program, susan minato discusses her recent piece in the nation urging congress to pass the freedom to vote act. your calls, texts, and tweets next on "washington journal." ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." democrats are stalemated when it comes to president joe biden's massive infrastructure and social spending bill with progressive and moderate members of their party at loggerheads. was not enough to get the bill through on friday, and now lawmakers are regrouping and looking for a solution. our question to you this morning, what part of this bill is the most important to you? where should this money be going?

where should lawmakers compromise and come to an agreement as the stalemate continues on the infrastructure and spending bill? we will open regular lines this morning. republicans, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. democrats, your number is (202) 748-8000. independents, you call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media, on facebook at facebook.com/c-span, on twitter @cspanwj, and you can always follow us on instagram. the washington post with the situation on capitol hill like this this morning. president biden attempted to quell an internal democratic rebellion friday, pleading with lawmakers to compromise as he tried to revive a $1.2 trillion

infrastructure proposal and salvage his economic agenda from imminent collapse. biden made the overture during a rare meeting on capitol hill in the midst of an intense fight over two pieces of legislation that democrats were struggling to untangle. the first bill will fix the nation's roads, bridges, pipes, ports, and internet connections. the second package would authorize roughly three point $5 trillion to expand medicare, combat climate change, and boost a wide array of federal aid programs. democrats did not appear to have an immediate way to advance either types of spending, stymied by conflicts among their own divided liberal and centrist ranks. for the second time in as many days, party leaders delayed a planned houseboat on a measure to improve the nation's infrastructure. president joe biden went to capitol hill to try to get this

done friday. unfortunately, they could not get this done. here is president biden yesterday leaving the democratic caucus meeting. [video clip] [indiscernible] president biden: woah, thank you. i am telling you we are going to get this done. it doesn't matter when. it does not matter whether it is in six minutes, six days, or six weeks. we are going to get it done. host: we want to know what is important to you in this bill. is it the infrastructure part? is it the social spending part? we want to know what you think is the most important part of the bill. how much should this bill be?

should lawmakers cut it back? are they ever going to actually get it done? before your calls, we are going to jump in and get some news about where we actually stand on this bill. we want to know what you think about this bill. before we get to your calls, let's start with scott wong, who is a senior staff writer for the hill newspaper. good morning. guest: good morning. good to be with you. host: scott, where are we on this bill right now? all the lawmakers went home. what is going on with the bill right now? guest: we are not that far off where we were last week and even earlier this week. not that much has changed. the dynamics are still the same. progressives are insisting on a deal on the bigger

reconciliation package, $3.5 trillion of social spending package and climate package. the moderates are still demanding a vote asap on the senate passed infrastructure bill. there was one development we did hear from the president. he had never really laid out directly to lawmakers in the past where he stood on this. yesterday in that room with house democrats, he told them directly that these two bills, these two key pieces of his economic agenda must move in tandem together. one will not go before the other. infrastructure will not go before the reconciliation package. he laid it out very clearly. there were grounds in the room and sighs from moderates when he uttered those words.

there were frustrations afterward when you had the leader of the moderate problem solvers caucus put out a statement taking issue with speaker nancy pelosi, not going after biden, but going after it who had promised him a vote this week, a vote that never happened. there were cheers on the other from progressives, including pramila jayapal, who stood firm with her progressive caucus. she said she had about 50 who were willing to block that infrastructure vote should nancy pelosi bring it to the floor. this is all about political tactics. during this critical week for bidens agenda, the progressives came out on top. host: is it a failure that they were not able to get anything done this week? is this just part of the congressional negotiating process? guest: we cannot call it a

failure because we do not know the endgame. we do not know what the end results will be. we are heading into the fall. things get trickier and trickier the more this gets delayed. we are seeing joe biden's poll numbers start to fall a little bit, especially after the afghanistan debacle. there is some real urgency. house democrats, especially vulnerable house democrats. i spoke to abigail spanberger of virginia last night. she heads back to her district outside of richmond with basically nothing to show for it. she said she is going to keep pushing for infrastructure, that bipartisan bill that already passed the senate. she had hoped she would be able to say we passed the infrastructure bill, and joe biden signed it into law. now she heads into a two-week

recess with nothing but continuing that fight. there is some real disappointment and frustration from the moderates who had hoped to go back to their districts with something in hand. host: we have heard a lot about joe manchin and kyrsten sinema being the key votes in the senate. have they been able to move toward a compromise on this bill that makes it possible to pass in the future? guest: we have a number at least from joe manchin, 1.5 trillion. that is something we did not know before this week. now they have something to work off of that is much lower obviously than what the progressives and joe biden want. progressives initially started at $6 trillion for this package for family care, child care, free community college,

prekindergarten and addressing climate change on top of that. this has already come in the progressives' mind, fallen significant. i think all parties are good to work from there. we did hear some interesting news from pramila jayapal, the leader of the progressives. as she exited that meeting with joe biden, she said she was willing to come down from 3.5. that is something she had not said before this week. there is some slight movement. lawmakers have now left washington. kyrsten sinema, the other senator you mentioned, she has flown back to arizona for a doctors appointment. she was night yesterday in the capital negotiating or sitting down with white house

negotiators like we saw earlier in the week. it looks like negotiators for now are taking a pause. i am sure conversations will be happening through the weekend. for now there is going to be very little real activity after joe biden's visit on capitol hill. host: since you brought it back up, i was going to ask this anyway. did biden change any hearts and minds in his own caucus? did this lobbying by the president do any good? guest: it depends on who you ask. some people came away from the meeting saying it was a really good meeting. it was a meeting to try to unify everybody, get everybody on the same page. there had been a real clamor to hear from the president. this was biden's first visit to

the house of representatives since he was elected. there were a lot of questions on capitol hill saying where is joe biden in this process? we knew he was working behind the scenes. we know he was meeting with synema and manchin at the white house. rank-and-file house democrats had not heard from joe biden. it was a short visit, only 40 minutes. that is short by joe biden's standards, who we know likes to talk a lot. he did not take any questions in that meeting. when he came out, he said, i was standing there with other reporters, and we were pressing him on when this is going to get done. he snapped back and said it does not matter when it is going to get done, if it is six minutes, six days, six weeks. obviously if you are one of those vulnerable moderates that

is worried about bringing something home to your district, six weeks can cause some alarm. while some people cheered the meeting and said it was a positive development, there was some real frustration from others coming out of that meeting that they did not like what they heard in the meeting, that he was standing with progressives and wanted to keep those packages together. when he uttered those words that this could run as long as six weeks. at the end of the day, if we get it done, the american public is not going to care six days from now or six weeks from now. host: we are talking a lot about progressive and moderate democrats. where are republicans in this process? is this a democrat only negotiation going on? are republicans taking part in this in any fashion?

guest: for the most part, republicans are sitting on the sidelines watching democrats haggle over this three point $5 trillion reconciliation package. republicans will although no on that one. the real question has been will republicans in the house support the infrastructure bill that was bipartisan in the senate? it was a bipartisan negotiation in the senate between rob portman and kyrsten sinema. the republican leaders including kevin mccarthy and steve scalise were aggressively working this week to whip votes against that infrastructure package. they don't want to give democrats any sort of legislative victory. they don't want to give joe biden the legislative victory heading into 2022.

obviously there are a handful of republicans that would effect from the leadership that think infrastructure is too important for their districts. we are not hearing much from republicans because they are just happy watching democrats fight amongst themselves. when the other team is fighting among themselves, you stay out of it. that has been a good political strategy in the past. that looks like what kevin mccarthy is pursuing at the moment. host: we would like to thank scott one, senior staff writer for the hill, for coming on this morning and walking us through the next steps of the negotiation. thanks so much. guest: thank you for having me. host: we want to know what you think about the negotiation, what you think this money should go towards. we want to know what you think lawmakers should compromise on when it comes to the infrastructure and spending bills. let's start with ken calling from san diego, california, on

the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for opening up with this topic. it is very important to californians as well as everybody across the nation. your question on c-span is what is the most important part of this legislation? us independents in san diego, we believe the most important thing that happened this week is that the 2400 pages of nancy pelosi's waste, fraud, and abuse is going into the trash bin of history after it has been shredded. there is nothing in this legislation that does anything for any americans. it is always, fraud, and abuse. we are very pleased that at least for this week and the next two weeks that nancy pelosi has failed to fleece the taxpayers of more money. i want to thank c-span.

i have been a loyal viewer since 1979. thank you very much. remember, vote out more democrats in 2022. host: let's go to chris calling from maine on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am always amused by guys who call in like that and say it is all fraud, waste, and abuse. name three things. if you go to investor pedia.com, it breaks it down. $135 billion to deal with forest fires and how to manage these forests that are burning up on us by going in and regularly cleaning out the brush. maybe it is the hearing aids for the elderly? right now people have to pay for their own hearing aids. giving medicare the ability to pay for hearing aids. ab that is fraud, waste, and

abuse that will not help a single american. medicare, you can negotiate drug prices. remember went republicans unanimously voted to say that medicare is not allowed to negotiate drug prices? the v.a. negotiates drug prices. medicare cannot. they have to pay whatever the drug industry demands. maybe that is the waste, fraud, and abuse that last caller hates. maybe expanding broadband internet into places that do not have it. there are lots of places that do not have broadband. these people that have their children go to school remotely did not have access to the internet. maybe when you go through further prods of it to expand pre-k education to all children, not just wealthy people so kids across the country can get an early start on their education. maybe that is the fraud, waste, and abuse that last caller hates so much. host: let's go to matt on the

republican line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: fine. go ahead. caller: i have six that i think is waste, fraud, and abuse. giving free college to immigrants. 79 billion for more irs agents. 12 billion for government electric cars. 25 million in bias training. what is for billion in distance learning? have a nice day. host: let's go to charles calling from tennessee on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. everything joe biden has proposed, i have checked it every way i know how. it would be paid for without a problem. the problem is i was born and raised in west virginia.

those people could most certainly use these things. some of them i am sure are going hungry. you take joe manchin. he is having parties with these republicans. lindsey graham and so on. it has nothing to do with that. i am absolutely positive he is not going to have a chance, and the democratic party is not meant to have any kind of chance because this nation is being run from florida by donald trump. if you look at what is going on, people, wise up. host: let's take a look at what is in the democrats $3.5 trillion reconciliation package.

