, tutorials or just how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. >> download the new mobile app and stay up-to-date with live video coverage from live streams of the house, senate floor and see congressional hearings good even our live interactive morning program where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download today. ♪

host: it has been over 10 months in office and vice president harris has been seen in her constitutional role as president of the senate, a rule that could come into play in the weeks ahead. but critics, republicans, democrats and the media, have raised concerns over her other priorities from the president overseeing migrant and border issues, pushing for voting issues and reform, and what that means for the success of the biden administration and her political future. it is sunday, november 28, 2021. welcome to "washington journal." this first hour we will ask you to grade the vice president's performance, how you think it rates. the lines are (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, independents and others that is (202)-748-8002. you can text us at (202)-748-8003. make sure you tell us your name and where you are from. we are on facebook and welcome your posts on twitter and instagram @c-spanwj.

so your grade for the performance of vice president kamala harris. there are polls on this and on the 538 they put them together in an average and this is the latest as of last week. this is an average reported by 538.com. do americans approve or disapprove of kamala harris? the average is 51.9% disapprove and approval rate 40.5%. the headline from an opinion piece from cnn, exasperation and dysfunction. inside kamala harris' frustrating start as vice president. an incumbent vice president should be a shoe in the next time the nomination is open. guessing who might launch a

theoretical primary challenge to harris has become an ongoing game. they are privately acknowledging how to quietly lay the groundwork if and when harris falters, and they think she might. the reality is more complex and looks different to people more familiar with how the white house works. harris is the first vice president in decades to come into office with less experience than the president and finding her footing was always going to be hard. presidents vice presidents and their staff often clash. obama staffers tended to be dismissive of biden staffers, a number of whom are now with him in the west wing.

democrats, your line is (202)-748-8000. for republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents and others, (202)-748-8002. we mentioned one of the areas where the vice president has been assigned to spearhead is in the area of is pushing for voting rights reform on capitol hill. here is a comment on that from the vice president. [video clip] >> the united states senate and members of the senate had an opportunity to uphold the importance of every american's right to exercise the right to vote. and when presented with this opportunity the democrats unanimously upheld the importance of that right and the republicans, sadly, unanimously failed to do so. we are not going to give up. we are not deterred but there is a lot of work to do and i think it is a sad day. i thought the majority leader

senator schumer spoke well in reminding us of america's history. and sadly we have seen these moments before. i would like to think we have evolved as a nation and we would not have to return to a moment where the united states senate would have to debate, yet in this situation fail, to move forward protections as it relates to the right to vote. we are not want to give up, we have never given up those who have fought for the right of every american to express their voice through their vote. we will continue to do the work. host: that was after the senate failed to move forward on voting rights legislation. our opening question is to grade the vice president's job so far. this is kathleen in illinois on the democrat side. far. this is kathleen in illinois on the democrat side. caller: how are you doing? host: find thank you. caller: i am not understanding this question, how is her performance.

so far, her and joe biden have commented taken over the reins. they came in behind a do nothing president, a do nothing republican congress, a do nothing republican senate. these two people are coming in with an agenda. they are going to help the american people, democrats, republicans and independents. how could they even ask this woman's performance? for the four years trump was in office and since he has been out what has the republican party done but say no to everything? i know you're getting ready to cut me off but they should get together and work together. this is not a democrat or republican united states. you work with the people who put

you in office. this woman can only do so much. she is only the vice president. president biden is doing everything in his power. what is stopping the democrats from helping everybody is two republicans playing like they democrats, joe manchin and kyrsten sinema. if they would get out of the way, the american people would see what these people are doing. when you say the senate is not working just say the republican senate is not doing anything and the two democrats that are supposed to be democrats are not doing they job. host: to kathleen's first point, we have asked of through many administrations and probably not just once to ask you to grade the performance of the person elected as vice president or president. this is nothing new for the program to ask. we do it from time to time

during every administration. florida, terrence on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: i would most definitely have to say i am a bit disappointed in joe biden and his administration. they actually ran upon they were going to straighten out the capitol and hold everybody accountable. these investigations have already pinpointed what is going on. if i was a politician, i would be running on the truth instead of the lie. i would keep my word and make sure i carried out my duties like barack obama done. i am a little disappointed with kamala harris and joe biden but i think it is a whole lot better than what it was in the beginning. they inherited a total mess.

