desperate out here for road and bridge money and wondering where it is. in cleveland, tennessee, melissa

on the democrats line. caller: good morning. yeah, i kind of agree with both he callers, both the democratic caller and the independent caller. there's a lot of bickering going on, and it could take the whole thing. if that happens, somewhere, we are going to have a bridge that has not been repaired and years that is going to fall down. we have registered voters who are probably going to die. and we are told by the government oh, sorry, we don't have any money, so in order to replace your bridge come we will have to triple everybody's taxes to do it. if that happens, you know, us democrats are not going to care about who is a progressive and who is moderate and all that stuff, we are just going to shop around for some candidates comes 2022. host: to california, tom on

independent line. go ahead. caller: yeah, i'm agreeing with some of the other caller. i am a first time voter. i 59. i have been a convicted felon. i was able to vote for the first time this round. host: congratulations. caller: yeah, to get rid of trump, but then to come into this stuff here, i do not think the democrats really understand the kind of backbone -- the republicans are going to get it all right back if they don't watch what they are doing. these rich, elite people in office, they are just -- i don't see that they really care about anything else but themselves in what is good for them. i just don't understand it, you know, this is why i never voted, even if i could, back in the day. i just don't understand. host: tom, you first voted in the 2020 election? caller: yeah. host: and you voted for joe

biden for president? caller: yes i did. yes, i did. you know, people publicans, they are some ruthless people. mitch mcconnell, he is a ruthless, shameless person. i do not understand why he can do the same things that's why we can't do the same things back to these people, because they have no shame in what they do. i am in all of why this is such a hard thing to do, you know, there has got to be something i am not seeing behind the scenes that motivates these people why they do what they do. it has got to be about money, you know, and just personal survival and not really caring about anything else but themselves. host: all right, tom mentioned the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell. here he is on the senate floor yesterday, talking about the $3.5 trillion measure. [video clip] sen. mcconnell: president biden recently suggests it is because they want to pair the biggest spending with the biggest tax

hike in the century, that somehow makes their entire package free? the president said it is free? democrats want to? americans' tax rates, spend it on socialism, and then save the whole thing nets out to zero dollars? this might be the best encapsulation of washington democrat thinking i have ever heard. they want to print and borrow trillions of dollars and then set it on fire. but as long as they send your taxes skyrocketing at the same time, it is all a wash! heads they win, tails you lose. heads, democrats raise your money. tails, they raise your taxes. this has rightfully raised our president most will pinocchios,

and democrats' spending spree will earn is zero votes from senate republicans. host: the president's so-called build back better plan is that $3.5 trillion social spending plan, reconciliation package. they talk about some of the things it would do. it would establish a universal pre-k, would extend a child tax credit and earned income tax credit, it would create a federal pay family medical leave benefit, require utilities sectors to generate 80% of its powerful, clean energy by 2030, make many college free for two years and reduce prescription drug costs. that is not, as far as we know, not yet set for a vote in the house floor today. the house will vote on a continuing resolution, because today is the last day of the fiscal year, and the house is scheduled to vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that the senate has already passed.

your thoughts and comments are welcome on text as well. 202-748-8003. william from middletown, connecticut says this -- "democrats are irresponsible in this type of negotiation. too big, too much, inflationary spending now. republicans voted for a $2 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, 1%, but will now not vote for a 3 billion-dollar infrastructure package for rebuilding the country. that is mike in orlando, florida. to anthony, democrats line in baltimore, maryland. caller: yes, thank you, and good morning to everyone and c-span. i am going to be quite honest with the. i do not know what is in the $3.5 trillion bill. that is from the streets. people on the streets do not know what is in it.

we know all the spin doctors talk about childcare and talk about help for the community, but we really don't know. what are you going to do with that much money? i think that needs to be made more open to the public, and the democrats need to stop playing games and just get down to business and vote correctly and straight. what i do know is that the infrastructure bill is necessary, because everybody drives on the roads, everybody ride the train now and then, everybody flies on a plane. everybody needs to get around. there's also money available for cybersecurity. i think that is a big issue to resolve today, because we have a lot going on with social media. we have got all types of villains around the globe who were trying to get on dark networks, and we need to look out for that. but the congress needs to stop pretending that this is play

money and that the people on the street don't care. we do care. i am not going to call any names. we already know who the players are. we just want them to bring it on home. that's what i want to say to the public, is that we want these people to bring it home. the intro structure bill is pretty clear-cut. let's get that done. but the $3.5 trillion? i think we need to know more about that before that money is spent. thank you. host: ok, to duane on the independent line. this is in maine. good morning. caller: hi. the last caller who spoke, it is all infrastructure. investing in human beings, social services, that is also info structure. none of this money is wasted, and mitch mcconnell lies, and he is not a patriot, because he does not care what happens to this country. the private instructor bills a go to private corporations are fine. privatization is always fine

with republicans and apparently the last caller. when it goes to helping people in this country, that is when people talk about price, and it is disingenuous, because this mcconnell has no problem with a $2 trillion tax cut going to his wealthy fans, and the war in afghanistan, that is fine with mitch mcconnell, but then suddenly becomes fiscally irresponsible? and joe manchin and kyrsten sinema are not on the democratic side. nobody complained when the tax cut blew a gigantic hole when trump did it. the entire democratic party, including the biden administration, is united with the progressives, who is blame to demonize for the infrastructure plan. the whole thing is plan, joe manchin and sinema, they have

been bought by those who always get tax breaks from the lucky republicans. host: here's a report of the different factions of the house side, the democratic outside of the capital. democrats divided, centrists say trust is gone. this is not helping. democratic progressive say they do not trust each other. they are tossing around words like "stupid," insanity," and they are drawing lines in the sand. both parties average histories of infighting when it comes to enacting their priorities, even when they controlled the white house and both chambers of congress. democrats had to overcome stark divisions in 2010 to enact president barack obama's health care law. the gop fell short when they failed to repeal that statute, president donald trump's topical. this time, the internal batteries over a 10-year, $3.5 trillion package for social and

environmental initiatives that comes with virtually no margin for error and a lot at stake. on the republican line, here is lewis in upland, california. go ahead. caller: i am actually a democrat. you got a mixup. host: sorry about that. go ahead. caller: my messages to chuck, joe manchin and sinema, get in line with the democratic agenda. because we are true americans, the democratic already for the people, not corporations like the far right, and you must fall in line. the republicans say we should do this thing. we have got to get together, united to get our share of the trillions of dollars we have given to the corporations, but from the last administration. host: let me go to the independent line, david in prairieville, louisiana. caller: yes, i have just

got one question. what country -- we told the taliban in afghanistan we were trying to get them to pretty much kill each other. i mean, i am just wondering, we do it in our own country. why would we go and help somebody, when we do it to ourselves? host: all right, republican line next. bella is in the bronx in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. -- 26 years, quietly, me and my wife. this is done in an invisible way. they are refusing the law. host: last night was the annual

congressional baseball game. our own howard moorman with this tweet, a screen grab of the game senior on c-span last night. republicans win congressional baseball game 13-12. some of the scenes come up some of the commentary from last night at nat's park in the nation was the capital. [video clip] the president of the united states -- >> the actual president of the united states. >> president biden is in the house. areas. president biden appearance here. house speaker nancy pelosi. >> p actually met with speaker pelosi and senate majority leader chuck schumer a little while ago. they discussed topics relating to infrastructure and a whole ton of issues now facing the congressional democrats, and the president going around and shaking hands.

>> i guess this is an ok cause for delay of game? the president shows up. >> i think so. we talk about the unconventionality, the fact that you have the president of the united states coming in and actually getting on the field and meeting with the democrats. maybe it's giving them a little pep talk, get them caught up. they are down by a run here. >> two years ago, president obama emerged from the third-base dugout in the middle of the game as well. he went around the third-base dugout. president biden right now shaking hands with the democratic players. the fans standing and cheering, cameras up, phone cameras up. players had their camera phones out as well. >> i'm sure it is a nice evening diversion for the president, given all the pressures he has had to deal

with this week. huge week for members of congress, dealing with so many issues right now, whether government shutdown, debt limit, major multitrillion dollar infrastructure bill. the president here now just enjoying himself with his fellow democrats on the field, as we take a brief pause. host: an republicans winning that annual congressional basement game last night, 13-12. before that, the house had been in session, and they passed narrowly increasing their limit -- or extending, i should say, the debt limit through december of next year. here's the reporting of the "new york post" -- "house democrats past debt is dealing increase that will go through the senate." they write, "it is a largely symbolic passage, comes today's after lawmakers in the upper chamber block a stopgap measure

to keep the government funded through december 3 and increase the federal government's borrowing limit, in addition to inviting disaster relief funds for the resettlement of afghan refugee. republicans both chambers said they would not approve it, saying it would greenlight democrats' partisan priorities as they look to move forward with sweeping social spending bill aimed at tackling an array of the biden administration's top priorities carico democrats line, this is kathleen. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. you are on the air. caller: i think it is sorry that the republicans are getting paid for not doing their job. the constitution says they have a job to do. if you don't do your job, you get fired. they should be fired. right now, they talk about all

the bottle caps everywhere. it has been out there in california. people have to go get the truck to go get their stuff also cargo ships. ain't nothing here. dollar tree, which is $1 at the dollar store come is going up from $1 to $5, there's nothing here. trump owns this. he said he was for the united states of america, it was a big lie. it is a big lie, and it is still going on. thank you. host: next up is dave on the infinite line in las vegas. good morning. caller: i would like to talk about -- they always talk about they don't want to raise the debt ceiling. they need to pay their bills. people in social security, medicare, these republicans are going to take it away. they get in office, they don't care. he talks about the debt limit, mcconnell does.

he spent trillions of dollars over in afghanistan, a or we should not have been in. every american could have gotten $1 million for the money they spent on that war. it is ridiculous. republicans get bears, and everybody else's suffering. we don't get anything. they don't want to pass bills. they don't want to raise the debt ceiling. the republicans, they don't care about the american people. if they get an office, there will be no social security, there will be know medicare. you can count on that. i took my social security at 62. it is not very much. are they going to raise it? no, they will. republicans think,they don't ca. they get their tax breaks. they pay for war. host: let's go to our republican line and hear from john in california. caller: this $3.5 trillion boon

doggle, we really do not need it. under joe biden, the only ones i have seen build back better are the taliban. it is ridiculous. has anyone noticed they came up with the amount first and then they started spending it on things? this is a joke. it is a joke on america and you have people calling in acting as if they are going to get a piece of the action. we are going to tear up the corporations, we are going to tax the rich. and then they claim to be americans. they are not americans. americans not -- do not put their hands in others pockets for their money. if you want to build back better, get off our back. take away these mandates. take away what is causing massive inflation. let people go to work.