here are some of the top line items that are in that bill right now. the bill would establish universal pre-k for three and four-year-olds. it extends child tax credit and earned income tax credit. it creates federal paid family and medical leave benefits. it would require the electric utilities to generate 80% of power from clean energy sources by 2030. it makes community college free for two years and reduces prescription drug costs. those are the top line items democrats say are in their three point $5 trillion reconciliation package that is still on the hill along with the infrastructure bill. where do you think lawmakers should compromise? what should be taken out of the bill? what should go into the bill? let's go to ronald calling from

boston, massachusetts, on the independent line. caller: good morning. that is too much. 3.5 is too much. you got to bring it down to between one and two were just above two. everybody knows the president did not do the right thing. people are looking at that. i was in south korea from 1964 to 1965. i was in the vietnam war in 1966. i know what was going on. i am now 81 years old. i was born in west virginia. my father was named after the first president. you got to look at this. those figures is not going to go through. 3.5 is not meant to be approved. host: let's talk to shawnee calling from freeport, new york, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i look at it like this, the

democrats need to stop the infighting. they need to go on and pass these bills so they can help those who are the fabric of this country, which is the middle class, who are struggling. we need that reconciliation bill. i have grandchildren in college. my daughter and son-in-law are struggling to pay for their college education. they need the help. host: where do you think the compromise is? what should they cut out? caller: they need to add more. the moderate democrats, that joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, they are undercover republicans. what we need of everybody come aboard to help pass this legislation. if they do so, the democrats and the people of this country,

which are the middle-class, the fabric of this country, they will keep it all together and hold things together. host: keep in mind the democrats' $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill is parted with the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. right now in the infrastructure bill, you have $100 billion for roads and bridges. $66 billion for freight and passenger rail. $65 billion for broadband internet. $46 billion for severe weather resilience operations. $39 billion for transit. $25 billion for airports. president biden on friday said these two bills are linked. one will not pass without the other. let's talk to rita, calling from pennsylvania on the democratic line. go to morning -- good morning.

caller: good morning. they need to sit down and pass this bill and start funding the police so people can be a lot safer and put more money into social security and stop struggling the way they are medicare and medicaid so they can make ends meet. host: where is the compromise for democrats? we see the argument is between democrats. where is the compromise? caller: there should be a compromise. need to be attending to. host: let's talk to steve, who is calling from florida on the independent line. good morning. are you there? steve, turn your tv down. are you there? let's go to ray calling from

washington, d.c., on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: is there a compromise for democrats? are you there? caller: can you hear me? host: is there a compromise for democrats? caller: there is really no need for a compromise in my opinion from a progressive standpoint. you see progressives holding the line for things that are essential to the infrastructure of society in terms of expanding on the earned income tax credit. i think we have reached the impasse where we see senator manchin and synema are not as democratic as they say. we see pelosi, she definitely did not have the votes to bring it to the floor. i think it is a good opportunity

for us to push together some progressive ideals. this is really our opportunity to spend big. the framing of this bill in terms of the number and price point of $3.5 trillion, i think it is more of a messaging. think about how much money we spend on the pentagon and security every year. it is -- just for the folks out there, this is a marquee bill that has taken cuts. when we think about the debt ceiling, it is not real. it is not a household budget. it is not something. this is a big time to spend big. any cuts we make our cuts to families, everyday people that put biden in office. host: let's talk to jennifer,

who is calling from michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am in agreement with the infrastructure bill. i think reconciliation, there are going to have to be cuts. i am a true believer in everything on that bill. if we want to get it passed and have agreement, i think something is going to have to happen. it is very sad because childcare is very much needed. community college, i think if anything, i would try to cut down the numbers a little bit. we have to be understanding because we know synema an d manchin, they are not on our team. we need to make this work for the entire country. host: let's talk to kathy, who is calling from fremont, california, on the democrat line. caller: i am not real informed on this.

in fremont, the community colleges are not very expensive. i have been there in the past. fremont unified has pre-k classes already. this is the district. i don't know who is paying for it. that is an area i see that is already somewhat taken care of. host: house democratic chair akeem jeffries says the divisions in the democratic party on this bill are not insurmountable and has played down what other people are saying are divisions in his caucus. here is what representative jeffries has to say. [video clip] >> it says a phony, silly narrative. democrats are a coalition. we are incredibly diverse in every possible way, racially. we got the congressional black

caucus, congressional hispanic caucus, more women serving in congress right now than at almost any other point in american history, more members of the lgbtq community serving in congress than ever before, diverse in terms of religion. we are diverse in terms of life extremes. we have got veterans, national security professionals, nurses, doctors. we have got lawyers. we have got everything in the house democratic caucus. we are also ideological. no one has waited until the 11th hour. we are still in the infancy of joe biden's presidency. we have already done something of a norma's significance -- of enormous significance.

the american rescue plan. the infrastructure agreement and the build back better act. i believe we are goinghost: le'r social media followers are saying about spending bills on capitol hill. here is one post from facebook that says it might be confusing to see democratic politicians actually engaged in negotiations and passing legislation. that's because democrats are not a bunch of far right extremists. here is a text that says we need a waterline system that is capable of collecting water runoff in the areas where we have flooding regularly and move it to areas where we have droughts and wildfires. each landowner should keep their

water rights while allowing this to run along highways and bridges should be replaced. i agree many other things should be done but perhaps we can divide topics to humanity enhancements and the traditional infrastructure. here is a tweet that says i find it frustrating that our legislators who are supposed to be negotiating for infrastructure projects are on a two week rate. now, it is our turn as constituents to let them know we expect positive results. another tweet says i agree with joe biden. it does not matter if it is six hours, six days or six weeks. there is no rush. the people who are causing all the bs is the media. they are the ones who say these bills have to be passed right now. in one last tweet, for every kiersten mansion -- kyrsten sinema and joe manchin, there is a cheney and aikins anger. -- a kinzinger.

how do they get this past? -- passed? let's go to radford, virginia with kenny. caller: something that is going to be an increased in -- increase in cost is the requirement to get all energy from wind and solar or nuclear. this is going to be paid for by people that pay their electricity. it will be paid for by companies that use electricity and it will increase electricity by hundreds of percent. i am an engineer. i'm not against going to solar power. i am chemical, not electrical. this requirement will be a massive increase in costs on

everyone. host: let's go to michael, who is calling from michigan city, indiana, on the democrat line. michael, good morning. caller: good morning. joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, it should be altogether. they should pass the whole thing. they need to. because the people need everything in this bill. host: politico has a story this morning talking about which part of the bill that americans seem to want most from a recent poll. i will read a couple of paragraphs on the pole to you. americans support letting the government negotiate drug prices above all the other major priorities in the infrastructure and social spending packages

before congress, according to a new politico poll that suggests health care is at the top of most responders minds. the drug pricing plan could be in peril as some centrist democrats spar with nancy pelosi over the scope and details. democratic -- are considering scaling back or dropping it entirely from the $3.5 trillion social spending package. ask to choose -- asked to choose among 20 policy where it is, 39 people picked direct price negotiations with drug manufacturers first. that was followed in order of preference by increased federal spending to prepare for pandemics, more resources for long-term care, to include dental vision and hearing care. all of the proposals are included in the $3.5 trillion social spending package and have

been hotly contested as the democratic caucus splits over ways to lower the price tag and garner enough votes. we want to know what you think are the most important parts of these bills. where should they cut? what should they keep? let's talk to tyrek. caller: i'm calling, because i have seen a lot of change in california. we thought we would get a high-speed rail train and we never got it and there is a lot of traffic on the freeway because people barely -- they tore up the roads and people barely get to work. you can't get people in the restaurants because they have so many regulations. everybody knew where joe manchin stood last year. everybody on the other of the democratic party, it is not the same democratic party as it used to be.

other things happened in the media. you can't blame the media. you have to blame people because everybody has a choice. host: let's go to daniel, who is calling from savannah, tennessee, on the republican line. daniel, good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the infrastructure bill part of it. the roads out here stink like crazy. [indiscernible] it is paid for by the lottery. host: let's talk to julie, who is calling from north port, florida, on the democrat line. julie, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was a republican for many years but have been a democrat since donald's presidency.

my feeling is -- donald trump's presidency. i feeling is republicans -- if her publicans want to vote against this, don't do any projects in republican states. let's see if we can get this going. republicans who need projects done, let's get them on board and get these projects going. this is desperately needed. both the infrastructure of roads and highways, we desperately need that. and some of these social programs that are there to help the children and the elderly, let's get this going and drop the republicans that don't want this. they don't vote for it, they don't get any money. host: let's talk to sheila who is calling from personnel, oklahoma -- purcell, oklahoma, on the republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. that one man did a good job of

laying out the different things the bill provides. one way to cut, they don't need three-year-olds going to school, paid for them. some of them will be in diapers. do we need our teachers changing diapers? that, for three hours, is a daycare project. oklahoma has four-year-old programs. our state pays for it. they can pay for it, like they do for kindergarten and everything else. they get government money, you know? they don't need the three-year-old and four-year-old programs. the states can take care of that. as far as i understand, the infrastructure bill, if the democrats would allow that to come to the floor, that would pass. republicans are on board with that. they are not onboard with the $3.5 trillion bill. host: let's talk to stephen, who

is calling from florida, on the independent line. stephen, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? my whole thing about this is people can attack 3.5 trillion dollars, plus another $1 trillion, plus we spent five or $6 trillion for covid relief. how are we going to pay for this? if you are an average person and you make $100,000, you can't spend $300,000. you will never be able to afford everything. some of these programs will drive up the cost for every american and people don't realize that. we can't have all the energy being on 80% renewal. we need a balance, right? i'm all for the clean energy. we can't do everything. clean energy, we are one of the lowest polluters in the world. if you can't control the other

polluters, china is building coal plants like they are going out of style. raise tax on the rich, people, if they ever sat down and looked at a balance sheet, we are already broke. how can we keep giving away stuff? this country is a country of opportunity. you are supposed to earn. we should not be on a government handout. help people who need the help but they are not supposed to be on the government program for their lives. i don't know how we are going to pay for all of this. they need to start cutting a lot of stuff. help the person out. i make enough money. i did not need checks during covid relief. i gave it back to charity. why didn't they give everybody checks? there should be a means test. if you are making $30,000 or $40,000, you need more money than somebody making $70,000. host: with congress gone from

washington, d.c. after coming to a stalemate on friday on the infrastructure and spending bills, it seems like president biden is also heading out of washington, d.c. we have a tweet from catherine watson, who is a reporter for cbs news digital, who says that with his legislative agenda up in the air and no clear resolution in sight, president biden is heading to wilmington, delaware, for the weekend. he will leave at 9:00 a.m. the house is gone, the senate is gone and president biden is heading out of washington, d.c. for the weekend. we suspect negotiations are still going on behind the scenes. the major branches are doing the negotiations on this bill. the executive and legislative branch have left washington, d.c. the house is gone but the senate will be in later on today. half of the congress is gone today. let's go back to the phone lines. let's talk to bob, who is calling from texas, on the

republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. i have been watching the show this morning since the start. you have had nine democratic caller and about eight independent callers. and now, a total of three republican callers. i don't see that as equity. maybe you want to have more input from democrats, because you feel this is a democrat issue. but you state -- should state that at the start. host: we can't control who calls in. we take the calls as they come. caller: ok. there is an equivalent amount of money for roads and bridges, $100 billion is going, supposedly, to transportation. does that seem right? railroads, transit, airports, you have an equivalent amount of money there. if you look over the social

spending, you have more money than for the infrastructure. i think democrats have their priorities backwards. host: let's talk to deandre, calling from miami, florida, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. here is the thing. we have pushed a lot of money into the economy unnecessarily over the span of a long -- short time. the u.s. national debt is $28 trillion. 97% is debt to gdp ratio. that is a bad imbalance. i feel we should just prepare to be well-off and self-sustaining on our own. this is crazy.