we are still having problems down here in florida, major problems in florida. the first law should be a law against lying and every politician should be in jail for lying. host: appreciate your comments. our open question is about the vice president's performance. on twitter, before vice president harris was assigned to the crisis of the southern border republican leaders were there daily for photo ops. that is all stopping, proving she has fixed it. i give vice president harris a high rating. this one says, she would have to do a job to receive a grade. she was given one year to come up with a solution for the southern border and has failed miserably. she received an unexcused absence for the year. this headline says, why are

kamala harris' approval ratings lower than biden's? they ranked vice president favorability and job approval ratings are based on how the president is doing. there is no reason to think that has changed with harris despite the historic nature of her vice presidency. "i think there is plenty of people who don't know who she is. even if they do they don't know what she is doing or not doing." she said, "vice presidents just don't break through." and the current polarization of politics probably limits the ceilings of president's and vice presidents in ways that was not the case. johnny on the independent line in boston. good morning. caller: good morning.

i have been a democrat my whole life up until, and this is how strongly i feel, because i was involved with aggressive legislation most of my life. when harris talked about -- host: johnny, make sure you meet your volume. i think you're getting a little confused. caller: yet, i have got it way down. i'm sorry. when harris interview -- i don't even know the name -- what she did to the supreme court nominee in front of his wife and children and how vicious she went against this man, the next

day after that hearing -- and i have been watching c-span for years and i love it because this is what gets me all my information on both sides of an argument -- when she got through with that man the next day i went to city hall and i changed my affiliation. i went to people that i knew and said, this woman is, i don't want to say vicious, but this woman will do anything to get some recognition. booker, who i respected, actually followed her with her comments to kavanaugh which i thought was disgraceful. host: were you surprised joe biden selected kamala harris as his running mate? caller: you know, i love joe biden. joe biden is the type of guy

that works from the street up and that is where i came from. and i could not understand -- and i can only go by age -- in politics you have to go with the person you think you are going to get the most from. especially, she tried doing a job on him almost calling him a racist. she went after something like that which, to me, it tells us something about the personality. all you have to do is look in their eyes. most politicians -- because i have dealt with a lot of them -- you can look in their eyes and tell the type of person they are. host: john on the republican line in ohio. go ahead. caller: i would like to say good morning. host: good morning. caller: and c-span is wonderful

and long live the republic. i am going to give the vice president harris an "a." she called president biden a racist. we witness to this and he was correct in picking her because politics is all an act. and she has done a wonderful job. we may not agree with what we have seen now but personally her achievements have been remarkable. this is a challenge for the republicans or any other party that may come up in the republic. a chance to do better than what we are witnessing now. a chance to do better than what we are witnessing now. i look forward to her performance whatever it may be, whatever it may be. but in the field of politics she has accomplished a lot. granted, granted you can read

about women of her ilk in the bible. it is all through a man. everything she has done is through a man, m-a-n. i look forward to more of her performance and i look forward to c-span doing extensive coverage of what you been doing. i would like to compliment you and your performance and long live the republic. thank you. host: our opening question is to ask you, how would you grade the job performance of vice president kamala harris so far? the lines are for democrats, (202)-748-8000. for republicans (202)-748-8001 and for independents and others (202)-748-8002. we mentioned one of the roles she fulfilled, the constitutional role, is presiding over the senate as the president of the senate and the

senate ahead could be taking up the president's build back better plan. here's a piece on that from the hill, five ways the senate could change biden's spending plan. they write president biden's climate and social spending plan is facing an overhaul in the senate where democrats are splitting with house counterparts on key provisions. though house democrats stress they are in agreement on large parts of the bill senate democrats are not being shy about outlining how they plan to change the bill once it comes up. "there are going to be changes," and any changes in the senate will force the bill to go back to the house where they will have to decide whether they can live with the updated draft. details of the bill also need to

pass muster with the senate parliamentarian and republicans are able to force amendment vote during a chaotic floor debate with a could get changes into the bill if they are able to peel off one democratic senator. the senate back in session as is the house next week. follow the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. on the democrat line in seattle, washington, harmon, how would you grade vice president harris? caller: yes, i would grade her "a+." host: tell me why. caller: i watch c-span all the time and i have been watching it for years and i never heard you ask a question like that. host: we have done it in the past. we have pretty much done it with every administration. caller: pretty much but, you know, i don't know how you can come up with that question.

