to have vigorous debates. the justice department is not interested in that question. >> the national security division, these people are supposed to be chasing jihadists and chinese spies. what do they have to do with parents at school boards. >> it's not, again, about parents at school boards. it's about threats of violence. host: the attorney general this morning defends memo on threats to educators. that is the headline on yesterday's hearing and the question by republican senators and it continued with ted cruz of texas. take a listen. [video clip] you based -- >> you based your direction on this letter and i will tell you what, they are selling barest of the letter they have apologized for it and retracted it you don't apparently have the same willingness to apologize and

retract what you did. let me ask you something else, a big part of the letter is they are upset about parents not wanting critical race theory taught. your son-in-law makes a very substantial sum of money from a company involved in the teaching of critical race theory. did you seek a decision from an ethics to -- ethics advisor at the department of justice before you carried out the action that would have a predictable financial benefit to your son-in-law? >> the memorandum is aimed at violence and threats to violence. it has no addict double -- >> you know how to ask questions and answer them. did you seek ethics opinions? >> on something that would have a predictable effect on something? this has no protectable effect in the way you are talking about. >> if critical race theory is taught in more schools, does your son-in-law make more money? >> this memorandum has nothing

to do with critical race theory. >> will you answer if you sought an ethics opinion? >> this memorandum -- >> did you seek an ethics opinion. >> are you refusing to answer? >> i'm telling you there is no. -- no possible -- >> did you seek an ethics opinion? >> i'm telling you that if i thought there was any reason to believe there was a conflict of interest, i would do that. >> why might you just say no? you are not going to answer the question? did you seek an ethics opinion? >> i would seek an ethics opinion. >> so, no is the answer? >> senator, your time is up. >> let the attorney general record reflect that ethics are

not a terribly high priority in the biden justice department. >> that is not a fair reflection of what i said. >> senator, you have gone way beyond any other senator's time. you ought to be at least respectful of other senators at this point. >> mr. chairman, do you know the answer? >> you have exchanged that so many times, we know where we stand. host: the headline from yesterday's hearing, the attorney general before the judiciary committee, garland refuses to rescind memo asking fbi to probe school board threats. john, illinois, democratic caller, what is your confidence level in the attorney general? caller: well, that response didn't bother me much. simply saying no over and over again. but i don't think he's willing, doj doesn't seem to be willing to prosecute the people that incited the riots and

insurrection at the capital. every prosecutor in the state would have had all sorts of charges against those people making speeches prior to the insurrection. they deliberately incited the violence and they did it leading up to january 6. it's not even debatable amongst any criminal defense or prosecutor in the country. they don't seem to be headed in the right direction, charging people with insurrection and sedition, which is right there in title 18. you just need to look it up. it's verbatim insurrection and sedition committed on january the sixth. prior to that, and i don't see any willingness, i don't hear any rumors of anybody being investigated, including trump. no reason you couldn't have gotten trump's phone records.

get the opinion of everyone else in the host: he said he can't say much in that it is an ongoing investigation. caller: we would have heard rumblings from people under investigation saying no, i'm not going to give up my phone records or whatever. an investigation of the people, you know, the people that broke into the capital being charged with simple trespass? you know, they committed assault over and over and over again and it's right there on video. the belief being that the only violation was some sort of misdemeanor trespass? it's astonishing. he's hesitant with what happened

to him, he doesn't want to seem political, not prosecuting these people to the full extent of the law he is being political. host: ok, going to sydney, republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm not sure what that caller is talking about. there is 400 people in jail still being held on trespassing charges. people who were at january 6 that were just not even in the capitol building are being rounded up and losing everything in legal fees. are we really sure with that? it's still ongoing. i'm not sure about that comparison. really, all the democrats have is january 6 to cling to after a year of violence, cities being burned, everybody getting let out of jail with no bond. nobody is being prosecuted. of course they were all wearing masks, we don't know who they

are. chest, back to merrick garland, i don't know why he won't rescind his letter when the teachers did. there are some reports that the biden administration ask them to write that letter. -- asked them to write that letter. there's a lot of stuff going on. a lot of suppression. we have definitely weaponized the doj, the fbi, we are in big trouble in this country. thanks so much. host: more of your calls, coming up. joining us right now is eric watson, bloomberg news. capitol hill reporter. your tweet, democrats agreed a framework for biden agenda according to your sources. what have you learned? guest: looks like the president will be going out at 9 a.m. to the house democratic caucus to talk about a framework.

we don't know how fleshed out it is. it sounds broad brushed. we can probably expect some kind of detail on climate being nailed down, but we know from late last night that many details of the attacks, the provisions, some of which were being rolled out even yesterday morning, like the billionaires tax and the surtax on millionaires, isn't all worked out. the biden administration is preparing this has the president goes to europe later today and in some ways he wants to show some progress and try to nudge the progressives in the house to vote for this infrastructure bill that is being held up as they hope for a deal on this larger social spending bill. host: is that his ask as he goes before the house democrats behind closed doors? "i've got this framework in hand, let's vote on infrastructure"? guest: i don't know exactly what

he's going to say but nancy pelosi set a framework deal should be enough to pass the bill and we have been hearing from progressives, the new york liberals, the head of the congressional caucus, they want to see a final bill before they line up their votes. this might be a tough sell. the moderates and the party are pushing them to do that. also in the gubernatorial elections with terry mcauliffe are in a dead heat. the idea is that biden needs to show deliverables soon to increase confidence and turnout democrats. host: you have president biden heading to the hill at 9 a.m., addressing the country at 11:30 a.m., leaving for rome a little afternoon. what are the moving pieces right here and how quickly does this action take place, if indeed he has a deal? guest: you know, the house is

trying to pass this infrastructure bill by october 31. otherwise they have to pass what looks like a six week extension of highway funding. there's a real deadline to get this done and a concern that if they don't meet the deadline for a deal on everything that they will push for another four weeks and in december we have to deal with the annual government appropriations bill for the debt ceiling and there is a real sense that that could cause a car crash in terms of the agenda , so in the next few days they are trying to seal this deal. host: what has been taken out of the social spending proposal that, that could upset the progressives or the moderates? guest: we were reporting that paid family leave is out of the deal now. some progressives like kiersten gillibrand are trying to get it back in. she just got some compromise proposals. really, it's joe manchin who said that he wants to use the

bill to create new programs. he might be open to expanding or bolstering medicaid or the affordable care act, but as far as creating a family leave program, he's not on board with that. as for now i think that's out of the deal. we already saw years of college drops and a scaling back of the child tax credit from four years to one year. there will be shorter duration for some of the progressives, some have dropped out. democrats want to sell this as a huge transformative package but internally they are still grumbling about the things they could have had but probably won't. host: what about the billionaire tax? in or out? guest: the head of the ways and means committee, take what he says it seriously, he's not on board with it. even though his senate counterpart is looking at it. we reported late last night at

bloomberg that kyrsten sinema gave a list of revenue raising ideas to the white house, and one of those was a surtax on billionaire millionaire income and wyden says that it won't be able to hold assets without claiming income, writing it scot-free it bothers him, but at the same time it's not politically feasible, it's hard to implement how to mark to market and value the assets, as they say. guest: eric -- host: erica, i know you need to get up and cover capitol hill, you are in a hurry, thank you for taking the time to get up and talk to us this morning. appreciate it. guest: thank you. host: back to our conversation with all of you about your confidence in merrick garland as attorney general. johnny, thanks for hanging on the line. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning, greta.

listening to wasson, that's a whole other subject for us. i could see a little bit more now why the attorney general wasn't put onto the supreme court. at first i thought it was a lot of politics as far as mcconnell was concerned, but this guy doesn't seem to, he's not in touch with how everyday people, i'm a grandfather, a couple, three granddaughters, three great grandkids that are in school and i could tell you, just in my town alone, if you came and went to the elementary school, and this is not, i'm not lying about this, pictures have been taken. the american flag was taken down and a black lives are flag was put up and that is what our

little kids have to see on the board rather than doing what we did with my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, pledging allegiance to the american flag, loving the country for what it stands for, with its bad points and good points. that's how we get advanced as a better society. garland is out of touch with that. the memo that was sent out, my kids go to these school board meetings. they have concerns and they should be able to be respected. if i could add one thing, i'm a registered independent. i had been a democrat my whole life. i fought for justice for people in my union for years and when we had the supreme court

nomination and our now standing vice president did such a disgraceful job on discrediting the gentleman who had a family, and because i'm upset his name went through my mind. host: justice kavanaugh. caller: yes, thank you. i wish i was a professional talker, i would have my things all written down. host: it upset you so much that you became independent? caller: the next day, the next day, it hurt me to do it, but i went to city hall and i changed. host: all right, johnny. what is your confidence in the attorney general, chris? caller: zero. we can all thank god in jesus that that man, merrick garland, is not on the supreme court.

america, that is why you vote in our republic because we cannot allow individuals like that on benches as judges or even in places where an individual might be a prosecutor or district attorney. these individuals should not be in power. don't lose your voice inside of these school boards. step up, stick your chest out. use your first amendment rights to ridge rescuer grievances to petition the government, like i'm going to do today here in arizona. i'm going to stand up for the parents and students. education is the key to economic opportunity and the democrats are against the wall. they know the mistake that they made with this crt, the masks and vaccines. so, stand up, speak out, don't

be afraid. don't worry about the powers that the department of justice and the fbi. they are going to continue doing what they are doing, following the american bar association rules. >> ray, what do you say? >> any republican senator has chutzpah to even mention ethics or integrity. they were browbeating merrick garland, who by already -- by all rights should be a supreme court justice. but because of the ethics of mitch mcconnell, he wasn't. that's about all i got to say. the whole circus kind of disgusts me. host: taking a look at another moment from yesterday's hearing, the questioning from sheldon whitehouse on the investigation

being conducted by the fbi. [video clip] >> i've been pursuing this since early days, starting with a letter on january 8 and the resources being deployed into the investigation and whether a task force, prosecution task force was being set up and so forth and another letter from the 24th with regards to domestic extremist violence groups, their potential role. we have learned a little bit more now, learned that there was a lot of money sloshing around in the background behind the january 6 rally and behind the raid, the riot in the capital. for instance, we know that the bradley foundation, a big funder , gave money to turning point usa and to public interest legal foundation. it gets even more interesting,

turning point usa has a twin called turning point action. a 501(c)(3) 501(c) four combo that got money from the judicial crisis network to support the so-called italy gate, the debunked italy gate theory. at the same time, the public interest legal foundation had as a director mr. eatmon with a memo to trump on how to overturn the election. the judicial crisis network is the same thing from a corporate standpoint as something called the honest elections project, bringing a fanciful case in pennsylvania regarding election fraud. and the judicial crisis network also funded the republican attorney general's association in rhode island making robo calls to get people to come to the riot. i don't know what's going on behind all of that, but i'm hoping that the due diligence of the fbi is being deployed not

just to the characters who trespassed in the capital that day and who engaged in violent act's, but that you are taking the look he would properly take it any case involving players behind the scenes, funders of the enterprise, and so forth, in this matter as well, and there has been no decision to say that we are limiting the case to the people who were in the building only that day with no serious look at anybody behind it. >> i'm very limited as to what i can say, i have a criminal investigation going forward. >> please tell me it has not only been constrained to people in the capital. >> it's being conducted by the prosecutors in the field office and the attorney general's office and we have not constrained them in any way. >> great. the old doctrine of follow the money, a well-established principle of prosecution? it's alive and well?