how are we getting all this money? it makes no sense. any economic person would be hunkering down in a bunker, somewhere. host: let's go to charlotte, who is calling from texas, on the publican line. good morning. -- on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling about your question on compromises and the 3.5 trillion dollar bill. i feel like they should do away with free college for illegal immigrants. they should do away with increasing the internal revenue service. they should do away with tree equity, whatever that means. there is some stuff in there

that is never mentioned. what does it mean? what are they going to do with the funds that they want to allocate? it is just ridiculous. all they want to do is point out things like elder, childcare, but they never get into the weeds. and also, what about the park, and nancy pelosi's district? should taxpayers be paying for all of these progressive equity programs when we don't know what's in there? host: let's talk to steve, who is calling from cool bill -- calling from ohio on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm 69 years old and i have been around for a while.

i think that -- i think both parties need to quit being challenged. we have priorities in our life. they are going to take what comes at them, as it comes at them. throwing all the stuff in, there is to double much fighting. there is to double much pork. we can't run our lives like that. everybody would be going bankrupt. just stick to the issues. stick to the priorities and get america going. make everything prosperous and let all americans be proud of their country. that's all i have to say.

quit being childish and greedy. host: let's go to shelton, who is calling from columbia, south carolina, on the independent line. caller: thank you, c-span. i don't want to see the government shutdown. but, i do want to see speaker pelosi and the president keep fighting for the 3.5 trillion. i think it is a worthy fight. everybody talking about the pork and different things that the money is going toward. all i will say is keep fighting on, speaker pelosi and keep fighting on, mr. president. i saw trump waste so much money it was ridiculous. i think this is a good purpose for the money. thank you. host: let's see what some of our

social media followers are saying about the infrastructure and spending bills and how to get past the stalemate. here is one text that says take the word human out of human infrastructure and then, and then only will republicans vote for it. human infrastructure will help us all. another text says they should take all the stuff out for the illegal immigrants. illegal is illegal, no matter how you slice it. another text says a restitution spending bill for working families. i would like a safe way to live in my homeland. another text says the concerns i have regard personal privacy rights as a regards to the changes being made to personal information and banking institutions and the data they readily make available to the internal revenue service. the whole thing smells of government overreach.

too much fine print for me. a tweet that says most great nations take care of their best and brightest, not america. and another tweet says, i would be fine if none of it passes. infrastructure is fine where i live and i don't want the democrats to bankrupt social security and medicare for i die. we want to know what is important -- before i die. we want to know what is important. what should be kept? let's go to danny, who is calling from arizona on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: i'm on a border tone. this is getting scary. besides all the illegals coming in, there are tons of drugs coming into every border tone in the southern states. the fact that -- jesse, i have a question for you.

two things. why should illegal 80 and's get free health care -- aliens get free health care in college? what exactly is tree equity? can you define that? host: we will see if we can find someone who can define that. you can always go to congress.gov if you want to read the bill itself and find out what is in the bill. of course, to see all the congressional action that is going on, keep it here on c-span. you can always go to c-span.org. let's go to kevin, who is calling from maryland, on the democratic line. kevin, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to let america know how popular this bill is. no matter if it is a fox poll, abc poll, that bill is very, very popular in every state.

let's talk about the debt limit. donald trump raised the debt limit more than any president in history, just in four years, he outdid barack obama in eight years. that is just a fact. where were all of these republicans when they did this tax cut for the rich? you did not hear anything from them. every time someone tries to help out the middle-class, it is always a problem with republicans. i just never understand that. thank you. host: let's go to kirby, who is calling from annapolis, maryland, on the independent line. kirby, good morning. caller: good morning. first, i would just like to say, thanks to c-span. so much better than a lot of the major new sources. and, it is always -- it is a great way to get in my -- get my information. second, i will volunteer that i am an active duty naval officer

and i am in contracting. i think -- my biggest concern from that point of view is the ability to spend that much money . one of the issues in afghanistan, i can't -- i can't even imagine how much money walked off and how we tried so hard there, tried so hard to make it work but controls were not in place. the difference in this country is we have so many controls in place that the mechanisms to contract, to spend the government's money, is so laborious and it takes so much time, a lot of these controls i think are unnecessary. i think they are holdovers from past mistakes that we have worked out because we wanted to make sure we had absolute

accountability with the public's money and we have the public's trust. that is important. it takes so much time to spend the money that we have. and, if you shove this much money through the system, the bottleneck will have to grow exponentially. the controls are not in place. and, i think it would be sad to see. when people talk about fraud, waste and abuse, i don't think the issue would be with bad actors. i think the issue would be just having accountability. being able to go back and tell the public where this money went. it is too much money. we are not set up for that system. if this was a world war ii situation, where 75% of the population was involved in -- with the government effort, along with private industry, that might be a different story.

right now, the way everything is set up, that is a huge amount of money to track. host: we had a question from a caller earlier that was asking about what tree equity is. and we will bring in an article from focus.com that explains what tree equity is. according to the tree equity score website, the term refers to the idea that there should be enough trees in specific neighborhoods or municipalities for everyone to experience the health, economic and climate benefits that trees provide. the biden agenda views trees as a basic right for every u.s. citizen and were found to be scarce in low income areas and some black neighborhoods. the conclusion is the map of tree cover in america's cities is too often a map of income and race. it hopes to address social inequalities by offering all

citizens the health, economic and climate benefits that trees provide. american forced -- forests claims trees reduce heat related illnesses. that is the tree equity being talked about in the social spending and infrastructure bill. that's go to david, who is calling from edmond, oklahoma. david, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on one aspect of the spending bill. as a 65-year-old, in my views, armed with a high school diploma and work ethic, americans had a pathway to the middle class. the sophistication, the

evolution of our economy, the sophistication of our jobs now has exceeded the sophistication of our applicants. and our young people now no longer have an achievable pathway to the middle class, with only a high school diploma. so, we have to recognize that. as a matter of fact, i would even say that homeownership was one of the most fundamental aspects of the american dream, in my youth. that seems to have been replaced by motor vehicle ownership today by -- with our young people. homeownership is the impossible dream. we have to provide these kids with specialized education. those two additional years of

education are necessary to offer them a decent chance at the middle class. host: let's talk to arthur, who is calling from michigan, on the democratic line. arthur, good morning. caller: i'm calling about america as a whole and their disregard for all of the people. the spending bill is -- host: i think we lost arthur. let's talk to lisa, who is calling from california, on the independent line. lisa, good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: hello? host: you're on. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: ok. you have been reading to us a lot of things that are in the bill. i was wondering if you have any information about the electric

vehicles and who would be getting these if it's to buy them -- benefits to buy them? otherwise, what are the rest of us supposed to drive if they have banned all of the other cars by 2030 because they don't like gasoline? number two, do we really want irs getting more money after lois lerner kept her pension and the irs never turned over the records that congress requested. i think that is terrible. now, they want more money? what are we supposed to do? watch them and see if they try it again? host: let's go to ken, calling

from nevada city, california. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. go ahead. caller: i think the backbone of america is the taxpayer. the one study i have never seen is what is the percentage of taxpayers in each party, which i think would be important to see. i keep hearing democrats say the trump tax cuts were for millionaires and billionaires. 160 million people received tax cuts on that program. as far as i know, there are not 160 million billionaires and millionaires in america. guest: -- host: coming up next, nathan harden will be here to discuss

his recent 2020 college free-speech ranking. later, susan minato discusses her recent piece in the nation, urging congress to pass the free the vote act. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. >> next week on the c-span networks, the u.s. supreme court starts its new term on monday. listen to the oral arguments

live online at c-span.org or on the c-span now app. the house of representatives is out but the senate will be in session, working on executive nominations. watch live coverage on c-span two. on tuesday at 10:00 a.m., two senate committees hold hearings. the judiciary committee hears from lisa monaco on the administrations desire to reauthorize the violence against women act which expired in 2019. you can watch that hearing. watch as a sub committee testimony from a former employee who provided internal document about the company's mishandling of information and the use of the platform by sex traffickers. you can watch full coverage by -- on c-span now. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand,

any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> get c-span on the go. watch the days biggest political events live or on-demand, need time -- anytime. c-span now, access top highlights. listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts, all for free. download c-span now, today. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with nathan harden, who is the education editor and project coordinator with real clear education and he is here to discuss their publications recent 2021 college free-speech ranking. nathan, good morning. guest: wonderful to be on the program. thank you. host: as we start this discussion, in terms of this report, define what free-speech means. guest: i think, when we are

talking about the college campus, the goal of free speech is to provide the widest possible form for the free exchange -- forum for the free exchange of ideas. this is a place where people can disagree safely and civilly and people can be exposed to ideas that may be they have not grown up with ore, that they did not share. that is what the real mission i think of a university is. when we talk about free speech, specifically in the university context, it is all about viewpoint diversity, and a lack of censorship and a healthy place for debate. host: in terms of free speech, when we are talking about colleges, we are not talking about save whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want, that is not what we are talking about when we talk about

free speech on college campuses, right? guest: well, you know, there is always the deal, the shouting fire in a crowded theater metaphor, the fact that there are certain, rare limits on free speech that are not protected under the first amendment. but when we talk about public universities, they are actually obligated to be governed by the first amendment, which does allow people to say things that are offensive. the job of the university then is to obviously, if there is a real threat of physical danger in place, then yes, that would not be qualified under free-speech. that is the example of shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. i think this is part of the debate that we have.

