watch live coverage of the house here on c-span. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled locations for students to get ready for the future. >> comcast supports c-span, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on "washington journal," ohio republican congressman warrant debits and and pennsylvania democratic congresswoman discussed the latest on president bidens will back better agenda and the upcoming fiscal deadlines. later, american road and

transportation builders association david bauer on the pending expiration of federal highway funding and the status of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning on this tuesday, october 20 six. it democrats in washington are proposing a so-called billionaire tax to pay for social safety net programs in ongoing talks of her president biden's build back better plan. this morning, you tell washington what you think of the billionaire text idea. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. you can send your thoughts in a text at (202) 748-8003, include

your first name, city, and state. or go to facebook.com/c-span. you can also sent a tweet using handle @cspanwj. in today's wall street journal, richard rubin has the one no one on this billionaire tax idea, and he is joining us on the phone this morning to talk about it. what is the basic idea here? guest: i will give you the 1000 00 one to explain this billionaire attacks. look, the idea is to impose a capital gains tax annually on a very small number of people, probably under 1000, either in assets or $100 million in income for three straight years, and to have them pay the capital gains tax even if they do not sell assets. so if you are a billionaire and your net worth goes up because you hold stock from $2 billion

to 2.5 believe dollars, that is 500 billion dollars in income. under the current system, you would not necessarily pay any tax and it might go down in a you years and you would only owe tax if you sold. this is for that small group of people, to change that requirement. host: if you were to say that increase in valuation though, you do not actually get the money from that unless you sell it, correct? i mean, talking about a stock? guest: sure. so for you and me and 329 million plus americans -- maybe a little less -- for almost all americans, that is a problem, about paying the tax if you do not have access to the cash. part of the point democrats are making here is that alien heirs are different -- billionaires are different, and already, people that are very wealthy can borrow against their assets to finance or lifestyles. so there is some combination contemplated of borrowing or

starting to sell off pieces of their portions to pay these taxes. these are taxes that they might eventually pay but under current law, if you have these unrealized capital gains that adds to depreciation at death, all of that gain escapes the income tax. the aim here is to sort of accelerate that potential eventual tax and make people who have the ability or some ability to finance it and sell off some to kick in for these programs. host: you gave the example of stocks, but what other assets would fall under this proposal? guest: we will see the details in the coming days when the senate finance committee chairman releases his plane. -- his plan. but it has to be all assets. the aim is likely to be that

billionaires would have to pay annually on liquid assets, things like cash, stock, etc., and would not have to pay annually on other assets, closely held businesses, artwork, other kinds of property. but they would eventually have to pay when those are sold, and the amount they would have to pay is sort of greater than sell price minus cost, sort of an additional charge added each year to sort of equalize what you pay on liquid assets versus illiquid assets. the idea is that they are aiming to find ways and there is not necessarily an advantage to weighting, that there is a cost imposed by the tech system for waiting to sell those nonstock assets. host: how much money would this raise? democrats want to come up with some way of taxing the wealthy in the country to pay for universal pre-k and other social

spending. how much would this bring into the treasury? guest: we do not know yet, but the house speaker said they were thinking it would raise between $200 billion and $250 billion over a decade. we will see what the estimates come back from from the group in congress once there is an actual estimate. senator whited has been working on a proposal for years, but there is not an actual legislative tax at this moment as we are talking. following that, maybe we will see some estimates. there are interesting questions, when we will explore more. it will linger if we get this done. the constitution says if you have a direct tax, the direct

tax must be apportioned, which means each states' residents 'share should match. that is messy in the modern america. we have not done it in a while the 16th amendment says, yeah, ok, you can do an income tax and you do not have to worry about that apportionment stuff. so one of the questions there will be in an inevitable court challenge because there will be every reason to do it, and it will be whether this is an income tax or something else, a wealth tax or property tax or direct tax that would be outside of what the 16th amendment contemplates. host: for viewers who want to learn more, go to today's "wall street journal," and you can find richard rubin's piece there. richard rubin, thank you. guest: thank you. host: let's get to all of your

calls, tweets, texts. susan in casper, wyoming, you oppose this idea. go ahead. caller: hi, yes, i absolutely oppose it. it is unconstitutional. and what about -- there is not inflation when they are not earning a higher benefit, and all of a sudden we hit a depression and they lose all that money? is our government going to we pay those losses? host: you mean give them a refund? caller: yes. host: richard rubin's piece addresses that. what -- there will be some years which a billionaire will lose money as assets decline in value. the prospects of the government sending tax refund checks to

alien heirs is politically unappealing. the plan is likely to allow taxpayers to carry losses forward and perhaps backward to use deductions against gains. details are not set. your reaction to that? caller: it is unconstitutional, bottom line. host: why do you oppose it? besides being unconstitutional. why do you think it is not a good idea? caller: because it is too confusing, too convoluted, and it does not take into account what may or may not happen in the future. i -- there is no way this should be passed. host: ok. mary in fort washington, maryland, you support it.

what do you like about taxing billionaires? caller: yes, i do. you know what, we have no problem when it comes time to give money that they depend on for defense. ask democrats why they don't give more money than they asked for in that last session. put that up there. you all need to put every politician's donor up for us to see. as progressive people know why joe manchin and why kyrsten sinema are holding things up, because they get money from big pharma and big oil. need to put that up there so we do not have problems again with those two. but i support taxing billionaire s. nothing is going to happen, no trickle down. we need to do it now. we should have done it -- we know we cannot do it four years ago because we had satan in office. host: politico writes about where senator manchin is on this

latest idea, and the topline number of what democrats want to spend, fellow democrats are lobbying him to get closer to yes. this is what political rights, west virginians sounded optimistic about an agreement on the social spending framework as soon as this week but acknowledged he still has problems with several provisions, and the list includes efforts to expand health care benefits and create a federal pay beef program, two issues -- paid leave program, two issues in which democrats are starting to lobby him directly. this comes as the white house is pushing for an agreement for an outline on the bill before president joe biden leaves for an overseas trip, including smi on climate change -- including a summit on climate change. he was asked if he could to a cash agreed to a 1.75 trillion

dollars social spending bill, senator manchin said he still wanted to remain at $1.5 trillion. democratic leaders are pushing for roughly $2 trillion after coming down from 3.5 trillion dollars, a climbdown that is bound to require big slashes to specific proposals. richard rubin writes today on kyrsten sinema and others that we do not know yet, some democrats question backing an idea that has not gone through a full congressional committee. even richard neal, chair of the house ways and means committee, he is questioning the idea. so not clear yet who is in support of it. that is why we are asking you as they negotiate here in washington. tell them what you think. james in newark, new jersey. you support it. go ahead. caller: yes, hi. [indiscernible]

used to work together, and 20% should be the number for anybody. doctors, janitors, anybody. flat tax, 100%. flat tax, 20% on anyone, including billionaires and multi-billionaires. host: neil irwin rights in today's "new york times," according to white house paper published last month, from 2010 to 2018, the wealthiest 400 families in american paid an average of 8.2% of their income and taxes, and the average income tax rate for all americans of the 2018 without that capital gains adjustment was 13%. and it was 25% among the top 1% of earners. it creates so very large tax bills for that small sliver of americans. if a family's $10 billion net

worth rose to $11 billion in a single year, a texan 20% would apply a $200 million tax bill. john and north carolina, you oppose. caller: yes, i oppose it because it is all a joke and a smokescreen. do you think these guys and government are going to go out and hire 800 internal revenue agents who are going to be capable of auditing a billionaire's income. it is a joke. what they are going to do is they are going to order people like you and me, and each one has to get x-amount of dollars, and that is where they will get the money from, by auditing the masses of people. they are still trying to get money out of enron. they are incapable of auditing billionaires. it is a joke.

host: sounds like you also think this is a slippery slope. caller: it is a lie, a joke. it is an out and out like they tell you they are going to tax billionaires, but a billionaire is smart enough to avoid taxes. these guys that they hire for 80 thousand dollars a year are not smart enough to audit a billionaire. it just comes down to that. host: i got it. al in waterton, tennessee, you oppose. caller: first thing is how you categorize callers. you need a line for the net takers and then one for the net producers.back to the point, half the people in this country do not pay taxes at all. the billionaires will arrange their finances with the lawyers and accountants. they're going to minimize this impact.

who does that leave? always leaves the middle. that is the only way you're going to be able to pay big enough numbers to matter. it is going to be the middle class, the people who get up and work every day, have 401k's. this is class warfare, pure and simple. host: listen to the argument made on the floor of the senate on monday. senator richard durbin of illinois talks about why they want to tax the wealthiest americans to pay more to provide tax breaks for american families. [video clip] >> because we have too darn many families struggling in america and they are in poverty appeared we talk a lot about it. we say, isn't it a dart shame -- a darn shame and a great country like this that you cannot afford food for your children, roofs over the heads, you cannot afford the basics to send your children to school, to buy a good close and a new parachute? we say, isn't it a darn shame,

but not a single republican vote , not one. so our tax policy helped working in lower income families, particularly with children, and if we can do it, and hope we can, we can engineer that tax cut to make it permanent, or at least for a number of years predictable to help families. i just heard president biden in new jersey speaking about infrastructure and build back better, the reconciliation plan. he said that in the state of new jersey, this child tax credit, which we enacted without a single republican vote helping us, has reduced child poverty in that state by 36%. i will bet it has done the same thing in my state, new jersey. so we are getting practical results that help working families, and if we have our way in reconciliation, we are going to give the largest tax cut in

the history of this country to middle income and working families, exactly the opposite of what the senator from kentucky just said -- oh, the biggest tax increase in history. well, there will be tax increase i hope for those who can afford to pay it, that means the same people who got a benefit four years ago from the trump republican tax policy. host: from the senate floor yesterday, dick durbin from illinois, democratic lawmaker. shelley in connecticut, you oppose the idea of taxing the billionaires. good morning to you. caller: good morning. yes, this is so convoluted, it is unbelievable. one has a tax ever been just for a certain group of people? because what happens, as you can see, it will not cover all of our needs. so slowly, it will be lowered to

other people and to other people, etc. you know, there is this idea that we want to be global. i was watching something on tv the other day where they are saying, oh, the perfect thing would be a city where you do not own cars and you do not own property. what they are trying to do is dissuade you from actually owning property. in switzerland, it is cheaper for a person to rent than to own property because there is this wealth tax. so it is the whole democratic idea that democrats want to fundamentally transform america. this is one hell of a way to do it. and by the way, these people who are billionaires, do you think they are going to stay here? they are going to go somewhere else, and the middle-class is the one that is going to eat it. when you are bringing in people every day over the border,

millions of people who have no way to support themselves, this is where our money is going to. i know when my daughter was little, i ended up working almost full-time to support the nursery school. i saved. i ended up going through a lot in order to be able to get to the point where i could afford a house. and over the years, i just kept working harder and harder. today they want americans to be at home and have the people who manage to succeed support them. but guess what, this is hitting everybody. host: ok. kim in iowa, good morning to you. you support it. caller: yes, i do. i just don't get it, it is only the 700 richest families in the