>> it's fair to say that all investigative techniques of which you are familiar and some may be that you are not familiar with, because they postdate your time, are all being pursued in this manner. -- matter. >> thank you, chairman. host: from yesterday's hearing. james, myrtle beach, independent line. what do you think of the job that attorney general merrick garland is doing? >> i personally think that garland is doing a good job. he stood up, he stood his ground yesterday in front of three of the worst republicans that we could ever have in washington, d.c. we all know that ted cruz, tom cotton, they love fox news. they get on there and they talk about things that, that just hurt this country completely. i mean, it, i am so fed up with

these three people right here. if donald trump had never won that first election, this country wouldn't be where it's at. he ruined this country. that's all those three were doing yesterday. they were performing for donald trump because he has brainwashed them and they are so scared of him. three grown men, scared of one man. and the rest of those republicans? why don't they stand up and grow a back loan? all of them flying down to florida, tell him they've had enough, donald trump. no more. and start working for the people of this country. host: janice, your confidence level the attorney general? caller: i don't have any confidence in the biden entire

administration. they are all far left, it doesn't even make sense, the things they are doing, taking away peoples several liberties. the rights. rights we have been born with. it's just outrageous what is going on. from afghanistan to the crt to them going there with the military, trying to turn everybody against everybody based on race. this is just insanity. yet the left and the democrats still want to talk about donald trump. get trump off of your mind. he's not running anything anymore. at the end of the day, i don't see not one democrat go there and put the blame where it belongs. biden is a colossal idiot. i can't even believe that he's still sitting there.

why they haven't done the 25th on him. at the end of the day the bottom line is that i'm sick and tired of hearing the democrats always talk about donald trump. host: all right, leaving it there, let's stick to the attorney general's performance. pat lahey asked the attorney general yesterday about the issue of voting rights. [video clip] >> it's hard to overstate how urgently we must act to protect the constitutional right to vote and there is reason for alarm. many states are rapidly moving to restrict access to the ballot for tens of thousands of americans of all walks of life in the wake of the shelby county decision. the departmental tools to stem the tide of vote -- of voter suppression has been greatly diminished. i know you are doing whatever you can to defend the right to vote.

how does congressional inaction in response to these supreme court decisions limit the ability of the department to protect americans and their constitutional right to vote? >> thank you for the question, senator. the right to vote is a central pillar of our democracy and as i have said many times, it's a central pillar that allows all other rights to proceed from it. the justice department was established in part protect the rights guaranteed under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment to vote. the voting rights act gave us further authority in that respect. we are doing, as you say, everything we can, doubling the size of the voting rights section case, but there are limitations on the authority that the supreme court has imposed. one of which is the elimination of section five of the voting

rights act, which provided an opportunity to do preclearance reviews so that we didn't have to review each matter on a one by one basis. and then the recent, that was shelby county, as you pointed out. in the burn of its case a narrowing of what we regarded as the meaning of section two and our authority under section two. both of those can be fixed by this congress and if it was it would give us considerably greater opportunity and availability to ensure the sacred right to vote. >> didn't the supreme court make it clear that we can fix that, if congress wanted? >> that's correct, the opinions indicated that these were matters that could be fixed by the congress. host: voting rights legislation and executive action by the justice department, a topic of yesterday's hearing with the attorney general. related to this is this headline from "the washington post," wall street journal publishes a

letter from trump claiming rigged election. twitter reporting that twitter may be maintaining its ban on donald trump at the former president finding other ways to get his message out, wall street journal publishing a lengthy letter to the editor from trump charging inaccurately that the letter -- that the election that was won by joe biden rigged, replete with loosely sourced and largely debunked cases of fraud in pennsylvania, a state that biden one by 80,000 votes. they argue that the state wide margin was too fast for a debate over the status of approximately 10,000 mail-in ballots that arrived after the election day deadline to be germane to the outcome. brenda in houston, texas, democratic caller, good morning.

caller: yes, good morning. good morning. listen, i'm so confused, i just woke up and had coffee and i heard a couple of your calls and i just had to call in so prague me if i'm a little groggy, still. host: i'm with you. caller: john of illinois, he might've been the first caller i heard? he's absolutely right and i want to continue from his, but before i continue from his point of view, dick durbin allowed that interrogation to go on too long. he could have interjected and stopped them from badgering him the way they did it. my honest opinion of garland, as attorney general i wasn't impressed. the democrats seem to be very heavy in brain matter but they

don't have what i want to see. if there are any, they are being suppressed by the old-timers. the biggest problems i see for the democrats are kyrsten sinema and joe manchin. i know i'm going to get criticism for this. i have stopped for a while. it was after a long time ago. schumer is the third problem. if they have a gun wielding person in the senate, the one that looks like mr. magoo wouldn't be running everything. i am so tired, greta, of these bloodthirsty jackals called the republican party. they are very vicious. they are very antagonistic. they are the biggest liars i've

ever seen in my life. host: how do you think the attorney general did under the scrutiny? caller: he held, but he looked shaky, do you know what i'm saying? he held his ground but he looked uneasy. but he held his ground, he never folded and that's good, but i just -- host: i'm going on to terry in boone, iowa. caller: my confidence level is about a 10 and if you give me a minute i will expend why. host: go ahead. caller: i'm definitely confident that he's a democratic operative and he is going to do whatever they ask of him. that's totally obvious to americans in what happened in his memo. four days, two days and a weekend, they sent a letter on a

friday and by tuesday this man has sent out a memo and you are telling me that that just happened out of the goodness of his heart? out of the conning this of his thoughts that he's looking out for everybody and doesn't want any violence to happen to everybody? are you serious? to the gentleman that called in earlier, i have to rebuttal his statements. he's talking about the january 6 instrument -- insurrection, those people and how they won't prosecute those people. you know what? what about all those people all summer long from black and antifa that got on their phones and coordinated and got people to come together and riot and burned down businesses, destroy people's lives, kill people, maim police officers? you want to talk about january 6 insurrections they have got

people in siloed terry confinement for walking in. you are going to put them in solitary confinement for that? put in black lives matter on the street, burning stuff on the ground, hurting people and putting them in jail to get out the next day and that never happens to them. host: terry in iowa. linda, independent line, good morning. caller: i was never so disgusted then when i listened to merrick garland yesterday. sick to my stomach. he just absolutely would not tell the truth. he would be asked yes and no questions and he wouldn't give an answer.

if someone was in his court throughout his lifetime, they probably would have jailed him. i just never seen such corruption in the democrat government and republican government. they need term limits for senators being elected. so that this corruption can stop. host: ok, linda. lindsey graham was asked yesterday about immigration and the caravan heading, he said, towards the southern border. take a listen. [video clip] >> are you aware of this -- aware of this caravan heading towards the state of texas? >> i read about it in the newspaper, south of mexico city. >> yeah. they are apparently headed towards texas. what would you tell these people? >> i would tell them not to come

. the job of the justice department has to do with prosecution and with use, the way in which the asylum and removal claims are adjudicated. >> so, you would tell them not to come? >> it depends on why they are coming. >> if they are coming to make asylum claims? >> the department of homeland security is responsible for border control. >> but you are the attorney general of the united states. do you think that the asylum laws are being abused? >> they are statutes passed by the congress. >> do you think that they are being abused? >> that would have to be evaluated on a one by one basis. >> when was the last time you were at the border? >> i think a week ago.

>> did they tell you anything about asylum claims made by people that are mostly economic? did they mention that to you? >> i don't recall, exactly. >> you don't recall being told by the border patrol that they are overwhelmed? they can't hold the line much anymore? that we have had 1.7 million people apprehended in the big magnet is the catch and release program around asylum? that didn't stick out to you? >> it was not a discussion i had. >> who did you talk to? >> i was at the border of no gallus. >> they never mentioned to you the pull factor of illegal immigration? >> this was a review of what they were doing at the border. >> it's a simple question. they never mentioned to you that they have got a problem with

being overrun by asylum-seekers? >> i know from reading note -- news media that border patrol agents feel that way. >> it's not from reading the paper. it's from talking to them. >> i don't want to tell you about a conversation that didn't happen. >> i'm just stunned that you can't recall that. host: wayne, georgia, democratic caller. caller: let me address that guy from arizona. i will get to merrick garland. that guy sounds like the same age i am. better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. don't go up there with that crazy talk discussing an issue. as far as merrick garland goes, i'm upset with him because the

minute that the congress voted, he was in contempt and he should have had a number on that man's chest in prison. merrick garland is trying to be too nice, as far as i'm concerned. anybody that passed the police line on the capital should have their name on their chest in prison today. thank you, america. host: betty, republican mine, your turn. caller: yeah i hope you don't hang up on me. he needs to go because he's biden's man. by january 6, donald trump said go peaceful and let your voice be heard. he didn't say to go in the capital. most of them people, i would say

that they had the people come. as far as fraud about election, i think it was a fraud. another thing, this racist stuff, and i'm not a racist person, the democrats is the ones that keep doing that. not the republicans. what you are seeing with donald trump, that man, i don't know if he's from texas or from south carolina, fox news, they show what they come a they show the truth. they don't show. they show it to you. you see it with your own two eyes and i don't understand why people don't see that. host: ok. we will go to freddie in indianapolis. what do you think of the job that merrick garland is doing?

caller: i think you should be on the supreme court, myself. being attorney general, let me speak on this matter. you know, you have these republicans who think they should be able to go to colleges, get up on college campuses and everywhere else and practice and preach hate speech. they think that crt is something bad that shouldn't be talked about in high school? they want all the rights and freedoms, they want to have the right to speak, but at the same time they don't want to hear nothing about children being taught black history in our schools. i mean, how are you going to talk about wanting all this freedom of speech but don't want anyone else speaking? isn't it somebody's right to be

able to teach black history and american school? host: freddie, indiana. read, ocean shores, washington. we will go to you, next. good morning. caller: it's an interesting topic. i just called in to make a brief comment about the distinction between what the memo was. i wash the hearing, i look out of my home and work on c-span and it was interesting to note that the memo that was such a rage in the hearing, he spoke the words, he spoke of the words harassment and intimidation, but he kept trying to defend the narrative that this is only about violence. and of course, anybody left or right, decent people don't want to see violence against anybody. public sector, private sector. but it wasn't about violence.

he used the words intimidation and harassment. i asked people to consider, if you are a public worker on the city council for education, however the hearing is being conducted, don't these people sort of look at someone opposing what they are doing is harassment? you see, that's where the rub is. that's why he was interrogated by republicans about the freedom of speech factor. yet he kept saying over and over that he supports the freedom of speech, but you can't have it both ways. i don't have confidence that out of one side of his mouth he saying that the people have the right under the first amendment, which they do, to address grievances of their government but if they do, the council can then consider it and the fbi should consider it intimidation and harassment. there is a hypocrisy that i think needs to be focused on. host: ok. another part of the hearing from

yesterday, the attorney general was asked by chuck astley of iowa about the settled lawsuit with the former fbi deputy director andrew mccabe. take a listen. [video clip] >> the inspector general established that andrew mccabe lied under oath to investigators and under oath to the justice department inspector general. it should also be noted that he leaked government information to the media and then call the new york and washington fbi field offices and blamed them for the leaks that he caused. under your leadership instead of punishing him, his retirement was reinstated, his records were expunged and he will reportedly receive $200,000 in retirement backpay and his attorney will reportedly receive $500,000 in legal fees. so, it seems to me that that is

beyond incredible. general garland, did you authorize the mccain settlement and if not, who did? that -- >> that settlement was the recommendation of the career lawyers litigating that case based on their prospects of success in the case. the case did not involve issues about lying. it involved the claim that he was not given the amount of time necessary to respond to allegations and the litigators concluded they needed to settle the case because of the likelihood of loss on the merits of that claim. the inspector general report still stands. we have not questioned in any way the inspector general's findings. the reference, with respect to false statements, was made to the justice department in the previous administration and the

climbed in the previous administration and the only thing here was the assessment of merit. host: -- >> do you agree with the taxpayer picking up a multimillion dollar bill for someone who lied under >> oath to government officials? >>[no audio] the assessment from the litigators was that the bill to the taxpayers would be -- host: tom, battle creek, we are asking you all to tell us what you think about the performance of merrick garland, attorney general. your turn, go ahead. caller: an attorney general that focuses on local parents complaining about curriculum and mask mandates to local school boards, it hardly merits the attention of the justice department and as such, that kind of focus coming from the attorney general causes me to

have, you know, very little confidence in the man. there are so many other major problems going on that are far, far more serious than this issue that our legislators are basically, wasting their time covering. the violence in chicago and other major cities. the situation on the border. especially with regards to gang activity and drugs. my goodness. a parent is concerned about curriculum at a local school in podunk iowa and this guy is sounding alarm bells? this is a perfect example of what a joke federal government has become. it's really disgraceful that the citizenry of this great country has to endure this garbage. i guess that's all i have to say on the topic. i appreciate the forum this morning.