we have a labor shortage that we cannot fill in because the president will not allow people to go to work without a jab. get your heads out of your rear end, people. host: majority leader chuck schumer was on the floor of the u.s. senate yesterday talking about raising the debt ceiling. the house has done that. they have passed that standalone measure suspending the debt ceiling through december. the speaker -- the majority leader talked about that on the senate floor yesterday. [video clip] sen. schumer: secretary yellen's warning was unmistakable. it would be disastrous for the economy, markets, and millions of families and workers whose financial security would be jeopardized. yet every day the outcome grows more and more likely because of republicans are deliberately

preventing the government from being able to pay these bills. in solving this crisis, this body cannot and will not go through an drawn out unbreakable crisis. it risks the full faith of the united states. to do this through reconciliation requires ping ponging separate bills back between the senate and the house. it is uncharted waters. individual centers could move to delay. it is very risky and could lead us to default. even if only one center wanted -- one senator wanted that to happen, that is possible. everyone who studied it knows it is risky and it is a political gambit by leader mcconnell who has changed his tune several times. he said over again, just give them a vote and we give them that chance. now he has backed off of that and moved to this untenable excuse.

it is not a real answer. if the republicans want to prevent a default, they should step aside and let democrats do the responsible thing. [end video clip] host: it is uncertain when the senate will take up the debt ceiling measure the house passed yesterday. also uncertain when either body and take up the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, what the president has turned his build back better plan. we know they will take up the short-term spending measure funding the government through december. speaker pelosi has said they will vote on the $1 trillion infrastructure bill. "the wall street journal" reporting on the efforts to change the $3.5 trillion measure. lobbyists press for changes on our bill. lobbyists are working to undermine elements of the democrats $3.5 trillion spending bill, adding another complication to efforts by

president biden and democratic leaders to move their domestic agenda through congress this fall. the attacks are coming on multiple fronts and are purposed on persuading lawmakers for changes in the bill given that republicans are opposed. lobbyists for drug companies, oil and gas firms, tobacco corporations and other industries are pressuring allies in congress for measures that would pay for the bill by raising billions of dollars for their industries. drug industry lobbyists are working to remove provisions that could cost the industry a combined $700 billion over a decade, including one that would allow the government to negotiate discounts for prescription drugs through medicare. tobacco firms and convenience stores are trying to strip out tax increases on tobacco and e-cigarettes. the plastics industry says an attempt to tax makers of single use disposable items would raise consumer costs by $100 billion. the $3.5 trillion bill

encompasses much of president biden's domestic agenda including measures to combat climate change, reduce income inequality, improve public health, and boost education. comments on social media and via text. "if a republican president was to propose the same exact infrastructure bill, the gop would say it is the greatest bill and vote to pass it," says larry in maryland. "i vote yay for the infrastructure bill. congress works a full five day week." this one says, "where is the outrage over the cost of prescription drugs?" " who really believes that mitch mcconnell will not raise the debt ceiling which will stop the government from sending out social security and governance checks -- government checks?" next up is greg on the

independent line. caller: i call in frequently. occasionally, i do get in. i think it is interesting that you have been on for a while, many years, maybe 20. icu drifting left pretty much every -- i see you drifting left pretty much every time. i wonder if the moderators have anything to do with the questions that are being asked every morning on "washington journal." host: absolutely. caller: you are prepared with the questions. host: we work with our producer, the producer of the program, the executive producer. it is a collaborative effort to do that. caller: that explains a lot to me. frankly, i think you have stuff in front of you ready to say when people respond on the question. isn't it interesting on the question of today that you just spent two or three minutes with joe biden, hunter's dad, walking

among people, none of whom had a mask on, and that the congress, nancy pelosi, somebody i think you support, and chuck schumer, exempted the congress from the mask mandate that they impose on the rest of the country. it is interesting to me the lack of detail that c-span is making on the questions that they are asking. my final point is this, i suggest there be a question asked. you see all the politicians, both parties, get up and read prepared statement. -- statements. they should not be allowed to do that. if they really feel as strongly as they say they feel on a particular issue and they are standing up to talk about it, why do they need notes?

i think that would be an interesting change in the procedure for both the house and the senate. host: greg, good to hear from you. thanks for calling from mechanicsburg. david is in new york, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. my main point is just about how people understand economics in this country. everybody has their positions. you hear the democrats, they are all lined up. republicans are all lined up. they all spout the party cliches . we really do not get the facts of the bills at all. i appreciate it when you put up the article and you can see the breakdown of where the expenses are going. it is frustrating to me that we do not see what is being spent. $3.5 trillion is not going to cost us zero.

$1 trillion is not going to cost us zero. that is just common sense. to have the leader of the country say that it is basically a free lunch is absurd. we know that we are going to be passing on debt to our kids, our grandkids, but we need to understand what it is being spent on and we do not get a break and i appreciate it when you guys have more information about the bills and you bring forward what is being taxed, what they are doing to raise the money, what the goals are specifically, where they are trying to save money. you get these cliches of climate change and we are working on climate change or we are working on human infrastructure. what does that mean? where does the money go? there is no clarity at all about these moneys. you are given a price tag and you are told everybody is good. but it is not because it is

going to come back to haunt us. there is no such thing as a zero cost for $3.5 trillion bill. let's add up what has been spent. it is 3, 1.6, whatever. it is close to $10 trillion. i am frustrated that we do not have clarity on any of these expenditures. where is the money going? everyone says we need to put money into the roads, we need to put money into the ports, airports. that is a given. which airport? explain it. what are you talking about? why are we having these problems at the ports with goods coming in? nobody is really explaining anything. they just all sort of stand around and pout and then you get the kind of dog and pony show you see in congress every day. it is upsetting. host: mississippi, linda on the democrats line.

hello. caller: good morning. i think that anyone who votes republican is voting for the demise of this country. mitch mcconnell is a republican who will stand back and let this country default on this debate that was incurred when trump was in office. they have already spent. we have a candidate in trump, but the whole republican party is a candidate. republicans and democrats, we are the united states of america. republicans, mitch mcconnell and his party, is rooting for the demise of this country. if they let this country default

, we will lose credibility all around the world. social security checks, those military checks, those stock market, it would be a lot worse than what it was in 2009 when this economy crashed. you can blame it on the republicans. they are rooting for the demise of this country. host: there is another viewer in bakersfield with this text about mitch mcconnell. he says, "the mitch mcconnell default is coming and it is a nailbiter in the senate. the people get to see who mitch mcconnell really is. given 50 to a credit votes in the senate to raise the debt ceiling. will he prevent tender public and votes to stop our country from defaulting on our national debt. the debate over the $3.5 trillion infrastructure package, the likes of the mansion and have -- have been prominent in a story about her prominent this morning."

"ms. sinema, once a social worker, evolving to the ranks of arizona politics by running as a zealous bipartisan willing to break with her fellow democrats. she counts john mccain, the republican senator who died in 2018 as a hero and has found support from independent voters and moderate suburban women in a state where maverick is practically its own party. but now, she is facing a growing political revolt at home from the voters who once counted themselves among her most devoted supporters. any of the state's most fervent democrats now see her as an obstructionist whose refusal to sign onto a major social policy and climate change bill has helped anchor the party's agenda. little can proceed without the approval of her, one of the two marquee democratic moderates in an evenly divided senate. while she has balked at the

price tag and some of the tax raising provisions of the bill, which is opposed by all public is in congress, democrats in washington and in arizona have grown exasperated. while the senate democrats other high-profile holdout joe manchin of west virginia has publicly outlined his concerns with key elements of the democratic agenda and states -- she has largely declined to issue public comment." let's go back to calls and hear from john on the independent line in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i think this whole thing is a first. they are talking about defaulting. that is never going to happen. not as long as they have a printing machine that can pop out dollars and decrease the value of everybody else's dollar. that is number one. number two, this whole notion that all democrats vote one way

and all republicans vote the other way should tell everybody that it is screwed up. not everybody in the democrat party thinks alike. not everybody in the republican party thinks alike. yet, their arms are twisted to vote the way the party leaders want them to vote, whether it is pelosi, schumer, mcconnell, or whoever gets in charge of the republicans. they all vote in lockstep as if they are all minions, all little puppets of the leaders. that is crazy. as far as the tax system, if you do some research on talking points from either side like the democrats saying wealthy people do not pay their fair share, they never give the numbers about that. if you look up the numbers, the top 1% actually pays 40% of the income tax in this country.

the top 10% pays 71% of the income tax. the top 25% pays 87%. that leaves 13% for the bottom 75% of earners. they never say how much more they want the wealthy to pay. they just say they want the wealthy to pay more. they do not give any specifics on anything. they just use talking point after talking point because they are really good at that. that is the only thing they are really good at. that is all i have to say this morning. host: thanks for that. rock see in alabama, republican line. caller: i would like to say, it is not republicans. this country was running good. the democrats are bringing over the border trash and the afghans and the illegal aliens. if we get them full, how are we

going to take care of all of them? that is what i would like to ask. the government is going to take over everything and divide everybody's checks amongst this bunch. it is our country. it ain't theirs. people ought to become citizens legally. i am not against immigration, but i am against illegal immigration. they couldn't even -- my boy could not even get on a plane because of the afghans. most of them did not have credentials or anything. host: we are talking about the votes in the senate. the house and senate will be in at 9:30. they will take up shortly thereafter the continuing resolution setting -- funding the federal government through the summer third of this year. in the house, they will come in at 10:00 and start their work today at noon and they will later vote, they are scheduled to vote on the infrastructure bill, the $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

the speaker has set that up for a vote. a time has yet to be announced on that vote. here is the headline from "the hill." "dems locked in stalemate. they are at a standstill without a proceed with president biden's economic agenda, a bipartisan infrastructure bill, and a social spending packet are in limbo as neither have the votes to pass." in florida, next up to john, democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that it was interesting listening to that caller about the wealthy paying taxes. there is wealthy democrats, wealthy republicans, but it is not so much the volume of taxes that they pay. in other words, the wealthy pay 60% of the taxes. it is the percentage of their income. for instance, mitt romney, when

he disclosed his taxes, unlike donald trump who probably pays no taxes, mitt romney had about $200 billion and he paid a 13% tax rate. 13% tax rate is a lot more taxes than most people pay, but it is a much smaller percentage of his total income. that is why they say they want the wealthy to pay their fair share. the average american pays 25% or 30% of their income. that is a much bigger hit, even though the wealthy pay the vast majority of the taxes. i just wanted to make that point. the other thing about raising the debt ceiling, republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling, this is not new debt. this is debt that was spent under the trump administration by the corporate tax cuts that they pushed through that they were not able to pay for and also for the rescue, the pandemic funds. they are not you -- looking to raise the debt ceiling for new debt.

this is old debt. not raising it is going to cause a lot of unnecessary hardships. hopefully they come around with that. lastly, i want to say i vote democratic in i am mostly republican, conservative. i have lived under republicans, democrat administrations. nothing is perfect, but under the democratic administrations i have seen better fiscal response. clinton signed the thing to illuminate welfare. you could not stay on welfare for more than eight years. clinton passed the surplus to the republican administrations and they just drove up the deficit. i have the same fiscal conservativism on the republican side. i just want to say that i was hopeful and i do agree with president biden that we need two

healthy parties. we need a healthy republican party and a healthy democratic party. when democrats and republicans came together to get a bill that was passed and worked together on something the country desperately needs, which is improved infrastructure. i am hoping that that gets passed. thank you. host: david is next up. david is in north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning. everybody is talking about they do not know where the money is coming from and so forth. $163 trillion hidden overseas. those are our tax dollars they were taking. the deficit and everything would be taking care of if these hidden funds overseas and around the world, those are the untaxed dollars. that is the fair share money

that we are talking about. as far as biden saying that it would not cost us anything, it would not cost the people who he is representing anything. host: military leaders wrapped up two days of testimony on capitol hill yesterday. the defense department, the secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs. here is the back-and-forth between representative matt gaetz and the chairman of the joint chiefs, general mark milley. [video clip] >> rep. roy: 26, 2020 -- february 26, 2020. "we know we will not defeat the taliban militarily and they will not defeat the government of afghanistan militarily." you really blew that call, didn't you, general? >> i believe that was an issue of strategic stalemate and if we had remained in afghanistan with the advisory levels of effort --