world out of 325 million people. it is more people at the bottom that sleep order for the 700 families. 700 families make the most of her 325 million people. the lady talking about we should not break up the billionaires, we can look at bell and the monopolies. it is a shame that these people calling in thinking they are rich and saying we oppose taxing billionaires, then why can't they pay their fair share? we are paying the most. and it is a shame to hear some of the calls. host: listen to the argument by republican leader mitch mcconnell, and that is who richard durbin was responding to on the floor yesterday. [video clip] >> public reporting had it

right, democrats are so desperate to raise taxes that they they are now proposing to tax money the american people have not even made yet. let me say it again. they are now proposing to tax money the american people have not even made yet. yes, you heard me right. so much for the quaint idea that you had actually make money first before the irs could tax it. now democrats want to tax money you have not made yet. there are already a couple gains taxes that americans pay when they cash out and investment, when they sell what they have been holding and realize actual gains. now democrats want to go much further and text certain citizens just because her holdings have gone up in value, regardless of whether they have actually sold them and made any money. and get this, in parallel with

taxing people on hypothetical gains they have not realized, they apparently also want to hand out tax breaks for hypothetical losses, losses. losses that people have not realized. so let's think of the unintended consequences, like the fact that in the event of a market crash or financial crisis, the government would be on the hook for massive automatic tax cuts for billionaires. or the fact that some experts suggest this new scheme would dread the wealthiest americans away from stocks and bonds, push them into other tax shelters, and thereby reduce the growth in ordinary americans' investments that households relearn for college funds and 401(k)'s. or the fact that new innovative entrepreneurs whose startups began to grow in value could now get hit with a crushing tax bill long before their company is

actually cash flow positive. the next visionary startup founder could have to sell away all their shares pre-materially just to pay uncle sam. [video clip] the republican leader -- host: the republican leader on the store yesterday -- on the floor yesterday. joe in maryland, do you agree with the republican leader? caller: absolutely. i am totally opposed of the concept of taxing people for something they have not earned yet. i do not care if you are a billionaire for the lowest wage earner in the country. i want to drive home a point so people understand exactly what they are talking about doing. if you own a home in your home appreciates in value over a year and it gains say $10,000 in value, the government sends you a bill and will charge you $2000 to $4000 that year because your house is worth more, but you

have not sold it, have not gotten any money out of it. that is what they are proposing to do to billionaires. and that is what they are going to do to the rest of us when they get around to it. host: but right now, this is just for around 1000 families. caller: yeah, but once they start the process of taxing people for something they have not actually earned, they are going to do it to the rest of us when they get around to it. and they can do it to them, they are going to do it to us, too. host: what do you make of neil irwin's point in his column today, that right now the wealthiest, these 1000 families, are putting their wealth into stocks, into their holdings, into other assets, then borrowing money against those assets to fund a lifestyle, then paying 8.2%, on average, in

taxes, while other people are paying 13% to 25%? caller: you know, if you want the wealthy to pay more, change the tax code. eliminate the loopholes that exist. they talked about this all the time, but nobody does anything. nobody explains to us how it is that these people do not pay taxes. so let's stop the nonsense and start talking about the reality of things and what is actually going on here. they are taxing us to death and spend our money for no good reason. host: james on facebook supports the idea, saying, i am sure it would be pennies compared to the taxes they are allowed to finesse their way out of paying. michael says, never happened, this will never pay what people think they will pay, this

program will plow under the middle american working men and women. why would rich democrats target themselves? not going to happen, all smoke and mirrors. allen in east chicago, you support it. caller: good morning, good morning. a huge fan of "washington journal," best show on cable. i think you are starting to get a cold following. everybody likes to call in while you are moderating -- i think you're starting to get a cult following. i hope the fame does not go to your head and you try to take over the country or something. anyway, 1950's and 1960's, the tax rate on millionaires was 91%, and we had balanced budgets. i do not know if we had

excesses, but we had the greatest and longest economic boon in this country. when reagan got in, he lowered it. 70% when reagan got in, and he brought it down to 28%. so millionaires and billionaires went from 91% tax breaks to 20%. that is billions of dollars of government loss. and what do we get? recessions, unemployment, and a debt now, what, $1 trillion when reagan was in office and growing ever since because millionaires and billionaires illegally do not pay taxes, have a low tax rate. host: let me ask you to respond to the "wall street journal" editorial piece, the democrats wealth tax barrage is what they

write today. i want to show you what they argue. they point to sweden, which abolished its wealth tax in 2007 following an exit in -- exodus of capital and business tycoons. france repealed its in 2018, estimating some 10,000 people with 35 billion euros worth of assetts had left for tax reasons. the government was losing revenue from income taxes the wealthy would have played. what this will raise will not even cover the green energy, electric vehicle, and other kinds of tax credits. caller: i would just say to look in the past, when the tax rate was 91%, how many millionaires and billionaires left america? 1980 when reagan was elected, we had about 10 billionaires in this country and about 500,000

millionaires, a pretty healthy number considering. i got this off fox news, so it must be true, saying what forbes and bloomberg magazine found. at the end of 2020, there were 713 billionaires in the united states and 19 million millionaires. host: ok. patrick, charlotte, south carolina. why do you oppose? caller: i oppose the billionaire tax, nothing more than window dressing. but let's get down to the nut here. the majority of these revenue raises are for unconstitutional programs, electrification, car batteries for elon musk, $1 trillion company -- he has

enough money to fund his own company. a myriad. college education. a lot of this stuff we are raising taxes for are unconstitutional. but the biggest culprit is the federal reserve, which has levied a huge tax translated with this spike in inflation that is being hoisted on every american in this country today. we need to address this federal reserve and the devaluation of our money. this is the bogeyman we need to rein in. what do you think? host: why do you bring it up, patrick? caller: well, why do i bring it up? because the u.s. dollar is -- used to be purchasing power and

has basically been devalued. the dollar amount is a variable that we need to strengthen, and a lot of these issues can be resolved. you know, the federal reserve, these are banksters. they have levied this punitive inflation on the american people, doubling of the gas prices, escalation in food costs. billionaire tax, this is windowdressing. nothing more than a distraction from washington. so i want the federal reserve to be addressed as soon as possible. host: ok, so negotiations are ongoing between democrats on the overall spending levels and this tax proposal for president

biden's so-called build back better proposal, that social spending legislation. you all know the senate earlier passed a $1.2 trillion hard infrastructure deal with bipartisan support. that has not been brought to the floor in the house because moderates have said they want a vote on that first before they agree to vote on any social spending bill. progressives in the house said they will not vote for a hard infrastructure bill until they have got agreement on a topline number, when they can agree to, a social spending. negotiations were happening over the weekend in delaware at the president's home. senator chuck schumer and senator joe manchin were with the president. the democratic leader came to the floor yesterday in the senate and gave an update on talks. [video clip] >> we had a productive weekend as we continue to close in on a final agreement for president biden's build bat better plan --

build back better plane. we traveled to delaware to meet, and it was a very good meeting. i think the president for his leadership, and also thanked my colleagues in both chambers for their shared commitment to getting this consequential and desperately needed legislation across the finish line. no one ever said passing transformational legislation like this would be easy, but we are on track to get this done. because it is so important, and it is what the american people need and what they want. the progress of last week illustrated if we stick together, work towards finding that legislative sweet spot, then we can get big things done for the american people. host: democratic leader chuck schumer of new york. politico reports on those talks over the weekend, saying paid family leave and medicare

benefits for vision, dental, and hearing were potentially on the chopping block amid opposition from manchin and resistance from kyrsten sinema. manchin did not deduct specific concerns with the parties proposal paid leave program, but he said monday he is still working on reaching an understanding with colleagues on medicaid provision. he told reporters he is worried about creating an equity between states that have already expanded medicaid, which includes his home state of west virginia, and those that have not. 12 states have not yet expanded medicaid coverage. allan in kennewick, washington. we're asking you, specifically on this idea of taxing billionaires, 700 to 1000 families in this country, to pay for social spending.

it support or oppose it? caller: first place, talk about the revenue they get. forget the taxes, talk about the revenues. when they cut the taxes, the revenue for the government went up. every time they cut taxes, the revenue goes up. they never wanted to talk about that. all they want to talk about is raise the taxes. well, they raise the taxes, the revenue goes down. just opposite what they say up there in washington. you have to look at the revenue. host: the revenue went up under former president trump's tax cut? caller: sure, it did. look at the revenue. host: ok. shay in corpus christi, texas. you support this idea. why? caller: they are making a lot of

money, so they have a profitable industry some place. you are taxing my income, and i don't make very much. i voted for biden, but i have got questions about what he is doing. providing $75 to improve the irs or to get more irs to keep an eye on money -- providing $75 billion. i do not know why biden would be interested in why i have $600 in my account. why not worry about why a billionaire can disband $600,000 instead of may spending by $600 -- can spend $600,000 instead of me spending my $600. host: in december of 2019, u.s. lost more tax revenue than any other developed country in 2018 due to trump's tax cuts,

according to a new report. the tax cuts dramatically altered the u.s. tax landscape for the first time in tickets by permanently slashing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, temporarily cutting individual tax rates, and limiting state and local tax deductions, among other changes. from 2017 to 2018, the u.s. tax to gdp ratio fell 26.8% to 24 point 3%, and corporate tax revenues fell by .7%. 3600, including many u.s. allies in economic nurse, make up the oecd, which is a market oriented forum for countries to discuss global economic issues and policies. cnbc's reporting in 2019. greg in tennessee, you oppose, as well.

caller: yes, i do not see how anybody could talk about this bill. you had a personal note the other date -- [indiscernible] nobody seen this bill. it is 2500 pages. they want to be transparent, then put it out where we can see it. host: the treasury secretary, janet yellen, was on cnn "state of the union" sunday, and she was asked about this idea of taxing billionaired. >> do you think a wealth tax will be part of it, and can you explain what that would look like? >> well, i think what is under consideration is a proposal that senator wyden and the senate finance committee have been looking at that would impose a tax on unrealized capital gains,

on liquid assets held by extremely wealthy individuals, billionaires. i would not call that a wealth tax, but it would help get at capital gains, which are an extraordinarily large part of the incomes of the wealthiest individuals. and right now, escape taxation and till they are realized, and they are often unrealized in the death benefit, the so-called step up. it is not a wealth tax but a tax on unrealized capital gains of exceptionally wealthy individuals. host: the treasury secretary's argument for this tax on billionaires. jonah goldberg in the boston herald it last week.