host: bernie, louisville. caller: i have watched some of the hearings at work, watching what they do on tv. merrick garland appears to be confident, smart, doing his job, just not very interesting. i wish somebody could explain to me what exactly civil liberties we are losing or that we have lost. i just don't understand it. is it about the mask mandate? it's no shirts, no shoes, no service. it's just good sense. that's all i have to say. host: all right. capitol hill today, the president is expected to arrive to talk with democrats on the house side behind closed doors. according to reports, he has a framework in hand that he will try to pitch to the progressive democrats in the hopes for a vote on the bipartisan

infrastructure deal. as the president gets ready to talk to his fellow democrats, he then will talk to the nation at 11:30 a.m. eastern time and at the same time he is preparing to head out to rome for his international trip to meet with the pope and he will be going to that climate change summit as well. all of that happening on the hill, as well as the ceos of oil -- ceos of oil companies like chevron and british petroleum, as well as chevron, testifying about climate change. we will have coverage of the hearing on c-span3 at 10:30 a.m. eastern time and you can watch online at c-span.org or download our free video app called c-span now. you can get it on any of your mobile devices. mary, let me go to you.

waterman, illinois, independent caller, good morning. caller: hello, discussing merrick garland, i saw parts of his performance. he looked -- he looked old, weak, constantly repeating the same line about what his memo addressed. it wasn't particularly compelling, interesting, or responsive to the question. i have sat on the school boards, the national association of school boards is a lobbying organization that exists to get money out of taxpayers. the educational establishment is lying democrats. it's clear to me that merrick garland is simply protecting and doing the bidding of a very powerful democratic interest group. having sat on a school board, people come in, they make public

comments and that's the job of a school board, to hear and listen to them and try to address what they can. but largely school boards just rubberstamp superintendents anyway. so, i just think that merrick garland demonstrated how weaponized at the doj has become and it is disturbing how much his family and other people in washington make money off of taxpayers. host: all right, mary. it's your turn. democratic caller. caller: three quick points. if c-span would play some of the threats the parents made at the board meetings. they were not in response to someone getting up and making a comment. there were several threats made

and there have been plenty of tapes that c-span could play and you can see the school board members. second thing, i don't recall, did c-span have a segment on the previous president's ag? it's a topic that seems to imply that there was no confidence. third, it seems like a lot of people who were calling in seemed elderly. myself included. i wonder if some of those who hate the biden administration so much, if they get the medicare expansion and the home health care, do they hate him enough that they wouldn't accept those programs that he's working towards? thank you. host: all right. conrad, philadelphia, republican, good morning.

caller: yeah, good morning. when they christened our community that we had, all this stuff from republicans in donald trump that they did, all this stuff, january 6 and beyond that, if you tolerated that, all of that nonsense and lies the republican party has been preaching, if the united states can tolerate that, this is chicken feed from the attorney general. all these republicans that didn't open their mouths for four years with donald trump, those pipsqueak's and cowards wouldn't say anything. donald trump that they sold out. it sure is funny, don't he know that the so-called ones he said it's all about that sold him out, how come he's the only one that lost? host: ok, independent line, what do you think of the attorney general?

caller: i think he's doing a fine job, but i'm a little surprised on the subject that we are talking about today. i had decided not to call in but after listening to one guy talking about harassment and intimidation, it doesn't seem like he even understands the difference between the two. so, now it's very clear to me why people are able to behave the way that they behaved during january 6, when they thought they could beat cops and push their way through the senate or the house, just to get away with it, you know? there has to be a difference between harassment and intimidation and expressing yourself. you know? like the other caller said. these people were threatening teachers and school boards, you know?

it seems like, and people keep talking about he wasn't interested. wasn't interested in the entertainment culture for you to see, ted cruz out there just performing for his crowd. this is just shameful. host: all right. sam, fredericksburg, what do you think of the job that merrick garland is doing? caller: so far i think he's doing a nice job. when he's independent, yes, you have to think before you talk. you don't just open your mouth and say whatever you want to say. the gentleman that just got off the phone, i think that what people need to understand is that some of us migrated into this country because the country

, this is why some of us are here and we appreciate the opportunity we have. when people are ok with harassing people, when for some reason it's ok, you don't need the fbi to get involved? that's the thing. host: all right, i'm going to leave it there. when we come back, two numbers of congress are going to join us to discuss the biden bill back better plans on capitol hill and we will begin with august pfluger and then jane should cow ski. ♪ -- jan schakowsky.

>> monday, a hearing on the abortion cases after the sixth week of pregnancy and at 10 a.m. eastern justices here whole woman's health versus jackson, challenging the part of the law that gives the public the power to enforce it through civil suit without federal court review and 11:00 a.m., the united states versus texas looks at whether the justice department has the right to sue in federal court to block the law. watch the oral argument live coverage on c-span two, live or on demand at c-span.org, listen on c-span radio are on the new c-span now mobile app. ♪ >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in the studentcam competition. if you are a middle school or high school student, we are asking you to create a five minute to six minute documentary that answers the question how does the federal government

impact your life? it must show supporting and opposing points of view on a policy program that affects you and your community using c-span video clips, which are easy to find and access at c-span.org. the studentcam competition january 20, this that our website at student -- washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome congressman august pfluger, a republican of texas serving in his first term. what did you do before you ran for congress? guest: thanks for having me. it is a pleasure to be on. this is my first term.

deployed all over the world as a fighter pilot, i had a lot of combat time and a lot of time overseas facing the threats that i think this country should really be focusing on right now. i grew up in texas and came from a ranching family, so i know the agriculture side of business. midland, odessa, san angelo. really proud of the hard-working , patriotic people that they represent not only in agriculture but in the oil and gas industry, providing affordable, reliable energy not only for americans but for a lot of our allies around the world. host: where do your conservative values interviews come from? guest: they are very much aligned with the people that i represent. when you look at the agrarian mindset, and i think this is probably true throughout the rest of the country, but certainly in texas, the 28,000

square miles, people in my district, we want to raise our families. i have three young daughters. we want to make sure that they grow up to understand service. that they are committed to the values of the constitution, that we leave this country in this world in a better place than we found it. when i look at that mindset, i went to the air force academy, i understand what the founders wrote into the constitution, and i think my conservative values come from that perspective and that lends. host: why did you decide to run for congress? guest: it is the million-dollar question and especially when it comes to transitioning from the military and into politics. i think the most important thing for me is this: i studied for two decades as a pilot, somebody who works in nato, national

security council. but the threats that are countries facing right now, i believe, are the most agree just threats that we've seen in decades. and i want to focus on those threats and make sure that we keep our eye on the ball and as a country, that we do the right thing. economically, diplomatically. that we focus on the threats, that we continue to have a strong country and that we do everything we can to increase our influence around the world. the greatest generation, my grandfather was part of that. what they taught us is that freedom is not free. i don't want to lose ground that we have gained in the last 70 plus years since world war ii. i want to make sure that we actually increase our influence and our values around the world sitting on foreign affairs and homeland security is a perfect start to my congressional career, to use my experiences and hopefully increase our good, democratic values that i think

the rest of the world is really yearning for. host: general mark milley making headlines on the front page of the washington times saying the hypersonic weapon is like a sputnik moment for him, sounding the alarm on china. your thoughts? guest: my first assignment, operational assignment was in japan. i've been studying china for over 20 years. and it really is the most concerning thing that i think we've seen, and this is exactly why. there's a lot of distractions going on in this country. general milley's right to say that that is a sputnik-like moment. we have got to make sure is a country that we are focused on what china is doing, what russia is doing. and even in the near term, the next 1, 2, 3 years, how are we responding? are we responding from a position of strength, and do we have the tools required to deter any sort of unilateral action

that someone in this country may decide to do that is against the value system that the post-world war ii world has seen? that is what i'm focused on and i'm very worried about seeing that latest test and seeing the results of what that could mean for the world. host: why, what is a hypersonic weapon? guest: it is a weapon that travels at such a speed that you can put a warhead on it, conventional or nuclear, but it is very difficult to defend against. when you consider what those weapons can do not just with range, but also with time, it comes down to "do you have deranged range to do that? and is the time such that it is shortened so an adversary doesn't have time to respond? from china's perspective, they now have a very fast, very capable weapon. host: and who is threatened by china? guest: let's start economically.

i think you look at the countries that china has gone into, and they offer some very attractive initial deals, but take sri lanka and the port that we saw that was expropriated after they weren't able to complete the terms of that. and so i think the threatened piece involves any country that can't live up to many unknown measures that they use. then you go into the digital world and we know that intellectual property has been a very important aspect of the trade deal. we want to make sure that our intellectual property and that our technology is protected, and that we get a good, fair deal with any sort of trade issue. as they march across the indian subcontinent and into the middle east and europe, i think our

allies and partners have a lot to lose and risk when it comes to those things. and that is not even getting into the military side of it, like you just mentioned with hypersonic weapons. taiwan is the number one country that is threatened right now. they are very worried about xi jinping's desire to unify and desire to take taiwan by force. and i have a lot of empathy for their situation. i think that is why it is so important that us as the united states, the beacon of freedom, we continue to lead on good terms and that the world war is not disrupted by unilateral action for china to take taiwan by force which is what we have been saying for a long time, those of us who have studied this issue. host: should the u.s. defend taiwan with military force? guest: absolutely we should defend them and i think our posture has been such that we have a presence throughout the far east, a presence in japan

and korea. we make sure that throughout exercises, joint exercises, international exercises and our resolve and our commitment to taiwan is strong. host: i want to invite a viewer to call in and talk to you. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us with your first name, city and state. congressman, what is your view on the 1.2 -- one point $2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure built? guest: i understand that president biden is coming to the capital today at 9:00 to potentially talk to democrats. i come from a very rural district. i mentioned 28,000 square miles. we need infrastructure badly. let me describe the kind of infrastructure that we need.