it is the goal of the university to allow even offensive speakers or speakers that some would consider offensive to be on campus and to allow those ideas to be countered by other ideas. or, is it the job of the university to shelter students from ideas that might make them uncomfortable? unfortunately, a lot of universities are taking that line of attack and we are seeing that more and more students just aren't getting exposed to ideas that they disagree with, at all. host: so, how many years have you all done this study? is this the first year, second year, 10th year? guest: we are very excited this year. real clear education has done the survey two years in a row. this is the largest survey of

students on the topic of free speech that has ever been conducted, over 37,000 students across the country, and over 150 colleges and universities. it tripled the size of the number of colleges and universities we covered last year. they are not all in there but the chances are good that your favorite school will be included this year. or, if you are a student and you're looking to apply to colleges this fall, this is another great resource. there are three or four companies that put out these college rankings every year, that usually have to do with how elite the institution or how exclusive and that sort of thing. but, we have never had this sort of resource to put data behind the free-speech climate on campus. and, i think what is important to point out is this is data driven. this is actually what students

themselves are telling us. this is not a subjective analysis of what we think from the outside, looking in. this is actually students telling us how they feel about things like having difficult conversations on issues such as abortions or affirmative action. how comfortable are they, welcoming a controversial liberal or controversial conservative speaker on campus? we ask them how often do they feel their college administrators support free-speech? there is an examination of the handbooks and the speech policies that went into this. all of those data points were put together, into a numerical score. that serves as the basis of the rankings. but we found is there are considerable differences from one school to another, when it comes to how free students feel

to express themselves on campuses. host: before we get into the top lines on the report, let's talk about which schools are included. is this only a survey of public schools? is it public-private? is a four year only or community colleges and graduate schools? who is included in the report? guest: it is a broad cross-section. we were able to branch out because we were doing so many more schools this year and to get a lot more schools across the country. there are some of the elite egg names, harvard and yale, that you might imagine. -- delete big names, harvard and yale, that you might imagine. there are small liberal arts colleges, that we were able to include this year. we are getting a much bigger picture of what this issue -- how it comes down in different

institutions and different regions of the country. one of the interesting things that came out of that was we find that some of the more elite institutions, students are telling us they feel less free to express themselves there. so, maybe sometimes, the best speech climate is not necessarily the elite institution. it might be your local state or university. host: let's go through some of the top findings and i want you to go through each one of them. more than 80 percent of students report censoring of their viewpoints, at least some of the time. 40% say they were comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor. 66% said they thought it was acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.

23% said they thought it was acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speech. i want to go through each one of these. we are saying eight out of 10 college students are saying they feel like they are being censored on college campuses. who do they think is censoring them? is a professor's, is it the administration, is it other students? is it peer pressure or all of the above? guest: it is a mixture but the peer pressure element i think is the number one factor. we are living in a time where social media has become a war zone for people. we hear about people who lost jobs for something offensive they set online. there has been a growing climate of fear that if i say something

offensive, if i mess up one time, there might be a record of it online for the rest of my life. and so, i think it is important that people understand, when we talk about a free-speech crisis on campus, we are not just talking about professors who won't let their students speak or something like that. in fact, that is very rare. more often, what we are talking about is the issue of self-censorship. this is an internal kind of free-speech problem. right? because this is an issue where students are saying i'm afraid that if i have a political opinion that is not popular on campus, i will be socially ostracized. or, i'm afraid my professor will give me a bad grade. 80% of students are telling us they are censoring themselves at some point on campus, or online. the other stat you mentioned is that 40% of students are telling

us, you know, that they are ok disagreeing with a professor. that leaves about 60% who are not. that stat is worse than last year. one of the things we saw over this past year is a lot of schools were removing students -- removing students online -- were moving students online because of the pandemic. that is a new element of this. we think the ability of students to express themselves through worse in the online environment, possibly because a lot of these classes were recorded. there was a sense that maybe the logistics of communications were a little harder in that virtual space. whatever the factor is, and we had a very polarizing year, politically, last year, with the election. with a lot of racial upheaval in

the country. a lot of these hot button issues were floating around in the air. i think students feel less willing to speak up and risk the ostracization of their classmates, or professors. host: we want to give our viewers a chance to tell us what they think about this topic. i want you to know that we are going to open up our lines right now. we will open up special lines. i want to hear from college students and parents. are you worried about free-speech on your campus, or on the campus you are sending your child to? college students and parents, your line is going to be (202) 748-8000. our second line will be for college educators. whether you are an administrator or --

we want to know what you think. do you think students on campus are afraid to speak their minds? college educators, your number will be (202) 748-8001. if you don't fit in either one of those categories but you want to say something on the topic of free speech on college campuses, your number is going to be (202) 748-8003. --(202) 748-8002. college students and parents, (202) 748-8000. college educators, (202) 748-8001. everyone else, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. nathan, we were just talking about this and i want to get a little bit more into it. how did the pandemic effect free-speech on campus? like you said earlier, a lot of these classes moved online with zoom and webex and other video platforms. but, a lot of them were also recorded.

did that make people afraid to say what was on their mind? or was it just being in a virtual environment that made people a little bit quieter? guest: i think it is a little bit of both. i think overall, the environment is more difficult. we have all probably had the experience of trying to, you know, get involved in some sort of political debate on facebook with a friend or family member. you know, the online space has a way of increasing our polarization. it is just not a very easy way to have difficult conversations to begin with. people are willing to say things online that they would never say to your face read we have all had this kind of experience. i think as the classroom space went online and as students socialize -- social lives are lived out online, we are seeing greater polarization.

we are seeing less practice and willingness to engage with people who might have very different political beliefs. when i think is healthy is we can come to someone with a different point of view, maybe a view that we find offensive, with a sense of curiosity. why do you believe what you believe and really try to understand where that person is coming from. and if that person has an idea that we think is terrible, offensive or immoral, the best anecdote for a bad idea or bad speech is more speech, not less. we should have a form -- forum, where we can express our disagreement in a calm and civilized manner. that is the opposite of what we have online. you pointed out that stat that two thirds of students now feel it is ok to use -- shout down a

speaker on campus. so, there is a real intolerance that we see among some young people for ideas they disagree with. host: ok. now, with -- what is it that the students are worried about with their comments being recorded? are they worried about these comments coming back to hurt them immediately in college, or are they worried about this coming back and hurting their job prospects in the future? which one are they thinking about when they talk about that? guest: i think it is both. we have seen stories in the news about both of these things happening. it seems like every other week, there is a big controversy about someone lost their job because they said something racist or they said something offensive online. and in other cases, it might just be a political opinion. it might not be something necessarily, you know, a warrant

that -- abhorrent that this person believes. it might be they hold a political opinion that is not popular where they work or among their friend group. that is a big problem, when it comes to how that impacts our society as a whole. we all feel that our political climate is very divided these days. and certainly, the way that our politics is lived out online is a huge part of that. students are right in the middle of that. i want to mention one more statistic from this survey. 37,000 students. almost one in four of them said it is acceptable to use violence in some occasions to stop campus speech. that is an increase of 5% over last year's survey. in some of the more elite colleges, that number is as high as one in three.

this very tense political climate that we saw in 2020 seems to have heightened both the sensitivity and self-censorship of students but it seems to have increased a level of intolerance for other viewpoints and an unwillingness to hear out the people who, you know, you disagree with. that is not healthy for our society. we think colleges and universities can play a role in counteracting that by providing a forum for open debate. some of the best colleges for this issue, like claremont mckinnon, the university of chicago, the schools are taking a proactive approach to encourage students to listen to one another and provide a strong forum for open debate and viewpoint diversity. host: lets let some of our

viewers take part in the conversation. we will start with john, who is calling from vermont. john is a college educated. good morning. caller: how are you? host: i'm fine. go ahead, john. caller: so, it's a good question. i would say in response to the earlier caller, it is true that colleges and universities are the place where people need to learn to listen. i'm a professor at middlebury college and we have a project called the engaged learning project. in part, in reaction to some protests we had in earlier years. engaged listening, or if you prefer, deep listening, is a skill that young people and all people need to hone their entire life. and we are having success in the early years of this project, of getting students to slow down and find a forum in which

people can listen to each other, not just outside of the classroom, but in side of the classroom -- inside of the classroom. wilkerson gave a brilliant commencement talk in the spring of 2018. she talked about the need for radical empathy, not just putting yourself in somebody's shoes, but really trying to hear where they are coming from. not from your point of view, but from there's. if you google radical empathy, you will find that speech. i have brought this to the floor since then. i think it is a promising way to go. too many in the public sphere fan the flames of discourse at universities and colleges and generalize about what is going on. that stuff needs to be cast aside. there is work to do. i would encourage your listeners to think about the power of engaged listening, deep

listening, and the implication they are in, which is to think about the importance of radical empathy. host: john, before i turn it over to nathan, according to their survey, you guys might have a little bit of work to do. they have you ranked at number 140 on their list and read in their speech code. -- red in their speech code. caller: i don't know what red means. all i can tell you is what i see. and i see students now from a whole range of backgrounds, engaged with each other. listening to each other. conflict happens and that is how we learn. so, i invite anybody who lists us at 140 on some list to come up and take a look because there

are some good things happening here. in my mind, i have been an educator for almost 25 years. the missing skill, and i am paraphrasing phil drayton, we need to teach empathy. wilkerson takes us a step further, radical empathy. that from there, is where i sit these days. host: let's let nathan respond. go ahead and jump in. guest: i want to think john -- thank john for the call. i love the word empathy. that is the heart of what healthy speech climate cultivates for students. wherever a university may fall in the rankings, we need more people like john, who are leaders in these institutions, to take a proactive role in nurturing that. i think we need to understand, our culture is going in a different direction. students are coming into the

schools -- these schools with a tendency to self censor, that has been cultivated by a life lived largely on social media. it is a countercultural mission that colleges and universities have to play in this day and time. it is so critical that university leaders and professors take that active role to tell students we are going to stop and listen to one another. we are going to listen to speech that mixes uncomfortable and we will have a dialogue and a debate. claremont mckinnon, which comes in at number one, they had a controversial speaker on the campus in a high-profile case, a protest on campus. someone wanted to shut down the speech. the leadership of the school came out and said we hear you, we understand that you don't like what this person is saying.