he wrote, for years now, voters have been told that the rich and greedy corporations are on tap, a renewable resource that can pay for everything and anything. that is false. you can confiscate all of the wealth of the top 1% and it would not come close to covering the bills for the green new deal or medicare for all. representative alexander acosta cortez may turn heads with her ball gowns, but the truth is, we already do at a remarkably progressive rate. a call from north carolina, why do you support taxing billionaires in this country? caller: because, number one, our infrastructure, our social programs are way below standard. if you travel around the world and go to the airports and the train stations and then come back here, it is embarrassing. china has been kicking our rear end in the infrastructure

department for years. i have been traveling there for over 20 years. so we have got to update our infrastructure, number one. and we always bring up that the rich are not paying their share or corporations are not paying their share, and they are not, but we never seem to be able to cross that rubicon and come up with a reasonable, sensible tax program to where we can get them to pay their fair share. corporate america is getting off scott free, relatively speaking. not all of them, but the large corporations, there are so many shelters and tax advantages for them, they just are not carrying the load. and they are recording record profits year after year after year. host: you would be interested in paul krugman's peace, tax the

rich, help pay america's children. he comes up with a one-liner, tax the rich, help america's children. children who benefited from safety net programs like food stamps became healthier, more productive adults. children who were enrolled in pre-k education were more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than those who weren't. as i have argued in the past, the economic case for investing in children is even stronger than the case for investing in physical infrastructure. gary? caller: i don't disagree with that at all. i am a paul krugman fan, so it is no surprise. i do not disagree with that. and we are behind in that area, too. we're so arrogant, we do not want to look at what the world has done successfully. looking at europe, oh, they are a bunch of socialists. they are not. they have done better than we have with the daycare and the

pre-k, education. it is a no-brainer, it really is. host: romeo, maple heights, ohio, it is your turn. why do you oppose? caller: good morning. yeah, i oppose all this stuff. i was listening to senator romney yesterday, who i do not really agree with that much, i am a libertarian, but he was describing what $1 trillion would be if we conflated it with actual times. he says, $1 million, going back one million seconds, last year the year before, cannot remember exactly, and then one billion seconds would put us back in, i believe, the first bush presidency. one trillion seconds would put us back to neanderthal man. that is how many billion seconds

it takes to make $1 trillion. i do not think the american people really understand what $1 trillion is. these people are throwing around trillion dollar price tags as if it was nothing. this is a massive amount of money, and they are not just short two senators, they are short 52 senators. the other side is not even being mentioned here. how is it that we are going to spend a massive amounts of money that people do not even understand, you know? just these senators and kamala harris are going to get together and pass this for everyone. host: yes, because in a reconciliation process, it does not require -- caller: yes, but why was there a 60-vote threshold in the first place in the senate? over history, that has stopped a lot of bad legislation from going through. and just like this one, this is

money being pushed through that is massive, that this country has never seen before. they are going to put that on the backs of the working man ultimately. it has to be. there is no other formula. host: the hill with headline, democrats are facing critical 72 hours. the white house and democratic leaders determined to reach a framework deal on president biden's social spending agenda this week as they seek to trendy the political type ahead of critical gubernatorial elections. according to reporting from newspapers here in washington, democrats are eyeing a vote on that hard infrastructure bill tomorrow. they would like to get it done tomorrow. but first, as the hill is reporting, they need a framework for this larger social spending bill. "new york times" morning on their front page, democrats push for budget deal as risks persist. and they report that a final

deal remained elusive amid disputes over the details of potential medicare and medicaid expansion, a new paid-in family medical leave program, programs to combat climate change, and lowering the cost of prescription drugs. top democrats were toiling to knoche the price tag up to $2 trillion -- to nudge the price tag up to to join dollars. an senator joe manchin, a centrist who has led the effort to scale back the bill, was pushing to remove or modify a provision that would impose a fee on emissions of methane, a planet warming pollution that leaks from oil and gas wells. he has already, they report, effectively killed the most powerful climate change provision in the package, a proposed 150 billion programs that would replace coal and gas

fired power plants with wind and solar power, though that money may be repurposed. joe in california, you want to see the democrats go forward with taxing some billionaires in this country. tell us why. caller: absolutely. the proposal is poultry, i think they should tax billionaires probably at the rate they did under the republican president, the general who fought in the korean war, forgot his name, pre-kennedy. because these people have not paid enough. we have health care, education, we have the economy to care about. we have kids to care about, senior care. we have the climate that we have to deal with. republicans are not serious, they are silly. they do not balance budgets.

they always cry, we want more money. what do they want it for? to give tax cuts to rich people. and they talk about trickle-down economics. trickling down does not work. it has not worked. it is silly and stupid. enough of the games. it is investing in people. host: the president made a similar argument on monday in new jersey. here is what he had to say. [video clip] pres. biden: i am here today to talk about what is fundamentally at stake for the families in new jersey, the whole region here, and for our country. most of the 20th century, we led the world by significant margins, not just a little, but by significant margins, because we invested in ourselves, invested in our people. not only our roads and highways and our bridges but in our people and our families. we were among the first to provide access to free education , 12 years of free education for

anyone who is an american, beginning back in the late 1800's, early 1900's, and the decision to invest in our children and families is a major part of why we were able to lead the world for so much of the 20th century. but somewhere along the way, we took our eyes off the ball. our infrastructure used to be the best in the world, not hyperbole, the best in the world. today, according to the world economic forum, we ranked 13th in the world. 12 other nations have superior infrastructure to us, and china has trains that go 230 miles an hour for long distances, and we have money to do that back in the administration of barack obama and joe biden and you had a republican governor who did not want it. we used to lead the world and educational achievement. now america is ranked 35 out of

37 countries when it comes to investing in early childhood education and care. 35 out of 37. we cannot be competitive in the 21st century global economy and continue to slide. my wife is a community college professor and says any nation that out educates us will outcompete us. any nation that out educates us will outcompete us. that is a fact. that is why i resolved that we have to once again build america . i have never seen and time in american history with the middle-class did well and the wealthy did not do very well. but i am tired of trickle-down. trickle-down has not worked so much for the last 15 years for working-class and middle-class folks. host: president biden yesterday as democrats negotiate behind the scenes on whether or not to tax some billionaires in this country in order to pay for the

social safety programs that they want to put into place under the president's so-called build back better plan. ron and florida, what do you think of that idea? caller: [inaudible] host: i hope you can call back because you are breaking up. matt in herndon, virginia, you support. caller: yeah, we already have a property tax on your house. you pay $50 per -- you know. if you have a one billion dollhouse, you're already paying that property tax, and excise task -- if you have a $1 billion house, you're already paying that property tax, excise tax. there is a tax in the county that is something like .2% of revenue, not income, not profit, revenue.

so the mechanism that they are proposing, which is to tax the billionaires' assets, is already being done in a lot of states. the method dollar gee -- the methodology should be that if you have $1 billion in the bank, you pay 1% of your assets, and there is no refund if it goes down. 1% if it is half a billion year, 1% if it is $1 billion this year. the social programs they're proposing are fine, except we have a massive number of immigrants, 1.6 million this year catch and release to the border, and that is not counting may be double that that have come through and have not even been caught by immigration. the number of people that are going to be needed, that will need these social programs, is going up massively. yes, taxing the billionaires is fine. they should look at how the states do it. most states have balance budget

amendments and a tax to meet the simple needs of their social programs. we already have a property tax for everybody. why shouldn't we have one uniquely builds for billionaires? we already have an excise tax on vehicles. loudoun county is the largest county in the world for data centers, massive numbers of these huge data centers. the property value where the data centers are built, the property tax on that is not even remotely close to the excise tax on all the servers in the data centers. what is the problem with taxing a billionaire's assets, just like they tax a middle class person's property value or car? i realize not every state has that, but most of the east coast states have been doing this for a long time, and it seems to work. host: as your property value goes up, so does your property tax every year. they send you an estimate saying this is what we think your

property is worth. caller: 100%, and it has gone appear this year, the county's income went up because of the property values. the money goes into the school districts. i do not complain because some school districts have higher property values and get more income, and it depends on how the money is spent. but the mechanism on collecting the money has been around for a long time. i do not understand why congress, when they propose this wealth tax, why there should be any refund ever. if you have $1 billion in assets, 1%, let's say, you pay that, that is it. the next year, you pay 1%. goes up, you pay a little more, goes down, pay a little less. already being done to the middle class. host: i think that is something they're looking at, as well, as far as an annual tax on assets, not necessarily a valuation. i will read neil irwin's piece on that in a minute.

finish up your thoughts. caller: all i am saying is the middle classes already -- and by the way, i am a card-carrying conservative republican. i am just saying that it already exists in the middle class. if you pay rent, a portion of your rent is already covering the property tax that the landlord has to pay to the state or county. if you have a business in loudoun county or fairfax county, you already pay a vehicle tax. if you have a car, in virginia, you pay $50 or $60 per $1000 in value. that covers roads, supposedly. again, there is a dispute about how the money is spent. but how they collect it, the states into a great job, and most states already have a

balanced budget amendments. if the federal government could look at what the states are doing, it is a pretty straightforward process. it should not even be that controversial. why shouldn't they pay a tax on their assets? host: got it. rich in marion, ohio. i will point to near -- 10 neil irwin's piece. tax on bill years raises -- tax on billionaires raises questions on income. go ahead. caller: there are consequences with taxes for companies, with them going outside of the united states. reduce taxes on companies, they start moving to ireland. drug companies and other companies have started moving back to our countries. we had these viruses, and it is sure nice to have these companies in the united states were we can pick up the phone and say you will work on this, and they work on it. when they are in other countries, the priorities are completely different.

kennedy reduced taxes and created jobs. i know he is not a republican, but he reduced taxes and the economy did better. it is criminal to pass a bill to say we will find out what is in it and then pass it. it is just a real problem. with this many dollars, $28 trillion, it's where there is savings in there, could be $10,000 or $1 trillion if people put their heads together with the brainpower in this country. host: we're going to lead the conversation there for now. we will next be joined by two house members to talk about president biden's so-called build back better plan, the upcoming fiscal deadline, another congressional news. first, congressman representative warren davidson of ohio, republican, member of

the freedom caucus. later, pennsylvania democrat mary gay scanlon, member of the judiciary committee, to also discuss the abortion debate and recourse. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> when this frenchman was 19, he came to america and was approximated major general by george washington. the year was 17 when a seven, and the american -- american revolutionary war was underway. at political history podcaster an author has written the story of lafayette called "hero of two worlds." included is an account of his return to the united states where he was celebrated in the each of the 24 states, and the

year was 1824 and lafayette was 67. >> mike duncan on this week's episode of footnotes+ -- book notes+. you can listen on our new c-span now app. you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in the studentcam video competition. your opinion matters. if you are a middle or high school student, create a five to six-minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? the documentary should show supporting and opposing points of view on the federal policies and programs that affects you or your community, using c-span video clips, which are easy to find and access at c-span.org. the studentcam competition rewards $100,000 in total cash prices and a shot at the grand prize of $5,000.