it is roads, bridges, highways, rural broadband. that rural broadband helps farmers, it helps telehealth. it is so necessary that we do this as a country, that we reinvest. it has been so long since we have done this. my concerns about this particular bill are two things. well, they are many more than two things. but let me mention the top two. number one is tied directly to reconciliation. you can't untie these things. they are over $5 trillion in spending. specifically when i get to my second concern on the infrastructure deal, a $1.2 trillion, less than half of that, less than $500 billion is actually going toward infrastructure. what we would consider as the traditional infrastructure. i think that is very concerning. if i made one additional point on it, the congressional budget

office came out, and many outside a half-time and said that what we're looking at is additional spending, but it is not paid for, and it could be up to $400 billion of new deficit over the next 10 years. somebody who believes in fiscal conservatism, that we need to only spend what we have taken in, that is very concerning. right now, this bill is not doing that. host: missouri, independent. go ahead. caller: mr. pflueger, i commend you for your service. i know you had taken over before -- taken over before you got in -- take an oath before you got into the service to defend the constitution against all enemies, even orange were domestic. my question to you, i hope you will stand up and do the right

thing. his donald trump a domestic terrorism trying to bring down our democracy? will you stand up against that and say the right things instead of preaching the republican party -- whatever their thing is? guest: well, steve, thank you for your kind words on service, and you're right. i have taken the south many times. it is very important that to me, my family, it is something i take very seriously. i don't look at one person as the driving reason. i certainly did not take the oath for one person, but to protect and defend the constitution. i'm going to speak to a bunch of policies today. that i support, that i do believe donald trump supported. i don't think that is accurate to say he's a domestic

terrorist, but as somebody who served in the military and somebody who is in congress, i will continue to look for good policies that protecting the constitution and that is exactly what i believe i've done so far, the committees that i've on have given me a venue to do that, an avenue to use my expertise, indicate that to the american people and to my colleagues, so i appreciate you calling in. host: i believe the viewer was talking about january 6. your view on that date? guest: it certainly is a tragic day and there's a lot of things that we can learn. on that day, from that day. and i think that, as a country, what i hate to see right now is the very partisan, backward-looking piece of this that seems to be selective. i taught my girls about what the first amendment protects and what it doesn't protect. as the country, if we are going

to be honest with ourselves, we need to look at that holistically in any violence that happens that is wrong. that is what i have been so disappointed with. let's talk about all of the issues that we have, and let's get better as a country. we've gone through hard times in this country. for 244 years, we have always emerged stronger. right now i see some really inner, partisan, backward-looking things that don't acknowledge the whole picture. as somebody who was a fighter pilot, we debrief. we debrief the good, the bad and the ugly. host: buffalo, new york, democratic color. caller: i'd like to know, does he believe in the vote? he says backward-looking. if you don't want to look at the mistakes being made and then you see what happened january 6,

which was disgusting, absolutely disgusting, in my mind, those people were not american. all right? not american. to try to push the investigation under the rug is wrong. absolutely wrong. host: congressman, those people that were violent that day, violence against police, caused destruction. they were prosecuted. guest: there's no question that violence in any form is wrong and it should be prosecuted. i think that one of the things that we are seeing right now, and i disagree totally with the caller saying they are not american, because i would ask the caller, has he talked to anybody that was there? those who committed acts of violence should be prosecuted, that is completely unacceptable

in our country and it doesn't matter if it was there were somewhere else. but let's look at what happened with the actual investigation. it is a partisan investigation. as somebody who, again, as served, when we look at accidents in the military, we go back and we look at the facts. we have trust in the system. we have trust that the outcome of that investigation, if there was an aircraft investigation, is going to be true, going to get to the heart of the matter. that's not what we're seeing right now. i think i need to be very clear one more time. any violence in this country is unacceptable. if we are going to investigate, let's do that in a nonpartisan way, and let's have fairness. the american public right now, you can see it in the trust in our institutions. so many subjects that are going on.

there are so many things going on right now where public trust in our institutions is not there. i think this investigation is there a much a symbol of that. host: what evidence do you have this investigation is partisan? guest: the only evidence that i need is that the appointment from the speaker didn't include certain people -- first off, it started as an outside investigation, it was not going to have members. it was going to be outside people that were going to be a 50-50 investigation with input from both republicans and democrats. and i think that's very important. if we are going to get to the heart of the matter, let's do that anyway like the 9/11 commission did. but what happened was appointments were made and then people were taken off of them like jim jordan, like jim banks. that signals to every american that something is not right. they may not know where these people stand on things, but why are they being taken off that?

host: silver spring maryland, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. my question is regarding china. what should our current president do, what should the united states approach the against china? guest: it's a great question. let me rewind the tape. when you are doing foreign affairs, every action that you take, every deal that you make, every interaction with another country matters because china, in this case, to your question, is watching. so they are watching the way that we deal with other countries and i think that those types of countries, respect strength. and i have to go back to afghanistan and look at that. most americans wanted us, in some way, shape, or or, to end our involvement or diminish it

so that the involvement was much less than it had been. but the actual execution of that withdrawal was completely botched, and as somebody who knows people who have given the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan, this is very personal to me and i think it is very personal to most americans. china was watching that. there are still several hundred americans left behind. that signals to china that we potentially have a lack of resolve. not just intentionally, but our desire to get americans off the ground. a pilot training classmate of mine paid the ultimate sacrifice rescuing afghan children on a hillside almost 20 years ago. china is watching our resolve. that signal in afghanistan signals a lack of resolve, and there's other examples out there. but the president should be doing right now is assuring our partners and our allies every

single day that america has resolve, that we will stand up for what is right, that we will not accept anything less than the democratic value system that we have put forth since the post-world war ii era. and that has not happened in many cases. host: whitemarsh, maryland, republican. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just had a question, sort of a cultural question. i'm republican, i inherited my republican-ness from before the world war ii era. i am an african-american, so i'm a frederick douglass, harriet tubman, abraham lincoln republican. at the time when my great-grandparents would only be registered to vote by republicans, of course, lbj from texas, the democrat is the one who pushed through the civil-rights legislation and of course, the republicans, the dixiecrat became republicans. my question for the congressman is this.

you talked about your background in texas, the rural counties and all of this. i wanted to know from that background, what did your community have to say about civil rights and dr. king? were they supportive of those movements? four was their conservatism also political conservatism that wanted to tell african-americans to wait? guest: thank you so much for calling in, and i appreciate hearing your story and why you've made your choices and kind of listening to what you have told about your family, that gives me some insight. let's look at my district. we are over 40% minority district. we, in texas, are very unique, because we've been working -- and especially with the hispanic community, for a long time. we work together. we don't see ourselves as any

one race, ethnicity, or background. we see ourselves as texans. and we work together based on a shared value system, very much so in support of -- i wasn't alive during that time, but i can see that air heritage, relationships, our families, friendships that we have very much embrace the movement. even though that was a hard time, that is an example of how we've gone through something that we have become better because of. i appreciate you asking that question. we are out there, we like it that way because we do have a nice, rural community. what you will see there, what you will witness his communities working together regardless of our race and background. anything else that is external, we work together because we have a shared value system. we are the party of abraham lincoln, and i think it is very important to bring up that those values are very much still alive in the republican party. host: north carolina,

independent. ahead. caller: thank you. do you believe in that they lie? -- the big lie? guest: can you be more specific? caller: that donald trump was a fraud, the election was a fraud. do you believe the election was a fraud? there's only two republicans in office that are actually following the constitution into doing what they are supposed to do, telling the truth about donald trump. donald trump is a fraud. not the election. do you think donald trump won the election fair and square? guest: i think that president biden is our president. i appreciate you asking that for question. i'm not a conspiracy theorist. i want to see facts. we have seen some facts come out in certain states and as somebody who served in the air force, i want to see the facts

and i think that the american public deserves to see the facts. this goes back to any investigation. it needs to be fair. what we need is that fairness to be transparent above board and the gold standard. our election system needs to be a gold standard. you can go back many generations and decades. there is a lack of trust in our election system. it is much better than most places around the world, but that doesn't mean that it can't be better. and i support, very much so, what the conservative agenda has to make sure that -- when you go into a restaurant here in washington, d.c., guess what they do? they asked for your vaccine card and for your id. because they want to see that that id matches your vaccine card. why? in 2021, in this country, the greatest country on earth, why are we not requiring the same

when we going vote? i believe that every american deserves to know that this is a fair and free election system, and we do have things that we can do better. the state in local levels continue to run those elections. but at the foundational level, we have many proposals that i think that we can do better. host: delmar, new york, republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is on the budget and the place for space force in the budget. and with the new military weapons coming out of china, i was. and cover generation. you see a flash, duck and cover. apparently there will be no warning. as far as space force, what part should we be funding in the budget, or wherewith the money be better spent? thank you.

guest: you're speaking my language here, really appreciate you calling in with such a nuanced question. the space force is very important for a couple of reasons. number one, just a couple of short years ago we did not acknowledge and we didn't call out that space is a war-fighting domain. it goes to the heart of previous questions that i think demetrius asked about china. we have adversaries who are out there and they very much look at space as a war fighting domain. every single american is dependent upon states. the united states space force currently, right this very second, is monitoring gps satellites. those do things like providing a signal to atm machines, cell phones. everybody driving to work this morning or is commuting somewhere is going to look up. that comes from the united states space force. general raymond and general

brown that a wonderful job protecting what we as civilians use, but the military is very much a part of. it is not just kinetic weapons, it is also the commercial use of our everyday life that includes cell phones and many other things. to get to your question, absolutely we need to be focused on a budget that looks at that, that understands that the threat is out there. that other factors around the world including china don't want us to continue to have those technological gains. i'm very worried about it and we need to be focused on it and we need to be sure that the appropriate funding that is threat-based, that looks out and acknowledges the threat succeeds and allows us to continue succeed. host: new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning, congressman. morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call as always.

congressman, i always make it a point when i try calling into c-span to call people i disagree with. which, obviously i'm talking to you at this time. guest: isn't that wonderful that we have this ability in our country to call and disagree? let's just think about that for one second. that's very important and i appreciate you calling in. caller: i could not agree with you more. i learned more from talking the people that i disagree with more than when i talk to people i do agree with. but my point is my one question is the afghanistan thing kind of hit a nerve. we did not want to stay in afghanistan. afghanistan was a lost battle. we made a mistake 20 years ago and we tried to make the mistake right through different administrations, both republican and democratic. we could have had troops there

for eternity. the taliban got what it was going to get. the biggest thing i ever heard out of that was the taliban was saying americans have the clock. the taliban has the time. guest: what i said was most americans wanted to see us get out of afghanistan. caller: that's not what you said in some form. you made it sound like maybe we should have had 2500 troops in this area or that area for security or for intelligence, which is a smart thing to do in another way, but it is another way to extend the war. the best thing we did is to get out of there totally and i do agree, it was not done well. but the fact of the matter, it's over. and that is a victory. guest: let me say, the war is not over. our involvement in afghanistan is over, but the war is not over. the enemy has a vote, and you

make some really good points. my only regret is i can't see you face-to-face to have this discussion because for us, we were attacked on 9/11 by a savage, brutal enemy who knows no limits and they are willing to use that. they just used it again in our withdrawal. 13 americans gave their lives. this is very personal to many people. i think we can armchair quarterback this all day long. the war is not over. we have to maintain -- and this goes to previous questions -- we have to maintain a posture of strength that identifies threats, that understands what they want to do to this country, and that protects americans against those threats. when i look at with the current administration is doing, i don't disagree with the notion to withdraw, i disagree with the way that we did that, and i want to trust our military leaders to give us the best advice.

the number one question that we should be asking members of congress, especially those of us on the foreign affairs committee, did the president receive the best military advice to his final decision on the execution of that withdrawal? host: congressman august pfluger, the first time in washington journal, and we appreciated. we hope you come back. guest: i look forward to coming back. host: we will take a quick break. when we come back, we will talk about the infrastructure and social spending on capitol hill. we will be right back. ♪

>> book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, jesse waters discusses left-wing activists and the policy they support. and then schapiro talks about his new book, "the authoritarian moment" in which he argues the progressive left is pushing an authoritarian agenda in america. plus, insider interviews on book tv's new program "about books." and in his latest book, -- argues that corporate america is signing onto increase profits.

watch every sunday on c-span two, find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime. >> weekends on c-span to our intellectual fees. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore the nation's past. on sunday, the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span two. -- c-span 2. download the new mobile app and stay up-to-date with live video coverage of the biggest events,

from live streams at a house and senate to key congressional hearings. white house events and supreme court oral arguments. our limbs, interactive morning program where we hear your voices every day. c-span has you covered. download the mobile app for free today. >> when lafayette was 19, he came to america and was promptly made a major general by george washington. the year was 1777 and the american revolutionary or was underway. political history podcaster and author mike duncan has written 471 pages of the story of lafayette called "hero of two worlds." included in his book is an account of his return to the united states, where he was celebrated in each of the 24 states.

that year was 1824, and lafayette was 67. >> mike duncan on this week's episode of book notes plus. you can listen on our new c-span mobile app. washington journal continues. host: congresswoman jan schakowsky, democrat from illinois joining out this morning. the president right now is preparing to come to capitol hill to talk to houston about a deal that he supposedly has in hand, we presume, with the two senators kristin cinema and joe manchin. what does he need to say to you to get you to vote yes on infrastructure and yes on social spending? guest: great to be with you again. i am really looking forward to this meeting with the president and. exactly what he is going to say.