but, at this school, we are going to open the door to these conversations, these difficult conversations. we will hear both sides of this and we will come away with a better understanding of one another, even if we don't change our minds. even if we don't agree with one another, we are going to have, i think, john said it best, we are going to have some empathy at the end of the day. that is nothing but healthy for our society. host: since we are talking about middlebury college and claremont mckinnon college, let's look at the top ranked schools in your survey. claremont mckinnon college is the top ranked school when it comes to freedom of speech. they are followed by the university of chicago, the university of new hampshire, in re university and florida state -- emory university and florida state university. what made claremont mckenna the

top ranked school in the entire nation? guest: what students are telling us. there are a few other factors that go in the rankings. i encourage people to go to real clear education.com. you can see the data points we used to arrive to the rankings. going down to the university of chicago, they have been famous for their proactive defense of free speech. there is something called the chicago statement, that a number of other universities, many of the universities have signed, which is a declaration of the value and worth of an open forum on campus. those are the leaders that i think other institutions onto be seeking to emulate. i think it is great to point out that there are a couple of public diversities in the -- universities in the top. the majority, if you look at the

top 25, the majority of those were public institutions. so, that's great for them. they don't always score at the top. but, they are doing better on average in our rankings in this category. host: let's talk to ronald, who is calling from jericho, new york. ronald, good morning. caller: good morning. by the way, regarding middlebury college, that incident that occurred where professor charles murray was not permitted to speak there, and it became violent, that was really a disgrace. but, i want to mention that one idea that i have, that i think would help the situation greatly would be if people, if kids

wanted to be admitted to prestigious colleges, which are some of the least open to free speech, but in general, if they wanted to be admitted to a college or university, they should be required to sign an agreement prior to admission that, if they were to do anything to prevent freedom of speech, whether it would be shouting down a speaker, or violent action, that they would simply be expelled. host: wouldn't that be blocking free speech for those students on campus? what do you think about that, nathan? guest: i don't know if expelling would be feasible. what the caller is getting at is

maybe giving that students -- giving students that message early on. this is what the universe the of chicago does, they inform students these are the values of free speech we stand for. this is what you are signing up for if you come here. i think that could be healthy. just coming out and being really proactive on that front. colleges are very expensive these days. you can spend upwards of $200,000 for a typical private four-year education. the idea you could go to that place, spend that kind of money, and sit in class and be afraid to speak your mind seems preposterous. i have five children myself. by the way, kids, if you are watching, hello.

i would not want to send my kid to a place where they felt they could not speak up. some of that is just part of the culture, as i said. we live in a time where students are typically more afraid than in times past to speak their mind. i want to emphasize the positive side of these rankings is we are seeing some colleges making a huge difference in this. there's considerable differences in how students feel from one campus to another. if you go to realcleareducation are calm, you will see what schools are doing good job on this. host: let's also talk about the schools that your list has as the worst. for the second year in a row,

depaul university, marquette, louisiana state university, boston college, and rensselaer in upstate new york. what are these schools doing wrong? guest: in some cases, it starts with the written speech policies. there is a coded message inside each school. the green lights are for those that have a good written speech policy that protects first amendment rights, that protects free expression. in other cases, schools might have yellow or red, which means they policy seen as problematic or exquisitely restricting free speech. in general, this is what students are telling us. why does one school have a relatively good speech climate

and one five miles away can be doing completely different? i think it comes down to the administration, personally. i think when the senior administrators, when the college president, the deans, the professors, are all committed to free speech and communicate not just that we will have free speech but tell students why it is important and explain why empathy matters and how that is healthy and how it is ok to hear speech that may make you uncomfortable and even offended at times, you can hear that, you don't have to agree with it, you can answer with your own point of view, when that is cultivated, when that is proactively encouraged, students really pick up on that. they tell us they know the university will have their back on a free speech issue.

even at the best schools on our rankings, it is not perfect. some students still do not feel free to express themselves. we are grading on a curve here, in other words. with the schools at the bottom, clearly, there is not commitment at the highest level, or if there is, it is not being communicated. everybody says they are for free speech. right, left, center, we are all for free speech. but when it comes down to brass tacks and you have an offensive speaker on campus or an uncomfortable situation, that is where the rubber meets the road on the issue. that is were some schools are doing a much better job than others of defending speech on campus. host: i want to point out quickly, 17-25 of the top schools on the list were public colleges and universities.

20-25 at the bottom were private institutions. margie is calling from new mexico and is the parent of a college student. go ahead. caller: yes, i agree with nathan and the other callers about not being able to speak. i have a niece that spoke up about illegal aliens. she was practically bullied all day long at the college at new mexico state university. i think it has to do from the top. i think it is the dean's and the top administration that has brought down this. if you see the way the world is going, you see even in washington agreeing with republicans and republicans agreeing with democrats because

they say this and that. i agree speaking with neighbors and whatever. you see that. they believe in free speech, but like nathan says, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, they don't. they want to quiet you. they want to censor you. they are very outspoken and they freak their mind. host: new mexico state university's main campus just outside the top 30 at number 31 on the list of best schools for free speech. go ahead and respond to her. guest: the caller makes a good point in talking about the administration. i will highlight one statistic from our survey nationwide. only 32% of students told us they agreed that there college

administration makes policies about free speech clear to the student body. that number should be much higher. colleges put a lot of energy into some kinds of diversity. we have dean's of either racial or socioeconomic diversity. what if we also had a dean of viewpoint diversity who could encourage a climate of open exchange? wouldn't that be a difference maker? however you do it, students need to be communicated to on the issue. they need to be told it is important and why it is important. if colleges do that, students are picking up on it.

the alternative, which is the case in many places, is you do have an administration that privately supports fundamentally the concepts of free speech, but they might be afraid in the cultural climate. what if i allow a controversial speaker on campus and it creates an embarrassing public relations disaster? sometimes it feels easier in this climate to not have that conversation take place. but that is the easy way out. it does not counteract the kind of toxic force in our culture pushing us apart. we see this problem on college campuses is not going to stay. it is bleeding over into the business world, into politics. universities have a unique

opportunity at a critical point in young people's lives to help open them up in this category of empathy to help get them practiced at engaging in difficult conversations with civility. it is about the opportunity that is presented. i hope some of the schools that come in lower on our rankings will see this as an encouragement that here are some steps we can take to improve things. maybe next year, we will see them higher on the survey if they do that. host: speaking of the schools, have you gotten any reaction from any of the schools that scored high or low on this list? guest: we always get a few emails here and there, usually from the public affairs office asking about this or that. i will not name it, but one school that got kind of a

warning emblem on our rankings wrote and asked, why is this? usually, we try and be very transparent with the methodology. it is all online. you can see the full explanation of the data and big, long report. it is all there to see how we came upon it. some of the schools that come in at the top are very happy about it. it is one more feather to put in their cap. if you are doing well on these rankings, that is an accomplishment that you should be proud of. there are alumni very interested in what is going on at their school. this is a great way to bring accountability to the process. we hear stories on the news, anecdotes about a protest here or a speaker canceled here, but

we don't have solid numbers up until now to understand, how bad is this problem and where? it is not a uniform problem the same everywhere. some schools are doing quite a bit better than others in this area. we wanted to bring that information to empower students, parents, and colleges themselves to take steps towards a healthier and more vital campus experience. host: let's talk to billy calling from brooklyn, new york. billy is a college educated. good morning. caller: the real threat to free speech on campus is not when charles murray comes to speak who teaches that blacks are genetically inferior to whites

or some person talking about illegal aliens, the real threat to chilling free speech on campus is the right-wing lawmakers making restrictive bills about teaching about history. as of september of 2021, bills have been introduced in many states that have outlawed the teaching of so-called divisive concepts, including racism, having impacts intergenerational he. his rankings are completely inscrutable. if students do not want to have some detestable racist speaker on campus, it is something for the student body to protest or not. i would also like to bring up the desantis law to make

educators write a maoist self-criticism of the disclosure of their ideological views. if you want more conservatives represented on campus, maybe pay assistant professor's better. assistant professors are only making $50,000 or $60,000 if they are tenured. if not tenured, they are making less than that. pay college professors more if you want more conservatives. host: go ahead and respond, nathan. guest: i want to thank the caller. i agree with him on one point and disagree on the other. i agree that free speech is not just a right or left issue. free speech on campus has tended to be something conservatives have been more interested in because they tend to be the minority on campus. most schools in terms of faculty

and student body lean left. naturally, conservatives are going to be more concerned about free speech in that climate because they are in the minority. but we are seeing more and more, and you mentioned some of the bills going on across the country on critical race theory, trying to ban certain kinds of teaching in the classroom, i think many of these bills are very problematic. those doing the censorship or suppression of academic freedom are not just on the left. they are also on the right as well. they are both equally problem. where i want to disagree with him is to say that it is only right wing problem which seemed to be what i was hearing from him.

it is not easy to desire -- divide this on partisan lines. the university of chicago, number one this year, number two last year, in terms of how students identify politically, is one of the most liberal schools in our survey. yet, conservative students feel comfortable expressing themselves. even though conservatives at the university of chicago are very much in the minority, the campus has made an environment where they feel they are going to be heard overall. not perfect. not every student all the time. but overall, they are doing something right. whether the school has a lot of conservatives, has a lot of liberals, it really comes down to what is the environment the senior administration is standing up for and telling students this is what is

important at this school. we all need to support free expression regardless of our political views. if you don't support free speech for your political opponent, you don't really support free speech. host: let's talk with ne-yo calling from saginaw, michigan. caller: thank. the last caller had a lot to say with a lot of the points i was going to say. i would like to say that i think just because you have free speech does not mean you have to announce your views at every corner just because it may be uninformed. i don't think this person would want to support actual lies like the previous caller said. the bell curve guy, the first

person believes there are chips any covid vaccine. i don't believe that stuff should be promoted or encouraged on campus or anywhere. i don't believe just because you have freedom of speech, other people have the freedom of association. i don't believe it is ostracism, as the guest said earlier. i think it is criticism. host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time, nathan. guest: i think often what happens when we set down a conversation, when we censor someone, it does not really work. it typically backfires. if we take a point of view and say you have no platform, we are going to silence you, they will just go somewhere else. especially now when there are pockets online where people can find one another. it just feeds more and more extremism. if we are able to have these

healthy disagreements in conversations and difficult conversations and not feel threatened by an opposing point of view, we are going to overall have a better chance of changing someone's mind. isn't that what you should want at the end of the day if there is someone you disagree with strongly? wouldn't you want to have an opportunity to have a conversation that can make them see your point of view and perhaps change their views for the better? host: we would like to thank nathan harden, education editor and project reporter for realclear education, who was here to talk to us about his organization, 2021 college free speech rankings. thank you so much. next, it is going to be our open forum where you can call in and talk about the most important political topic to you.

you see the numbers on the screen. get your calls ready to go. we will be right back. ♪ >> bringing you the best in american history and nonfiction books on american history tv, on lectures in history, on the new african american museum being built in the city. on "the presidency," "the president without a party." watch american history every weekend and find a full schedule or watch any time online at c-span.org/history.