>> that is an interesting answer, just not what i asked. you spent more time with bob woodward on this book than you spent analyzing the very likely prospect that the afghanistan government was going to fall immediately to the taliban, didn't you? >> not even close, congressman. >> you said right after kabul felt that nobody could've anticipated the immediate fall of the afghani government. wouldn't you become aware that joe biden tried to get him to lie about the conditions in afghanistan. did you know that? >> i am not aware of what president biden -- >> you are not aware of the phone call that biden had where he said whether it is true or not, we want you to paint a rosy picture of what is going on in afghanistan. you are the chief advisor to the president. he said the taliban was not going to defeat the government of afghanistan militarily, which, by the way, they cut through them like a hot knife. and the president tries to get him to live. when did you become aware? >> two things, if i may.

what i said was the situation is still made and if we kept advisors there with the government of afghanistan, the army would have still been there. whether that is right or wrong, i do not know. >> it seems wrong now. [end video clip] host: reporting a "politico" headline. "health leaders call for mille u 's resignation." liz cheney of wyoming, here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> on january 6, we had a violent attack on our capital. it was an effort to stop the process of counting electoral votes, the first time in our nations history we did not have a peaceful transfer of power. in the aftermath of that attack, many of the members of our constitutional system failed to do their duty. many of them punted.

many of them are still attempting to obstruct the investigation into that attack, attempting to whitewash what happened. general milley, you found yourself in your constitutionally prescribed role, standing in the breach. and for any member of this committee, or any american, the question -- to question your loyalty to our nation, to question your understanding of our constitution, your loyalty to our constitution, your recognition and understanding of the civilian chain of command is simple. i want to apologize for those members of this committee who have done so and i want to thank you for standing in the breach when so many, including many in this room, failed to do so. [end video clip] host: a couple of comments from viewers on our topic. al from arkansas says, "i am in favor of the infrastructure bill. i am not in favor of $3.5 trillion social spending bill. it will cost too much. they cannot afford it. i do not understand how the democrats can say it will not cost anything.

you don't get something for nothing." "i'm hearing because complaining about not knowing what is in the bills percent by congress. they are all available and there is a cite -- site. the information is out there. less tiktok, more knowledge," says john. "they need to kill the bill. it is not the amount that is dangerous. it is the content that will change america forever." on the republican line, it is denise in new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. first i would like to say that i do not know why everybody is so upset about the debt ceiling. republicans are not needed to raise the debt ceiling at all. it is not an issue. the democrats can do it. they can stop with that. i want to remind everybody that trump tried to get an immigration bill through and he

did not sign the bill and it took a lot of work to get that far and he made a mistake by doing that. i am afraid that these socialist liberals are going to do the same thing with the infrastructure bill. we need that. they need to look at that. as far as the $3.5 trillion bill, we do not know what is in it yet. needs to be more debate on the hill where we can watch it. there might be an eights cents per mile tax. i live in the country. that would be a huge tax for me if i had to pay for every mile that i drive. we need to look more into that bill. the last thing i want to say, the one thing in that bill is giving money to people with children. i was not for that initially, but i think that might help prevent some of the abortion because if people know that

there is additional income to help raise their children, they could have something that would help the republicans and democrats work together to help young families. thank you. host: marchie in delaware. democrats line. caller: you had a gentleman who had several calls about how he wanted to know why there was no business out of the ports where the ships have all docked, but not unloaded. he said he has not heard anything as to why. i do not know what planet this gentleman lives on, but the news channels have said it. there are not enough qualified drivers to take the goods out of the port into the places that are practically there because they want income and supplies. -- practically bare because they

want income and supplies. second of ears on more efficien. secondly, i am almost 80 years old, and i was very young when eisenhower became president and he changed the infrastructure and it progressed the country tremendously. thank you very much. host: thank you. jean and -- jeananne from wisconsin. caller: i appreciate what she said about prior infrastructure bills initiated, they were completed and it was favorable. this bill is big and alluded with -- and loaded with --. does nancy pelosi need a park by

her home? that is all kinds of pork in the bill. can you provide bullet point, full point as to what the substance of the bill is, so that your listeners can understand what is in the bill and what is baloney. i think it behooves this country to pay attention what is in bills and not just flatly agree with them. it is nonsense that the bill will cost nothing. and i hope that your listeners all have a wonderful life, we all need it. host: matt in virginia, democrats line. caller: i'm calling to say three things. one, i think it is nice that republicans have woken up to the fact of the military lies sometimes. we on the left have known that for a while.

it's nice to hear that people -- host: you are breaking up, matt. next up, we will hear from the number two in the republican conference, mike johnson of louisiana, the first of two lawmakers we will talk with. later, jonathan bydlak we'll talk about why congress -- a crisis. and how both parties have dealt with debt over the last years. ♪ ♪

announcer: here is a look at what is ahead. the house comes back at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they could also work on a senate passed infrastructure bill. the houses on c-span. on c-span2, the senate gavels in at 9:30 a.m. it will take up the spending bill to keep the government funded. on c-span3, the health and education secretary devos to fight about reopening schools during the covid-19 pandemic. that will start at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch all coverage online at c-span.org or on our new video app, c-span now.

announcer: get c-span on the go, watch the day's biggest events alive or on demand anytime, anywhere, on our new mobile video app. access highlights, listen to c-span radio and new podcasts, all for free. download c-span now today. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: mike johnson is the conference vice chair of the republican party in the house and is representing louisiana's fourth district. he joins us here this morning to talk about a significant day ahead in the house with the vote allegedly ahead on the if research or bill. guest: it is good to be with you. host: this bigger said the bill will come up for a vote today, any reason to believe it will not? guest: we are skeptical.

if you watch what is happening, it develops hour-by-hour on the hill. it does not appear she has the votes to pass that, and nancy pelosi is famous for not bringing a bill to the floor unless she has the votes. she counts them carefully. i believe we may not actually get the vote today, but that would be a good thing because we are trying to get rid of the bill. we will see what happens. host: it had some republican support in the u.s. senate, some of your colleagues on the republican side in the house have said they will vote for it. it sounds like you very much would not support that bill. guest: we would not. i'm an assistant whip and we have been working this hard. we had hoped there would be only a small handful of defectors left. i'm from louisiana, we need infrastructure investment as much as any state, particularly

after the hurricanes for the last couple years -- and i think republicans would support, you would get almost every republican vote in support of a bill that would support waterways, roads, etc. but this bill is not really an infrastructure bill, it is a tiny fraction of what they have presented in the spending package. and only a tiny fraction would go to each state. but it would cost taxpayers a huge amount of money at the worst possible time. only $110 million of that big package would actually go to help on the projects we all need and care about. so, that is the problem we have. this is presented as an infrastructure bill, but it is really not into we need to get down to the work that people expect us to do. host: were republicans shut out, broadly or in committees, on

making up the infrastructure bill? guest: completely, there is no irregular process left. the way that legislation is drafted is by a handful of people in a back room, typically presented to the full body for a vote, up or down, having been presented with thousands of pages for a couple days. this is not the way the system is supposed to work. my background is constitutional law, i study with the founders intended. we have gotten so far from that and it is dangerous. it is a difficult thing to keep a government working for the people. the duly elected representatives of those people should be able to come to the nations's capital and have meaningful and thoughtful debate, be able to mark up legislation in a timeframe that makes sense, where the american people can understand what is going on. but that is not how it works in washington anymore and i think that is one of the reasons why

people are frustrated. host: the house last week passed a resolution. in the house, it extended the debt ceiling through december of 2022, but that has been pulled out. the senate will consider it separately. what's your view on how the democrats are trying to pass the debt ceiling? guest: the problem we have is there is a $29 trillion federal debt. we have almost reached that point. we will cross that line soon. but the democrats have no recognition of that crisis. they are unconcerned about the debt. they believe and subscribe to modern monetary theory, fantasy economics. joe manchin said last night that this is insanity. they want to spend trillions more at a time when we need to be tightening the belt. we need to be reducing spending so that we do not send our economy over the cliff. we are in those times now. this is the problem we have,

extending the debt limit further only allows for that kind of reckless irresponsibility. and that is what we are concerned about and what we need to be working against. and the democrats are doing the opposite. host: our guest is congressman mike johnson of louisiana, the vice conference chair on republican side of the u.s. house. we welcome your calls and comments. 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. you are on the judiciary committee and armed services committee. your committee yesterday heard from top military leaders. there was a tweet from reuters politics with a picture of mike rogers, including unmitigated disaster, republicans attack biden's defense of the afghan pullout. would you agree with how the

withdrawal went? guest: absolutely, within a few hours of the debacle beginning i came out and said i think that it will wind up being one of the worst foreign policy and military mistakes in our history. i do not think that is an overstatement, because the reverberations go on for a long time because of this disastrous withdrawal. it was done in a way that was reckless and seemed to be a completely political decision by the president. we know that he either forgot the advice he was given by his top military officials or he openly ignored it. either one of those scenarios is alarming. i asked that question of the three top generals yesterday. general milley and general mckenzie, and secretary austin, and while they would not say whitley told the president behind closed doors, they were

all insistent that they had maintained that we needed to at least keep a small stabilizing force in afghanistan, 2500 troops or so. and the president clearly did not do that. so the question is, why? i think he did it for politics and innocent people have died, we lost 13 service members there. now our allies are not trusting us. and our enemies are empowered. host: because of this, have you lost confidence in secretary austin or general milley, and feel like should resign? guest: i have. i represent 750,000 people in louisiana, we have a big military district there and other installations. our people pay attention to what is happening and they have lost confidence in the top leadership at the pentagon. for good reason. anyone who looks at this

objectively can see for example, general milley, as one colleague said, spend more time doing interviews and talking to people about the books coming out, than he did plenty of the withdrawal from afghanistan. that's a big concern that we have, a big problem. and i think it is time for desperate measures. we need people in those positions who are capable and willing of doing the job that they are called upon to do. host: let me ask one more thing before we go to calls. the immigration in your regional press, a house republican colleague has introduced a resolution urging joe biden to enforce immigration laws. what with the resolution say? guest: it is a dereliction of duty, that is exactly what the president is not doing, not enforcing the law. and it is leading to the frustration of customs officials.