must be received before january 20, 2022. for rules or tips, visit our website. >> "washington journal" continues. host: host: joining us now is warren davidson. democrats are mulling over a tax on billionaires in this country. it would affect around 1000 families. what do you think of the idea? guest: thanks for having me this morning. i think it's a horrible idea. if you think about the 16th amendment, they had to change the plan to accommodate less families. it's an inefficient way to collect taxes but the government

you need to know if you paid somebody or you got paid or you got a gift that was too generous. did you buy yourself something? that's what they collect on average ordinary citizens and thank how much they want to know about every billionaire and what it really going to do? it's going to force the people on the edge of being the lowest end of it to disclose all this information to liquidate their assets whether it's farming or businesses or stocks or real estate. it will force them to sell and who will they sell it to? they will sell it to the wealthiest people and it will grow the wealth gap even more. it's a horrible idea and i think it's unconstitutional seizure and it amounts to legal plunder. host: today in the new york times, neil erwin writes a piece and he cites a paper from the white house published last month from 2010-2018, the wealthiest families paid an average of 8.2%

of their income in taxes. the average income tax rate for all americans in 2018 without the capital gains adjustment was 13% and it was 25% among the top 1% of earners. why not make the wealthiest americans who are on average paying 8.2% pay their fair share? guest: he doesn't define income correctly and if you think about what the void? should billionaires pay more taxes? absolutely but what would be the correct solution? you can tax consumption and everyone would a more including billionaires. billionaires consume massively

more than wage earners do. they don't get their earnings from wages. jeff bezos never sells the amazon shares and he can borrow against the value of them and that's not really a taxable event in the current system is to the whole mechanism is a massive invasion of privacy and it distorts our economy and it just incentivizes investment in the united states and if we simply tax consumption, we could raise revenue more equitably across our economy. host: if the democrats are able to agree to a framework on this larger social spending bill,

then it sounds like in the house, the speaker will put on the floor, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, will you vote yes on that when it comes to the floor? guest: i am opposed to both. they fail on math and even if they didn't fail on math, you would have problem with policies. the policies themselves are problematic. when the senate made the infrastructure bill bipartisan, they thought we will find a way to work together to do this. joe biden was celebrating the wind and nancy pelosi was actively communicating that you will not get the infrastructure bill if you get the bernie sanders agenda. they called the reconciliation bill but is really bernie sanders agenda. joe biden made it clear that it's a package deal. if they are separated by a little bit of time, the point

is, the infrastructure bill is a delivery mechanism for the other bill. host: we want to invite our viewers to join us. congressman, you have reintroduced a bill called the cbo show your work act, what is it? guest: the congressional budget office score error bills. they create financial models to say how much revenue with a wealth tax collect if was structured this way. they will publish a score. they published a score on reconciliation or bernie's agenda as i call it stop it was

$5.5 trillion price tag over 10 years. they don't show their work, they don't show their financial models and don't disclose the data or the structure of the model so nobody can replicate it or troubleshoot it. they don't show to the public or members of congress. if we say we like this provision of the bill, how would that work? i might be able to support this specific provision but i don't support the broader peace. you can't really change the model to assess the assumptions. this would make that model public and would make it accessible to members of congress. i think we could have more collaboration and more understanding over the data and the assumptions that make up these projections from cbo. host: the house voted to 99-202 to hold steve bannon in contempt of congress for defying a subpoena about the january six

collect -- select committee, he voted against it, why? guest: i think the whole january 6 commission is not focused on finding facts. as has been the case since 2017, it's a partisan witchhunt focused on anti-trump narratives. i don't think they are seeking the truth and that's why republicans are not as a painting in the commission. the whole effort with steve bannon is just a continuation of that. if you wanted to understand what happened, you would make a lot of things public. they won't even show the video with members of congress with 15,000 hours of footage with members of congress. in a classified setting, they had to have court orders to share with defendants who they still holding to -- holden detention facility so i don't think is designed to find the truth so i didn't want to participate. host: i want to you to listen to benny johnson.

he said there is no question it was a premeditated attack. [video clip] >> the podcast from the day before that riot. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it will be moving, it will be quick and all i can say is strap in. you have made this happen and tomorrow is game day. host: how premeditated was this attack? >> there is no question. the direction of the committee is to look at that premeditation to make sure we identify. the worst kept secret in america is that donald trump invited individuals to come to washington on january 6. he said all hell would break loose and steve bannon was part of the conversation and the commotion of january 6.

the podcast we just listen to talks about it and steve bannon was in the war room and he was in the willard hotel doing a lot of things. that's why we subpoenaed him and we said it's important for the committee and staff to depose him. as you saw, he refused to participate. host: your reaction to what you heard in that podcast and from the chair? guest: penny thompson already knew his decision about the commission before he was appointed chairman. he had joined a lawsuit to sue donald trump personally for his responsibility in the january 6 attack that led to people entering the capital. he already knew his conclusion. he doesn't need to do an

investigation and he didn't need any facts. he already knew what he believed. when you point out inks he shared like these people plans january 6, they planned a rally where the president spoke to people and lots of people came there and tons of people from my district. they came with husbands and wives and their kids came out just like normal trump rallies. there was a massive crowd and they supported the event they also condemned the people that actually attacked others and violated the law and enter the capital. i don't think anyone has a problem saying this was wrong, what happened that the actual capital. the trouble is that benny and others conflate the peaceful rally that took place on the mall with the actions of some people who cross the line and enter the capital. host: rolling stone has an exclusive this morning.

they said they had multiple planning meetings. they said they would talk to staff and members of congress and meetings and gosar allegedly took things a step further. both sources say he dangled the possibility of a blanket pardon in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protest. our impression was that that was a done deal, the protesters said d.

as a member of the freedom caucus, were you approached about this? guest: i was not. when you look at planet, i didn't have anything to do with planning the rally. some of the people you mentioned were active in the rallies and went down and attended the rally on the mall. i haven't seen this morning's piece but i saw some of the earlier reporting. they conflate the rally that took place at the mall with the actions that the fbi so far has said they don't believe were coordinated stop to me, it's pejorative to say it was some kind of insurrection. the idea that by coming into the capital there was this that they would somehow overturn the government. congress was impeded more by government sitting on the floor of the house in the summer of 2016 than it was on the day of january 6 and seven. host: how about the way they entered the capital? guest: it was wrong.

it's obviously wrong and i don't think anyone has a problem prosecuting people who were violent and people who trespass in the capital. some of these people have been held in solitary confinement for the course of 2021. that's a longer sentence than most people would get for any other similar action. they are not being given due process. they don't get to look at the exculpatory evidence. it's essentially a massive pressure tactic to get people to sign plea agreements without even seeing the evidence. i think the whole effort here goes to trying to divide the country, trying to put this at the seat of donald trump and anyone who would openly support him. i am open to looking at facts. if the democratic leadership in the house and the country were interested in seeking the truth, this would truly be a bipartisan endeavor. it clearly isn't and it's not

because republicans are not willing to look into the truth but it's because they are not willing to participate in something where the entire process is a foregone conclusion and they are using it as a tool to divide america and advance their agenda. host: let's take some calls, peter a republican in tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. regarding the comments about the infrastructure bill. what concerns me is that a lot of it is not infrastructure, you are spending trillions on these -- this amplification of great society programs that have been a disaster since lyndon johnson put them in place in the 1960's and it will make us split further in society because you take something like child -- early childhood education, universal pre-k, that's the responsibility of a family to

raise their children. what happens is you have these other parts of the country in big cities especially where you have groups that have a high rate of unmarried women having children, no family structure but you will say don't worry the government will take care of your children at a young age. it would basically be indoctrination. you are doing a further destruction of family units which is the foundation for the society. the parents raise the children and that's not healthy. it's pushing things further the other direction which is going to mean a disaster and to preserve the republic,, -- the constitutional republic we are, you have to have healthy foundations with healthy family structure which means parents of

children and they raise them. that's where the strength of the society comes from. this is counter to that. host: congressman? guest: thanks for the kong -- for the comment. this proposal, both of them fail on that but the bigger problem you highlighted is what do they do with the money? it's not just back -- bankrupting our country financially which it is, it is bank thing our country morally. some of the policy has a good intention and the idea of a social safety not is broadly supported. but you should make it function and instead of creating a way to destroy and undermine families and communities, you should build them up instead of discouraging participation in the economy. workforce participation is at an all-time low for adults 18-65 and we are literally creating an incentive to not participate in the economy and that not --

might not be the intense but that would be the effect. if you look at education and you see that going on nearby in virginia with loudoun county schools, governor who says parents should not have in it on the curriculum in their schools. it's an essentially an argument that was laid out in the washington post article recently. it's essentially that the children belong to the state, the people including parents have no input in how the children are educated and if you think you're going to opt out of the system, the state will define the limits of the freedom you can move with. this is a socialist idea and we need to defeat socialism and defend read him and we need less government and more freedom in our country. host: pennsylvania, democratic caller, you are next. caller: yes, i would like to find out why do these guys keep

talking and talking? that goes for the republicans and the democrats. you keep saying the insurrection was a loving, peaceful day, where? ask the police officers. it was not a loving day and now you are talking about -- how come you don't talk about the people? talk about the people and what you will do for the people, not you will do for yourselves to regain power. host: what are you referring to specifically? caller: the bill they are trying to pass. what are you going to do for the people, not for the taxes. let everybody pay their share. host: what are the republican proposal to help out with some of the social safety net programs? guest: what republicans want to

do in general is we are or more freedom and less government step that means the federal government does not need to tell you what you can and cannot do. there shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all approach to government and the government confiscates a massive amount of american wealth and lets states and communities grovel for some portion of it back. we need to diminish the power of the city over american citizens and we need to increase the power and presence of the american people around the world. since the cold where ended, america's presence on the global stage has been weakened and china has been elevated most of we have undermined america's domestic economy and grown chinese policy instead of growing america's economy. we can do with trade, tax policy and when it deals with the safety net, the best safety net is a job so we should do things that promote workforce

participation and when you look at the safety net, i've got a bill called the people care act that would reform it so you get for republicans and four democrats that would work together and look at the 90 less grams that we spend $1 trillion per year on. we spend about $750 billion on defense and $1 trillion on the safety net, poverty assistance. without setting any spending, you can reform those systems and get things -- and get rid of things where people get a raise or promotion, then they lose their federal housing subsidy. you could have an on-ramp and offramp that helps people participate in the economy. on infrastructure, republicans have hoses to take the williams, tens of billions of dollars that are already at state and local governments from the covid response, the $6 trillion that was already created and distributed throughout the

country that haven't been spent yet. in ohio, that number is over five billion dollars. communities have millions of dollars and they have strings attached to covid. we are still in the middle of a pandemic but states some localities since may of 2020 have said we cannot spend this money on what you told us to spend it on, can we have flexibility? if you get the maximum flexibility, they could do infrastructure with the money they already have and there are republican bills that would do that. i would love to vote on them instead of talking about them but when you are in the minority, you don't get to schedule votes on the host: host: floor. texas, independent. caller: good morning, i just want to make a quick comment. the republican party's biggest problem and i'm calling on the independent line but i've been a lifelong republican voter.