what do you grade yourself on? host: that is what we are asking you, the audience, to grade. there are polls rating the vice president, there are reporters supporting her. caller: i would give her a+ because no matter what she does there are going to be these haters, these right-wingers you understand, calling in and running her down. no matter what she does they are going to call in and run her down, you know it and i know it. the last thing i got to say is give her a break. host: jim calling from massachusetts on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: yes, i want to tell you

the vice president is doing an awesome job. she is doing a great job. i think she is great. she was a great pick for biden to take her and i was hoping for elizabeth warren to win in 2020 but that did not happen. nevertheless, she is great. she needs to be given a chance. i remember when they elected newt gingrich and all you heard was, give them a chance. give kamala harris a chance. give the first woman vice president -- someday she might be the president and i think that is awesome. i think she would be a great president. i think she would be one of the best if not the best. can't be any worse than what we had the previous four years with

trump. she is doing great and i don't understand what the controversy is all about. host: to our republican and ray in webster, new york. caller: yes, about kamala harris, i think she is doing a terrible job. when she went to the border all she did was laugh and the border issue is a serious issue. the next time people come over i think there should be no people allowed for so many years. too many people coming over and we are paying taxes where they live, go to school and everything. this is a bunch of bunk about labor.

it is not going to fix everything in america. nancy is going to siphon a lot of money for her personal use. so, kamala harris is not doing a good job. host: ray talked about the vice president's efforts on the border. she was tasked by president biden to oversee the administration's response to border issues. this is what she told reporters about her visit back in june of this year. [video clip] >> this has been a very important trip. this has been a trip that is also connected with the obvious point. if you want to deal with the problem, you can't just deal with the symptom, you have got to figure out what caused it to happen. which is why after taking a

leadership role one of the first trips i took was to guatemala and mexico to see on the ground there what is happening in terms of the concern of everything from corruption to food insecurity to the lack of opportunity for indigenous people, afro descendants, women. seeing firsthand the challenges that country faced because of extreme climate conditions and addressing them as a neighbor in the western hemisphere. focusing those priorities on the actual root causes so that we can, by inference, have impact on the effect. host: vice president harris in late june. the wall street journal last week in an editorial had this headline, as joe biden turns 79 panic over kamala harris. they write, mr. biden will be 82

in 2024. democrats were content to overlook this when evicting donald trump of that is done. mr. biden's utility to democrats will fall further in his for trillion dollar spending passes especially if republicans retake congress. harris is not a compelling answer. her approval rating is on a journey to the center of the earth. one pole pegging it 20%. a cnn report this week aired griping from her circle she is not being set up to succeed. some online opinion on twitter. this one says, maybe she has done a great job or maybe not. they never let the press in to see what is going on. steve says on facebook, she is not cheney so b-. from jason, c+ maybe b-.

the southern border and migration is not a thing that can be solved, only managed. it seems she was set up to fail, presumably to lessen her chances against old man joe in 2024. back to the calls in your grade of vice president harris' job. angela on the independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i would give her a solid a. i will tell you why. she has not insulted any of our allies, she does not disrespect the american people, she holds the constitution in high regard, she knows the virus is real not a hoax, and she knows that climate change is not a hoax. for those reasons i give her a solid a. the previous administration, they were nightmares. to me this is coming out the other side.