they are not allowed to enforce the law on the books. president biden, among his first orders was reversing the trump policy that allowed us to get control of our southern border. he reinstitute student -- reinstituted the catch and release policy. and got rid of the -- policy. that has allowed for chaos. and the crisis at the border is a big thing. i was down there in june with president trump and republican colleagues, and i saw this for myself. we have an open border. secretary mallorca just said last week that the border is closed and secure, but that is not true. and i think that most of the american people who watch videos and see what is happening, understand that. we have 1.2 million illegal aliens we have had at the border since joe biden took over and we believe the number is at least

twice that large because people are coming in undetected, there are the good ways they are not able to apprehend -- getaways that people are not able to apprehend, and we will see reverberation from that for many years to come. host: jean on the republican line. oh, we lost jean. stephen on the independent line in connecticut, go ahead. caller: thanks. i'm really for this infrastructure bill. i believe in these projects, and i want to see them get done in my area too. i'm not against pork spending when it comes to these types of bills. personally, my own finances, i have worked hard to zero out my credit card debt and i have achieved it. it took a long time. as far as changing economics,

spending and investing into the future, i'm all for that. if i need to trade with your representative to get your personal project done, i'm willing to do it. i really think we need to move forward as a country. how much did we spend in iraq and afghanistan? we invested like $4 trillion between those two countries. let's give it up for our people. guest: stephen, you basically described an america first agenda, and that is what president trump was doing. that makes sense. we believe in a sound investment. in our country, it is an appropriate role of the government to invest in infrastructure, but what this bill does is not that. you are talking about over $600 billion in spending that would be included that's not offset anywhere in the budget, that means we have to borrow it.

we have to get the resources from china or somewhere else in order to do some of this construction work. it's a tiny fraction of the bill that would actually go to do what you are suggesting, roads, bridges, highways, etc. the rest of it is for steps towards a big government social agenda. i want paved roads, but i do not want to pave the way to socialism. that is what many of my colleagues, the democrats, are aiming to do. we are not for that. host: this is shelley in farmersville, on the republican line. caller: hello, senator johnson. you are right up the road from me. i am not for this ridiculous budget agreement that they are trying to get through. until we get immigration and we get social services and all of

these things under control, social security is expected to run out of funds by, i think it is 2031, which is 10 years from now. yet we are continually trying to add things to the roll. when they think about it, there is no one that can tell you how in the world all of this can be paid for. using the theory that joe biden and nancy pelosi are naming, it is paid for -- it's not paid for. guest: that is a good point. good morning to everybody in farmersville. i love the folks there. you are right, you are speaking for a lot of americans who look at this and use common sense and say, what is nancy pelosi talking about? it will cost american taxpayers. the burden on the american

taxpayer has been calculated to be $2.2 trillion in new taxes that will have to be imposed, on businesses for example, and they are talking about raising the tax rate on small businesses and companies higher than communist china. that would kill american jobs and hurt all of us. right now, americans are paying more, making less. we have an economic crisis in this country. we have a crisis at the southern border. we have foreign policy crises all around the world because of mistakes. we cannot sustain this. this legislation that is pending now will determine the course of the country for our lifetime. and we cannot make these mistakes. host: a counter view from joe in hartford, kentucky, who says louisiana and west virginia are two of the poorest estates in the nation and are not willing to pay what needs to be done for the poor and working people. guest: you can criticize our

estate, but we have the greatest people in the world, the most hard-working people. we are cursed in some ways by geography because we do take a direct hit from natural disasters like hurricanes and such. we have good policies at the state level. they believe the best about our state and our country. they are optimistic people, we are resilient people, as everybody knows, and we just need a fair shot. louisiana anza want a free market that thrives, so entrepreneurs, job creators and people willing to take a risk can work hard, play by the rules, and go up to that next rung in the economic ladder. that is the beauty of america. but the democrats' agenda, if it is successful, that will change things for our country. that is why we oppose it. host: a caller in virginia,

democrats line. caller: i do not understand. there's a couple things i want to explain. when the republicans ask for $2 trillion to give to the richest people in the world, it is no problem. nobody asks where the money is going. but every time there comes a something for the poor people, which they said 70% of them improve of the infrastructure bill -- and if donald trump right now would come to them and say that the same bill, 100% of republicans would vote for it. so you guys need to get your act together, because even when and they broke into the capitol building, none of them wanted to investigate what happened. host: we will pick up on that. the former president's support

of infrastructure and his efforts to get a package passed, how dissimilar was at that effort to what the democrats are trying now? guest: that is a great point, and i appreciate what was said, but you have to understand that the infrastructure that donald trump was talking about was more like the eisenhower example that was brought up in the previous segment. he wanted to build, he wanted to complete roadways and build new interstates and all the rest. and everybody would have been for that. again, what is happening now is not that. the american people support infrastructure investment, we all do. of course you will get 70%, up to 90% on that if you poll it. but most of this package is not that. it's about the appropriate use of our limited federal resources. we have to be good stewards of taxpayers' money.

host: in virginia, the independent line, we say hello to jan. caller: good morning. a couple of points. i believe infrastructure must be passed quickly. and as a retired navy nurse, all the money we have spent on the military could be shifted, as we know. plus, we can tax of the rich. and to do their share in america. secondly, republicans have the audacity to suggest that donald trump had nothing to do with the pullout from afghanistan, win in 2020 he reduced the troops way down and you guys missed of the ball. you didn't do your jobs and you did not start to evacuate people. so this is on the gop, they always try to pass the blame on anyone else.

do your job we hired you for. end of story. guest: yes, a lot to discuss there, but we will talk about the withdrawal from afghanistan. yes, president trump, president obama before him and every president of the last 20 years has aimed to get us out of a forever war. none of us support that. we cannot afford to be in the nationbuilding business. but when president trump gave the order to withdraw, he rescinded it. it was explained in our hearing yesterday. because he was advised by military officials that it would be a disaster. so when president biden came in, he made the decision to get out of there, apparently with no regard to the fallout that might ensue. and that is my we have the crisis we have. remember, the top military officials have said in their own words, we have always been consistent that we need to maintain a small force there of

roughly 2500 troops. that is what kept the taliban out. now they have total control in afghanistan. and we have no control in that region now. and it will be a seedbed of terrorism, and they will export it because they want to bring it to our homeland. as the generals acknowledged, we are in a much more dangerous situation because of the withdrawal decisions of president biden. host: looking back, do you think negotiating with the taliban, as we did, was the only option for getting out of afghanistan for the u.s.? guest: no, as it was acknowledged yesterday, the taliban remains a terrorist organization. i asked general milley, are used adjusting -- are you suggesting, because he said yesterday that the taliban itself as a terrorist organization in conjunction, close with al qaeda.

are you suggesting we should have a strategic partnership with a terrorist organization, and he said absolutely not. there's many complicated factors. we had been dealing with that for 20 years, it is america's longest war. there's many careful pieces that you have to move around on the chessboard, but clearly what president biden did, pulling everything out, giving up the airbase, which would've been a logical place to maintain order, and leaving americans behind and leaving allies behind, many of whom are being killed now, was a disaster. and there were many options on how we could've gotten out of there. but joe biden claims nobody told himself. we need to get to the bottom of the truth in all of it. host: on the republican line in mount vernon, new york. caller: good morning.

i want to say that i think you are so awesome, how you represented donald trump at the impeachment trial. guest: thank you. caller: i am a proud republican. where's biden's mindset when it comes to immigration laws? by letting illegal immigrants come into the u.s. without even being vaccinated at the border. guest: it is a great point. he appointed kamala harris as the border czar, and it took her quite a long time to get down there. when she finally visited, she went to el paso, which is not ground zero, it is the rio grande valley, where we were in june. they continue not to acknowledge the problem. secretary mallorca, he is either unwilling or unable to do the job as homeland security secretary that he has been called upon to do. he's in charge of all this.

and we have an open border and a growing crisis by the hour. where is president biden's mindset? i do not know. there are theories about this. when i am at home, constituents believe that president biden really wants to bring in illegal immigrants from over 100 countries, and disburse them throughout the u.s. and to turn them into voters for his agenda. i do not know. but if we do not get on top of this crisis soon, it will change the fabric of our society. these people will be on the social safety net, they will be a burden for taxpayers, and this is not the way this is supposed to go. we believe in immigration, but we have to follow the law. that order and rule of law is important for us to maintain a republic, our on sovereignty and security. host: a question via text from patricia who asks, regarding the

infrastructure bill, does mr. johnson support zoning restrictions for developers who build in unsafe areas prone to flooding and fires? fema spends more in bailing out industry and citizens and then the infrastructure bill costs. investments should help citizens over the long term, but must be paired up with commonsense measures. guest: it is a delicate balance. if you begin to suggest we should not build in dangerous areas prone to hurricanes or wildfires, you are talking about a third of the country, depending on how that is defined. we believe in common sense restrictions on some of this, but you cannot tell a free people that could -- that they cannot build on their property. everybody works hard on doing that. fema does a good job, sometimes an impossible job, but they need resources as well.

it's a balance. are we going to tell everybody in california or out west, that the wildfire threat is too great and they moved to -- and they need to move to the east? i do not think so. so i hear you, but it is something we are working on every day. host: tom and colonial heights, virginia on the democrats line. caller: yes, listen -- guest: yes? caller: i have four questions. first of all, did you vote for president trump's tax cut? guest: i did. caller: ok. and you had no problem with spending at that point? guest: i did, let me tell you why -- caller: no, no. i have more than one question. host: we do not have a lot of. caller: two, how many days have you spent on active duty in the military?

guest: i did not spend. i was not allowed. caller: you spent zero days on active duty, so how can you criticize general milley or the generals? guest: it is my job to provide oversight. i'm on the house armed services committee. let me talk about tax cuts. we voted for that, we proudly supported that, not as a spinning ball but as a savings measure. if you go back to february of 2020, right before the pandemic, we had the greatest economy in the history of the world. it was better in emirate -- in every demographic, every minority. everybody was making more. we had the greatest job dissipation in the economy. wages were going up. debt was going down in households. we were thriving because of the

policies instituted by president trump and the republicans of that put in the tax cuts. when we reduced to corporate tax rate, it spurred economic investment, job growth and creation. that is what the country needs. president biden is doing the opposite. what the democrats want to do with this package of bills is drive the tax rates back up, so that the businesses will not be able to do that. jobs will be lost, taxes it will go up to pay for all the spending. everything from gasoline and household items, to the income taxes that you pay, and we cannot afford that. that is why we are fighting that. host: let me give you 30 seconds to you to respond for not serving and criticizing military leaders. guest: i am flat-footed like a duck, so i was rejected by the marines. i tried out and that they sent me home.

