divisive and extreme messages. i came forward because i believe every human being deserves the dignity of the truth. >> you can watch the entire hearing with former facebook employee frances haugan about the potential harm facebook could have on children based on its research data coming up tonight on c-span. it's also available on our new video app, c-span now. ♪

host: neil bradley is -- >> directly and through our federation of state and local chambers, about 3 million local businesses. >> there was reporting this morning about your chambers, chambers position on the infrastructure bill. it says there has been a change of mind. if i'm reading it correctly, what has changed? >> i would not so much: a change of mind as a change in the system -- situation we are facing.

the change is a support of the bipartisan info structure bill that puts nearly $1 trillion in investment in roads, bridges, rebecca meant replacing water pipes. i got bipartisan votes in the u.s. senate, it was supposed to get a standalone vote in the house of representatives last week. we wanted to see that bill passed. we still want it passed and signed into law. but late friday, the president and democratic leadership fought to link that bipartisan infrastructure bill to the partisan reconciliation bill. we oppose that linkage and the reconciliation bill, and we are not going to change it on reconciliation just because of our support for info structure. host: what is the position on reconciliation and why do you hold it? guest: whether we are talking about 2 trillion or $3.5 trillion, you are talking about

a record level of government spending that will contribute to inflation, higher prices for consumers and it is partially funded by punitive taxes, both on investors, small businesses, midsize and large businesses in a way we believe will destroy the current economic recovery. so, we need to get america working again, we need to get control of inflation and to this bill would take us in the opposite direction. host: when it comes to the infrastructure bill, was there value in supporting it as far as your member companies and what happens now that you have stepped back? guest: our hope is we can de-link the bills and return to getting a standalone vote on the infrastructure bill because it deserves to pass, that is why he got 69 bipartisan votes in the senate. how many times do you see bills passed like that? we supported it because we are long overdue in making investments in our infrastructure, whether it is congestion on our highways, potholes in our city streets, the lack of broadband for

millions across the u.s., or literally we still have lead pipes that bring water into people's homes and schools that are poisoning them. this bill would help us replace all those pipes, so it is good for america, good for families and it deserves to become a law. host: you know well that the debate on capitol hill is tying these together, what is the potential right now of de-linking them? guest: i hope the president and democratic leadership come to the realization that linking the bills only means nothing gets done, that we do not replace the lead water pipes and bridges. so we had a chance six weeks ago, we had a chance last week to pass the infrastructure bill and for it to become law, so we could start building these things again. and we missed that opportunity, so we need to go back. we need to receives it. -- receives -- free -- re

-seize it. i do not know if the president and a democratic leadership will listen, but de-linking these bills and getting the infrastructure bill done would be the right thing to do. host: our guest is joining us this morning. if you want to call, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. you can also text us at 202-748-8003. you said six weeks ago there was a chance to pass the bill, can you elaborate? guest: at the end of august the house was taking up the budget resolution, a process they have to go through for some of these budgetary bills, like reconciliation. the senate had passed the infrastructure bill and we should have passed it in the house then. it would already be law today. there are other things for elected officials to fight about, but at least we would have gotten something done for the country.

that is what i mean. host: the budget reconciliation bill, how much is the chamber's opposition tied to changes in tax policy? guest: that is a big part of it. if you go to the grocery store and you walk down an aisle, everything that comes in a plastic container will cost more if the proposed reconciliation bill becomes law because as a tax on plastic in it, so from there all the way to the tax increases for small businesses, we are opposed to that. if you took the tax increases away, you would talk about record levels of spending. let me put it in context. at $3.5 trillion, the level of spending is more than twice the combined budget of all 50 states. so think about wherever you are , in your state, the work, -- viewer, everything the state

government spends, close everything other states spend multiply that by two. and it is still not as big. that is a recipe for inflation. host: there is a good chance that that figure will not stay the same if it comes down to the levels like one point $5 -- $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion, what are the chances of supporting it? guest: it needs to come down, no question. but listen to what the progressive caucus members are pushing for. they are not suggesting reducing the size of the bill, they are suggesting to play budgetary gimmicks. if you had a program like a free community college that was supposed to last for 10 years, they would sunset it to five years and pretend the next five years have no cost to them. when you start playing games like that, that is how they disguise the cost in washington and that will contribute not only to more inflation, but to more uncertainty for the american people. you cannot create a big new government benefit and then for