host: all right angela. ed democrat line in houston. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i was a supporter of senator warren for president and would have preferred her as vp for joe biden. kamala harris was number 99 on my list for vice president but since we had to get rid of trump a lot of us democrats went with biden and harris. so far as right now i don't think harris has any accomplishments or known accomplishments. let's say she does something in the background, that's fine. but so far of her achievements i find them lacking and i don't see her as a potential 2024

candidate. if she runs, she will lose as bad as she did in 2020. and i really don't care for her style of living. she is more comfortable around beverly hills than she is around the east l.a. area. host: to greg in pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. there is no grade i can give her. i think she has done a really poor job and i am just scared for the future. if she does run and get reelected, if joe biden became incapacitated, i think that she has no experience being a vice president or the president. host: recently when joe biden

had a medical procedure and was under anesthesia by constitution the vice president assumed the presidency for that brief time. jen psaki the press secretary was asked about that by a reporter at a news conference. [video clip] >> in an effort to flush out the historical record is there anything you can tell us about the 85 minutes kamala harris was acting president? >> i will leave that to the vice president and her team to characterize. i would note -- and you did not ask me exactly -- but others have talked about this. as a woman myself i will note the president when he selected her to be his running mate he knew he was making history, was making history long overdue in our view. and part of that was selecting someone who could serve by your side is your partner but also step in if you -- if there was a reason to.

that includes the application of the 25th amendment as was done this morning. he also -- we know we make history every time they are working together. every time she is out there speaking on behalf of the government as the vice president but certainly today was another chapter in that history. i think that will be noted for many women, young girls across the country. host: some reaction on social media. suki says on twitter, you need skin as thick as armored tank to be a woman, especially a woman of color and if you aspire to having power. here in this good old boy america. most people don't know what a vice president does daily because it is not closely followed by the media. jodey says the first woman vice president as a direct result of donald trump. the further fascist red trump

lovers go for further sexual and racial diversity the liberal left will be forced to go. here is maria. caller: every time i read about her office is in chaos and everybody is quitting, i don't know she do. i really don't see what she does. host: do think that is part of the media's fault? one person on twitter said because the media does not report on what the vice president dies or is it because the vice president really does not want to be covered? i am not just saying kamala harris but most vice presidents are not seeking the attention? caller: well, they should be covered. they are in office. we put you in office we should know what you are doing. you make a lot of money just waving your hand. i don't know what she is doing. i am a news junkie. i don't know what she does.

i think she was put in there to be an african-american woman. i never cared for her anyway. truthfully, i don't know nothing about her. host: i'm sorry, go ahead. caller: other than she is from california but other than that i see her waving her hands. i don't know what she do. host: to him in valparaiso, florida. caller: i was just going to state really quickly -- appreciate all that has been set and didn't know if this had been said -- but did the democrats speak to this in the primaries? she got out of the race early, she could not get the numbers so they have already spoken about what their thoughts are on kamala harris. host: scottsboro, alabama let's hear from michael on the independent line. caller: hello? host: go ahead, michael. caller: well, i think she has

been given a thankless job in charge of the borders and border security. like the caller said earlier, it can only be managed it cannot be cured. i think she was a former prosecutor was she not in california? host: right, former attorney general in the state as well. caller: so she has the credentials. i am glad that she is there and she is perfectly capable of doing the job. but i don't think, you know, our country situation has much of a chance, i don't think she has much of a chance. host: let me ask you, why would

the president give the vice president -- i think you called it a thankless job -- this task of overseeing the border? obviously a very hot button topic. why would the president ask her to do that if it was just going to draw a lot of negative attention? caller: well, the only thing i can come up with is it is a thankless position and whoever has it draws a lot of fire, especially from the right. unfortunately we still have a bunch of people that are listening to people on the right. i think it was his way of getting it off of him so maybe he would not draw as much fire from them as he has in the past.

like i said, it can only be managed, it cannot be cured. host: do you think that is a role vice president biden served under obama? caller: to a degree i think it was. it was definitely a different administration but the problem joe biden still thinks the people on the right can be worked with and you cannot work with people who do not believe in the constitution, who don't believe in votes, they don't believe in democracy. they want a supreme leader. they want a furor to tell them what to do so they don't have to actually think about decisions