watch book tv's coverage of the book festival on sunday, october 10. this virtual event features online discussions plus live: sessions -- live call in sessions. he will join us live at 2:30 to take your calls and tweets. at 3:00, a discussion about the opioid epidemic with the author of "empire of pain" and the author of "death in mudlick." at 4:00, a look at russia with her book and the author of " between two fires." at 4:30, the history of women in

medicine. at 5:00, she talks about her book. watch book tv's coverage of the 21st annual national book festival at 2:00 eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and we are opening up the phone lines for our open forum when you can call in and talk about the most important political topic to you . as we wait for calls to come in, let's look at some of the major stories going on in the united states right now. the new york times has this story about the coronavirus

pandemic. united states surpassed 700,000 deaths from the coronavirus on friday, a milestone few experts anticipated months ago when vaccines became widely available to the american public. an overwhelming number of americans who have died or unvaccinated. the united states has had one of the highest recent death rates of any country with an ample supply of vaccines. the new and alarming search of deaths means the pandemic has become the deadliest in american history, overtaking the toll from the influenza pandemic of 1918 and 1919 which killed about 675,000 people. that is from "the new york times." the coronavirus death toll has surpassed 700,000 despite the wide availability of vaccines.

let's go to the phone lines and see what our viewers want to talk about. we will start with carlin calling from reno, nevada, on the democratic line. caller: yes, i cannot understand why people will not get vaccinated for the good of themselves and for everyone. living here where so many people come in from all over, it is kind of hard to want to go out and do anything. i just don't understand people. the hoaxes that go on about the vaccines, it is just ridiculous. i think everybody should get out there and do their part just like we did with polio or any other thing. i just cannot understand it.

i cannot even understand how anyone could put a political thing on it. that is the most odd thing. host: let's talk to brad, calling from london, kentucky, on the independent line. good morning. caller: i was calling about biden's vaccine mandates. that is a very concerning thing for me. the other day, he said 98% of the country needed to be vaccinated. i am afraid this is going to a place where about 40% of the country will have to physically do this. there is nothing political to not wanting to be vaccinated. it is not political. a person either has the right to their body or they don't.

i don't understand the onus for people to support the government wanting to violate my free will to decide what i use for my body, in my body. there is absolutely nothing political to it. you either have the right or you don't. biden, by doing this, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. are we saying all men are created equal? that is what i thought we held two. but we are saying all men are not created equal, they are made equal by big pharma. host: let's go to jim calling from pocatello on the independent line. caller: if you do a little research, all of our elected

officials, veterans, and all active-duty military, if you do the research, democrats have stolen from our first amendment and now biden is stealing from our second amendment. if you don't have a copy of the constitution, you better get one and hide it. host: let's go to diane, calling from key west, florida, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i would like to see the $3.5 trillion go through because i would like to see some progress and success from the democrats. when obama was president the first two years, they had the majority congress, senate, and the presidency, and could have done anything, and they did not. now biden is trying to help the little guy. we really are suffering. i cannot believe all the people, democrats, republicans,

nonaffiliated, would not love this program. it has the education for the young children. that is when they are developing their brains, language. it is crucial. two years of college for free. it is so expensive. poor people cannot afford college education. college opens up your mind and let you realize what is going on in the world. for the elderly, the boomers, we are retiring now and we cannot afford dental. we cannot afford if we get sick to have in care for your house. it is totally out of your budget. but i would like to see cuba open up. i wish biden would open the doors for the cubans. host: let's go to lynn calling from maryland on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i am calling about the

government in general. i wanted to ask a question if you bear with me for a second while i speak my mind. how do you think government will function in the 23rd century? host: no earthly idea. go ahead. caller: you don't have any idea? of course not. then why are we still trying to function under a government formed in the 18th and 19th centuries. it is completely defunct. it is completely ineffective. they do nothing for the average person in america. all they do is fight amongst their selves in a two-party system it was not even designed for. i don't know how we think we will move further when all they are interested in, in government, is their own political agendas and stuffing their pockets. host: let's go to ramon calling

from pinellas park, on the republican line. good morning. are you there? let's go to lisa, calling from albany, new york, on the independent line. good morning. caller: i think we have major issues in this country stemming from the coronavirus. i think we have turned a medical issue into a political issue. it is pulling our country apart. i think everybody needs to be vaccinated. i think biden needs to grow a pair. i think he needs to mandate the vaccines for everybody that is physically able to get the vaccine. and it needs to be worldwide.

it needed to be free for everybody in the world. it needs to be free. host: here is a story that comes out of "business insider" that talks about the current split in the politics in the united states. "a majority of people who voted for former president donald trump are in favor of breaking up the country a new poll has found." they surveyed voters in late july in order to better understand the growing split between the democratic and republican parties. the results show a country at ideological war with itself. more than half of the surveyed trump voters, approximate 52%, said the situation is such that i would favor blue or red states

seceding from the union to form their own separate country. approximately 41% of the biden voters answered similarly. that is coming from "business insider" with the majority of trump voters believing it is time to split the country in two. what are your top political issues? let's go to doris calling from tennessee on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. when they are talking about the inability to find workers, we have to realize that in less than a year, we have lost 700,000 americans. they did work. they did have jobs. those people have now been taken out of the population. that is over one million people. the pandemic is a big issue.

people fighting with one another . you are talking about people are saying they would rather have a civil war and divide the united states because they will not just sit down and talk to one another. everybody has ideas. but to go back to dividing the united states simply because you are not getting your way on anything, we are going to fail. host: let's go to steve calling from california on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i think we should be talking about free speech on campus. young kids think they will read a book and inform a lot of people.

america is just books and ideas. it is about getting things done as well. going back to work, making sure people have a comfortable, ergonomic workplace functional for all of us that reduces our oblivion and promotes our values and sustainability as a country. i think that is primarily to all of us, don't you think? host: let's go to v calling from michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning to you. when people talk about the vaccination, the big issue of everything is more health than politics. if the new system is what is important, we need to deal with the issues of our digestive systems before we talk about anything. that is something highly not talked about. we have all of these products in

our grocery stores bid that plays a big part. no one is talking about those issues put in our system that leads us from dealing with our help -- deletes us from dealing with our health. host: let's go to jamie on the democratic line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: one big problem until we get it sorted out is we need to get the politics away from the science. that is just plain and simple. maybe the mandating of the vaccines, people, if they don't get the vaccine, they have to get tested. that is obvious. when our parents raised us, they said talking about politics is a cliché think. it is rude to talk about. i was raised that way. but outside of the ideology that

politics are supposed to better people's lives. the only way politics and policies will better people's lives is if they sit down and talk and our political parties stop tribal icing -- tribalizing one another and we try to come to a compromise, our country would be in a much better and safer place. host: the house may be gone, but the senate is still in session. i want to bring you a story that talks about what the senate will be doing today. the senate will attempt to pass a 30-day short-term extension of federal highway programs on saturday after republicans prevented the chamber from clearing the stopgap bill friday night. roughly 3700 employees have been furloughed as a result of the

roadblock, per reuters. the deadline to reauthorize the programs expired at midnight on thursday. the house's stalemate forced members of the senate environment and public works committee to discuss the possibility of passing a short-term reauthorization earlier this week. the measure sailed through the house on friday night, but senate republicans objected to quick passage. the senate will reconvene on saturday to try to send the bill to president biden's desk. if you want to watch what the senate is doing, you can always tune into c-span, c-span.org, and always on the free c-span radio app. let's go to don calling from houston, texas, on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe the state of nebraska is probably the most progressive

, the most balanced state politically when it comes to proportionality of congressional appointments based on the population. texas has gained two additional congressional seats based on population growth. but if you look, there's 254 counties in texas. as far as population, california has 57 counties. new york has 57. alaska has the most land. they have 29 counties. texas has 254 counties. you have 36 congressional districts. and now, you have two more to bring it to 38. if you look at the states around texas, new mexico, colorado, oklahoma, kansas, missouri, arkansas, and louisiana, you add up all their congressional

representation and it just equals texas' representation. i don't know why they removed the voting rights act. state legislators and the governor will try to attempt to make those two additional seats very red representatives, which is in proportionality to harris county, the largest county in texas, but we will have taxation without representation. i believe washington based on this population and history should become a state and no longer a district. host: let's go to michael calling from paducah, kentucky, on the republican line. caller: yes, i would like to say that if the democrats pass the $3.5 trillion bill that this country is going to change and

never be the same again. thank you. host: let's go to eva calling from henderson, nevada, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i don't know what the big problem with getting inoculated is, vaccinated. anybody that went to our schools for years as long as i can remember, and i am 81 years old, had to be vaccinated in order to go to school. whenever vaccine was out, the new one, whatever, i had them all. whooping cough, polio, protestant -- pertussin. i have now had two covid plus a booster. nobody had to mandate anything. common sense told us that the doctors and scientists proved. we did not need to be mandated

to told it was intelligent to go get vaccinated. host: let's go to catherine calling from north conway, new hampshire, on the independent line. click morning. -- good morning. caller: good morning. concerning the infrastructure bill and any congressional money bills, i have the following comments. some money is necessary. and then there are the wish list wants, unnecessary stuff. how much money is pork? not necessary like roads to nowhere. know what i think? for myself, when i hear different stuff going on moneywise, i think oink oink. host: let's go to stephen calling from dover, florida, on the democratic line.

good morning. caller: good morning. i want to mention a few things. one is on the vaccine, covid vaccine. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: it was very simple from the beginning of the mess we are in with covid. wash your hands, wear a mask, and get vaccinated as soon as possible, and we can put this behind us. some people decided not to do that. to me, it is totally insane. the other one is on the economy, the $3.5 trillion bill they are trying to pass. i lived in the trickle down and trickle up economy in the 1960's and 1970's. and in the 1980's with ronald reagan, i call that the dark ages of trickle down economy, has not worked.