so i had to find other ways to serve. i do serve on the armed services committee and my job is to provide oversight and accountability for the american people, for those in those positions. we love our servicemen and women. i greatly respect general milley who had served his country. but i did not believe he is the best person to be leading the joint chiefs of staff. his decisions of the last six months have been disastrous. and that is why many people are expecting better leadership, and that is why it is appropriate for us to call for it. host: representative mike, thank you for being with us. still to come, the r street institute's jonathan bydlak discusses efforts by congress to raise the debt limit and debates overspending for infrastructure. later, we talk about the fiscal deadlines ahead and of the votes

today in the house. and the migrant crisis affecting texas. that discussion will be with representative green. ♪ announcer: weekends on c-span2 brings you the best in american history and nonfiction books. on saturday at 8:00 a.m. all lectures in history, former charleston mayor joseph riley and a professor look at why a new african-american history museum is being built in the city. they are joined by an author for this class at the citadel military college. and professor lahey on his book, "president without a party," about john tyler who was rejected from his own party while in office. but tv features authors discussing their latest books. sunday at 10:00 a.m. on afterwords, a syndicated columnist and his book, on what

he caused the unruly years between 2008-2020. he's interviewed by cnn political contributor amanda carpenter. at noon, a conversation with historian roxanne dunbar ortiz, the author of several books, including "outlaw women." and her most recent, "not a nation of immigrants." she talks about native american culture and history, the women's liberation movement and of the united states. join the conversation with your calls, tweets and facebook messages. watch american history and look tv every weekend on c-span2. and find a schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: it is the end of the

fiscal year with the senate passed a -- set to pass a short-term measure to find of government through december, and we are joined to talk about congress and government spending by jonathan bydlak with the r street institute, on how congress has handled spending over the years through democratic and republican leadership. welcome. guest: thanks for having me. host: tell us about the r street institute, what is the political point of view of your group and how are you funded? guest: we are a center-right, moderately conservative libertarian group, but we are also pragmatic. we support real solutions. so we try not to be ideological and bias. we tried to follow the data wherever it takes us. so we are funded by foundations, corporations and individuals, the standard nonprofit. host: how is your reporting used

and where is it used? guest: one of the sites i help to run is a spinning tracker.org, which keeps track of what members of congress are doing. rather than kind of taking them at their face value based on the words they say, you can sort of see how things add up. we use that information with staff and members of congress, so they can understand their own voting records, what the implications of their votes are, and get a sense of how their own actions are impacting the situation of the country. host: i have spinning tracker up, looking -- spending tracker up, looking at dollar figures. is that from the senators, what they have voted for? guest: what it does is it looks at new spending.

it takes estimates from the congressional budget office, which is provided to members of congress, and basically says if you vote for something, you get credit for that spending. and if you do not vote for it, then you don't. it gives you a way to compare members with one another and get a sense of whether or not rhetoric matches actions. there's all sorts of things you can learn when you start looking at the data. one of the things that really stands out is there tends not to be much difference between both parties, as you might expect. there is a myth that democrats want to spend a lot in republicans don't, but the reality is regardless of who is president or which party is in power, both parties tend to vote for a lot of spending, and they do so inconsistently.

there's observations like that that you can learn when you look at the data, rather than relying on public statements. host: do you also track the revenue side of that equation? guest: we do not on spending tracker, but we do in spreadsheets. one interesting question is what of the ultimate impact on the national debt. ultimately, spending is the biggest part of the equation. if you look at how members, how debt scores compare with their spending scores, they are highly correlated, more than 90%. by looking at spending, you are getting the biggest part of the picture of the debt impact. but we also look at revenue. there can be times, the tax cut and a jobs act being the most recent example, where it had a very large impact on the national debt as well. host: we saw your piece in the

american spectator online this week, the headline was "the republicans fiscal responsibility peter. -- theater." what was your point? guest: both parties have a habit of voting for a a lot of spending and i think that we have heard a lot this week in response to the debt limit, how it needs to be raised, how it is only by democrats because they are proposing new spending. it's true that the package at the administration has put forward is very large, and of course comes on the heels of a host of other large packages, largely because of covid relief. but the debt limit has been raised 49 times since 1960 by republican presidents, 29 times by democratic presidents.

and the other point we make is i think that there is this perception that the debt limit, or voting to not increase it, stops spending. but that is not the case. that's basically akin to running up your credit card after you already spent the money. so that does not actually solve anything, you still have all this spending that you have accrued. most countries do not do it this way. they have fiscal rules that they impose, but i think that the way that we think about spending and fiscal matters in this country is often times backwards. and the debates we see you now do not actually reflect the reality of what would happen if we did not vote to increase the debt. host: are we destined to always having to raise the debt ceiling, by congressional action obviously, basically forever? as spending goes, that keeps

climbing. will we ever be able to reduce that? guest: there are certainly changes that could be made. most countries do not have a process like this. i believe it is only denmark and poland that have a similar debt measure limit like this. most countries actually have rules where they limit spending or revenue on the front end. so, they say you cannot increase spending beyond a certain point based on what your expected revenues are. there has been much written about sweden, switzerland and at the fiscal rules others use. there are other states -- they have rules similar, colorado the most famous. so, theoretically there are alternative rules congress can decide to utilize. but again, there seems to not be a lot of want for that kind of

thinking because, first of all, different parties, depending on the political situation at the moment, they gain by engaging in these public fights and scoring public points based on these kinds of very public battles. but, for the time being, i think that what -- i think that that is what we are destined to have. it is interesting in that it was originally imposed in 1917, during world war i, when congress got tired of having to constantly approve new bond limits. so this was meant as a way to enable more debt, basically allow the treasury to issue debt without permission from congress. but now here we are more, than 100 years later, and we think of the debt limit as a restraint on spending and fiscal moves. but that was not the purpose at

all. we would benefit from rethinking how we approach debt limits. host: we are talking about government spending on this last day of the fiscal year. jonathan bydlak is our guest from the r street institute. 202-748-8000 is the line for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. i want to read a headline from "the hill." nancy pelosi rules out raising the debt limit who we conciliation, saying the democrats will not use it to raise the federal debt ceiling. raising doubts over whether congress can find a way to avert an economic disaster. jonathan bydlak, as republicans are having the democrats do this debt ceiling raise all by themselves, this is something we have not seen before, correct? guest: the argument is that the

democrats have a majority in the house, and a majority in the senate, so to a degree they can raise the debt limit, and they should be able to do so based on the votes they have. that argument is a little facetious, because it does not address the new spending being proposed by the administration, being opposed by the republicans. historically, as i said in my piece you referenced, we have always raised the debt limits. so there is a level of confidence on both sides that they can play these games from time to time, but at the end of the day they will figure out a way to raise the debt limit. but that is not without consequence. there's this thing that the private sector likes or does not like uncertainty. we have this set up where we are

reliant on elected officials, whose political incentives are not always in line with what is best for their constituents. and you end up in a situation where you create market turmoil, or general uncertainty that can have real consequences for, not just markets, but individuals, americans who are reliant upon the state of the u.s. economy. host: what is your assessment of the $1 trillion infrastructure package, the 3.5 trillion dollars social program package, the build back better plan, as it has been called? guest: it is a lot of money, no getting around it. there's no question that the last couple years, and beyond the pandemic, there has been the attitude that we can spend whatever we want and not think about the consequences because we have been in an emergency situation at the moment.

so, i think that many people can acknowledge that there was a federal rule, -- how it's spent is a different question -- but most people would acknowledge that this is reasonable. but has changed at the dialogue where to some degree both parties, at the moment it is democrats in power, think that they can continue to spend not just on things related to the pandemic, but now on a whole host of things. as was talked about previously, there's general agreement, at least some support on both sides, for spending on infrastructure. but president joe biden is a new president, he has an agenda and he wants to see that agenda enacted, so he is willing to support large amounts of spending on all kinds of wish list items, regardless of the

fiscal consequences. you cannot divorce this kind of legislation from the broader fiscal picture that we are facing. so, i wish members with think harder about if the spending should be offset, looking for cuts elsewhere, but that tends not to be the way that people in washington are thinking. host: let's hear from jerry in somerset, kentucky on the independent line. caller: yes, there's two things on government spending i am hearing people talk about. if you take a congested road, t wo lanes, and turn it into a four lane road, you decrease the fuel that it takes to get from point a to b. but if a trucking company that

is using the roads, it can make things more competitive. and if those products are going overseas, it will make it more competitive in those foreign markets, which will reduce the deficit. can you speak to that? guest: there are benefits to infrastructure, we all acknowledge that we need infrastructure. i do not think that is up for debate. the question is what is the best way of building and repairing the infrastructure that we need and that we have. i think it is an open question whether or not the federal government is suited to, you know, to be sort of the funder of the infrastructure spending. most infrastructure spending occurs at the state level, or is undertaken by the private sector or localities. and generally speaking, that has served us well. that i think is the question.

it's not enough to say that we need roads or trains, the question for policymakers should be, what is the best and most efficient way of using the resources we have to build roads, repair the roads that we need? that is the open question. to reiterate what i said earlier, you cannot make these kinds of decisions divorced from the fiscal reality that we are dealing with as well. that's another point that is important. host: on the democrats line, in california, terri. caller: good morning. i find -- i will make a statement then ask a question -- that when we talk about deficit spending, earlier you talked about the reduction in the tax rate for corporations, which basically has been reduced down

to almost -- we find most citizens are paying higher rates in taxes than proctor and gamble, or coca-cola, for example. tha has alsot -- that has also added to the debt. but what i find interesting is the fight is always at the republicans going and saying, oh no, we are doing all this deficit spending, when four years ago we created a a lot of debt by reducing what we did to corporate spending. you can go back to clinton, it really started, then with the bush. look at what happened under obama. so, i am trying to figure out, we talk about the deficit spending or you also find that if we build up the infrastructure, because right

now we are in turmoil with our electrical grid. we are not updated at all on cyber. so, we need those things. what do you think we should do? it's not being spent at the state level, they need federal funding. guest: i think that the caller makes a good point, comparing what has happened in the trump administration to spending before and now. deb ist caused by -- debt is caused by two things, revenue going up and down, so obviously there will be fiscal impacts when you reduce taxes, just like when you increase spending. one point that has been missed, you know, president trump spent more than president obama before him, who was opposed a lot by the republicans for the levels of spending we saw in his

administration. in the first two years of obama's time in office, he signed into law $2.2 trillion in new spending. when you think about the stimulus, which was a very opposed by the republicans. president trump, in his first two years, he signed a $2.3 trillion in new spending, and that was before the covid packages. so, the -- i think the legacy here, that is not talked about by either side, is again, the fiscal problems we are dealing with are very much caused on a bipartisan basis. and to a large degree, though legacy that president trump will have is he did not do anything to get spending under control. and a lot of the opposition that existed on the republican side

of the aisle during the obama administration, basically evaporated when president trump started spending. so, i think democrats do not talk about that because now they get into office and they want to be able to spend themselves and they do not want to be called out for that record, but i think it is a point that we should recognize. often times, when people talk about president trump, they focus on the tax cuts and jobs act in terms of the impact on the deficit, but the real reason there is so much spending was the spending side of the ledger. host: you hear the argument on the floor, that member say you are asking for a new spending, but some has already been authorized in the covid relief legislation, the measures passed last year during the trump administration, and money passed earlier this year. how much does the r street institute follow or track that

spending, the money that has been authorized but not spent? guest: we do, but there are other organizations that that is what they focus on. it is an interesting point because it highlights how a lot of the spending we have seen has not been targeted in the way that we would like. as taxpayers or citizens, we should look at that situation and say, why are we spending or allocating all this money that cannot even actually be spent? we should be trying to target that money as directly as possible to the actual problem that we are trying to solve. and i think that, again, the issue you are talking about points to a broader attitude change on how we think about the government's finances, whereby we are willing to throw the money out the door and not have

any sort of accountability. so, i think that there are two sides or two important points to remember when you talk about finances. one is to think about, does this amount makes sense. the second part of that is once you allocate spending, you need to have a level of accountability. and often times congress has gone and just completely advocated their oversight responsibility when it comes to the money that has been shuffled out the door. host: we will hear from oklahoma city next, barbara on the independent line. caller: hi, i have a question and a comment. i want to ask, did you know that trump -- all the time? do you know that? guest: i could not hear you. host: barbara, can you repeat that? caller: do you know that trump

hires illegals? host: i do not know if you want to respond. guest: that might be. i do not know about when he has been in the private sector. host: let's hear from tennessee on the republican line, floyd. caller: two farmers got their tax bills and they are whining about how the property tax was. they have adult kids, and i asked -- so somebody else owned the property, paid the taxes and educated your kids. local tax pays our law enforcement and education system . and when rich people do not want to pay taxes, the community suffers. that's an anecdote for you. guest: thank you.