the party is not dealing with the democrats on a reasonable basis. we are still treating them as if they are loyal opposition. they are not, they are communist revolutionaries until -- and until we deal with them on that basis, this country is headed for destruction. you are taking flak because you are right over the target. guest: thanks for calling from texas. all democrats don't agree with that. the leadership of the democratic party is absolutely where you are talking about. the students thought the country

would unite behind them. when they realize that wasn't the case, they said we will have to commit to a long march through institutions. that refers back to the mao zedong comet is march through china when they turned china into a communist country. what does that mean to go through the institutions? they already had arts and entertainment and then they went after education and conservatives moved out of the way and said we will send their kids to cap -- christian schools and homeschools and that's the responsibility of parents. you had to stay engaged in the local schools in college and academia. the far left is taken that over broadly. if you look at business, the far left didn't have business but they've committed to that and taken that over broadly. they work to take over sports and most of the function of government step democrats control people who work for the federal government who

overwhelmingly vote and support democrats in office. if you look at the media else, they have committed to the long march and now the lesson is, are we going to do a counterinsurgency to push them out of these institutions peacefully? if we cannot do that peacefully within the system, that's why they are succeeding. we have and engage them on the right terms. they have pulled everything far left including the democratic already and now we have to say is this where the country wants to go. not long ago, bernie sanders was identified as independent and supported democrats and is self-described democratic-socialist. people call him crazy bernie but now 48 of the democratic senators support his agenda. in the house, all but may be 20 are fighting to support bernie sanders democratic-socialist agenda. if we do not push back on that in this framework, we will lose

even more freedom. host: syracuse, new york, republican caller, welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. the idea that this was an insurrection, i understand it's been put out there and a lot of people believe it because they have seen the videos and the videos are heavily rejected from the actual videos. it was live on tv so anyone who actually watched it live on tv would say wait a minute, that's not what i saw. the videos you will see in the coming weeks and months are going to show the reality that this was anything but an insurrection. the last thing donald trump said when he released the crowd from

the gathering, he said go to the seat of power and he said protest peacefully. i think he repeated it a couple of times. that was the order from him and that's with the people did. the people that you saw doing the things that were isolated for the purpose of propaganda were led by people that were not trump supporters. host: what evidence do you have of that? caller: the videos of these people telling their story, the actual arrest of some of them soantifa and people like them were infiltrating that crowd which was set up before hand. they were the instigators, the ones who broke in and the capitol police were in on it.

there is plenty of video of the capitol police opening the doors and ushering them in. host: do you agree with that caller? guest: p makes some good points. my colleague thomas massey on the judiciary committee asked attorney general merrick garland if there were federal agents in the crowd. he did not accept he would answer because there is an ongoing investigation. if there weren't federal agents in the crowd, he could have easily said no stop there is real reasons for concern that there were people there for nefarious purposes. the fbi had information ahead of january 6 that there would potentially be violence and the capitol police were not well prepared to deal with that violence. i don't think the capital polices still prepared to deal with it and while there have been leadership changes, the rank-and-file folks are still concerned about the limits of

that and recently a whistleblower resigned because of that at the capitol police. they are not taking it as seriously as they could and should. i think a lot of people conflate the rally that was at the mall that was really a speech by donald trump and the political rally where he said peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. and the actions of some people and clearly some people showed up on that day with malicious intent. used don't show up to a peaceful rally with zip ties. there were people that came for bad purposes but that's not something that's reflective of the ground and that's the problem. the house leadership, speaker pelosi and many of my colleagues in the house and frankly lots of folks around the country including in the media continue to repeat the lie that this was an insurrection. some organized attempt they want to paint as broad a brush is possible to undermine any support for political right in this country.

i think that's dishonest. host: the attorney general will be testifying in an oversight hearing before the senate judiciary committee tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern time and we will have coverage on c-span three and www.c-span.org or you can download our new idiopathic call c-span now and it's free on any mobile device. congressman, if you were to ask the attorney general about that day, what would you ask him? guest: about january 6 specifically, i think you would say what where the federal agents who were present doing as a follow-up what thomas massie asked. if i was asking another question, i would say why are defendants and members of congress not being provided exculpatory evidence or holistic evidence.

just full access to the video of that day and they are denying it because it would provide a good defense. some of the video i have seen and that's public shows people walking the ropes in the capital. they are doing violence in the capital and want to burn the capital down. people did things just by entering that were wrong but the idea that they were here to topple the capital, for the majority of people that came in, they might've gotten caught up a moment and maybe crossed the line but they did not plan it. they should still be held accountable for that but the investigation should be focused on who were the people that came here with a plan in advance to do something including agitate a crowd all stop i don't think this investigation is rightly focused on that topic. host: what is an insurrection? guest: it's upland violent attempt to overturn a government

stop this was not that. host: henry in michigan, democratic caller, good caller: caller: morning. those people were violent, steve benenson words show that there was preplanning, they were trying to stop the certification of the rightfully elected president. no matter what you right wing trump loving trump worshiping people try to do, if we have a hundred residents, if we are lucky enough to have 100 residents, donald j. trump's name will be ranked at number 99 or 100. you people are vested in trying to keep america miserable, divided and violent so that you fascist insurrection as traitors can try and take over this country. host: let's get a response.

guest: i don't think the gentle man is well reasoned. the effort was to have a vote which is the 12th amendment and frankly, if you go back, it's been a bipartisan effort for decades. in 2004, ohio had some irregularities with their election. this was john kerry versus george w. bush. there were 137 democrats who did not accept ohio's electoral votes because they didn't have assurances that that election didn't have problems. the net effect was the republicans won the electoral votes for ohio. 137 democrats did not accept those results in ohio. in 2016, many democratic colleagues objected to states that were not even in dispute like wyoming. was there some confusion that the intent of wyoming was to vote for the republican in the race?

the objections on january 6 of 2021, unlike the objections in 2017 for 2005 were focused on areas where there was massive irregularities and there was no effort to steal the election were give democratic votes to a republican. they were simply saying until we get an audit of the results like in pennsylvania, then we cannot accept those results which is the same exact vote that 100 37 democrats cast on january 6 of 2005. host: congressman warren davidson, thank you for the conversation this morning. we will take a short break and when we come back, pennsylvania democratic lawmaker will talk to us about the negotiations over social spending proposals and infrastructure and later, david our, president of the american

rodent transportation builders association joins us to discuss the pending expiration of federal money for roads and bridges and the status of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. we will be right back. ♪

>> attorney general merrick carlin testifies in live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3,, live on www.c-span.org or watch live on c-span now, her new video app. you can be a part of the conversation.

how does the federal government impact your life? you need to show opposing points of view on what affects your community using c-span video clips which www.c-span.org www.c-span.org you can access at. the c-span student work competition is $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20. visit our website at studentcam.org. download the new c-span mobile app and stay up-to-date with c-span now. even our live interactive

morning program, washington journal where we hear your voices >> the ceos of exxon, british petroleum, shell and chevron testify on climate change before the house oversight and reform committee. watch live. "washington journal" continues. host: congresswoman mary k scanlon joins us this morning. let's get your thoughts on the politico reporting that fellow democrats are loving senator joe manchin as he gets closer to yes. they would still like the price

tag of the spending proposal to be $1.5 trillion but he could go as high as 1.70 $5 trillion. would you agree to that? guest: i'm obviously interested in getting as many social programs that can support the families in this bill. we are stuck with the reality that with the margins are slim as they are, we can get whatever the caucus will recruit -- will agree to? host: what do you understand for social programs would be on the chopping block? what could go away? guest: there are so many programs in there and what i'm most interested in is seeing programs that will impact child care. just the child tax credit or support for child care,. that's where we have seen the most job losses in my district. host: if those proposals are

gone because of the lower-priced tag, would you and others in the progressive caucus vote now? guest:guest: i think it will depend on what's in there. this is a massive package. even if we accept senator manchin's proposal, this is a significant investment in the american people and one that is sorely needed. well i let the perfect be the enemy of the good? no host: host:. what have you learned about how this plays out? when will a vote take place on the one point $2 trillion infrastructure by saarc -- bipartisan bill that passed in the senate. when might you hear more about this framework for the social spending bill? guest: if i could predict when votes happen in congress, i would be hailed throughout the country. i have no idea when it will happen step hopefully sooner rather than later.

people are anxious to see both the infrastructure bill and the bill back better bill and the voting rights bill passed. i'm urging for passage of all of than a hopefully i will hear more this morning. i'm going to a caucus meeting after i leave here and we will hear more from leadership. host: what would democrats like to include in the social spending bill on immigration? guest: what i hear of my district come i think 10% of the district is people who were born in other countries. we need immigrants in our country both further cultural and economic contributions and it's been crazy that we have not straightened out a path to citizenship on a path for people to work here. we'd like to see a lot included but thus far, we have been blocked by the senate parliamentarian and the republican party. host: democrats have come up with a way to pay for the social

spending bill in the latest for postal is to tax billionaire families in this country on unrealized capital gains that would affect between 700 and 1000 families, do you like that idea? guest: obviously, we have to pay for the bills. we've got a huge deficit that got magnified by the 1.7 trillion dollar billionaire tax cut that happened in 2017 under the republican administration. i am a bigger fan of raising the corporate tax rate to some extent. we have seen the corporate community is not averse to this but our rates are among the lowest in the world stop i would prefer that as a method going forward but obviously, we have to get agreements throughout the caucus and we will see what we can do to get that.

host: mitch mcconnell argued against the billionaire tax. [video clip] >> if public reporting>> as it right, democrats are so desperate they are now proposing to tax money the american people haven't even made yet. let me say that again, they are now proposing to tax money the american people haven't even made yet. yes, you heard me right. so much for the quaint idea that you had to actually make money first before the irs could tax it. now democrats want to tax money you haven't made yet. there are already capital gains taxes that americans pay when they cash out and investment. when they sell what they've been holding and realize actual gains , now democrats want to go further and tax certain citizens because their holdings of one up

in value regardless of whether they have actually sold them and made any money. get this, in parallel with taxing people on hypothetical gains they haven't realized, they apparently also want to hand out tax breaks for hypothetical losses that people haven't realized. let's just think of the unintended consequences. in the event of a market crash or financial crisis, the government would be on the hook for massive automatic tax cuts for billionaires. or the fact that some experts suggest this new scheme would drive the wealthiest americans away from stocks and bonds, push them under it -- into other tech shelters and thereby reduce the growth in ordinary investments that households rely on for college funds and 401(k)s. or the fact that new innovative

entrepreneurs and stars begin to grow in value can now get hit with a crushing text bill long before the company is actually cash flow positive. the next visionary start of founder would have to sell ownership prematurely just to pay uncle sam. host: your response to the republican argument there? guest: i think it's typical of the republican response to our tax system. mitch mcconnell and his colleagues are concerned about the impact of taxes on billionaires rather than their impact on ordinary americans. for the last 50 years, we have seen this slavish devotion to the idea of trickle-down economics which we have seen for the last 50 years does not lift up the average american. it has destroyed our middle class and we've got to change. host: grayson, georgia, republican of first, go ahead

. caller: representative scanlon is incorrect as far as the highest oprah tax rate prior to president trump, we had the highest corporate rate in the world. he lowered that rate and the economy boomed. we were doing fine until we got all that happened in the summer and what's going on january 6 and the news media every day, it was a negative spin and we were bombarded constantly by the democratic socially controlled media that fed this line into everybody that trump was messing up. now you want to create these social programs that put people on government welfare, i can't understand. you are incorrect about the corporate tax rate step yet educated, woman. host: what about the corporate

tax rate? guest: actually, the u.s. corporate tax rate was a lot higher during the eisenhower era when we made similar investments necessary in the united states infrastructure. the interstate highway system and etc., we are at a similar point when we need to make those investments. is good for the corporate community but also good for americans. we have seen a lot of data on this and have gotten educated and we know that that is the path forward for the country. host: buffalo, new york, democratic caller. you have to turn down your television. can you turn it down? we lost kenneth. maybe he will call back. let's get your thoughts on the scotus decision saying he would

leave in place the texas abortion bill. they scheduled a hearing on it for november 1. what do you make of that? guest: i read part of justice sotomayor's opinion and it raises the issue that there is irreparable harm here in knots -- and not staying that decision. if you have a radical extremist goal that limits the time frame in which a woman can obtain a worsen care to six weeks, when a woman may not know she is pregnant and may not have had the opportunity to get the full medical picture, then saying the law can remain in effect for another week or months or however long it takes to hear that case, the biological reality is that women will be hurt by that. host: there is a hearing on the aversion act on capitol hill.