here's what i'm going to be looking for: i am anxious, truly anxious to vote for both an infrastructure bill that is going to be so important and what we call the build back better bill. that is going to have a lot of a human infrastructure that we also need that is so important. what i'm concerned about is that there is no guarantee. the democrats have been trying for a long time. we have been ready for months to vote for both bills. and what we've seen in the senate is actually two democratic senators who have held up the works, who have been changing the goalposts, putting in things, taking out things. what i want to hear is what exactly is that agreement? is this something that we can

literally take to the bank and make sure that it is going to happen before we vote? i'm going to be honest with you, i don't really trust that unless we get it in some kind of writing that it is really final. that they are not going to say that's not what i meant, and we are not going to do it. i'm really looking forward to this. i want to vote for both bills. host: what do you mean by having it in writing? are you going as far as the progressive caucus chair same you need full text and all 50 democrats signing off on it? guest: we need something more than "we are going to have something for expanding medicare for seniors so that they get care." i want to know there is an agreement that has been made on we are going to get hearing

aids, we are going to get dental care. we are going to get childcare. we are going to get the child tax credit. we are going to get some housing funding. we are going to do something major on climate. the infrastructure bill, the bipartisan infrastructure bill which all of us voted for and we appreciate it actually is a net plus when it comes to carbon emissions. it goes in there one direction. but if you combine it with the build back better bill which used to have about half $1 trillion or the climate crisis, i'm ready to go. but those guarantees have to be solid. i don't know if we are going to have language in writing, but i

want to know in writing that these are the elements that are promised, that we are going to have that in a reasonable time. that is the other thing i want to hear from the president. next week, next month, next year? joe manchin has set already a couple of times he would be ok to do this in 2022. we cannot wait. i want to know the timeline on this as well. i want to support the president. this is his bill. and i appreciate the leadership that he has offered. i want a guarantee for them that those things are going to happen. host: if you get the guarantee and guaranteed means that paid family leave and free community college are no longer part of the social spending bill, are

you still going to vote yes? guest: i want to concentrate on what is in the bill, not what is not in the bill. it is still going to be transformative for the american people. most developed countries spend about $14,000 per year on childcare. united states, about $500. that means that women can't go back to work. mostly, women have been locked out of the marketplace because they can't afford the childcare and it is not available. those kinds of things are so incredibly important. i would be happy to vote for a bill that i still believe will be transformational for americans and change lives. when you have a child tax credit that we already know from the recovery act can reduce, in

half, child poverty in the united states of america and make families hold, i am for that -- whole, i am for that. we will deal with those important issues at another time. host: political reporting "last night, senator sanders said it was inconceivable he would agree to deal -- to a deal currently structured. without sanders, there is still a les frank problem. -- left flank problem." guest: we are going to have a bill that is going to be so meaningful to the american people. i think we want to not hold out for things joe manchin has already said absolutely not.

i want to continue to fight for paid leave. the american people really need it and deserve it. i want to make sure that we have done some -- dental care for seniors. but we are who make sure that whatever we do get, it will be a life changer, a game changer for american families. i host: want to invite our viewers to call in, ask you question republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text as with your first name, city and state and we will include some of your questions in the conversation as well. what is the timeline that you understand if the president can get all the democrats in line that there would be a vote on infrastructure, and when with their vehicle on social spending? guest: i would love to go to the

committee today and see if we can at least get on some sort of an outline that we can also vote on. look. i think that within the next week, legislative language could be written. it may take a week beyond that, but what i don't want to hear is that it is going to take a month or two months. we can't go into next year to wait for that. it has to be in the immediate future. i have to be able to see ahead to that. and it's not just the progressive caucus. we are looking, i believe, in the majority of the democratic caucus that we have to have both. both of those bills have to pass.

and so it is not that one is going to be postponed until some unknown date. host: reporters are lining the hallways on capitol hill this morning. democratic lawmakers are making their way behind closed doors to meet resident biden. he is coming to capitol hill and these reports are that he has a deal in hand on the social spending proposal. congressman jan schakowsky, our guest this morning sharing her time with us. she will quickly have to make your way to that meeting as well. caller: i just want to know -- i was watching youtube late last night and i saw some videos where they took the pay from 12-14. now it is nothing. this bill is worthless, this build back better bill. totally worthless.

it is up to you guys to vote down everything. because this isn't going to do nothing but give public utilities to corporations. host: congresswoman? guest: you know, i am all for -- and i totally agree with you, that paid family leave is a big element. and we pushed for that. but i want to also tell you that being able to have affordable health care to lower the cost of prescription drugs, there is so much still in this bill. we aren't going to give up this fight. i agree with you. and shame on joe manchin for saying absolutely, it is a no-brainer. you know what, he suggested that people who get leave, what are they going to do?

they are going to just go out hunting. i don't even know what that means. that somehow, people are looking for a way to not work. of course, what we're talking about is being able to go home and take care of the really sick loved one. to be able to take care of yourself when you are sick and not have to go to work in that condition. it's incredibly important. we are going to keep fighting for it. there are dozens of other things that are going to be transformative to families. please don't discount them. we are going to hear from the president in detail. he's going to speak not only to the caucus, but to the country today about what is in the bill. not what is not in the bill. we are not forgetting about immigrants, either, which may or may not be something in the bill. we are going to go live on the agenda and we are going to keep pushing. host: california, independent. caller: good morning.

i have a statement and then a question for you. my callout is for senior citizens, and i'm 72. 5%. that is supposedly the cost of living. my rent went up 4%. my gas prices doubled. my actual food cost when i go to the store is 25%. it is not 5% or 10%, it is 25%. now, that is $100 a month that is what i get. that is the increase i did. my rent went up 4%. again, i have stated the cost of all the other increases. now, i don't see anything in the build back better plan that addresses the true cost that i and incurring. my medicare deduction went from

$85 to $185. the cost of my drugs per year has gone from $2000 to $4200. now, if you differentiate, and this is a critical question, if you differentiate a senior citizen from a retired person and you expand medicare, you are watering down the cost -- you are increasing the cost to senior citizens on social security significantly by expanding and giving money to people or 55 years old. i don't disagree that we are in top shape right now. the problem i'm running into, if you're willing to give $300 per child to a family, why don't you give $300 -- would you be willing to take a bill to the floor and give a proper cola to people on social security?

host: i want to have a congressman respond to you. guest: first of all, we are not in the age of medicare eligibility or expanding medicare to 55-year-olds. we are talking about 65, when you are eligible for, and that is a senior citizen. and i am in your category, so i understand entirely. but we are also going to make home and community-based services more available. we don't have a long-term care policy in this country. we are going to make eyeglasses and hearing aids accessible, and those can be so very costly. and also, do something to have dental care available as well.

but i do also want you to know that many, many democrats, the majority of the democratic caucus has introduced a bill to expand social security. to raise the social security benefits for all americans. and i agree that that cola does not really do the job. but the other thing is that i believe when we pass a bill, it is going to help families, that is going to create jobs, that is going to lower taxes for ordinary americans, that we are going to see the economy go better, we are going to see that inflation is down, it is on its way down, and i agree. i hear the democratic task force on aging and families. that is my primary interest, making sure that we take care of

older americans. we are on it. and we are going to make sure that these kinds of things are affordable to you. that is really a promise that we made through social security. we are going to make health care more affordable. we are going to make prescription drugs more affordable. and i think is going to be a real benefit to you, personally in your budget. host: brad, savannah, georgia, democratic caller. caller: good morning. lifelong democrat and this is a pretty red meat area. but having said that, i don't understand -- and this is a procedural point -- the infrastructure bill we need. and i understand why the things and then build our group together. what i don't understand is in the build back better plan, and i agree with many, many of the

provisions in it, why you can't separate it out other than the reconciliation process that is how you put poison pills in the bills. i understand that is how the process works. but i would force every member of the senate and house of representatives to give it up and down vote on line items because i have found in talking to the many, many republicans down here that 90% agree with it. we have a republican congressman here, congressman carter. i would force that guy to vote up or down and then have to defend why. and i think that would be a better approach. i would just like to hear your comments on that procedural question. guest: i don't agree with that because i am on the budget committee and i have heard time and time again the republicans talking about benefits for ordinary americans. the talked any kind of effort,

to ask the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share. we have seen over and over again in the united states senate zero republicans voting. if we could get just 10 more republicans voting for the elements of the build back better bill, we would have it. they are not for it. mitch mcconnell has made it absolutely clear, and he rules those republicans in the senate with an iron hand. and the voice of donald trump in their ears. they are not supporting these things. believe me, if we could have bipartisanship, even on individual votes, i have been on those votes when i was in the minority, and they fail because the republicans will not vote for these programs. i wish when you are saying is

true. i wish for the friends that you have in the republican party representing the majority of republicans in the senate and in the house. it is not going to happen. that is the only reason why we are going to reconciliation and a way for democrats to pass these bills, and we do have a very slim majority, majority still of the rule in this country. we have set up this undemocratic process in the senate where they can filibuster, they can add another 10 votes required to pass something. it's not going to happen. i wish it were. it's not. host: oregon, republican, your turn. caller: thank you for taking my call. with all due respect, kill the bill, save america. because you guys want to cram everything down our throats before 2022, before we have a

chance people he have a say in this. i already am going under because of all the money you have spent, and i can't afford any more spending on these bills. not only that. i agree with the previous caller. you linked host: pills together, because you know that one of them will not and on its own. even democratically, it won't stand. host: let's get a response. congresswoman? guest: the cost of this bill to the treasury is absolute zero. because we pay for it. we pay for it by asking the wealthiest americans to pay more, and you've seen some of those names. bezos, who often not only pays zero in taxes but sometimes gets

a refund. and by lowering the cost of prescription drugs which is not only good for consumers, but good for the u.s. budget because medicare, medicaid, the veterans administration, we pay for those drugs. the cost will be zero to the u.s. treasury and therefore, it is not going to raise her taxes one penny. but it is going to change the lives of americans who need to have some support for their government. just like you saw during the pandemic. we stared so many families from total economic disaster. that is the goal we have. host: congresswoman, do you know how the wealthy are going to pay? guest: that is part of the problem. i want to hear what the words are.

one day, we hear joe manchin is for something. then sinema is not for that. that may agree for five minutes. i look forward to going to that meeting with them. host: mork reporting this morning, biden may have a framework but it isn't enough for progressives. an aide says manchin-ema have loosely said ok to a very general, broad framework but they will not get committed voting for the bill. this is exactly why we need all parties fully agreed to the bill text. that from a progressive. guest: well, if that is what they are saying right now, that there is no commitment from them. that has been the problem for months now. if we can't get some sort of a commitment from them, then i don't see how we can move this process forward. i don't want to hear about

progressives being blamed or democrats being blamed for installing this. there are two people right now in the senate. if they make a commitment, we are on. if they don't, how can we go forward? host: if this falls apart, what would you like to see happen with joe manchin and senator sinema as far as party affiliation? guest: they are going to be up for election before too long. i think that the voters ought to say enough games. we have had enough of you. and to look for other employment. host: they should lose their seats? guest: pardon me? host: they should lose their seats? guest: i do. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am all for some of the stuff such as the prescription being lowered.

i don't take one medicine a day but i know there's people out there who could be helped by that. but what gets me is sending checks out to people who raise their kids. i raise my kids through hard work. i did it on my own, my wife did not work. i don't know why people have kids if they can afford them. number two, why do you always just talk about what people would be interested in in the bill rather than a lot of stuff that people are not interested in? one, the money spent on the illegals. i want someone to explain exactly what that money is going to do. host: congresswoman? guest: the president made it very clear that you once to take on the economy to make it grow from the bottom up, from the middle out, and not just what we have seen in the past which has

been we are going to give tax breaks, which we did during the trump administration, to the very wealthiest americans. we want to change that model and to say that we want to help. not put money in the pocket of ordinary americans, but give us an even playing field. you said that you were able to work. when you have a minimum wage at the federal level of $7.25 per hour, and tips of $2.13 per hour, we see people who work 40 hours per week, maybe more, double shifts, and still live below the poverty level. these are the kinds of things that we want to remedy, to make sure that we do things to help lift wages, to allow for workers

to organize so they can bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. we can do better for ordinary americans. the way stuff has been growing in the united states of america particularly for people of color and people who lived in low-income communities, we can do better for everyone. let this be an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest. that is the goal of this president. i applaud him for that. host: pennsylvania. democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning. representative, i think joe biden's doing the best he can with all the democrats. we need expansion for medicare. because of dental. i went to the dentist the other day, $650 is what it cost me just to have one tooth pulled.