if we can get this bill passed, people will see the trickle up economy is the only way to move forward in america. thank you very much. host: i will bring to you one last article. this comes out of new york where supreme court justice sotomayor has declined to let teachers teach without the covid-19 vaccine. the story comes out of "the washington examiner." supreme court justice sonia sotomayor declined to grant a reprieve for teachers requesting an emergency injunction over the vaccine requirement. sotomayor, an obama appointee, has the discretion to address emergency applications and did not issue a statement on friday. this comes after the city told it's nearly 148,000 education employees to receive their first

vaccine by 5:00 on friday or be suspended without pay when schools resume classes on monday. a petition was filed by attorneys representing the teachers. claiming the vaccine violates due process and equal protection rights. once again, that comes out of new york with sonia sotomayor refusing to issue an emergency injunction to stop teachers from being suspended without pay if they do not have the covid-19 vaccine. let's talk to john calling from oregon on the independent line. good morning. are you there? all right. let's go to cass calling from cedar falls, iowa, on the democratic line. caller: good morning and thank

you for c-span. i just wanted to respond to the gentleman who said america would change if we passed that bill. indeed it will, but it will change for the positive for people, especially lower income people. another point i would like to make is people who refuse the vaccine or to wear masks talk about their personal freedom. my point of view is my personal freedom is being affected because i cannot do the things i want to do even though i am vaccinated because they refuse to stop this virus from spreading. host: let's go to carson calling from ann arbor, michigan. good morning.

caller: hello. i wanted to comment about the previous segment. i am at the university of michigan. my experience with free speech on a college campus has been mixed so far. in one instance, my first week of classes, one of my graduate instructors basically put it out there that restricting abortions is basically the same as people dying in hurricanes and wildfires. i am a pro-life independent. i definitely feel like i would not be comfortable in that class speaking out about my views. but i have also had a lot of really good conversations with people that have been respectful and respectful of my views. i'm not really sure what to think about it at this point. my second comment is i think it is a shame that the progressives

are holding up the infrastructure bill. we need the infrastructure bill. the roads in michigan are really bad. i think it is a shame they are holding that up until they can get everything they want. thank you. host: let's talk to barbara calling from wilmington, delaware, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment about the mandate for the vaccine. here is my point. this is what i tell people. i am unvaccinated and will not get vaccinated. everybody in the whole world, not just the united states, but the whole world, other countries as well, could get the vaccine. the coronavirus is still floating around in the air. the government is telling me to

get vaccinated, but they are not telling me what they are going to do to kill the covid virus. you know what i mean? and then, you are telling me if i get vaccinated, i still have to wear a mask. there is some confusion there. i choose not to partake in the vaccine. i still wear my mask and safety conscious. about the infrastructure bill, in delaware, they are doing the roads over and everything which is a good thing. but i am looking at the amount of money they are spending on the highways here, and if you look under the overpass of the highway, there's tons of homeless people. i think it is good for the

infrastructure to be taken care of because that has been on hold for years. host: let's go to all of her calling from falls church, on the independent line. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: i always seem to get through when you are working. i appreciate c-span so very much. we are talking about the issues with the country being in such turmoil right now. i am telling you, and i'm hoping the american people wake up to it, that donald trump has done this to this country. he has lied, he has stole, he has done everything he can to bring this country down and cause confusion. i really believe and some of my friends think i am crazy, but i really believe he is working

with the government right now. host: we would like to thank all of our callers. coming up next, susan minato will be here to discuss her recent piece in "the nation" that urges congress to pass the freedom to vote act. stick with us. we will be right back. >> weekends bring you the best in american history and nonfiction books. the syndicated columnist on his book, on what he calls the unruly years between 2008 and 2020. then, a conversation with the historian and activist, the author of several books.

she talks about native american culture and history, the women's liberation movement, and the founding of the united states. watch book tv every weekend and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch any time online at booktv.org. >> sunday night, on the eve of the supreme court's new term, we look back at the life and legacy of a major figure in the court's history, justice john marshall harlan. peter joins us to discuss his biography of the justice. >> 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 constitution and ratified as 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. and when his colleagues, for reasons that were very suspicious, basically tried to keep peace with the south, we may to retreat from that as though it was the right of the supreme court to say this was not really in the constitution or not really what was intended, he stood up strongly against that. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen to all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: we are back with susan minato, the copresident of unite here local 11. she is with us to talk about her recent piece in "the nation" urging congress to pass the freedom to vote act. good morning. guest: good morning. how are you? host: i am doing just fine. for our viewers, tell us exactly what unite here local 11. guest: unite here is our union name. local 11 designates that is southern california and arizona. we represent about 32,000 people in those areas. our members work in like hotels, convention centers, event centers like dodger stadium, airports, theme parks. we are predominantly women, people of color, and immigrants. the kinds of positions we have are bartenders, cooks, servers, housekeepers, and banquet servers. we are lucky.

we have members that come from all over the world. our international union covers the entirety of the united states and canada. host: you wrote a piece for "the nation" pushing for a bill called the freedom to vote act. tell us what the freedom to vote act is and why you thought this piece about your union fighting for the freedom to vote act needed to be written. guest: the freedom to vote act is the newest name of a bill that is in congress that started off, past the house, and then morphed into the "for our freedom act." it has been changed because it has not been agreement on

passage. in the newest iteration, the freedom to vote act, it is out there and it enables the federal government to have a little bit of say, to be in the background in case there are inequities that happen in the states. for example, if there were a discriminatory voting law passed in a state, it would allow for the federal government to have some purview over that. that is really important to us. as you know, our voting history in the u.s. has been very up and down. we are very concerned because that is a basic right for every person in the u.s., but it is a basic right that must be preserved no matter what is happening with all the other bills going on around it. host: you pointed out this is a pared down version of an earlier

bill called " the for the people act." why is this a pared down version? why didn't the original bill pass? what blocked that one? guest: it is pared down to some extent, but it covers still all of the basic things like making sure there is not discriminatory gerrymandering and to have full disclosure on donors. i think the most important thing to know, because there is no detail that will probably stay exactly the same anyway, but i think the important thing to know is that right now congress cannot find agreement on pretty much anything in it right now. senator schumer and nancy pelosi

have both backed the bill in all iterations, frankly. i think what we need at this point is people to realize that is sort of like a higher-level bill, meaning it is something that touches on democracy as opposed to what is happening in any given year of our country. our big hope is that president biden, who has done a fantastic job so far, we would like for him to lean in on this just because this one is super basic. a u.s. supreme court law was just past through the courts a few months back with the name of the arizona secretary of state

really dismantled parts of the 1965 voting rights act, so this helps to restore part of it. so many things in it are so practical like making election day's a holiday so everyone can go vote, so working will not be a problem. having extended periods of time to vote and make sure everything gets counted. so many things are super practical. not just to democrats or republicans. it applies to everybody. there's a lot of really practical things in the bill. it seems like it has become like a volleyball between the republicans and the democrats. i think that is super sad because the people of the country need our political leaders to care about democracy and to care that everybody's vote really counts. host: who are you working in

congress with to get the bill passed? is it a bipartisan group or only one side? guest: we have tried really hard to be very open-minded. because of the filibuster, people have to work across the aisle. we have primarily worked with democrats mostly because there is enthusiasm from democrats wanting to pass it. there has been little or no enthusiasm with republicans. we have senator schumer who has been extremely responsive and positive about it. we have kelly from arizona, many others -- we have senator kelly from arizona and many others. we have been open-minded

about wanting to work with others but there is little to no interest from most. host: i want to look at some of the provisions in the freedom to vote act, and i want to talk about why y'all are pushing these. here's some of the provisions. it would make election day a public holiday. it mandates every state have an automatic voter registration. it requires at least 15 days of early voting for federal. it cracks down on the spread of misinformation about elections. restores voting rights to formally incarcerated people upon release. bands partisan gerrymandering and protects against unlawful voting purges. those are the key provisions in the freedom to vote act. why does election day need to be a public holiday? guest: we represent a lot of working-class people.

to the employer, election day is just another day. if it were a public holiday, and i don't know the exact percentage, but i think a good percentage of people would be available to go vote because they would not be working. not all businesses close on a public holiday, but a substantial number do we think that would increase voting so we are definitely in favor of that. host: why do we need 15 days of early voting for a federal election? guest: i am not sure if your implication is that is extreme, but if you are a working person who sometimes works two jobs, has a few kids, running two different schools, and you're doing the carpooling and making dinner and packing lunches and all of that, a single

if you have just if you expend a highly -- if you expanded, you have a higher likelihood they will vote. i think the goal should be to try to get as many people as possible to vote. that is why. host: let me remind our viewers they can take part in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. republicans, your line is 202-748-8001. democrats at 202-748-8000. independents, you can call at 202-748-8002. you can always text us at 202-748-8003. we are always reading on social

media, twitter, and c-span and on facebook. susan, some people may ask why is a union chapter located in california and arizona talking about voting rights all around the nation. what is your union's concern with national voting rights when you are representing a chapter in southern california and arizona? guest: i am glad you asked that question. we consider ourselves to be expert in the field of voting. part of that reason is because we have been working to turn out the vote. that means going to people's doors, that means mailing people information. primarily our expertise is going in -- is in primarily going door

to door. we have been doing that since the 90's. we feel we are able to help determine what kind of laws get passed at the city level, the county level, and the state level because of our participation. we started doing that in the 90's. we have continued that in arizona. we have continued that in orange county, california, and we have helped other areas of the country in addition to that. the main thing we learned was in 2018, we helped to elect kyrsten sinema in arizona. in 2020, we flipped arizona to the democrats in the 2020 presidential election. that was during the time of the pandemic. we felt confident we could go on the field and talk to voters in a safeway even though covid was raging.

we were proud to say that during that period we had more than 500 people going door to door during that time and we had no cases of covid due to our canvassing. we decided we would pick up and go to georgia and help stacey abrams, to help win the runoff basis for ossoff and worn off -- and warnock. number two, the more important point, is that what laws get past -- get passed by elected leaders, that is part of democracy. that is the detail of democracy. whether or not there will be equity out there, whether or not there will be representation,

whether or not people will be able to make a decent living if they work hard gets affected by laws. that is why we decided it is our constitutional duty and our duty for our membership to push harder. we are looking at broader voting rights as well as laws that affect their day-to-day lives. host: we have to point out that some liberals and progressives are not on board with this bill because they said it does not go far enough. i will read some of their criticism. "the measure has critics who think it does not go far enough to protect voting rights and fair election. they note that the bill liens out provisions that would mail ballots to voters and establish financing for elections and allow voter roll purchases to continue. decrease uniform standards for

voter id which critics say plays into republican efforts to exaggerate voter fraud and implement id requirements which have a disproportionately negative effect on african-americans, women, and young people. -- latinos, women, and young people." what you say to these people? guest: first i say i agree with them. i would say if we passed the voting rights act i would be thrilled and let's go back and get the rest. host: we will start with kathleen who is calling from maryland on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i agree with susan about universal one-day voting or two days, but it has to extend. i am 85 and i was in a situation

where lived in baltimore. i don't know who was running. it was people who were supposed to check on people working there , but they were so abusive to that black community. i watched them. i asked them, but they were very disrespectful to the community. i watched them the whole time i was in the line. one-day voting for two days, i am all for it. host: what do you think about that? guest: i am in agreement with her. in places like baltimore, we had our sister local in baltimore come out and send some of their members to arizona to help us. because they know some of the

abusive tactics on the ground. i agree with her 100%. host: let's talk to david who is calling from englewood, new jersey on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment about the voter id and then i will make two comments. black folks can get any id as well as anybody else. one thing i noticed the liberals do is everything they want is radical. they simply don't like the country. it is that simple. everything they do, they say we are fighting for black folks. maybe we don't need you to fight for us because most of your policies have helped to destroy the black community. i want to ask about this bill, two provisions. does it have ballot harvesting?