nobody doubts, of course, taxes exist and always will. one, from a policy standpoint, what is the appropriate level to be able to pay for the services we all need? and so there is nobody that will refute that point. the other point is we need to think about what is actually feasible with the debt that we are dealing with. the level of a wealth tax, for example, is something like 34%. that would be impossible to collect. so, there is an element of math where you can have a discussion about the degree to which reductions in spending and increases in revenue should be part of the solution to our fiscal problem, but you have to

recognize the math of the situation and the reality is the bulk of the situation has been caused by overspending more than revenue being below historical levels. host: let's hear from mike in los angeles. a democrat. mike in los angeles, go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: lynn you talk about some of these -- when you talk about some of the problems we are having with infrastructure spending, in my opinion it is based on an old mindset. what kind of -- we are embarrassing ourselves as a nation when we have these other countries that have evolved. when you hear people use metaphors like, we should think about it like a credit card and you have to learn how to budget, those are old. we have not overhauled our infrastructure since eisenhower.

when you say it should be done at a state level, that is the problem we are having. we need a different mindset. not to mention we have climate and global warming that is facing us in the eye, and some of these things are so problematic that it is not just about roadways and the internet, it is so much bigger now. and as a country we are not able to move on in our mindset, we are not able to embrace the real problems. yet, people need help with childcare and that kind of thing. people are stuck on this. and republicans are good at saying, it is not about bridges and trains -- yes, there is other stuff now. guest: well, i think it is not

an unreasonable point. we have to think about with the federal role should be and there may be the opportunity for the federal government to contribute to that. i think the question is, though, again, what is the appropriate federal role and are they the entity best suited to actually engage in infrastructure spending that we may need? that is an open question. the washington post itself has highlighted that our infrastructure is not as crumbling as is often talked about. that's it reported that has been put out by civil engineers. i think there is room for a debate on what the appropriate level of infrastructure spending should be and who should be spending it. one last point, when we talk about other countries. some are much better in fiscal situations. we should think about

modernizing how we manage our finances, so we are not the laughing stock in that regard as well. host: jonathan bydlak with the r street institute, director of their governance program. guest: thanks for having me. host: up next, we are joined by democratic congressman al green of texas to talk about the vote coming up in the house today, the division over infrastructure and the 3.5 trillion dollar budget reconciliation. also, we will hear from representative mike johnson about how that's affecting his state. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a, on the eve of the supreme court's new term, we look at the life and legacy of major -- a

major figure in the court's history. justice john michael harlan. -- john marshall harlan. >> john marshall harlan most famously dissented and all the cases that took away the rights of african-americans, because he knew the post-civil war amendments added to the constitutions and ratified at the price of reentry into the union for the south and the rest of the country ratifying it under the normal process, that that was intended to preserve the rights of african-americans. when his colleagues, for reasons that were very suspicious, basically trying to keep peace with the south, when they began to retreat from that, as though it was the right of the supreme court to say that this was not really in the constitution, it was not really what was intended, harlan stood up strongly against that. >> peter canellos,

sunday night on q&a. you can listen to all of our shows and podcasts on our c-span app. >> washington journal continues. host: representative al green joins us, from houston, texas, representing the ninth district there, talking about the myriad of issues facing the house and more this morning. good morning, congressman. guest: good morning. it is an honor to be on with you. host: let me ask you about the key vote set today on the one point $2 trillion infrastructure package. do you expect that vote today and how do you plan to vote? guest: thank you for the question. if i may say this, i have heard the speaker say that is the plan. the speaker's diction is superb,

and if she says that's the plan, sometimes plans can change. i think she has left a bit of wiggle room, so that if plans change and the votes are not there, we may not see a vote on the floor today. i think that's important to note. in terms of whether it will come to the floor, my speculation is that we have heard enough people say that they are not going to support it unless we have in tandem with it the reconciliation legislation. i have heard enough say that to conclude that it is not likely to come to the floor today. host: have you said the same thing, that you would not support the infrastructure bill -- guest: no, i have not announced that i would not support it, and i have not said that i would support it. i will let my vote speak for itself, because this is a very dynamic situation. in a dynamic situation, you have

to allow yourself some wiggle room for things that are changing as we move through the process. it is very dynamic. host: meanwhile, your colleagues in the senate will take up that continuing resolution that the house passed last week, to fund the federal government through december 3. at this point, do you think that it will be likely that we have a government shut down at midnight tonight? guest: no. i believe the senate will fast-track legislation. as a result of fast tracking it, we will have an opportunity to get it on the president's desk so we can avoid a shut down. that will take us through december 3. and i think that will give us enough time to do a number of things, hopefully to decide on an appropriate amount for us to pass for bills that will be a great benefit to this country.

i happen to think that early childhood education is very important. reconciliation legislation has appropriations in it for better energy, clean energy, something that is very important, given that our environment is deteriorating. if we don't act now, we will get to a point of no return, when we won't be able to do things that will help cleanse and protect our environment. also, there will be better health care. medicare and medicaid, they all could stand some additional compensation. they could be helped, because they help us. medicaid is so important. medicare is important as well. we need to do things to help people have better health care better childcare. it's important for us to have child care, because many in the workforce and our society, like it or not, women tend to manage

the children, and as a result, many of them are staying at home because they don't have an opportunity to get childcare for their children. better education -- pre school education is extremely important. one thing that is important is that we have a good workforce that is well educated. we have to continue that. one of the things we have to deal with, in the congressional office in houston, texas, there is an overpass. living under that overpass, there are many people that are homeless. that is where they house themselves nightly. so if we can find that infrastructure, that overpass

is infrastructure, and that is housing, the we can call housing we are building for people part of the infrastructure so they can have a place other than an overpass. in my world, housing is infrastructure and we are looking forward to building it. host: representative alan greene of texas. the lines are the same, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. it was an overpass in del rio that got the attention of the nation over the past few weeks, thousands of haitian migrants under there. the u.s. border patrol will no longer use horses in del rio after outrage over treatment of haitian migrants. you are on the homeland security committee, which has oversight. you are proposing a resolution condemning the treatment of

those migrants. tell us about that? guest: thank you. it is the treatment, the behavior we are condemning. we are not condemning all of the officers, and it's important to say this, because sometimes people will assume things that are not true. i have worked with these officers, i have found them to be good people. i have no quarrel as it relates to all of them and i don't want to, in any way, paint with a broad brush. but what i saw was unacceptable. i have a picture of what was posted on many stations, a person on a horse with the reins looping in the direction of a haitian, as they were trying as best they could to move them in a given direction. this is what many people see. i am a 74-year-old man

of african-american ancestry. here's what i see. what i see is what happened at the edmund pettus bridge on bloody sunday. people marching across the bridge and being brutalized. a good friend of mine thought he was going to die on that bridge. persons on horses chasing people probably doesn't coincide with the memories of others. i can also remember and think of the time when persons who were of african ancestry were tethered to horses and were beaten while they were walking, or there were whips cracking around them. this is an illustration, not an actual picture, but that is unacceptable behavior for me. we are presenting the resolution. my hope is that it will get to the floor, and if it passes, i think it would be a good thing. if it doesn't pass, we will find

out where members stand on something as critical as the decency that we ought to afford people. we ought not to use inhumane tactics on human beings. that's what this resolution is all about. and let me just add this -- haiti has really been abused. you might recall, those of you who studied history well, that haiti was colonized by the french -- it was literally a slave state. the french were not kind to haiti. the haitians rebelled and they literally liberated themselves. but after liberating themselves, they had to pay the french hundreds of millions of francs. a lot of money. they had to pay this money, and it took over 100 years to repay the french for liberating themselves. this is just the kind of

treatment that has kept haiti in the condition that it's in today. we occupied haiti at one time, 1915 through 1925, and we were an occupying force there. these are human beings that have been abused. i think this is an opportunity for us to be helpful. to be helpful, we have already instituted something called temporary protected status for haitians that were here prior to the earthquake. that means we don't want them to go back to haiti because the conditions are not such that we would send people there. when we have people coming across the border, seeking asylum, this is lawful, when they come across, we should not send them to haiti, considering we already have temporary protected status for haitians.

i see the should -- situation a little bit different. we know haiti is a dangerous place. gangs roaming, the president has been assassinated, but doing this, i think we are extending a hand of friendship to a country in our hemisphere that is is the poorest country in the hemisphere. when we have the cubans coming from cuba, we have a policy called wet foot-dry foot. if you can get one foot on dry land coming from cuba, you can have a pathway to citizenship. we never extended that offer to the haitians. the conditions there are such now that i believe it is persecution going on, and it will -- my hope is we will extend some sort of hand of

friendship to the haitians. i am not opposed to helping cubans, helping them out, i just want to help haitians as well. host: we will go to calls now, susan in california, republican line, for representative green. go ahead. caller: all right. you know, we have never had people come like we have had. these are big numbers, that these haitians and other people are coming, thousands and thousands of people. my -- my daughter-in-law comes from peru, and she came in legally. i know other people who have come in legally, and they resent all this crashing the border and running through. as far as i'm concerned, if they

can come in legally -- can't come in legally, you can send them all back. my friend races quarter horses. those people were not being whipped. those were split reins and they were guiding the horses. thank you. guest: a couple of points quickly. first, it is lawful to come to our border and seek asylum. that is the law, and comprehensive immigration reform could change it, or we could just pass individual bills that might alter it. but persecuted people because of their race, ideology, they are allowed to come to this country and seek asylum. that is something that i think that is appropriate until we

change the law. i understand what you say about the reins not being used as whips, but i don't think that you ought to use your horse to intimidate persons who are unarmed and mean you know harm -- mean you no harm. especially the history we have in this country. i thank you for your call. host: let's hear from jerry in atlanta, democrat line. caller: hi, good morning, bill. thank you for taking my call. congressman greene, it's good to see you again. i am in the district of congresswoman lucy --, and she does great work for us. i have several concerns. there is that $1 billion set aside to resettle the afghans

coming to america, and i would like to get an understanding as to what that six point -- million dollars is. i would also like to comment on the fact that we are sending the haitians back to haiti, and they are assuming that they all came from haiti, which they did not. a lot of them have already exited haiti to other countries, but they are assuming they all came from haiti, so that is why they are sending them back into horrible situations, some might say. the other people who come to the border from other south american countries, we are not assuming that they all came from one country and sending them back. that is distinct and prejudicial treatment of the haitians, to be sure. i would like to hear your thoughts on that. and since we have a housing shortage, i am very concerned about resettling people in this country. i know kids who have gone to

college and who are still saving up after 10 years to buy a home. there is a shortage of inventory, housing assistance, and i know that is a lot for you to unpack, but i would love to hear your comments. thank you so much for your service. host: thank you, terri. guest: thank you very much, ma'am. i think your number is a little bit low, but without getting into the number, the money will be utilized to resettle persons, to help them with housing, to help them with health care, to help them with education and various things. these people, many of them risked their lives to assist us. they were there in a time of need, and now they have needs. i think it's appropriate that when we extend a hand of friendship to you when you are

in harms way being in afghanistan -- harm's way -- being in afghanistan when our military was there -- i want to see as many of them as we can helped. with the haitians, yes, you are right. most of them, according to the secretary of homeland security, the overwhelming majority of them did not come to the border, our border from haiti. they came from countries south of the border. to send them back, those that were sent back to haiti who were not from haiti, immediately from haiti, born there, perhaps, but haven't been there in years, in fact, we were told that most of them have not been to haiti in over a decade. we would give them a cell phone, $100 and some food.