that's it. thank god my dentist was able to take a payment plan to help me out. i need full dentures. i'm not talking implants. dentures, top and bottoms, $9,555. host: congresswoman, your quick reaction. we know you need to go. guest: first of all i agree with you that the cost of these basics, sight, hearing, dental care, so important to have a normal life, to be able to mingle with people, to be able to go out. we need to bring those costs down, especially for our older americans. that's when we need it the most. that's what we are fighting for. and that's why we need to pass the build back better bill. host: congresswoman jan schakowsky, democrat of illinois. we appreciate your time. thank you. we'll let you go. the president is waiting. guest: thank you. host: we'll take a short break. when we come back we'll return

to this conversation and others. we'll open up the phone lines for an open forum. there they are on your screen. start dialing in now. ♪ >> american history tv. saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 8a.m. eastern on lectures in history, two discussions about american presidents. first, a professor talks about presidential speeches and public opinion from the 1970's through the 1990's. as communications shifted from network television to cable and then the internet. at 9:10, dickinson college professor o'connell exams presidential legacies. what factors contribute to making a successful presidential term. at 2 p.m. eastern on the

presidency, former assistant attorney general for the district of columbia, ron james, discusses his book, the truman court. law and the limits of loyalty. which he discusses whether president truman established the president for the plit politicization of the supreme court. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturday on c-span2. le ♪

>> "washington journal" continues. host: happening now on capitol hill, the president will be arriving if he hasn't already to talk to democratic lawmakers. you can see in the hallway many of them have already made their way into the room. some are still trickling in. reporters following them to try to get the latest on what will happen with the democrats and president biden's plan. pass a infrastructure bill as well as a social spending proposal. we are in an open forum here for the last hour of today's "washington journal." we'll keep you updated as the president talks to his party and tries to convince them to move forward on those two proposals. the president also will address the nation at 11:30a.m. eastern time. we'll have coverage of that. then he'll be heading off to rome for his international trip. i want to share some reporting already. this is billy house who covers capitol hill saying, remember the speaker's letter yesterday

saying she would ask the rules committee to hold a hearing today to advance this spectacular agenda for the people. well, that time for that meeting still has not been noticed. or posted. that would be for the reconciliation bill. also reporting, speculation is the speaker may bring the infrastructure bill, that bipartisan one that passed in the house, to the floor for a vote today. call it up. it does not need to go through rules. intense whipping has been taking place. focused on those progressives. biden may have a framework but it isn't enough for progress yefs. an aide for manchinima, they will not yet commit to voting for the bill. that's why you heard congresswoman jan schakowsky and progressives saying we want something signed by these 50 democrats that they have agreed to this framework that the president is about to pitch to

them and that they are going to for it. this is that is what is going to be discussed any minute on capitol hill. more reporting, big day, president biden speaking to the house democratic caucus at 9 per sources familiar. pelosi told members this week the house will vote on infrastructure today, but of course progressives are not yet onboard. that's a big part of joe biden's job. mary in grand rapids, michigan, democratic caller, good morning. caller: question. chicago, illinois -- host: say it again. caller: politicking in illinois -- host: the congresswoman. sorry. that was -- she's already left. she needed -- caller: did she leave? host: she needed to make it to the meeting to hear from the president. caller: ok. i'm delayed a little bit. ok. host: no worries. caller: i wanted to ask because she's from illinois, right? host: she's from illinois, yeah.

what did you hear from her? caller: how you doing? host: i'm well, thank you. caller: i guess i was going to ask her -- i'm going to say with the voting, i was going to ask her -- i know the build back better plan, which -- my question to her was, if we don't get the right to vote, i don't think anything is going to matter. we have a national security problem. i think we need to watch people overseas watch them fight icher other. we fighting each other here. we fighting each other here. they'll come over here and bomb us all. i'm having that threat right now. host: tony in palm beach gardens, florida, independent. open forum this morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. wanted to just touch on three quick things. number one, the social program spending. i think if democrats were smarter about it, and i'm liberal when it comes to some of these social programs, instead of trying to do everything in a

big package, make it into a lot of smaller bills. maybe just one item at a time. and force the republicans' hands. right now all of the heat is on the progressives and the moderates not coming together to do biden's agenda. there has to be a focus on the fact not one republican has beeg medicare and medicaid. doing something with family leave. making the child tax credit more permanent. i think you should do it in smaller packages so they can't hide say it's a big bill and don't know what's in it. number two, for 40 years we had a contract with the wealthiest of america that said we'll reduce tax that is allow you to stir growth and donate to philanthropic organizations. those will solve our social problems. 40 years later we still have higher income inequality and more entrenched social problems. if that didn't work, why is there such resistance against raising taxes back to just the

rates before the cut and using some of that revenue to help some of those that are working folks? final point is on voting rights. i understand that biden wants to plead for bipartisanship and everybody would like to return to things before the way -- last night a guy who he so firmly believes that the election was stolen and we are under some type of tyranny he gets on the microphone and says, when do we get to use the guns? when do we start killing people? and the host of that event, that conservative host, he didn't say, hey, no. we are not talking about violence. that's crazy. that's totally out of bounds. he says, you can't talk like that. you can't do stuff like that because that will result in some type of backlash and the government will really come down on you. we are dealing with a situation where we are trying to reason with unreasonable people. host: all right, tommy. i'm going to leave it there. we understand that president

left the white house shortly after 9a.m. eastern time en route to the capitol. you can see law lawmakers, democratic lawmakers, on the house side are preparing to meet with him. he is at the capitol from cnn's reporting. he's arrived for this meeting. reporting on capitol hill says unlike his last visit, many democrats hope biden arrives with a much more urgent call to action for liberals who are, again, bowing to block infrastructure if it doesn't move in tandem with the $1.5 trillion social spending bill. arkansas, democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i just had a couple points i'd like to just touch on in regards to republican or democratic party. i think it's maybe just time for the parties to have to pay a price. waiting for them to make

decision that is they can't seem to agree to. why don't they, for every year that they don't pass any bills or get anything resolved, they lose part of their wages over the time frame that within that year that -- each month that goes by they don't solve some of these issues we don't have in politics rather than constantly fighting back and forth. allow them to be able to take -- allow us to be able to vote to take some of their wages from them. host: ok. let's listen to democratic congresswoman alexanderrer ocasio-cortez of new york. here's the president, actually. let's just watch as the president makes his way to this meeting. we'll come back and show you that moment.

the president inside the u.s. capitol walking the hallways. and will end in the room with all the democratic lawmakers on the house side to try to convince them, according to reporting, specifically the progressives, that they need to vote for the infrastructure bill that he has a deal in hand with democratic senators on a social spending outline. listen to what alexandria ocasio-cortez said earlier this morning just before this meeting. aol are you still wanting tax before you release your vote on the infrastructure bill? >> i think we need to have certainty. either through legislative -- agreement that we can trust. because we have seen so many changes in this process. so many people, you know, yes, no. doing the hokie pokey, one foot in, one foot out.

we need certainty that we are going to be able to deliver. >> certainty to be clear doesn't have to be legislative -- it could be enough of a framework enough handshakes, those types of assurances. >> i think we need something a little bit more than just something on the back of an envelope. legislative texts -- i think we are open to other mechanisms. there needs to be something more than the back of an envelope. >> what about the bully pulpit of the president coming in and saying i need this. i need your vote. i need you -- >> well, first and foremost, passing this alone i think is a positive message. having a plan to draw down a mission and invest in environmental infrastructure in this country. thank you. host: congresswoman ocasio-cortez. just moments ago. she is now in the room with the president as he is selling her and the other progressives on

this framework of a deal that he has with senate democrats specifically senators manchin and sinema. airy ferries was saying in her reporting, senior democrats doubt liberals will actually block the bill, that's the infrastructure bill, if there is a solid deal. as of last night we are told senator sanders, the budget chair, still not onboard, and he's told congresswoman jayapal, the chair of the congressional progressive caucus, he supports their position. let's hear from bob in florida, independent. bob, good morning to you. caller: good morning. it's very interesting to call and talk to you. one thing i have is criticism of not just you, but people that look after the interviews. you twice -- i have been on mute for the last 14 minutes so i don't know what's been going on other than what's over the

phone. you don't demand your people to whom you are talking direct answers. yes or no. i think the democrats, 99.9% never answer the question directly. the 95% of the republicans don't answer it directly, either. it would be nice if somebody answered the question. you had two questions asked of the lady that you were interviewing. plus there was a comment you asked her to reply yes or no. and she never did make an answer. but that's my problem with politicians. they don't know how to answer yes or no when that's all the answer you needed. that's all. thank you very much. i enjoy your program. host: eugene, florida. we'll go to you. caller: it's bill from florida. host: sorry, bill. go ahead. caller: i want to talk about the fraud that's being committed on tv by wellcare. they say they pay for hearing

and batteries and all that stuff. they don't. they are lying to you. they say they pay $1,000 an ear per hearing aids, you need a $6,000 pair of hearing aids before you do it and you are still obligated for $4,000. i bought a pair from a reputable audiologist for $600. they refuse to repay the $600. i tried to save them money. they say no, that's not right. we want to pay the $2,000 so you have to pay the $4,000. that don't make sense to me. host: ok. jeff in california. democratic caller. jeff, good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question is, why are we constantly focusing on taxing wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals when they just have the means to hire lawyers to go out and find loopholes in the new system. instead of focusing a fair taxation on americans and all

corporations at a flat tax and taking time to push through a meaningful, sound budget policy? host: hold on jeff. let's listen in on this conversation. >> that you support. >> yeah. >> we need to -- we need to keep the promise that was made. we have been very clear. we need to see the two bills simultaneously together. if there is urgency in getting this done, the senators need to understand that urgency as well and move as urgent as they want us to move so we can get -- >> what if the president says, congresswoman, i need your vote before i -- we need some agreement on this. can't that be enough? what about the power of the presidency, the bully pulpit? >> we can have the agreement. we can send the president off with an agreement.