partisan gains in washington, pretend like you are going to yank it away in three or five years. so that is a real problem. i hope the price tag comes down, but i hope they do this in an honest way. host: you mentioned education, but other aspects of the program deal with medical leave and family leave. how does the chamber feel? guest: all these things have been rolled together. and you are right, there are some good things and some problems that need to be solved. if we pull them out of this reconciliation bill, we could solve them. paid family leave is one of them. there is a path forward on a responsible paid family leave program. the bill that existed before it got rolled into this reconciliation bill was one modeled off of states like california and it states on the east coast have done, which recognizes that this is an employee benefit and you pay for it through a combined payroll

tax and employee tax. when this bill got folded into the reconciliation bill, all of a sudden the common sense was gone and instead it was replaced with the punitive tax on american employers. we are not having honest debates about ways to solve these problems. instead it's a partisan attempt to jam all these things into one bill and force it through congress. host: political reporting that there is an organization known as the women affect action to find that sent a letter to your organization, talking about these efforts in which they say the executives and successful corporations, there's a lack of investment and care economy that takes our retention and business productivity as well as the health and economic security of families, as you have acknowledged, implementation of family-friendly policies is critical to achieving racial justice. don't these programs promote good business in the long run? guest: some of them could, that

is why they deserve to be pulled out of this reconciliation bill and debated and considered on their own. so, i actually think that we could come to an agreement. it would involve negotiations, but good sense negotiations could produce an agreement on things like paid family leave. instead what is happening is we are taking approximately 100 different proposals, throwing them into one bill and decided to try to pass it on the strength of one single party's vote. that is the wrong way to legislate. it will carry distrust in the system. so, if we want to solve problems like paid family leave, let's pull it out of the bill, negotiate -- and by the way, there is a proven pathway to get there. look at the infrastructure bill, 69 bipartisan votes in the senate, we can come to an agreement on things. host: our guest is with the u.s. chamber of commerce. he serves as the executive vice president vice president and chief policy officer.

we have calls lined up. joe on the democrats line, go ahead. caller: i think that you are the wrong person to talk about the bill that is in question, because let's be honest, they -- the chamber of commerce is only interested in big business. if it does not affect or be of some value to big business, then taking care of the american people is not your concern. my other issue is, when we talk about jobs, you always say how there are jobs nobody wants to work. people want to work. do you not think of the fact that people died during this covid pandemic, and that may be there is not the population there to fill these jobs anymore? and the fact that corporations

are now having machines take over what jobs people did have? your argument is invalid to me. it is an excuse for big business to earn more money. and the average person paying more taxes, so that big businesses do not have to pay taxes. host: jo in new orleans. mr. bradley. guest: 90% of the chamber members are small businesses, fewer than 10 employees. there's businesses like the one i grew up with with my parents. my dad owned a radiator shop and he fixed cars in the back of the building. my mom ran a screenprinting business and printed t-shirts. neither one of them had employees, but they were successful small business owners, that is the majority of

our members of the u.s. chamber. we're proud to represent them. when we think about the business community, it is an ecosystem. the radiators my father repaired, they were for consumers and for big industrial companies in our hometown. so those big businesses needed my dad, the small businesses needed those big businesses, and that is true all over the country. that is the kind of system we want to encourage. jo is right, there is a worker shortage in the united states. the pandemic has been devastating on individual families, that is why it is so important for us to get more people vaccinated it to beat the pandemic. and we then have to adjust the worker shortage. it really is holding back the american recovery. host: from california, harold on the independent line. caller: listen, all the money in the world will never get the lead out of the water.

we have to stop putting ammonia in the water. the ammonia we are putting in is reaching the lead out of all our pipes. it's in the houses and everything else. as long as we are putting ammonia in our water, we will continue to have it. it is a cheap way to take the bacteria out of the water. there is other ways to do it, but it is more expensive. that is what is causing our problems. host: the infrastructure bill does tackle issues of water, go ahead. guest: we need to look at our water system. i think we would all agree that having lead water pipes service our homes and schools is something we should replace. this bill provides the funding to do that. so whether it is the chemicals going into treating the water, or getting rid of the pipes to begin with where we already had

leaching into those pipes, let's tackle the problem. unless we provide the investments in the bill and they are signed into law, there will not be resources to do that. host: on the republican line, larry in lafayette, indiana. caller: good morning. i was just -- the bill is too big. nobody is going to ever read it. any bill like this, is it is $3 trillion, it is probably a trillion dollars. everybody would have to read it at least two months before. any voting gets done. it has nothing to do with the american voters, it has nothing to do with you and i itself, it has nothing to do with illegal aliens. i have not been able to work for five years and i have not gotten one dime. i have not got one sent -- cent