guest: we have seen over the past year or two, particularly in the commonwealth of pennsylvania which i represent, a tax on election officials who historically have been a political figures with substantial expertise and how we run and protect our election system. the last president decided to attack those folks and in philadelphia, we saw extremists from out-of-state carrying guns, and try to interfere with ballot counting. we have had election officials received death threats against them and their families. we've seen election officials had to defend thousands of baseless suit that have been thrown out of court and have to spend taxpayer dollars to suspend these conspiracies theories. we are seeing this gross interference with our election system and undermining the election system and we need to make sure people remember

because this is unique in our nations history. they have to remember that this is part of our democracy. we need to have free and fair elections and we need to respect our election of shells. -- officials. host: there is reporting that facebook had in place safety measures, 22 of them, before the 2020 election and they got rid of them or set them aside after that in the lead up to january 6. the reporting is that is what allowed a lot of the rhetoric from people planning to come to the capital on that day to continue and grow on their platform. guest: yes, i observed some of that myself. i saw on social media in my region, people planning and

saying things like bring your guns to the capitol on january 6. clearly, whatever controls they had were not sufficient and i think the root wording indicates that when it came to shove, they made decisions to go with algorithms that spread hate as opposed to good news. host: what to you think should be done about facebook? guest: we have held a series of hearings talking about what we need to do when tech platforms grow so big that they are actually harming our society. i think there is a role for congress to be play. host: are they a monopoly? guest: they are certainly very close to it. they have squeezed out all kinds of competitors. you don't hear about myspace anymore. host: florida, republican, go ahead. caller: i'd like to give you an education.

when ronald reagan reduce the tax rate, it increased the revenues into the treasury. they did away with some of the tax loopholes. you want to talk about a wealth tax on capital gains on billionaires. because they invest in the stock market. let me explain something, i am not a millionaire and i am not a billionaire. i invest in the stock market. i will be doggone if i want to give you people my hard-earned money to go spend when i haven't even casted out stuff at one time, you had a long-term capital gains which was over six months. less than six months was considered short term. now you brought it up to a year. you have to hold the stock for year ended day. i'm taking my hard-earned money and investing in to try to

increase my wealth. so that i can give it to my children when i pass on. you have also lower the threshold on estate taxes. you don't take into consideration that i have family members that are in agriculture. you want to tax them to death. that's a hard thing. you guys need to learn to control your spending. why can't you hold your budget to what it was last year? guest: thank you, of course all those things are taken into consideration stuff i grew up in a rural community and i know the rushers that family farms are under. that is not the tax scheme that's being suggested here. it's not to take people's retirement accounts. i am close to 65 so i'm getting

a lot of the same scare emails that a lot of people are. this is not about taxing people's retirement funds, it's not about taxing middle-class americans. it's about taxing billionaires, folks who have increasingly reaped excess benefits. we have seen statistics in recent days about the most wealthy people in america over the past decade have doubled and tripled 10 and 20 times their wealth of williams. but the middle class has shrunk and we have seen that recent disparity and it's time to make sure we are not increasing income disparities but reducing it. host: toledo, ohio, independent . caller: i'm concerned about these $2 trillion package. it fears -- it feels like social

security and medicare is not doing so well. we should concentrate on stuff that's already out there so i would like to see those programs fixed before we add additional social programs. there is a middle-class tax cut in relation to this night think of tax cuts is more like tax rates which i don't hear anything about. i only hear provisions. i personally don't see where i fall into any categories to get money from the government stop i don't see how that's a giant middle-class thing and i am about as lower middle classes you can possibly get. when senator mcconnell made that comment about millionaires and billionaires, they are ting a -- they are paying a wealth tax and

it would cause them to sell off some of their stocks. it would reduce the value of stocks which would in essence and up reducing the value of those stocks and 401(k)s of middle-class people. those were the three things i am concerned about. guest: thank you for that. where we talk about the middle-class tax cut, one of the key provisions is something that is important in my district and that is what's called the child tax credit stop it provides a benefit to families with children of $3600 per year. this is trying to help expand that middle class, pre-pandemic, there is research done that related specifically to my district but reflected across the country which is that our medium -- our median family income, once families pay for housing and health care and

child care, they are ending up in the whole i about $3000 which is about as much is this tax cut stuff our country has lagged behind not set in terms of infrastructure with roads and bridges. also in terms of social infrastructure and doing what we need to do to make it so that parents can go to work and contribute to social security and medicare and can help save for their children's future education. we need to address all of those things and that's with the build back better program is trying to do, read -- to reduce costs for things like health care, to improve support for child care because we lag far behind our biggest competitors in that realm and we need to do something about it. host: what about her thought

about devaluing stocks. guest: this goes back to the false narrative that if we do anything here, it will impact people's retirement savings. that's not what host: host: we are talking about doing. in michigan, democratic caller. caller: i want to talk about the one point $7 trillion tax rebate from trump. if you read the institute of taxation, you will find did nothing. one of their articles called meet the new tax system is the same to the old tech system. corporate tax avoidance remains rampant under new law. they found that 60 fortune 500 companies disclosed paying zero and federal income tax in 2018.

despite enjoying large profits. these companies enjoyed 79 billion dollars of u.s. income and collectively enjoyed a federal income tax rebate before -- of $3.4 billion. it goes on to say that the treasury department reported last fall that fiscal year 2018, corporate tax collections fell 31% over 2017. another part of it says despite claims made by corporate leaders in the wake of a new law of passage, the main use of corporate tax so far has been a $1 trillion wave of tax rebuys backed by that.

they just buy back their own stocks. guest: that's what we are talking about, the fact that that $1.7 trillion tax get passed under the last administration by a republican congress that benefited the wealthiest americans. it blew a huge hole in our deficit. that's why we need to rebalance the scales in favor of everyday americans and that's what we are trying to do. host: st. louis, missouri, democrat stop the hill newspaper has this headline, resident bidens average approval rating dipped to a new low. why do you think is approval ratings are dropping? guest: because that always happens when you are in office. once people's hopes are high after an election and there is inevitably some downturn once

people are in office and have to actually deal with the very difficult issues that our nation brings. i cannot think of another time in my lifetime when there have been more critical issues on the table whether it's economic or the issues we are seeing with the result of the we are seeinga result of the pandemic. health issues, economic issues and serious governance issues. one party seems to have rejected governing in favor of trying to overthrow the government. host: christine, arkansas, republican. caller: good morning. the $200 million in the reconciliation package for nancy pelosi's san francisco park and two, are we giving payments to illegal immigrants?

guest: thank you. i do not believe there are $10 million for a san francisco park in the reconciliation bill. i am happy to look. as far as i'm aware, there are no payments to illegal immigrants. i was active in immigration law for decades before coming to congress. immigrants come to this country, they don't get benefits unless they are here legally and even then, those benefits are extremely limited. they have to pay into the system and in fact, immigrants pay substantially more into our system whether medicare, income tax, property tax, social security. every study shows there is a net economic benefit. immigrants are much more likely to be entrepreneurial and help grow the national product.

host: what benefits do immigrants get when they get to that point? guest: if someone comes here as a refugee and they are legally brought in as a refugee, they get a month of benefits. then it ends. after that if someone achieves legal permanent resident status, their legal for some benefits but not the full panoply. most states do not have welfare anymore. if people are here legally, they have to pay into social security and taxes. there is a real benefit to having systems that allow them to become legal permanent residents, recognized workers or full-fledged u.s. citizens. host: nick, westchester, pennsylvania, democratic. caller: thank you.

i know you're talking about biden's economic plans. one of the things i think is missing is the cancellation of student debt. he pushes off the compromise to congress. this is an issue that affects so many americans. the medium borrower -- do you support the cancellation of all student debt and free college for all? are you going to be fighting to push president biden to implement this? guest: thank you so much for that question. it is a huge issue, particularly in pennsylvania, where we have a

higher percentage of our population with student debt and the amount of that debt is higher than most of the country. there are a lot of solutions we need to look at including getting the pennsylvania state legislature to do a better job funding higher education but clearly we need to move forward with a combination of cancellation of debt, making sure the student loan repayment programs work, making sure that people don't get in that position in the first place, that we are not setting people up for failure with these programs. that is one of the drawbacks to the idea of doing an executive order. it does not solve the underlying systemic problems that will get people in trouble down the road. we need to keep pushing on a number of fronts in order to make college affordable and make sure people don't get trapped in these debt cycles. every time i am home i talk to people who have not paid off their student debt yet and they

are sending their kids to college and is impacting decisions for a second and third generation in the family. host: thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will take a break. when we come back, returned to our questions and continuing the conversation over the democrat proposal for a so-called billionaire tax to pay for social spending. if you support it, (202)-748- 8000. if you are opposed, (202)-748- 8001. we will be back with your calls in a minute. ♪ ♪ announcer: get c-span on the go. watch today's biggest political events live or on-demand anytime anywhere on our new mobile video app, c-span now.

access highlights, radio and podcasts for free. download c-span now today. announcer: thursday morning, the ceos of exxon, british petroleum, chevron and shell testify on climate change. watch live beginning at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at www.c-span.org or watchful coverage on c-span now, our new video app. wednesday morning, merrick garland testifies at an oversight hearing before the senate judiciary committee. five coverage, 10:00 eastern on c-span 3, online at www.c-span.org or watchful coverage on c-span now, our new video app. ♪ announcer: you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's

student video competition. if you are a middle or high school student, create a six minute documentary that answers the question "how does the federal government impact your life?" your documentary must show supporting and opposing points of view. use c-span video clips, which are easy to find and access at www.c-span.org. the student camera competition awards total cash prizes and you have a shot at the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. four rules, tips or how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪

announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are back with your thoughts on the idea of taxing billionaires in this country to pay for democrats'plans on social programs like childcare tax credits, pre-universal kindergarten, paid family leave, etc. do you support or oppose the idea? senator durbin came to the floor yesterday to argue the wealthiest americans should pay more in order to give a tax break to american families. [video clip] >> we have too many families

struggling in america in poverty. we talk about it. isn't it a shame in a great country like this you cannot afford food for your children? you cannot afford a roof over your heads? you cannot afford the basics to send them to school with new clothes and shoes? we say it is a shame. now we have done something about it in the american rescue plan without a single republican vote. not one! our tax policy helps working and lower income families, particularly with children. if we can do it and i hope we can, we can engineer that tax cut to make it permanent or at least for a number of years, predictable, to help families. i just heard president biden. he was in new jersey speaking about infrastructure and build back better, the reconciliation plan. he said in the state of new

jersey, this child tax credit, which we enacted without a single republican vote helping us, has reduced child poverty in that state 36%. i bet you it is about the same in my state. we are getting practical results that help working families. if we have our way in reconciliation, we are going to give the largest tax cut in the history of this country to middle income and working families, exactly the opposite of what the senator from kentucky just said. it will be the biggest tax increase in history -- well, there will be a tax increase i hope for those who can afford to pay it and that means the same people who got a benefit four years ago from the trump republican tax policy. host: senator dick durbin on the floor, democrat from illinois. democrats say if they were able to pass this tax on billionaires, according to

richard rubins reporting in the washington journal, it would affect thousands of families and bring in $250 billion over a decade. there is no official estimate from the congressional joint committee on taxation yet as democrats continue to talk about the idea. this morning, we want you to tell washington what you think of it. michael, parkville, opposed. tell us why you oppose it. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: great. as i indicated to the person who answered the phone, i have been trying to call for a couple hours now. apparently, you are no longer taking calls on the independent line. here is where i would like to start. first of all, when we allow

others to frame these conversations in ways that are not necessarily unbiased, we are setting ourselves up to fail. i have been listening for a couple hours. mitch mcconnell, he suggested openly he wants to object to everything democrats are doing. we know about mr. mcconnell. host: are you opposed or do you suppose the billionaire tax? caller: i cannot say i support it. this one. i support taxing billionaires. host: ok. caller: probably, the eisenhower era, we had higher taxation on the very rich, 90%. we can quote chapter and verse

on what happens with the tax regime over the decades. maybe we ought to focus on growing inequality for 50 years, maybe? we need to address that. we are trying to apply 18th-century solutions to a set of 21st century problems that are a lot more entangled in other things people want to talk about, as evidenced by your earlier colors. -- callers. people have staked out a hard position on both extremes. on the one hand, the caller this morning suggested republicans were fascists. host: let's go to jay, south carolina. you support the idea?