it. host: congresswoman omar there of minnesota saying they want to see these bills -- she would like to see these bills voted on at the same time. they send the president off with an agreement that there is a deal. doesn't sound like she wants to vote on infrastructure first and then social spending. she wants to see these two bills move at the same time and a vote happening at the same time. paul in friendship, wisconsin, independent. we'll go to you. good morning. caller: good morning. actually i don't know if i would have been a democrat or an independent on this one. but i listen to all these republican trumpite congressmen and they are going after biden about afghanistan, the withdrawal and all that. president trump, who dumped these kurds, he left them

stranded. what would he have done with all the one from afghanistan? they are all pretty much muslim over there, too? host: paul in wisconsin. part of this conversation also includes highway funding and a deadline that is fast approaching on october 31. eugene, who is a senior congressional reporter with transit topics joining us to talk about this. what is the deadline that faces lawmakers on surface transportation? what are you hearing about when they will vote or how they will vote on this? guest: yeah. the deadline is october 31, which is sunday. and that is when the authorization for the current highway law, the country's premiere federal policies directive for highways and surface transportation expires, and my sources tell me that probably as early as today the speaker's office is going to

have some sort of legislation that would extend the authority, extend the approval of that law sometime either in a short term or maybe into december. the i idea -- the idea in des will be to coincide with other deadlines with the government funding and the debt ceiling. the transportation leaders, my reporting tells me, the idea is to buy more time for negotiators to finalize the budget wreck sill yition bill, the infrastructure bill, while the physical infrastructure, heightway bill, which is in that $1.2 trillion physical infrastructure legislation, after the president meets with his caucus today, they have time to negotiate and tee up both of them because the idea continues to be to have a parallel voting

track for both the highway bill, which is in the infrastructure bill, as well as the budget reconciliation bill. we are looking at an extension that will be several weeks. again sometime in early december for the highway bill. host: what happens if this is not passed? if this deadline comes and goes? guest: there is the real potential for aspects of the work force of the u.s. department of transportation to be furloughed. quick sidebar, press secretary jen psaki yesterday said that if not the white house intention to see any furloughs at u.s. d.o.d. that the clear indication there is going some sort of an extension in the works to avoid those furloughs. not the entire work force would be furloughed. some employees are paid via existing funds through a federal highway transportation account, but some of the work force. and the other potential is that

there would be state departments of transportations around the country who would be forced to halt or delay improvement projects that they have in the works. this is because they still rely on some obligatory and authorization funding at the federal level to continue, as well as start maintenance projects as well as big-ticket projects. not just for surface transportation, but also for transit systems. and if you take -- the highway bill has been touted by stakeholders in the transportation industry. we are talking not only the business communities, the construction sector, the as well as the unions all of them do see potential benefits to the economy with passage of the highway bill that would be 347-some billion dollars for

highway programs alone over five years. and the community concerned about the supply chain, see potential benefits in money that will be dedicated for infrastructure projects at the ports, essentially, via earmarks and grants that for that money to in the near term begin to facilitate the transfer and transport of products at the ports, which, again, goes into alleviating the concerns over the supply chain. host: eugene, has the president meets behind closed doors with house democrats, what are you watching for out of this meeting when it comes to this highway bill? guest: i'm watching exactly to see how they maneuver the social infrastructure package, the budget resolution -- budget

reconciliation package. once they have a sign for that, either schumer or pelosi outline a timeline for considering the reconciliation budget bill on the floors, then that would really tell me exactly when they intend to pass the highway bill, the highway infrastructure bill. in the meantime, i continue to hear from transportation stakeholders as to the lobbying and the pressure that they are putting to the transportation leaders on capitol hill to remind them of the potential impacts, adverse impacts it would have if they don't have some sort of a long-term, multiyear approval of a highway bill because of real concern from the transportation community, not only the state d.o.t.'s, but the other transportation players, they have seen this movie before when congress does short-term authorizations of highway

programs, and when they do that, that -- the state d.o.t.'s say that limits their ability to plan for projects on a long term basis. there is some really big-ticket items around the country and the new york area, l.a. area, etc. that the departments of transportation want to begin and want to finalize, but they say they need a reliable federal partner to have a multiyear commitment with funding in order to do that. host: eugene with the transport topic, senior congressional reporter. follow his reporting on t. tt news.com. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we are in open forum here as the president is on capitol hill meeting with the house democrats to try to push for a vote on infrastructure today. as you heard from eugene, the

highway funding as well. and tell them that he has a deal on spending proposal. listen to what the progressive caucus chair, congresswoman jayapal, told reporters just before 9a.m. before she walked into the meeting with the president. >> in terms of there is a vote on infrastructure today what you need and -- >> what we have said, consistently, we want to see what's actually in the bill. we want to see the legislative text. assuming we are fine with that, we'll vote both fills bills through at the same time. >> the problem with respect to a lot of framework agreement, is that enough? >> i think that will show tremendous momentum. but we want to see the actual text because we don't want any confusion, misunderstanding, my understanding is that the framework is very general. so let's turn it into legislative text. if 90% of the text is already written as the speaker has said, then it should be very quick.

we can do it anywhere from two to seven days. we should be able to get it done. >> have you reviewed an outline? >> i have not reviewed an outline. but i have a good idea of what's in the outline. >> what was said yesterday without paid family leave and other priorities, medicare expansion, dental is that something that you could vote for? >> we just have to see what's in it at the end of the day because it's very again jen right now. it's -- general right now. it's still very, very general. on climate without talking about what it's going to it's difficult for us to make an assessment. >> senator sanders said it was inconceivable he could support this as currently written. now we are hearing he encouraged you guys to stand firm on the infrastructure vote. have you had a conversation with him in the last 12 or so hours? what is the strategy between the two chambers? >> i have spoken to him. i'm not going to say what we talked about.

i think that he has -- obviously he has some concerns. i want to see the text. i want to see what's actually in it because it's very difficult to make a decision on anything without seeing what's in it. and i think that's what we need to do now. see the next and then we'll -- hopefully we can get everyone onboard assuming it's a good bill. >> do you have an understanding of a top line or any broad -- >> my understanding it's the same what the president has said, $1.75, to $1.9 depending on immigration. >> the reconciliation bill to clear the senate before the house votes on this bipartisan infrastructure bill? >> no. we had wanted that. there are still some members who want that to be fully franc -- frank. i think we could get to a place that with real assurances that the senate will pass this and the president has assurances that we would be able to, with the text, we would be able to

vote both bills out of the house. >> do you need assurances that the senate won't change the reconciliation bill? >> that has to be a part of it. whether those assurances are coming from the president or from the two senators -- i'm willing to -- he's our president. if he says he's gotten those assurance sureses -- i don't know if i can get everyone to that place, we would have to trust him at that point. not without passing the two bills out of the house. host: the leader of the progressive party there, congresswoman jayapal, saying that her members of this caucus would like to see a vote, in tandem, of both infrastructure and the social spending proposal. but they need to see text and they need to know that all 50 democrats are onboard. when she said she doesn't know if she can get everybody to that place, that echos reporting by natalie andrews who said, biden will have to make a good pitch. one progressive house democrat estimates that 40 lawmakers were

ready to oppose the infrastructure bill. if it came to the floor without a vote on the social spending and the climate bill. greg in texas, democratic caller. good morning. what's on your mind? caller: good morning. you there? host: yeah. we are listening. caller: ok. i got about four things i'd like to say. look, what's going on with the telecommunication and all the phones and internet and all this going on, they are mad because the fact that history in americp you can find anything you want on telephones and getting the true history about what's going on in this country and stick to your phone. what they want to do is blame it on the kids that they teaching critical racism in the schools, but, no, what it is is true history has been read on the phones how much we contribute to this country and they want to deny us. when ted cruz sitting up there

talking about how the -- they are talking about how the democrats are doing this and doing that, he ain't have no politicsing that money for the electric grid here in texas when biden and ms. harris gave all that money to them to build a mountain, they still raising our electric bill. where all that money going? that's ted cruz point. my other point is, they don't have a problem when it comes to in our town, people that's on medicaid and retired, not just welfare and food stamp, but don't want to work, they don't have a problem signature here, can buy a mobile home. you can't put -- you can put two mobile homes on that land, and once you move try to upgrade your mobile home, you can't put another mobile home on your land then after two homes, then you build a duplex or house. so many lots around here and this land around here that

people own they can't put another mobile home there but they don't have a problem selling to the realtors -- host: got it. cnn tweeting out, biden is including $555 billion for climate and clean energy measures in his economic climate agenda framework released this morning. if passed it would be the largest legislative investment in combating climate change. david in birmingham, alabama, independent. hi. caller: good morning. couple questions. first of all, i'm for all the things that the democrats are trying to do. and also here in the city of birmingham, which is in 2019 we had 30% of the people that live in the city of birming birmingham made $7.25 an hour. i'm for all those things he trying to do. i think biden is building the house start with the roof first. i think they should start with the foundation. the foundation of this party

should be the voting. i live here in jefferson county. the last election we had, we had 30,000 folks name was purged from the voting list. that would have been probably enough votes within the county, if those names had not been purged from the voting list, we probably could have had jones back in the white house. lastly we need to work with that shelby county bill that we have in there. again, we starting wrong. we putting the top on the house which we should start building with the foundation. we should be able -- once you become a registered voter, you should be able -- like a social security card, you should be able to vote from not your name after you miss two time of voting your name would be purged from the voting list. again. host: got it. a lot of focus this morning on progressives in the house and whether or not they are going to go along with the president as he makes his pitch to them right

now behind closed doors. there is also the moderate faction of the democratic party in the house led by congressman gottheimer who had been negotiating as well with the speaker's office. saying he wasn't going to vote and the moderates of the problem solvers -- moderates of the democratic party were not going to vote for the social spending bill unless they got a vote on this infrastructure bill. the bipartisan one. he talked to reporters real briefly this morning before he went to listen to the president. here's what he had to say. >> can you tell us what you are expecting from the infrastructure bill? are you expecting an infrastructure bill. >> that's hopefully why we are here today. see where the president is. for me i i'm -- host: you heard him there. almost got a red bull. kelly in dennison, ohio, republican. hi. caller: good morning, greta. thank you.

i am curious about why don't they just tax the rich and then let that money start coming in and then spend it? i don't understand why we do it this way. why do we spend it before we get it. thank you. host: got it. michelle, statten island, new york. independent. we'll go to you. caller: hi. i am very frustrated. i did call on the independent line but i'm a democrat, but i'm awfully frustrated. what the in the h.e. double hockey sticks are we doing? we have the senate, we have the house. bigger than that we have the president. and yet it's like pulling teeth to get something done. we need to work on the voting. without the voting rights, we have nothing. to get everything else, work on the voting rights. because if you can't vote, you can't do anything.

that is the most important thing. and i am so frustrated with this. host: what are you saying there is a priority, they don't have their priorities right? they shouldn't even be worrying about this infrastructure, childcare, tax credit, and climate change proposals, none of that is a priority for you? caller: of course it is. but the most important thing, more than that -- that's right. the priority here is the voting rights. if we cannot -- we have everybody. we have it all, the democrats. i know i called in on an independent line because i'm frustrated. what are we going to do here? we don't -- host: if you -- if democrats lose numbers in 2022, you are worried nothing happens on voting rights. this is the one thing they can get passed before 2022. caller: exactly. i understand. to me it's the john lewis voting right, that bill, get it on the president's desk.

let's go with this. nothing else will matter to me. host: understood your point. today's meeting, no phones are allowed in the house democratic meeting with the president. lewis in north carolina, democratic caller. hi. caller: hi, top of the morning to you guys. this has been kind of frustrating knowing that i'm a black american and i do know the multipoint thing right -- most important thing right now is the voting. nobody wants to talk about t they want to continue to kick this can down the road like manchin and sinema. they come with the craziest things not to vote on some particular issue dealing with build back better. what happened to let's make america great american? wouldn't that make america great again? what about let's vote with john lewis? wouldn't that make america great again? all these things that you get with the megapeople, they --

maga people, they didn't want america to be great again. they was only speaking for one group of people of making it better. but don't they know if they pass the big build back better-dirnl' talking about all people of color, the last time i checked a box a can rolla crayon, white was in that box. that means all people of color would profit off of what america's trying to do for their people. so the republicans, i don't know why the republicans are not talking about republicans not voting on this thing, they voted 19 republicans voted for build back better for infrastructure, but they don't want to vote for their own constituents in their own city that is poor and needy. something is wrong with that, republicans. host: all right. john bresnahan, long time

reporter on capitol hill treat tweeting out, house democratic leaders will begin formally whipping the bipartisan infrastructure bill after this meeting with biden when it's over. that sounds like it could be heading to the floor soon. burgess saying sin why ma, biden have a deal consistent with the proposal authored by congressman scott bet peeteers with some edits in the influence space to further lower cost for consumers. decision was left with house leadership and chairman pallone last night. these are some of the deals negotiated wheen the white house and senators manchin and sinema. pbs is reporting, the vatican has canceled the planned live broadcast of president joe biden's meeting with pope francis. canceled with any live coverage of him greeting the pope in the thrown room and sitting down to begin their private talks. president biden's agenda today