because i was not qualified. but all these other -- it helps nobody, it only helps people who do not want help. host: thank you. guest: i think that he raises an important point about the size of the bill and its complexity. one thing we have discovered as we have been going through the several thousand pages that exist, is how these provisions interwork, and in many cases do not work together. some family-owned small businesses will actually face higher tax increases than the biggest companies, not because of any single provision, but because when you add up multiple different provisions in the bill and stack them together, it is a 17% increase in taxes on some family-owned businesses. so there are other examples on climate change and with critical minerals and china that i could point to, but one of the

great problems with this bill is when you through these things together it does not come together, it is not consistent. you end up with many contradictory policies, and that is why it is no way to legislate. host: senator schumer said there was a framework as far as tax policy is concerned once they decide upon a final number. has your organization gotten a sense of what that looks like? guest: it is a list of possible tax increases. it's not a framework about narrowing the scope of the bill or punitive job destroying tax increases, instead it is a list of options. so we need to get serious about addressing these issues. i'm worried we will not get serious, as long as there is a question of how many policies can we shove into one bill at one time and we get through on a partyline vote. host: if potential tax changes are coming, what are those telling you as far as how they will prepare on tax increases? guest: they are making transactions, they are making

acquisitions and purchases right now in anticipation that taxes might go up in a punitive fashion. the worst thing they are doing is they are looking at their u.s. investment plans, their investments in u.s. manufacturing and facilities that are creating jobs here at home. and they are having to look at global operations and it may turn out is no longer feasible to build those plants in the united states because the u.s. would have a higher tax rate on businesses that operate here than what china imposes on their companies. it's also true in europe. so if you are a company, if you are a country, the last thing you want to do is have them most -- the most punitive taxes in the world. host: what industries are considering that now? guest: it is important to know when businesses did that. if you go back to pre-2017, we

had a lot of industries or u.s. companies purchased by overseas companies because it was economically advantageous to be located abroad because of the punitive u.s. taxes. in late 2017, a tax reform bill was passed, and since then the number of corporate and -- corporate inversions, u.s. companies re-incorporating into a foreign country has been zero. that is an important bill that has protected america's industrial base. but what would happen if this proposed bill becomes law is we would reverse that and go back to the days where u.s. companies are sitting targets for foreign competitors. host: on twitter, what was the chamber's position in the previous administration on the tax cut from donald trump that blew a hole in the budget? guest: we supported the tax cut of 2017. we would have liked to have seen a bill that brought both sides together and had more bipartisan

support because it would've been more durable and may be having -- maybe we would not be having some of these debates today. we probably could have made changes to get that bipartisan buy in. that may have turned out to be better for the long-term u.s. economy. host: david in denison, texas. republican line. caller: titles like human infrastructure, or to say that the $3.5 trillion bill would cost zero, or saying that companies should not, would not and won't have an increase in their taxes or costs that they pass on to the consumers, this is the way that the democrats and socialists have always operated. they change the way something is described. you take the word welfare from long ago, what about welfare? who could be against welfare?

the government intervention has reached a level, i do a study of american history, financial, judicial, war, everything. i have been spending months studying up on the depression and different things leading up to it, and we are looking a lot like 1921 to 1929, where the new fed -- it was created in 1913. they sin a gold with the economy -- they finagled with the economy, expanding credit is what leads to a boom, which is then followed by a bust. look at the past 250 years since the free market economy, especially. there is a group from the united states -- united kingdom and the united states. look at the booms and busts. it's constant. if the theories of the politicians and the so-called economists that they have working at all of these agencies, if they had the answers, we wouldn't continue

with booms and busts. again, you take a look at 1921-1929, hoover was the treasury secretary, a very smart guy. the predominant thought back then was keep the wages high and prices high and people will be able to buy more goods and keep the economy rolling. host: let's get a response. guest: i think it shows the importance of getting the policy right. so that is one of the biggest things we are concerned about in this multi trillion dollar reconciliation bill. we are already seeing pandemic influenced price increases. so, the pandemic was not brought on by politicians. this is a once in a century event. we are going to have disruptions. the important thing for elected officials to do is to help manage disruptions and not pile other disruptions on top of it.