caller: yes i do. host: why do you support it? caller: it is back to listening to this gentleman, he seems very smart but it is hard to zero in and focus on a specific solution. this is why. i asked someone who runs a business, about things that make the business run better. he told me it is the people running the system. i didn't agree. i transferred back to my old job. this is one of the reasons why. host: what does this have to do with the billionaire tax? caller: we contact billionaires -- we can tax billionaires. there the wealthy, powerful and

privileged elite. they have corporate lawyers. they can frame policies to get around these things and make it beneficial for them. host: judy, michigan, you support it. why? caller: i do. sadly, we are past the time -- it is astounding to me people are walking around believing billionaires invest in the stock market and make their life better. that is not how this system works. billionaires gain wealth during the covid pandemic when the average american was surviving on unemployment benefits during shutdowns. billionaires don't make the stock market run. the average american is not invested in the stock market.

the concentration of wealth in this country has gotten so extreme we are closest to a plutocracy than we have ever been. this is how kings and queens are made. they are holding the majority of the wealth. many amazon employees don't have health insurance. they could invest in their companies. they could build buildings and expand plants, which is what people did when the tax break was higher. instead, what they do now is hoard the wealth and they can pay their fair share. help make this country a better country. host: new york times, neil irwin reports according to a paper from the white house published last month, 2010-2018, the

wealthiest 400 families in america paid 8.2% of their income in taxes. without the capital gains adjustment, the average was 13%. it would create large tax bills for the small sliver of americans. they capital gains rate of 20% would apply the tax bill. good morning. caller: hello? host: hi. caller: all right hun, i will tell you why i don't like the idea. it ain't going to happen. they only tell us what they want to hear. how come society doesn't get to see -- how come society people

never get to read any of it. a lot of us are smart. we want to know what is kind of hidden in some of that stuff the democrats are going to do. i oppose it because i am telling you they're not going to hit the billionaires. the billionaires are the ones that supported the politicians and the administration. why would he want to tax those type of people? they are the ones that put him in. it doesn't make sense. i wish we could see what is going on. we are smart. we can read for ourselves the tiny ins and outs. host: if you're interested, ron wyden, senator from morgan, who came up with this idea, google ron wyden 2019 white paper. caller: hang on a minute. host: 2019 white paper, ron wyden. google those words and you will

find the proposal he came up with. the negotiations are based on that idea. from richard rubin's reporting in the wall street journal, he aligns to this would impact. the democrats want to tax billionaires annually on their unrealized capital gains. they would expand the definition of income to include increases in asset value. they would apply the new rule only to people at the top of the u.s. wealth distribution. the tax would be calculated on the difference between the asset value at the beginning and end of the year. for example, a growth of $2.5 billion would owe capital gains on the $500 million gained even if they did not sell stock. the current tax rate is 23.8 percent on capital gains plus the taxes. ruth and, vermont, why do you

support this idea? caller: thank you. i support the idea because i truly believe we all should pay our fair share of taxes. obviously, because the rich keep getting richer and the little people keep getting put down, they are not paying their fair share. i am not saying this well. host: i understand your point. caller: i also think these millionaires ought to realize eventually if they do not start bringing up the working class and paying them a decent wage and supporting them, eventually there are not going to be any working class people and then what do they do? host: bobby, baltimore, opposed. caller: number one, i oppose this because i see this getting

extended to those who aren't billionaires. the democrats have done a great job of deceiving the people and then on top of that, they always tend to sneak some sort of draconian legislation into these laws. they are always sneaking some language in that does not support what they claim they are supporting and on top of that, these so-called billionaires they speak of -- what happens when they start increasing the price of their service or product and that goes down to the consumer? this has been done throughout history. no one is seeing the big picture. host: steve duncan on facebook says, yes, at least 30%. gerald in california supports it. it is overdue. the billionaires have had a field day too long.

the definition of income needs to be redefined to include gains, especially as it pertains to corporate taxation or the lack thereof. we are asking if you support or oppose the idea of a billionaire tax to pay for social spending. mitch mcconnell, leader of the republican party was on the floor arguing against. [video clip] >> the democrats are so desperate to raise taxes they are now proposing to tax money the american people haven't made yet. let me say that again. they are now proposing to tax money the american people haven't even made yet. yes, you heard me right. so much for the quaint idea you had to make money first before the irs could tax it.

now democrats want to tax money you have not made yet. there are already gains taxes americans pay when they cash out and investment, when they sell what they have been holding and realize actual gains. now democrats want to go further and tack certain citizens because their holdings have gone up in value regardless of whether they have actually sold and made money. get this. in parallel with taxing people on hypothetical gains not realized, they apparently also want to add tax breaks for hypothetical losses people have not realized. let's think of the unintended consequences. like the fact that in the event of a market crash or financial crisis, the government would be on the hook for massive

automatic tax cuts for billionaires. or the fact that some experts suggest this scheme would drive the wealthiest americans from stocks and bonds, push them into other shelters and thereby reduce the growth in ordinary americans' investments or the fact that new innovative entrepreneurs who start ups begin to grow in value can now get hit with a crushing tax bill long before their company is actually cash flow positive. the next visionary startup founder could have to sell away ownership prematurely just to pay uncle sam. host: the leader of the republican party in the senate. lisa, california, you agree? caller: yes, i do.

i'm opposed because when they are making out the money -- [indiscernible] -- you pay more taxes, they are going to go to their little businesses and maybe take money from them, kind of like the trickle-down effect. it hurts the middle class. i am a middle-class person. i am opposing they do this. i can see what is happening. it seems like them and it goes all the way down. you can tell with all the increased prices, things have gone up. i paid $24 for a $16 turkey. things are getting worse and worse. i believe it hurts the middle class. with all the stuff they talk about, the trillion dollars, they say we will not pay for it well, it is obvious it is going to come from us.

we are taxpayers. it doesn't make sense. host: john, germantown, maryland. why do you support it? caller: i support taxing the billionaires because i think they make all the money. let me give you an example. y'all cell phone bills is extremely high for a specific reason. i work in a company which is a filter company at&t uses to filter calls. that filter costs $20 to make, materials, labor, electricity, water, everything included, $20

to make. it takes 1-2 hours, about one hour to produce that filter. that sells it to at&t for $900. at&t buys thousands of those filters to put all over cell sites all over the country. who do you think they are passing that extra $800 onto? host: some front pages this morning and headlines related to facebook this morning. the washington post, according to former employees of the company, zuckerberg chose growth over safety. you have this on the front page of the wall street journal this morning. facebook ad sales, growth slows

on apple's new rules. inside the washington post this morning, former employees documents trigger calls to regulate the tech giant. finally from usa today, external intervention is urged. the former facebook employee frances haugen testified yesterday in the u.k. on online safety for children urging lawmakers in that country to intervene against facebook. this is what she had to say to those members of the parliament yesterday about the events of january 6 and similar ones happening again. [video clip] >> the way the platform is moderated today, do you think it makes it more likely we will see events like the insurrection in washington on the sixth of january this year? more violence driven by facebook

systems? is it more likely we will see more of those events? >> i have no doubt. the events we are seeing around the world are the opening chapters. engagement prioritizes and amplifies his divisive content and it concentrates it. facebook says, only a tiny sliver is hate or violence on our platform. i don't know if i trust those numbers. two, it is hyper concentrated in 5% of the population and you only need 3% for the revolution. that is dangerous. host: from yesterday's hearing before the u.k. parliament, frances haugen testified on capitol hill before lawmakers recently. you can find that hearing as well as yesterday's hearing on our website, www.c-span.org. it is re-airing right now on

c-span 2 if you care to watch it. coming up next, we will talk to david bauer, president and ceo of the american road and transportation builders association. we will talk about pending expiration of federal money for roads and bridges. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. explore our nation's past. on sundays, the latest in nonfiction books and authors. television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. ♪ announcer: thursday morning, the ceos of exxon, british

petroleum, shell and chevron testify on climate change. watch live beginning at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at www.c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. wednesday morning, merrick garland testifies at an oversight hearing before the senate judiciary committee. coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span3, online at www.c-span.org or full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. ♪ announcer: get an early start on holiday gifts at c-spanshop.org. shop on wednesday and save 15% on our latest products and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan for the holidays and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operations. shop now and use the promo code

online. announcer: washington journal continues. host: david bauer is the president and ceo of the american road and transportation builders assn here to talk about federal money for roads and bridges. mr. bauer, our viewers likely no the deadline nears -- our viewers likely know the deadline years on october 31. guest: thank you for having me with you. you are exactly right. we are looking at an october 31 deadline. the key thing to remember is without authorization in place, federal highway and public transportation funds cannot be utilized by state departments of transportation. this really is a deadline with consequence. congress has a history of doing extensions. obviously, we are here to talk

about a multi-year reauthorization on terms. host: how much money? guest: the bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed senate in august would include approximately $450 billion for highway and public transportation improvements across the country. this is a significant increase in both areas. it is long overdue. host: what is the formula for dispersing money? guest: the bill includes the same distribution formula in place for the existing highway program dollars since the 2005 reauthorization bill. there is a new bridge formula program that is going to slightly depart from those past practices. this is additive money.

it does not take anything away from anyone. the last three federal bills, disagreements or there has been widespread consensus about sharing of federal dollars among different states. host: explain the formula. guest: it is based on a variety of factors. lane miles in each state, amount of travel, amount of truck travel. there are different programs that constitute the total program and each one has slightly different weights of those factors. it is a user based type system and looks at the assets in place and how they are being utilized in those factors in terms of how dollars are distributed among the states. host: what did you mean by

additive money? guest: the bridge program is new. it is a $9 billion per year new bridge formula program that does not take anything away from existing dollars that states have grown to rely upon. that is what i mean by additive. it is part of the increased investment that would come from the bipartisan bill. host: where does the money come from? guest: a variety of factors. the biggest piece is federal tax dollars. there has been broad discussion over the last 15 years or so about the federal fuels tax revenue not being enough to support existing programs. that is certainly true. it is not like this bill stops gas tax dollars from flowing into the federal highway trust fund. that is over $40 billion per

year. there are a variety of different programs utilized by the bill to support those new investment models. $205 billion is repurposed from covid emergency funding. $56 billion from objective return tax revenue, from infrastructure investment. $53 billion from states that did not use all their previously allocated unemployment funds. a variety of things like that support the total package. host: this would not add to the deficit? guest: the bill is paid for in terms of congressional practices. host: steve chapman argues this in a recent piece in the chicago tribune. let me read it to you and have you respond.