i think we are a better country. we haven't always enjoyed the freedoms that we have, and i think we should appreciate people trying to get them out of harm's way. in the 1800s, we had many people come to this country from europe, countries from europe. they settled here and they are still here, the families are still here. it was a process then, it's a process now. that process does not -- does allow for people to come to the border and seek asylum. host: this is a text, is the humane thing to do with people immigrating into our country is

to have the u.s. government stopp -- stop intervening in the affairs of other countries? guest: i understand something now that i did not understand before. i can understand that you can leave the world alone, but it does not mean the world is going to leave you alone. if the world is positioning itself in certain places to do us harm, then i do believe we have to prevent people from harming people who live in this country. we have to protect people. we went to afghanistan because there was a need to deal with some forces there that were sensibly in a position to cause harm or may have caused harm. i am a person who believes that we cannot have a military any place other than within the borders of the united states at

all times. the world is just not a safe place. it's very dynamic and there are times when we will have to intervene. i am one of those who will be very reluctant to send the sons and daughters of america to these different places, because many times they don't come back the same, if they come back at all. regrettably, that is the world we live in. host: let's hear from bob next, baldwin bill, massachusetts, independent line. caller: good morning, mr. green? how are you? guest: i'm doing well, sir. thank you for your call. caller: i'm sure you are. i'm not sure i understand -- well, i actually do -- comedy people you have to lead in the country so republican will never

win again. i am sure you have enough in texas right now, because you are letting into 200,000 plus a month. you probably have more than 300,000 month coming across the border because you don't catch anybody. and who's going to take responsibility when the terrorists in the middle east figure out our border is wide open and start killing people? will that be on president biden at all, or will you guys be able to plausibly deny that they didn't come through the border then, they came through canada or came in on an airplane. it's completely ridiculous and we are going to lose our country if you guys keep going. it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter. you all called donald trump or racist. you are the biggest racist in congress. host: we will let you go. congressman green, do you care to respond? guest: i do. i get why bob expresses himself the way he does.

a lot of what we hear over the internet and social media platforms is misinformation. personally, just so people know, i am not for open borders. i do believe that a country has to have borders. i do believe we need to know who's coming in and out of our country, and i believe we need to have reform, comprehensive immigration reform. i support that, and i believe that with comprehensive immigration reform, we can deal with some of the issues and concerns of the gentleman who just called. but the law is such that people can come to our border and ask for asylum. the law doesn't say that they can only come in numbers less than 10. there is no number printed in the law in terms of number that can ask for asylum. then, we have a process that we have to record people that are

asking for asylum. if this is a desire from congress to change it, then we should. my desire is to see it changed, but it will take cooperation. as you can see, we have difficulty now because of division, cooperating on something as simple as raising the debt ceiling. we are not a deadbeat nation, that's not the united states, but we could be if we don't raise our debt ceiling, because we could default now. that's what we will have to withstand if we are going to do things that make a difference for all of us in our country. but i think if we work together -- people tell me this all the time, and i will compromise and i am willing to work with people. i think this is the way we will get things done. host: let me point out to bob

and our other c-span callers that call into the program every day, you can call in and be as critical as you want to. our guests, their party, and their positions -- that's what this program is all about. but you start calling people names on this program, that's when we are going to cut you off. there is no place in civil conversation, where you start calling somebody names, no matter what race you are she is or religion. that's out of bounds on this program. we appreciate that. we will go to mike, bessemer city, north carolina, republican line. caller: yes, how are y'all doing? i wanted to say a couple points, but one, how many times has representative green called donald trump a racist, for one thing? but the border crisis is out of control. part of the housing thing, the

committee, but look how many black americans, hispanic americans -- i'm not talking about illegals or white americans, can't get no housing nowhere because the government is putting up illegal aliens, haitians, whatever, 100 and some odd countries, putting them up in public housing. that displaces americans who are entitled. i might not be for blm or nt 4.0 or none of them, the liberals of america, but -- or antifa or none of them, the liberals of america, but they are entitled to government housing, not illegal aliens. guest: i support your position in terms of having more public housing, more affordable housing. that's what i support in this reconciliation legislation, because that's what we are attempting to do.

in terms of other person to come to this country, my hope is, under the law, when we allow people in, we decide that we are going to not going to send them to sleep on the street. i would like to see them get jobs. many of them have worked through this pandemic. they put their lives on the line. undocumented people have helped us through this pandemic, and through a certain extent, i think a certain amount of gratitude ought to be expressed. whether you like them or not, how they look or not, these people have been helping us with our groceries, stocking our food and working at slaughterhouses, making sure that we have chicken on the dinner table, are working out in the sun picking fruit -- these persons have taken great risks, and some of them have not survived. we want the benefits of their

labor, but we don't want to give them the decency of treatment that they deserve. host: we have a couple more calls for you. kent in arizona, democrat line. go ahead, you are there. caller: yes, i would like to say something about the law. i think representative green is kind of misleading people on the law. the only legal place to present yourself for asylum is at a port of entry. none of these people crossing our crossing at the port of entry. they are rushing the border and coming across. that is illegal. period. they should not be allowed to cross there. come into the country legally, they have to come into a port of entry or can visit the u.s. embassy in their country to request asylum. thank you. host: with all of this, not just

the migrant crisis with the haitians, but in the past month, is there any appetite in congress for immigration and border reform? guest: i think there is appetite, and i'm going to say something that i have not said before -- this is the first time that everybody -- listen up. i trust that i will get it right. here is what i see. i am going to tell you what i see as a part of the solution. the one party, one side wants to make sure that people are kept out with walls. the other side wants to make sure that people who come to the country are treated humanely, and for those who have been here, they mean us no harm. it's hard. some of them pay taxes they never get the benefit of. but we want to make sure they are treated fairly and get a

pathway to citizenship. the solution is going to be some part of that wall, i and some that citizenship. that's probably going to be the solution. at some point, you are going to see either that, or you will have one side that will have complete control. perhaps they can move it through with just, without bipartisan support. but if there is to be bipartisan support, it will be some combination. i don't see the appetite for it currently from both sides. i see each side having its own vision and unfortunately, the visions don't seem to overlap to an extent that we can get the reform we need. i regret that. host: congressman al green has

represented houston for eight terms now. thank you for being with us this morning, congressman. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: the u.s. house comes in this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. until then, we will have our open forum to hear from you on items in the news, political stories you are following, and key votes coming up in the house and the senate. the lines are for democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. we we'll be right back. ♪ >> "washington post" reporter craig whitlock begins chapter 15 in his new book, "the afghanistan papers" this way

-- the fraudulent reelection worsened today lodz of corruption -- worsened a deluge of corruption that involved afghanistan in 2009 and 2010. money launderers loaded flights with millions of dollars or more on flights leaving kabul. we asked mr. whitlock to expand on this and other stories from his book, "the afghanistan papers." >> "washington post" reporter craig lit -- craig whitlock on his new book, "the afghanistan papers." download c-span's new mobile app and stay up-to-date with live video coverage of the day's biggest political events, with live streams of the house and senate floor.

the house, the senate, and supreme court oral arguments, and our interactive morning program, "washington journal," where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app today for free. "washington journal" continues. host: the house comes in at 10:00 a.m. eastern today. they are set to vote on a one trillion dollar infrastructure package, the bipartisan infrastructure passage that has seen passage -- package that has seen passage already in the u.s. senate. the senate is already in session, just gaveled in. that's on c-span two, and they will take up the continuing resolution here shortly. you can follow all of our congressional coverage now in our new video app, c-span now. you will find live, unfiltered coverage of the government proceedings. white house events, government proceedings and more.

video will stay available for at least 24 hours on demand, in our latest programs section. c-span now has featured clips every day, showing political clips on the news, and you will find the most recent washington journal segments right at your fingertips. it's on the app store google play, and you can search for c-span now on our website, c-span.org/cspannow for more information or to download. the votes today in the house and senate -- if you want to pick up on some of the other topics we have talked about, including congressman greene on the border , there is a story about the biden administration's border policy in politico this morning. the biden administration says it will try to end trump's remain in mexico possible -- policy

, taking another shot at the policy after a federal judge ruled in august that the president posing move to end the program violated the law. the security department said on wednesday that it plans to issue a new memorandum in the coming weeks terminating the policy, which requires many asylum-seekers to stay in mexico while they await hearings on their request for safe haven in the u.s. this comes after a u.s. district court in texas said the 2020 memorandum ending migrant protection protocols went against the law. open forum, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for all others, (202) 748-8002. in bowie, maryland, this is ed. good morning. caller: good morning. please allow me to speak. don't cut me off too early. i would like to follow-up on congressman greene's performance. i would implore c-span to pretty

much bring on some historians who can really speak to the truth to the role haiti played in the expansion of the united states. one of the things that happened was, they beat back the french, including beating the polian, the most feared man on this planet -- beating napoleon, the most feared man on this planet. the territory not only included louisiana, but every area west of the mississippi, which created the open land for people to expand. even southerners who had said before, they traveled west to get gold and everything else. this allowed for the haitians defeating the french, created a situation where napoleon lost $15 million in gold bullion trying to reconquer haiti, but

went to john miss -- thomas jefferson with hat in hand and asked him to purchase it, which he did. that allowed us to go east coast to west coast and thomas jefferson got credit for it. the second thing i want to mention is, basically the french, through the rothschild french bank, set up a reparation fund for the haitians to have to pay the former slave owners in france forgetting their freedom. in order for france to recognize them as the independent state and not to attack them again. these reparations were paid up through 1947. it was billions of dollars and i don't even know how they were able to obtain that money. they did it through the sale of sugarcane, because they were producing for the british and the french. but basically what you had was a situation where they had no

opportunity, even after 1947, the policy was to punish haiti for gaining its freedom from the french, our so-called allies. host: i appreciate your call in the history lesson on that this morning. louisiana is next, tammy on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wish i could have caught you when al green was there. this guy -- i know you say, don't say names, but trump supporters have been called white supremacists, racist, xenophobic, all this. i just can't believe what i heard. he is lying. education, housing -- we can't even house our own debt. have you seen san francisco? have you seen the homeless people in the street? we need drug rehab centers.