i am convinced that if congress were to enact a $2 trillion or $3 trillion reconciliation bill, you will supercharge inflation, it will raise prices for american consumers across the board. it will put u.s. companies at a advantage to -- disadvantage to global competitors and it will kill the economic recovery. so let's focus on getting the policy right to avoid that boom and bust cycle. host: from tim in wilson, north carolina. independent line. caller: yes, please do not hit that button too quickly because i have something to say. i challenge c-span to go back to ronald reagan and then come up to all the presidents, present day, and to see how much money each party spent. and you will see the republicans outspent the democrats big-time. i will give you some stuff.

the last president we had to balance a budget was bill clinton, a democrat, but since then the republicans got us into these wars. host: i appreciate the perspective, but why don't you direct a comment to our guest? [indiscernible] -- caller: i want to say, when they say it is said and then, we spent trillions on these wars, so a $2 trillion tax cut, $350 billion a year to homeland security, which could not even predict the january 6 insurrection. this is ridiculous. and this guy is coming on here, and every time there is something spent for the american people they have a problem with it. they spent so much money. imagine if we would have saved all that money the republicans spent and it spent it on our infrastructure, we would not

be in the problem we are in. i wouldn't even have this gone the show. guest: we invited him as our guest, go ahead. guest: we have a real fiscal problem in the government. the caller is right. it exists under republican administrations and democrat administrations. that is how we went from a $2 trillion federal debt to $28 trillion in debt today. we need to solve these problems. the chamber was proud to push republicans and democrats towards fiscal solutions a decade ago. the last time we had a serious debate about getting our deficit under control. we are long overdue for having that debate again. we'll sit down with anybody, republican or democrat, the white house, or congress to get our fiscal situation under control. we're not going to get it under

control, however, by this $3.5 trillion bill. let's have a conversation about deficits, but not confuse at the spending bill with getting our house in order. host: but on the infrastructure side, if it helps interstate commerce, wouldn't that help businesses across the nation? guest: i think it will help people because it will improve efficiency. importantly, the infrastructure bill was paid for through a collection of bipartisan things folks could agree with. it's a long-term investment in improving the economy. so people would have greater access to high-speed internet. if we can unclog our ports. this bill puts billions into unclogging our ports. then we could get the ships unloaded and get more loaded with the things we will sell across the world and at that would make the u.s. economy stronger. host: but doesn't the pay for on the infrastructure side also

deal with taxation, why don't you have a problem on that side? guest: they are different. if you look at the scope of the paid fors on the reconciliation bill, you are talking about big, broad-based tax increases that are really sizable. take for example of the house proposed bill. the house proposed bill results in employers across the u.s., on average, employers -- if you aggregate them together -- they will pay 25% more in taxes over the next decade under the bill proposed in the house. that's not a minor increase, that is a large, substantial increase in the taxes collected. imagine the viewers today, if you are talking about property taxes, imagine those going up 25%. and what that does to your household budget. employers, the employer's taxes,

on average going up 25% would have economically devastating consequences. host: there is a piece in the new york times talking about lobbying groups pushing back against the build back better, and your group is mentioned, saying you spent $30 million this year on lobbyists. how accurate is that figure? guest: it is not just on build back better, we engage in lobbying activities on 300 different issues at any one period of time. we advocate on behalf of our membership, based on policy positions that businesses of all sizes take. so that is an accurate figure, if you take into account all the work we do. host: because they are so involved in the conversation, how much of the lobbying has been targeted to senators manchin and senator sinema?

guest: it is not just targeted to them. we talked to democrats and republicans across the spectrum. while washington and the media today is focused appropriately on these two big bills, infrastructure and the reconciliation bill, every day there is hundreds of other things going on. cybersecurity, an important bill we have been talking about just this week, to make sure that when foreign actors attack u.s. companies through these ransomware attacks, that we have the resources to be able to push back on them and we have laws to deter those cyber attacks. that's just one example of the 300 different issues we are working with policymakers on today. host: you had conversations with both of those senators about this legislation? guest: them and others. about the specific legislation. host: joe in massachusetts on the democrats line. caller: good morning.

i have a question about the tax rate for american companies. i heard the idea floated that if we took a 15% tax rate for all businesses in america, and we had that same rate throughout europe and other countries we do business with, it would prevent our companies from sending business overseas, and we would help our own economy by putting jobs or keeping jobs in our country. is that a reasonable solution? a consistent tax rate throughout the business world, even internationally? guest: i do think we have to find an international agreement on the tax issues. the problem we see is not the attempt at finding an international agreement. in fact, we think there are legitimate ways forward to come to that. but our biggest concern is the legislation in congress would implement that global worldwide minimum tax that you described, the 15%, before any other country does it.