includes this meeting right now on capitol hill. 11:30a.m. addressed to the nation. you can find it on our website. c-span.org. he's supposed to be wheels up on his way over r overseas for that meeting with -- overseas for that meeting with the pope as well as the climate change summit. burgess all right reporting at 9:23a.m. this morning. sinema reached prescription drug noacialtation deal with biden. it faces skepticism. currently not in the framework. a lot of details still being worked on on capitol hill. burt, louisiana, republican. good morning. burt, we are in an open forum, what's on your mind? let me move on to joe in new jersey. republican. hi. caller: good morning. first i have a question for you. miss, i hope i pronounce -- the

congresswoman in the progressive woman. she washington state or washington, d.c.? would you tell me. host: she's washington state. congresswoman jayapal, washington state. caller: washington state. ok. the problem with all of this is, there is nowhere else to say this, the democrats have lied since day one on everything they said. number one, they had an agreement between -- which nobody knew about, i guess, between schumer and manchin for $1.5. he agreed to $1.5. no more. it was a signed agreement in july. am i correct on that? that's a true statement? host: i don't know about a signed agreement. but senator manchin has been saying 1.5 trillion for the social spending. it sounds like, though, he has compromised and gone up to at least 1.75 trillion. caller: right. you just said i think a couple minutes ago that the climate thing of $555 billion i think is what you said. there is no way that he would

vote for that. because he would be voted out in two seconds in west virginia because it kills coal. there is no way that would pass. number two, the thing about putting in your -- credit for your local taxes was an agreement between a republican congressman from long island and a.o.c., a democrat that they all would not support any bill that came out without, i forget what they call it, your local taxes would be -- host: the salt. caller: yeah. salt, thank you very much. would be included in the bill. it's not in the bill. they have lied since day one on everything they said, every agreement. that's why none of this works. that's why none of it works because the democrats themselves don't even live up to their own agreements. host: all right. cnn tweeting out that dick durbin, the democrat from illinois, number 2 democrat in the senate, told reporters he's

unsure if all 50 senate democrats will get behind the framework as it was publicly announced. quote, no. i wish i could say yes. but there is a great deal of uncertainty within the caucus what's contained in the deal. annie, fairfax, california, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm up early to bring up an issue that might divert from what i know, greta, you want to talk about the progressive -- host: it's an open forum. i'm keeping you updated on what's happening on capitol hill. it's an open forum. go ahead. caller: ok. my issue is abortion, which i think is a wet blanket for a lot of people. they don't want to hear about it. but i feel like it's not just my body, my choice, it's two bodies it's a horrible choice that i have personal experience with. and i just think it damages

women in a psychological way also. so i would beg people to take a look, just open your mind a little bit. i probably should be in on an independent line because i don't know all the phone numbers that well. i'm not really a democrat. i'm not a republican, either. host: grove town, georgia, democratic caller. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i think i can answer the question why are the republicans all for the infrastructure bill but not for the social part of it. host: all right. ok. caller: and i think it's because the first part, the bill that will fix roads and bridges and everything, absolutely helps corporations because, after all, that means the taxpayers are paying to fix roads and make

sure that they can get their trucks places easier. they can also have broadband. that way a company can make money and the taxpayers' setting it all up for them. that's why they -- the republicans are all for that. if you really look at these bills, it seems to me that whatever the republicans are for, they are going to be for anything that helps the corporations or the wealthy. and basically we are going to pick up the tab on that. host: a policy editor with nbc tweeting out, left leaning wongs are freaking out over inadequate subsidies for childcare seem to have mostly won for white house plan. there is a cutoff but at 250% of state median income. senate telling me to expect 150% as recently as this month. karen in michigan. independent.

caller: how are you. i just wanted to comment. it seems people are under the illusion that the democrats have the senate and the congress. people on the right they worry about rhinos, and it's clear we have a couple of dinos. the sinema, manchin combo is going to screw up anything that the democrats want to do. that's just -- it's that simple. we do not have the senate if sinema-manch will play ball and really, they are more republican than they are a democrat. and both of them have two different streets that they want to go down. i agree with the other caller that this really gets down to what's more important is voting

rights. we have a sleeping majority in this country. they are eligible to vote. but they don't vote. and we have to wake up that sleeping majority. so that two people like sinema-manch cannot hold the democratic process hostage. if you expect help from the republicans, good luck. their whole purpose is not to govern. especially when there is a democrat in the white house. that's their whole purpose is to obstruct. host: tarians, i want to get your -- terrence, i want to get your reaction to this. jake of bunch bowl news, tweeting out the leaders' floor update from this morning. at the bottom, it gives the legislative business, they are coming in in about 10 minutes, at the bottom says, members are advised votes are expected today. additionally the house may consider the senate amendment to h.r. 3684, the infrastructure

investment in jobs act, that bipartisan bill. noting this is very optimistic. are you there? we'll go to our next caller. josephine, new jersey. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. when they wanted to get rid of the family leave act in the state of new jersey for -- 20 years, we have 12 weeks of paid leave and how we finance it, you put in money into the unemployment fund. it comes out that way. the employers when it first came out they were so afraid, oh, they are going to be laysy, they are going to want to stay home. none of it ever, ever happened. people legitimatey have -- legitimatey people have -- gem democrat legitimately. people -- look at new jersey. we have been doing it for years.

host: josephine, how upset are you it went from 12 to 4 and now it's out completely. caller: it's upsetting because i'll use myself as an example. i pay for my health care in the sense that it costs me $80,000 a year to live in my home, to have an aide in my house. i worked all my life for 51 years. i don't complain about it. thank god i'm a good saver and i worked all my life. but there are many people who are not in my position. and i -- my heart bleeds for them. why should they be treated with such indignity to just be thrown out and have nobody care for them? why? because it will hurt the home care industry? that's my feeling about it. host: denver, colorado. independent. caller: yeah. i want to say that the problem we are having here in america republican propaganda machine.

they spew lies and want to say the democrats are lying. they go out there, nobody has said the borders are opened come in. but the republicans and the republican news channel, fox news, those are the one that is spew all that out there. and they are the ones that tell the people that our borders are open or they are going to take your guns away. we are not going to do any of that. so the republican propaganda machine is what's causing all these problems. this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. what needs to happen is -- hello? host: we are listening. for the people. by the people. caller: for the people. the voting thing is the most important thing right now. if they take our voting rights away from us, people have to realize that a lot of republican voters don't vote within their economic means or don't vote for candidates that are similar to the economic means. if people voted according to their economics, we would have a country that provides for the

elderly, provides for the young. but it doesn't do that right now. democracy, when i attend local democratic functions, there are two or three people that don't agree they have to go along with what the rest of the people voted for. the rest of the 48 senators. they should go along with the democratic party. joe manchin and sinema are just as big obstructionists as mitch mcconnell. host: what do you think they should do -- would you like to see them leave the party? if this all falls apart. and the president doesn't get this infrastructure bill or social spending bill? caller: i'd like for them to come to their senses and vote with the rest of the democratic party. i don't want them to leave the party. i want them to vote with what the party votes as a majority. all of us are voting for a certain thing, they should get onboard with that and not be the constructionist holding everything up. first we had to deal with mitch mcconnell and the republican obstructionist. now we are dealing with the democratic ok struksists. they have to come to their senses and realize what's best

for america and vote what the democrats have voted for. the majority rules. and the two or three people that don't agree they have to go along with it. if it goes to the other side it doesn't make it better. host: you heard congresswoman schakowsky said they should lose their seats. caller: that's their opinion. if we could put another democrat in there and still maintain and keep our house and senate, but if we can't, we have to leaf them in there and we have to -- they have to come to their sense answer realize what's best for the americans and people. the voting rights, people have to realize they have to vote for the candidates that are most like them once we start voting that way. there is a lot of republicans that live in a trailer home and are making less than $30,000 and $40,000 a year and still they vote republican. i don't understand. host: ginger, riverside, california. independent. caller: hello. host: good morning. are you on the air. caller: yes. i'm curious am i incorrect. could not biden just executive

order on both these bills? or am i missing something? host: i'm not sure he could do that. this is pretty far-reaching legislation that they are talking about. caller: ok. i just hope that it does get through for all americans. i truly do. thank you so much. host: which legislation? infrastructure? social spending? both? caller: together. yes. and be done with it. this will help our country, period. absolutely. host: taylorsville, kentucky. republican. hi. caller: yes, ma'am. as far as voting and everything. there is too much fraud in mail-in ballots which, i vote in person. people they look at your i.d. when you do mail-in ballots nobody checks an i.d. as far as the democrats go, the people don't care about us. you got people that have been in there for 40 years and still done nothing. children dying every day. school shootings. they just can't protect us. they can but they won't.

i don't understand. why our country is the way it is anymore. women and children should come first. host: grand rapids, michigan. independent. caller: yes. greta, how are you? host: i'm well. caller: long time, no talk to, greta. here's what i have to say. what is the difference between build back better, and make america great american? they both seem to be revisionist statement. issued by people who want to look in the require view -- rear-view mirror. when it's all said and done, if we can't get together on this, i guess we'll get together on something. greta, i got what the world needs. 1119 spirit words of wisdom. barnes & noble. no amazon. thank you very much. have yourself a blessed morning. host: thanks, al. kevin, washington, d.c. democratic caller. caller: good morning.

i'm with a member schakowsky. you can't trust these people that are like mini trumps, or wannabe kings. we don't have loyalties in this coni -- royalties in this country. we need to get everything in writing. host: kevin there repeating what congresswoman jan schakowsky told us. we also heard from the leader of the progressive caucus that they and congresswoman, alexandria ocasio-cortez, they want to see in writing, some sort of guarantee from the sticky democratic senators that they are onboard with this deal on a social spending proposal. what the president right now is telling them, according to reports, is details, as many as he can, of that agreement. progressives, though, in order to move forward with the vote on infrastructure are saying that

they want an absolute commitment, maybe it's -- you heard it from the progressive caucus chair, bill text that the 50 democratic senators can sign off on before they vote for infrastructure bill. you also heard congresswoman omar saying that they want to vote in tandem. in the house. they want these two pieces of legislation voted on at the same time. according to the leadership alert of the floor agenda today, they are about to gavel in in any minute, it includes a possible vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. it does not say, because they don't have the legislative text yet, anything about a social spending bill. more details to come as house democrats meet behind closed doors up on capitol hill with president biden. kevin in d.c., democratic caller, what do you think of all this, kevin? caller: you talking to me? host: sorry. go on to jeff, missouri. republican. hi, jeff. your turn.

caller: good morning, greta. i just want to state that with the conditions on the border and the fence materials already being there, being shut down, and the money wasted, how can we do social programs with the society we don't even know the size of the number of people coming in? the idea that we don't get control of the border and then maybe help the people of the united states so we actually have a number of human beings that we are trying to help, not a fluctuating number of human beings we are trying to help. and the idea of voting rights, everybody has the right to vote. they just need to get up off their ass and vote. host: cnn, 9:55, a couple minutes ago, reporting democratic members say president biden is touting the benefits of the bill and urging members to vote for both bills. he has not said yet if senators joe manchin and sinema are

backing the framework. this according to congresswoman anna eshoo. nate in miami, independent. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you. first time caller. thank you for doing this. i have a couple points. for america, we need term limits for these senators. they are not getting stuff done. we have to do it within a reasonable time. you can't do it every two years because they won't get anything done. give them two terms, four years, or eight years. if they don't get anything done, get them out, put someone else back in. then the next one, the infrastructure bill needed. we need to improve our roads. if you go to other countries you see how they build -- you go to europe you see their train system, their buses, their transportation department in other countries move better than

ours. we are stuck in the ages. in the past. we need this infrastructure bill to work on that. i think that's important. and the john lewis voting bill needs to pass. host: all right. fox news reporting, democrats coming out of this meeting with president say framework for social spending bill is good. but they need specifics. remember, president biden came to the hill in late september wanting a deal. he likely leaves today again without a concrete deal. ethel in louisiana, democratic caller. we'll try to squeeze you in. the house is about to gavel in. make it quick. caller: hi, greta. i'm asking we need another female. host: all right. we'll leave it there on that note. the house is coming in for their legislative session. our live coverage right here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the na