" if the u.s. needs more investment, that does not mean the federal government should pick up the tab. it is constituents who gained the most from resurfacing roads. if they are going to reap the economic benefits of such investments, shouldn't they be willing to pay for them?" guest: federal responsibility for a national transportation, developing and maintaining a network goes back to the constitution. when you think about interstate commerce, there is nothing that moore embodies interstate commerce than the movement of goods through the states via the interstate highway system. the federal role for a national transportation network is clear,

the practice is long-standing. i don't think any arm of government has the ability to take on the sole responsibility. what we have now is truly a partnership between state governments, local governments and the federal government. you're right, states own the vast majority of roads and bridges. other than federal lands, the federal government's ownership of those roads is pretty minimal. that doesn't mean there isn't a national interest in the free flow of commerce and mobility among citizens. host: david bauer represents the american road and transportation builders assn. he is the president and ceo of that association. call in with your comments and questions about roads and bridges where you live.

(202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. you can text us with your first name, city and state with your thoughts as well. robert crowell argues each state can set a fuel tax sufficient to fund its own works. the federal fuel tax should be set at a level two fund the continued maintenance and as needed, the expansion of national highways and growing areas of the country. the federal fuel tax could then be lowered. would this work? guest: when we want to add the bipartisan infrastructure bill, it is a great example of bringing together a wide variety of priorities and desires when

it comes to transportation outcomes. i understand the argument. there are folks that feel that way. when we look at federal transportation policy, the history here is that it is an opportunity to bring together folks of different perspectives and find common ground. that is really with the bipartisan infrastructure bill accomplishes and frankly, ideas about scaling back the federal transportation have been articulated for a long time and they never bring together the necessary votes to allow legislation to move forward. when i look at the needs of the nation, it needs a robust commitment by all levels of government and not just point the finger and say this is

someone else's responsibility. the need for a sufficient, efficient, safe transportation network requires all of us at all levels of government be invested in the outcome. host: how would you describe the current state of roads and bridges across the country? guest: one in three bridges is in need of repair or replacement. approximately 22% of highway lane miles eligible for federal dollars, 22%, one in five miles are in poor condition. the needs from a dollar standpoint are very daunting but i commend the members of the

house and senate that advanced this bill because it is a robust step forward in reversing that growing need. host: anthony, sierra vista, arizona, democrat. caller: good morning teammates. thank you for your participation this morning. greta, if i may, i would like to use a bridge between the previous session and the session. change management. everyone should take a course in change management particularly at the masters level. the reason i use that as a bridge is because our nation has always used major interstates as a way to sell national defense. i-295 pass around one of our nation's premier military

installations, fort bragg, north carolina, there is a bypass that has come through there. it is doing that to sell -- [indiscernible] -- there is also now i plan to run another interstate between i-10 and i-20 that goes from fort hood texas all the way through south carolina to say, hey, we can connect these major military bases so when there is a major storm, whenever there is a bottleneck, forces can redeploy. they just redid the estuary field and the 82nd airborne had to fly out of charleston. this program this gentleman is an asset, as you are greta, to our nation but on the focus of

change management, we have to understand if you drive from one state to another and the roads are so bad as soon as you cross the state line, you are paying for it. your car is being torn up. there is no revenue. when other businesses want to expand because there is no interstate system. host: david bauer is shaking his head. guest: the last part is spot on. a lot of times that gets lost when we think about transportation in general. there is a hidden tax to delay. your car getting beat up by potholes, to his point about change management, it is one of the really exciting opportunities presented by the bipartisan infrastructure bill. for the last 15 years, federal investment has marginally been about the preservation of existing levels of investment.

again, you are focused on maintaining the status quo in terms of the amount of resources put into an area. that makes it really hard to find opportunities to do new things, to be transformative. the resources provided in this legislation are going to enable states to focus on resiliency, on upgrading bridges without sacrificing other priorities. that is a key thing that should be not overlooked as we think about the bill the house will be taking up hopefully this week. host: ken, pennsylvania, republican. caller: you are talking about interstate system. i live in pennsylvania here. pennsylvania turnpike has put itself out of business. the prices they are charging are out of this world.

trucks are coming up and down the mountains. you go on that turnpike, you will see very few cars. they are 50 miles out of the way. they are skipping it. it is not a good system. guest: i have driven on the turnpike. i have had free-flowing traffic and i have had very frustrating experiences. i understand exactly what he is saying. the turnpike and other toll roads across the country are examples of states trying to find a way to make transportation, to meet needs with limited resources. turnpikes, toll roads, things like that are what we have. i certainly understand some folks have a difficult time

accepting they should be paying for a toll to drive on a road but when you are in a situation with limited resources, there are only so many options available. that is a really important point. transportation improvement costs money. anyone that says we can do it without dollars -- one way or another, resources need to be transferred from bank accounts to roads, bridges, buses, public transportation facilities and things like that. host: who do you represent? are these toll roads private-public partnerships where a private company is benefiting from them? guest: we represent basically

all entities involved in the development of transportation and infrastructure improvements including public-sector owners like state departments of transportation, county of engineers, designers, equipment manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, safety suppliers and to your last point, practitioners of public-private partnerships. when you think about the question you posed regarding private sector involvement in a toll road if they benefit, that is sometimes true. there are times when private sector involvement has not met expectations and those companies did not benefit and they took on risk. that is a commonality amongst private sector throughout industry, the assumption of risk.

when a private-sector entity gets involved in a tollroad or a concession project, they are absorbing risk from the public sector. people price risk. that is what happens with those entities. the thing about risk is the door swings both directions. sometimes it works out in a beneficial way as you described and sometimes it does not. host: mike, wyoming, republican. caller: i have a quick question and a short comment. good morning, david. how much money is in the pending infrastructure bill for hardening the power grid? if we get a solar flare and it takes out computer deals in cars

and trucks, we ain't got to worry about your roads and bridges. nobody is going to be going anywhere doing anything. that is the most critical thing in this pending bill, hardening the power grid. your thoughts? guest: we are the american road and transportation builders assn and i know there are folks who know energy inside and out. i am not one of them. i know the bill include $73 billion for clean energy and grid enhancement. i think that is an answer. i am probably not the best guest to get much deeper than that. host: tom, pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning. when eisenhower started the interstate system, they created a ton of jobs. i have been saying for years we

should be starting a truck only highway system for trucks only. it would be needed, efficient, there would be less accidents and it would be a job boom. number two. i get upset, guests and viewers get upset because when we think of infrastructure we think of what the caller just said. power grid, roads and bridges, ports, airlines, rail. we don't think of these social programs, universal social engineering for $1.5 billion. that is what i call it. not pre-k. if those issues are important, have them voted on separately. they don't because they think they will fail. we need roads and bridges. guest: a lot to unpack on that one. i am happy he mentioned the

integration of the interstate system. some of you may not know back in june was the 65th anniversary of president eisenhower signing legislation that established the interstate highway system. this bill would be an awfully nice anniversary present if we could get it to president biden's desk. the real point of his observations was the second piece, the dialogue going on for several months, and that is, this is deafly the bill i am here to talk about. it is definitely in the hard infrastructure area. the democrats in the house and senate and president biden have also wanted to move forward a social infrastructure bill. there is no doubt those two

things are moving around in the same sphere. i can tell you they are not linked. the 19 republican senators who voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the senate in august all certainly would tell you, some are opposing the social infrastructure bill and that big debate going on in the house where some elements of the democratic congress are using or trying to utilize the bipartisan infrastructure bill to leverage the social infrastructure bill and frankly, that is part of the reason why we are here today looking at i guess this will be the second or third extension of the program since they last expired last september. at the same time, there are a lot of republicans in the house

who can and should be supporting this measure because of the outcomes it will deliver for their community in terms of the hard infrastructure improvements. host: david bauer, for you and others on the negotiations you were talking about, an update for you from axios, from last night, talking about the congresswoman, chair of the progressive caucus. she is now saying all 50 democratic senators have to agree to a full bill text, not to a framework like the speaker has been saying before voting on this bipartisan infrastructure bill. that will be incredibly difficult to pull off before the president jets off to europe, thursday. there was some talk the speaker would bring this bill to the floor tomorrow when they had a

framework, not a fulltext. your reaction? guest: that is exactly what i was talking about. unfortunately, the merits of the bipartisan bill, which i would urge all members of congress to evaluate it on, the outcome, the benefits to their states and constituents and vote on that bill by its merits. consider the timing. i certainly understand this is the way things go. there are folks trying to leverage that measure which is incredibly popular to achieve a different objective. the only thing we can continue to do and what we are doing is making sure all members of congress at home and in washington dc understand how this bill will impact their

constituents and the many benefits it will deliver for years to come. in terms of your point on the timing, you are right. that is going to be challenging. house democrats are going to have a lunch session today. we will probably get more clarity on the schedule this afternoon. the most important thing is not some deadline, whether october 31 or december 31 but that this legislation gets delivered this year so that state departments can begin the time-consuming and important process of adjusting their transportation plans so these dollars can be put into the transportation project

delivery network and process as soon as possible. because the longer that is delayed, the longer it will take before those benefits are delivered to the traveling public. host: a question from mark stone. if the bill doesn't pass, do we have enough construction workers to start building roads and bridges? guest: there is a workforce challenge throughout the economy right now. you cannot open up a newspaper without reading different challenges. we have all gone to restaurants, we have all had grocery stores that are not stocked. that said, last year was a very strong year in terms of highway construction. our industry delivered almost record levels of road and bridge projects put in place.

the workforce challenges we were suffering from at that point are not any different than now. our industry did an admirable job of delivering those infrastructure projects while maintaining public health and following state protocols for covid-19. the key point about the question is these dollars are not going to be going out the door in the next four weeks, once it gets enacted. as i mentioned upfront, there was a long-term process where states have to adjust plans, get projects approved and that gives line members, because this is a long-term bill, the time and opportunity to adjust their workforce to deliver outcomes. host: another tweet from a viewer.

how many billions to states receive yearly for infrastructure and how much more does the different bill increase that amount? quick answer. guest: high reinvestment from a federal level is $46 billion for year, transit investment is roughly $12 billion in total. 2020, total amount of highway and bridge construction activity from all levels of government was $90 billion. host: david bauer, president and ceo of the american road and builders association, thank you. guest: thank you. host: same to our viewers and those of you who participated this morning. we will bring you to the house floor. they are about to gavel in for legislative session. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020]