and it would assume that the other countries would follow the u.s.'s lead. historically, that has proven to be a bad assumption. what that means other countries, companies based in other countries, would actually get a competitive advantage over u.s. businesses and u.s. employers. if we can get global agreement, great. but we should not punish u.s. businesses in the meantime while waiting to try to achieve that global agreement. host: henry is in south carolina on the republican line. caller: hello. my name is henry and i am calling, i'm a republican but i do not agree with some of the policies. host: go ahead. caller: joe biden ran and won the presidency by a substantial number of the popular vote.

when george w. bush was in he gave a $1.3 trillion tax cut to the rich and president trump gave a $1.9 trillion cut to the rich, so about the same amount that the reconciliation bill reaches. the democrats have said that they will pay for the bill by taxing corporations at a lower tax rate than what they were being taxed before donald trump's tax cut. i want to know what's wrong with the corporations paying for it, because anytime we go to war we always find money to pay for that and it does not go to the troops. right now, contractors fight more of american wars, so it is the military-industrial complex we are financing and not the military itself. and even as a republican, i see

some of the policies now and they do not line up with my beliefs. i want to expand on that. host: henry in south carolina. guest: he raises important points, we should get the facts right on these tax issues. let's dive into the corporate tax rate. most large employers are corporations, and they pay corporate tax rate. prior to 2017, the rate was 35%, the highest in the industrialized world. over decades, congress had given these little credits, people called them loopholes, in the code to try to offset some of those, the punitive tax rates. the 2017 law said all of those loopholes, the deductions, we will get rid of most of them and in exchange we will lower the

tax rate to 21%. so the employer's, companies facing the tax, actually gave up all of those special benefits in order to get the lower tax rate. the next tax cut for business was essentially zero. so when you say, we are going to keep the repeal of all those loopholes, credits and deductions, but raise the rate back up, what you are doing is you are comparing apples and oranges. when you look at it in terms of global competitiveness, what it ultimately means is that u.s. businesses in a globally competitive market are worse off than before. that is the fundamental difference, you have to look at both sides to understand the true impact. when you look at the true impact, it could be economically

devastating because of what it will do to employment in the u.s. host: part of the proposal by the administration also includes money for enforcement of the irs to better audit high earners. has the chamber taken a position on that? guest: not formally, but there's multiple proposals floating out there. there's no question we need to make more investment in the irs, it has been starved of resources. they are using systems from the 1960's. so if you wonder why tax returns are delayed, why your refund is delayed, one reason is we are still using 1960's computers when we process tax returns. we should upgrade that. that would lead to a better system, more efficient. we believe that everyone ought to pay 100% of the taxes that they owe, and we need to make sure the irs has the resources to enforces tax rules. host: part of the effort is to

crack down on tax evasion, what it would mean for those corporations? guest: they need to pay their taxes. so, we want a fair, competitive tax system but whatever the law requires, companies should pay, just like individuals. no one should be getting out of their legal tax obligations. host: one thing we did not talk about was the debt ceiling, particularly what the chamber might think about if we surpass the debt ceiling and the efforts to stop that? guest: we cannot have a situation in which we reach the debt limit without an increase and the u.s. defaults on its debt. the u.s. has never default on legal obligations, that is why we are the world's reserve currency and why the safest investments are investments in

our nations treasury bills. if we were to default on our debt, all of that would go away. the estimates from the economists, just estimates, is that it will cost millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment. we cannot afford to do that, that is why congress has to do the responsible thing and raise the debt limit long before we reach the deadline. host: should republicans be more involved in the process of not crossing the debt ceiling? guest: both sides need to figure out how to move forward together. the danger is the more politicized the debt limit becomes, and it happens under democrats and republicans, the more dangerous the situation gets. we have simply said that congress has to figure out a way forward, like they have every other time we have faced this issue, and make sure we preserve

the u.s. government and we do not have a self-inflicted wound that will cost jobs, investments and cost the u.s. its prestige as a globally responsible power. -- economic power. host: on the democrats line. caller: one question. i wanted to know, you represent the businesses in this country, and you said 90% of them are small businesses, so i want to know who the other 10% are? guest: many are midsized. think about a business that has 300 or 400 employees. some are bigger, they have 1000. we are also proud to represent the nation's largest employers. they in many instances have tens of thousands of employees in many instances, who earn their paycheck and to support their families by working for those companies.