does it make that legal? second of all, what about gerrymandering? i live in the district represented by william has brown -- by william brown who has a heart condition and is still running. is that district gerrymandered? my third point, because it is totally gerrymandered. he lives in patterson and they skipped so many times to get to englewood which is heavily democratic. i bet she won't say anything about that. host: go ahead and respond, susan. guest: first, on your point that liberals don't love the country, i think liberals do love the country. i personally do. and i love the state of new jersey because that is where i am from. on the issues you're referring to, especially gerrymandering, i

don't think anybody who wants a fair election believes that gerrymandering is a good thing, especially when it is discriminatory or it seeks to deprive a good part of the population proper leadership they want. i think with the freedom to vote act does is protect against extreme behavior and discriminatory behavior. i can understand being very angry about the fact that maybe somebody has been able to hold the seat for many years. is it from gerrymandering? is it because the person is popular? i don't know the answer to that specific one.

participation -- that sounds like you have been looking into the voting rights act and the freedom to vote act, so i commend you. the point is not that we have to agree on everything. the point is that we have things that are fair and equitable to everybody, including republicans and independents and green party and democrats alike. i'm not in favor of something that is just fair for one. host: since this caller brought it up, anything in here about term limits for members of congress were supreme court justices. guest: no. host: let's go back to our phone line and talk to diana who is calling from halifax, pennsylvania, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call.

i would like to make a comment about getting any kind of bills passed through congress. i have been closely watching what has been going on in the house and the senate recently. in the senate, especially, it is just a crime what has been going on. the bills that are coming up that are the best for the american people, it is just a power struggle. that is all it is. it does not have anything to do with what is good for the country. it is which party is going to win. until the american people start speaking out against this, i don't think much is going to be accomplished. host: go ahead and respond.

guest: diana, i could not agree with you more. that is partly why we do the work we do. we want to hold political leaders accountable once we help to get them elected. if they were to really hear from the people, regardless of what party, they would hear that people don't want to see all of the fighting and want to see progress for people, not whether or not it is some game in the congress. to give you an example, we helped to elect kyrsten sinema from arizona in 2018. we had hundreds of people on the ground going door to door. the people of arizona, it is a very changing state. that is how we were able to win for the democrats.

we were able to win for the democrats for joe biden and kamala harris. she, i don't think is the sending to the arizona people. i don't know why she is doing that and is not in any way helping to move the voting rights act. we are upset by it. i don't know what other goings-on are affecting her support of it and really putting her effort into making it go forward. host: there was a poll done in 10 battleground states on the freedom to vote act and i want to read some of the results of that poll.

553 point margin, voters support -- by a 53 point margin, policies that were in the voters right act -- support for the policies crossed party lines with a strong majority of democrats, 95% support to 2% opposed, republicans, 55% support to 34% opposed, and independents, 71 percent support to 20% oppose. do you think there will be any action in congress soon pushing this forward or is it stuck in the political mess that is our congress right now? guest: i am afraid it will be stuck. the filibuster sounds on its

face like it is a really important protective mechanism. we are in local 11 a student of reverend james lawson who was the architect of nonviolent direct action with martin luther king. he has been historian related to the filibuster. he has told us, and it is in history books as well, that the filibuster was really started to keep suppressing the vote, especially the black vote at that time. once again, the filibuster is being used in the same way, not targeted solely at black people but targeted mostly for people of color. it is being used in the same way.

i fear you're stuck in the morass, is probably right. everything is about political gain. it is kind of sad but we have no intention to stop fighting. host: we are seeing a lot of comments on social media asking about voter id. i want to read you one of my comments and then read something from the washington examiner. "only citizens should vote and everyone needs to present a photo id and mat signatures. that will preserve our democracy. it is a privilege to be informed on issues and vote." in the washington examiner, christopher writes this, "democrats try to spin voter id

into a race issue because that is what they do when they like reasons for their positions and decisions. they claim many black people like the transportation to get an id yet they have those funds and transportation to get to a polling location. how is that supposed to work? ids are needed for every aspect of daily life for the rich and the poor. they are required to apply for welfare benefits to borrow money or to buy or rent a home." where are we in voter ids in this bill? guest: i think the controversy around voter id is that in the context of what was happening, meaning we cannot get a basic voting rights bill act passed -- putting rights bill passed,

having election day be a holiday , in the context of the most basic rights being blocked, then a voter id looks suspiciously like it is another impediment. i don't have every detail around what is being set on the voter id the second. but i think that is part of the difficulty, being questioned because of timing and in relation to everything else going on. host: let's talk to wes who is calling from washington on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the democrats are lost. like you just said, you have got to show your id for everything. they are lost, they are trying to pull this crab over your eyes

-- this crap over your eyes. pull your head out and watch the brown stuff off of your neck. like i said, i have to show id for everything and they don't? give me a break. that is all i have to say. host: go ahead and respond to wes. guest: like i said earlier, if that were the real issue, then i think it could be dealt with. the real issue is that the post -- the most basic of the voting rights are being oppressed. we can choose voter id is a hot button and people can get angry about that one issue, but it is in the context of really smashing other pieces of other people's voting rights. i don't want to engage in a

discussion related to one tiny little element. i think it is fair to engage in and also, she said it is

suspicious that it is an impediment for voter suppression to have ids. wouldn't be an impediment for vaccine if you needed ids for a vaccine and they are wanting to get everybody vaccinated? wouldn't that go along the same lines? host: go ahead. guest: like i said, a lot of people are hung up on voter id, but what is happening is there are a number of issues all at once that we are dealing with. if everything were put into place that made things more equal, like you said, holiday,

illegal purchase of the ballot roles, two week early voting, if those were already in place, then it would be simpler to talk about voter id. i don't think people would feel as suspicious about it because it is just sort of a hot button right now. that is what i meant by that. host: one of our social media followers wants to know why this is even before congress at all. "voting laws are state's responsibilities. next to constitutional ignorance, none of this is the federal government's business. why are you pushing this at the federal level and are you also pushing these at the state level " -- at the state level?"

guest: part of what the voting rights act of 1965 did was to allow for the government to intervene if there were bad or illegal actions. if there was a discriminatory law that legislature might pass, the federal government would have some purview to jump in. they would not always jump in but they could. it would restore some of that. i will give you a good example in arizona. on the last day of the legislature, the arizona legislature passed a bill that would allow the state to give the last four digits of a voter's social security number along with their of voter information, their name, their address, their phone number, etc. to a third-party group

chosen by the legislators themselves. to me, that seems like an invasion of agassi -- that seems like an invasion of privacy. that's using a problem in an age where sometimes you are corroborating your own identification based off of your social security number. i think that is subject to hacking. that was passed by arizona. that does not seem like a smart thing to do. i think they are facing lawsuits related to it. a lawsuit, per se, is an intervention by another body for wrong action. in this case, i think that is a smart thing. is it related to the arizona state putting rights? yes it is. did they cross the line? it seems so. voters may agree and go to

court. the court in that case is an outside way to protect yourself if a state legislature is doing something wrong. that is similar to the way putting rights act is, or the freedom to vote is -- the freedom to vote act is. it enables any outside group to come in the event that voters are being the subject of inappropriate behavior by the state legislature. it does not take the state election -- the state's election rights away. host: i want to ask you about the members of your union. you said to us earlier that your union members were employed at hotels, restaurants, airports, and convention centers.

you say that 90% of your members lost their jobs last spring. how is the m limit situation going out -- how is the employment situation going out? guest: it has gotten better. we are up to 50% right now. it is still rough going because at convention centers, that is where businesses hit the hardest . those are not fully back. that affects a lot of other businesses like hotels and restaurants. we are still down a good number of people. it is rough going. governor newsom in california signed a recall bill. a lot of counties passed the same.

that is helping a little bit. but a lot of times, employers abuse it to call back people they want to call back. so, it is tricky. as long as people keep continuing to get vaccinated, we think the business will come back soon. host: let's talk to tina who is calling from kansas city, missouri on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i was calling because i like everything you stand for and what you are doing. my concern was with the cyber ninjas and arizona taking the machines and getting all of the information. i think the federal government

needs to be involved. that is not just republicans' information, that is everybody's . it is not fair, it should not be happening. just because they have control of the legislature does not mean you can go through who people voted for, where they lived. that is something that needs to be stopped. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i could not agree with you more. the cyber ninjas have no expense with this kind of audit. we have nicknamed it the fraudit. the secretary of state was vigilant about it. she has chosen to throughout all

of those machines because she feared tempering. i think if i started up a business and i wanted to do this kind of work, i think it would not the appropriate. think that is what the cyber ninjas seem to be like. they seem to be an organization that does not have a lot of experience in voter work. any third party like that, we don't know their true experience to be able to do that type of thing. it does concern me. that is why the law passed in arizona that allows for those third parties to get the last four digits of voters' social security numbers in addition to voter information is a real problem. host: we would like to think --

like to thank susan minato, the copresident of unite here local 11. we would like to thank her for being here this morning and for the freedom to vote act. make you for being here. -- thank you for being here. host: we would like to thank our callers, viewers, and guests for being with us for another washington journal. keep washing your hands, stay safe, and have a great saturday. ♪

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. >> is this a community center? >> it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers so students from low income families can get the tools that they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> sunday night on u.n. day -- on q&a, we look back at the life and legacy of a major figure in the courts history. justice john marshall harlan.

the politico at large joins us to discuss his biography of the justice, the great dissenter. >> john marshall harlan dissented and all of the cases that took away the rights of african-americans, because he knew the post-civil war amendments, which were added to the constitution and ratified as a price of reentry for the south and the rest of the country ratifying it under the normal process was intended to preserve the rights of african-americans. when his colleagues who were very suspicious, basically trying to keep people in the south, when they began to retreat from that it was the right of the supreme court to say that this wasn't really in the constitution of what really was intended. harlan set up strongly against that. >> sunday night at