that's what we need. i have a question, a couple of questions -- please don't cut me off. i want to know where the satellite footage of these people legal immigrants coming on ships, planes, wherever. they had to dock somewhere. where is the video? i want to know -- i know they didn't walk on water. i also want to know, all those thousands of immigrants under the bridge, where are they? what happened? all of a sudden we had to stop the drones from flying. we couldn't see that they were loading them up and bringing them all over the united states. host: let's hear from the independent line. randall's town, maryland is next. this is christopher. go ahead. caller: thank you very much. i agree with what the lady is saying. i also want to say, i live in baltimore. people call it, the inner-city

zombie land, because of the drugs. people walking around like zombies. in baltimore city, we still don't have schools with heat or air conditioning. it's very shameful. people talk about donald trump -- i'm an african-american, but donald trump said something that was very truthful. he said that the democrats treat immigrants better than they treat african-americans, and that's the stone cold truth. i got back from atlanta, florida, and i found a white lady and i was so sad for her, because she could not even get a job. people are getting jobs who don't even know how to speak english. the spanish-speaking people, 67%. it's wrong to bring immigrants

over here and take jobs from all the americans -- i don't care what color they are -- being able to get the benefits that they get. we have to take care of our own. i'm talking about american people who have fought in wars, who have sacrificed, black-and-white. it's time for us to take care of our own. i think it's very shameful, very shameful what's going on in washington, d.c. and with our american citizens are being treated. host: philip wegman covers the white house for real, clear news. a tweet from senator romney leads 33 republicans to senator schumer, warning that the reconciliation bill creates "harmful penalties for marriage." don is on our democrat line in portsmouth, virginia. caller: good morning.

the last two that called, i am a little kung -- a little confused about the haitian people. haiti was supposed to be part of the united states. aren't you supposed to take care of your own first instead of afghans, who are flown in, house? we have a problem with these homeless people in our america. those homes could be going to american people who have been here for years. i am floored at what's going on in america today. host: a response to the first caller talking about what happened in haiti -- haiti paid their slaveowners. it never should have happened.

time for france to pay. in conroe, texas, laverne. good morning, the republican line. caller: yes. good morning. i grew up in harris county in texas, and i am totally upset about what's going on. i would like to know where all these immigrants are going. i understand they are growing all over the u.s. will they become citizens? thank you. host: ok. albuquerque, new mexico, brian on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: a problem in the media, we spend so much time looking at the past, we don't spend any time looking at the future. i would like you guys to bring on some demographers, or whatever the term is, to talk about the future growth of worldwide population. what's the projected growth of the united states? how soon?

if you look at the last 100 years, which is not very long in human history, world population has gone from one billion to over 7 billion. over 6 billion people have been added to the planet in a mere 100 years. we need to talk about how we are going to live with all these people on the planet, and most of the people on the planet have substandard lives and would love to come to the united states. we never address that fact. this latest infrastructure bill, which is just a huge social entitlement bill, in other terms, the democrats -- i am a centrist. i have a moderate. i believe both sides have good ideas. but the hard-core leftist democrats, they want to give you a guaranteed lifestyle. if you add up all their policy positions, it's basically this -- you can do whatever you want and the government has to come

in and take care of you. that's a huge problem. i think there has to be personal responsibility. it has to be a big factor in all of our decisions going forward, because we can't live in a world where everyone does whatever they want and the taxpayer has to pay the bills. it's insane. i would love to see you guys talking about the future of the united states, future world population. besides climate, what are the other issues that are going to occur in the future? host: i didn't mean to cut you off, i was just agreeing with you. i think it's a good idea for a segment. i like it. caller: bankers, insurance companies, real estate developers, you think about the future and future population growth, but it seems like these political conversations -- you talk about the future, you talk about who is having children, how fast, how many? can they afford them?

that seem as off-limits -- that is seen as off-limits or rude. host: thank you for the call, brian. the supreme court starts its new session on monday, and we may see some additional news as the supreme court adds five new cases to the docket, including a challenge by senator ted cruz on campaign finance law. look for our coverage of oral arguments to begin next week on the c-span network. joan is in huntington valley, pennsylvania. democrat line. go ahead. caller: i would like to know, because i am not going to get my paycheck tomorrow morning from the government because i earned it working 47 years -- is congress going to get their paychecks? host: we will see if there is a shut down. the senate this morning is going to take up a continuing resolution that would fund the

federal government through december. that's to be decided. let's hear from penny in hampton, pennsylvania, republican line. penny, you are on the air. caller: good morning, thank you. good morning morning. two things, please, i am calling about the interview with representative green, and i have a question and two comments. the first thing you said about the name calling we are not going to be putting up with it and you will be cut off, i understand it, i do. we did you pass this rule on c-span? host: it's not a rule per se, it's just how we conduct our conversation. a conversation like this, we should be calling each other names. we try to have a civil, interactive conversation here. congressman green, if he had called names to a caller it would have been completely out

of bounds. that's what we are trying to prevent. caller: i have been listening to y'all for a long time, and for four years, i never heard this. host: we try to do our best to have a civil conversation, penny. what were your other questions or comments? caller: to agree on the fairness of that. that's ok, sir. no disrespect to you, i did want to know if that was a new rule. number two, the caller bob that called in, and that's what i think started the name-calling, he was right about a couple of things. representative green was misleading us. i don't know where he got his numbers -- he said, our system isn't built like this. we cannot allow 10 at a time to come in like this. who is asking for 10 at a time? and it's not in the constitution, they cannot come

to the borders and seek -- there is a process for seeking asylum. the rush the border and the way it is now, that's not the way it was set up. another thing he misled us on is that -- oh, son of the money. i lost my train of thought. host: that's all right. thanks for calling in. alex is on the independent line, go ahead. caller: yes, hi. i am afraid that people from all over the world can come to the southern border and come into the united states, and it's wrong. i'm jewish and i was discriminated, i applied for refugee status many years ago, but i wait. i waited in russia for three years until my application was approved. it's the right way to do it.

it's not fair to other people who stand in line and wait for years to be allowed to come here. thank you. host: brenda, on the democrat line in charlotte, north carolina. open forum. go ahead, brenda. caller: thank you for finally taking me. i don't understand how many more people in the united states can be taken in. i feel sorry for them, but as the lady said, we work hard to pay taxes for our country. our soldiers fought for our country and everything else. with the people coming over, they may be bringing so many diseases to us, and it's already here in north carolina. now they are hunting for them a place to live, food and everything else. we got people here in north carolina living on the streets? evicting from their apartments,

losing their homes, and everything. why does everybody want to come here? how much more can the united states take? i feel sorry for the people, but i work at places that closed up to put their funds in mexico. it's the mexico people who don't want to work, do this and do that and everything else. i worked three jobs. three jobs. three jobs here in the united states when i got divorced from my husband. i worked and worked and worked and worked. host: charles on the independent line, millville, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. i am sitting here, listening to all these people and their opinions, and everyone has their own opinions and i respect people for that. but i would like to know why

they release these people who are here in big numbers -- aren't they supposed to come back for a hearing? they never do. how many of them come back to get the hearing to be vetted to see whether or not they are to be accepted here? not a lot of them, i don't think. another thing i would like to say about the guys on horses -- a friend of my son is a border patrol agent in arizona, and he works horseback up in the mountains, because they were running drugs in there. his horse was trained to actually reach out and bite the backpacks of these guys running. he got hurt two times doing this. people don't respect -- host: he was a border patrol agent? caller: yes he was. so now he is up and recovering, because he screwed up two times,

falling on his horse and chasing these people bringing drugs into our country. he had to move to maine. he is somewhere up on the border there now. we have to respect these people. people want to come in, that's fine, that's good, but they have to do illegally. why are they turning all these people lose instead of betting them before taking them loose? host: setting the scene for the debate today in the house and senate, this is the hill. senators mansion and cinema fight a proxy war in the -- senator manchin and senator sinema fight a proxy war over liberal and moderate allies in the house. for months, sanders and mansion, along with sinema, have been

at opposite sides of the internal democratic debate over the size of the progressive reconciliation package and what it should include. all three are now reaching out to their progressive and centrist allies respectively to bolster their negotiating positions. sanders initially floated a $6 trillion target for the reconciliation, a spending goal that got whittled down to three point $5 trillion. more recently, democrats say the topline spending number for the reconciliation bill is likely to fall below $3.5 trillion because manchin and sinema say it is more than they are willing to support. our next caller, good morning. caller: i called when this all started, but you know, i just

thought, you know. i am irish, italian and jewish. my grandmother came from germany. back then, people needed to come here. we knew what happened. people use the word hate -- it's a strong word, about haiti. it's the way they come in, the way they present themselves -- like i said, i am not pointing fingers at people, but this government has to come together and realize where this virus came from. it did not come from our country, it came from somewhere else. but they don't. they sit up there and worry about what they need for us to take care of us. that's not right. that's not the way it operates. it's the house, senate and the white house. they need to work together, come together, but the senators don't seem to know what you want. they just say shut up, they don't need it, they don't need it. people need help. host: on the hill today, jake

sherman a punch bowl news tweeting about the house. they are about to come in in about five minutes. i asked speaker pelosi if the house this morning will vote on infrastructure today. "that's our plan," she said. hello c, hour-by-hour, -- pelosi : "hour-by-hour. your moment by moment. i am hour-by-hour." caller: wrapping up the discussion about haiti and immigration, i would like to hear somebody, you know, another perspective brought in. i have read a lot of paul farmer, and he is someone who is very knowledgeable about the medical infrastructure in haiti. bringing him into paint a picture of why the situation in haiti is the way it is and how

we in the united states, we can help bring that country to --, we are not going to be experiencing waves of patient refugees every time there is a climate catastrophe. that something we need to be aware of moving forward, the potential of climate catastrophe to displace both millions and millions of people in the united states and out of the united states. the entire latin american region would be devastated by significant climate events that could bring a lot more people to our borders. that's something we need to reckon with and kind of appreciate. i want to point out to folks that are bringing anecdotal examples to justify your viewpoints of immigrants in this country, because you heard somebody say someone who has been cheating the system in one way does not make it the general truth for all immigrants in this country. we can talk about legality in getting into this country, but legality is subjective to the

times the law has been created. in congress for decades, no meaningful advancements were made on altering the immigration policy. that's a big part of the problem today, that virtually nothing has been done on either party side for decades to address this very significant problem. it's only going to get worse if we don't do anything about it. just saying we are giving handouts to immigrants to come to this country, we need to figure out what meaningful work looks like, or what it looks like to have a good immigration system in this country, because we don't have it, and it will only get worse as climate events worsen. host: to michael in glenwood, illinois. independent line. caller: yes, this is michael in glenwood, illinois. first of all, you got history messed up, ok? first of all, of all things,

they were paying people to colonize. you came to america because you are forced out of europe, mainly england, and they fought over the territory. it didn't belong to any of you. the indentured, native people are the ones that belong to this country. they should on this country. you took it over. do you understand? devastating everything. [indiscernible] you didn't own it. haiti was divided up, and so was south america, ok? it should have been named columbus. columbus didn't discover anything. he was trying to make his way to india. host: we will let you go there. we wrap up our open forum. thanks for your calls this morning. we are back at 7:00 a.m. eastern, as we are every day, and we hope you are too.