so, we are proud to represent all of them. as i said, we think of it as an ecosystem. small businesses need big businesses and vice versa. host: charleston, south carolina is where joe is from on the republican line. caller: it is a pleasure. i have a feeling you may feel like i do, when it comes to funding programs you would do a bottom up approach. or a zero-based budget. in other words, here is my idea, here is what we need, then you prove it to me. not have a pot of money to reach into and grab dollar bills out of. but that is not really my question. i have a real problem with people who really gripe and get angry at companies that offer -- are offered incentives to build a plant or a company in your neighborhood or town. if you penalize companies, they

are going to leave. look at amazon, i remember the 2017 revision of the corporate tax structure and companies started building factories here. there was the foxconn deal in wisconsin and that fell apart. they said the government were not doing their part and wisconsin said foxconn was not doing their part. but we gave incentives, but it made people angry. but people forget, those employees on the payroll, they spend money, they pay federal and local income taxes. they pay sales tax. they stimulate the local economy. they buy goods, services. the spinoff industries are tremendous. and i do not understand why people do not see that, it fuels the economy if you give a company a break. i wonder in your view what's the biggest hindrance right now in -- now? i'm scared that these

companies are going to go to ireland, or the caribbean or canada. guest: he said it better than i could. that is exactly right. we believe that americans can outcompete anyone in the world, that is how we became the strongest economy in the world, the world's superpower, because of the ingenuity of the american system and of the american people. but what happens with these tax policies, where we operate at a disadvantage to other countries, we fight with one hand tied behind her back. americans are pretty good even with one hand tied behind their back. but imagine what would happen if we unleashed the american businesses to compete on a level playing field globally. that's when we start to see factories come into the u.s., that is when we start to see new companies founded at home. that is how we get to the

economy all of us want to see. i think he hit the nail on the head. host: russ in maryland on the independent line. caller: hi, thank you. first i wanted to say that you keep saying this is an unprecedented level of spending. that is just full compared to the military budget. this bill absolutely pales in comparison to the explosive military budget from the last 20 years. and his position is clear, the ownership and financiers have it way too hard. and the hourly wage worker has it way too easy. and that is obviously not true. wealth is not accumulating with the hourly workers, it is accumulating at the top. if you want americans to compete with the rest of the world, you need our infrastructure and public transportation to catch up, and we have neglected all of that. and we have seen wealth accumulate at the top, largely through things like tax cuts and a system that works for the ownership, not for the worker.

guest: if you look out over the past several months at the economic recovery, and if you go back to the last year before the pandemic hit, the biggest income growth we were seeing was actually at the bottom end of the income scale. the lower income workers were seeing their pay rise faster than anyone else across the income spectrum. that's a good thing. we should want to have policies that encourage that. the problem is right now those wage increases are being wiped out by inflation. so, people cannot keep up. they are living paycheck-to-paycheck because inflation is going up faster than wages. that is the concern that we see. we want to create an environment where we have strong wage growth without inflationary pressures. when we look at this

reconciliation bill we see a program that will supercharge the inflationary pressures, meaning higher prices for families and consumers, and at the same time remove the job creation and business growth. that's a recipe for the kind of a stagflation we saw in the 1970's. that was a long time ago, but we could repeat it if we make some of these policy mistakes being proposed. host: the u.s. chamber's website is the u.s. chamber.com. neil bradley, thank you for your time. >> thanks for having a. of >> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on the air of the news of the day and we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, atlanta based movement forward ceo discusses police and

community engagement. and andrew yang, former 2020 democratic presidential candidate is on to talk about his new book "forward." watch c-span's washington journal wednesday morning. join the discussion with phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. ♪ >> saturday night, former president trump speaks at a fair in des moines. he won the state of iowa and is considered a top contender for the 2024 gop presidential nominee. live coverage on c-span, and >> watch book tv's coverage of the 21st annual national book festival on sunday. the virtual event features on

one father discussion, plus live call in segments. at 2:00, joseph ellis talks about his book. 1773 to 1783. he will join us live at 2:30 p.m.. at 3:00 p.m., a discussion about the opioid epidemic rid -- epidemic. after the discussion at 3:30 p.m., a look at russia. at 4:30 p.m., the history of women in medicine with the author of the doctors blackwell and olivia campbell. at 5:00 p.m., the kansas representative talks about her book.