and make decisions on who to vote for. they just want, you know, an imperial leader and that is the part trump played for them and that is what i think they want back. host: let's go to our republican line. floyd is in iowa. caller: thanks. biden just got in there. his whole spiel was to get the presidency with no plan about the border business and he whipped up the people coming here that as soon as they got to the border they could walk in. that is not going to happen. harris, a former caller said her staff left her when she was in the primaries. that's true. she does not have a clue about what she wants to do and we don't want her as president. we should look at chris christie. a fellow that has the sense and

no problem at all calling somebody a stupid idiot if they are a stupid idiot. chris christie is the person we need to get in as president. get back to this harris business. just imagine she becomes president. she did not have a clue when she went there which countries she was in, the people she was talking to. we cannot have that person representing us as president. it just can't happen. host: there is an article from the associated press about what chris christie has been up to lately. published yesterday the headline says, chris christie aims to shape the future gop. chris christie is everywhere. the former new jersey governor and one-time republican presidential candidate announced conspiracy theorist during an appearance in california. he followed up with the speech this month to influential republicans in las vegas warning the party will only succeed if it offers "a plan for tomorrow,

not a grievance about yesterday." he is been interviewed by everybody from fox news to the former advisor to barack obama on cnn. on its face his publicity campaign is in-service service of "republican rescue." 's new book offers a simple prescription for his party to focus on the future or keep losing elections. but the front of his appearances and the increasingly obvious jabs at donald trump suggest christie is plotting a political comeback with the 2024 campaign in mind. you can read that at apnews.com. james in ohio, there you are. democrat line. caller: i just wanted to say harris i think is doing a good job as compared to the other

side which are doing nothing. and nothing is not a very good thing to look at. i say you are elected there to do something and so far we have not seen the republicans do anything. thank you. host: let's hear from texas, billy on the independent line. what are your thoughts? how would you great kamala harris -- grade kamala harris? caller: they never get much time on the news. it has always been that way. why can't everybody just get together and stop being like this? i don't understand it. i am nearly 60 years old and seen a lot of presidents.

i have seen a lot of stuff happened. but everybody has to -- who is christie? it doesn't matter. get together and love everybody. thank you. host: couple of comments on facebook. william says, like all vice presidents she has been mostly invisible. also on facebook from randy, she needs to be out there doing more publicly promoting the biden agenda but otherwise doing a good job. not so much from joshua who says, if z was a great, she is below that. this is from the atlantic magazine, what kamala harris has learned about being vice president. critics of harris see her vice presidency so far as a collection of unconnected set pieces. harris arrives somewhere with a plane and a motorcade and secret service agents, makes a few bland statements, and tells

whomever she is meeting with about how she is going to bring their stories back to washington. then she's quickly out of sight again. she marvels allowed to aids about how the president is the same in private as he is in public. she is looser and talks more about herself and her experiences when the cameras are off. let's hear from paula and washington, d.c. on the democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: great to be on c-span. i would say for vice president harris i would not grade her if i may. i think this echoes one of your other callers that a vice

president is a person who you don't really hear from maybe until or if there is a second term. you look at somebody like joe biden who was clearly qualified to be vice president as well as president when he was chosen under president obama and he was persona non grata the first few years. i am an african-american woman of vice president harris' age. she is da ned if she does and darned if she doesn't. i would ask her to be there and stand in for the president and i

think her presence will be known hopefully in future terms. host: here is what jen psaki in a statement about -- in an interview in the atlantic piece. jen psaki said, one of the things i really admire about the vice president is she is the first african-american woman, women of color, indian american woman to serve. so many firsts. it has to be a lot on your shoulders. she as someone, who at a much higher level, his partner to the president but i do think there are attacks that are beyond because of her identity. let's hear from richard in burlington, new jersey on the independent line. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. host: good morning.

caller: i think maybe if she was to get some positive publicity, president biden has stated over and over he believes the climate so-called crisis is the most important thing in the entire world going on today. i don't believe that. the earth has been gradually warming and people might take another look at that. if she was to get some positive publicity, if she would go out and promote the president's agenda regarding climate rather than as other guests stated that is an impossible issue for one person to manage and control, that way she would be promoting the president's agenda. lastly i suggest there is a website called everythingclimate.org which goes

over 20 of the pros and cons of a so-called climate crisis. the earth has been gradually warming for 200 years but little bit off the topic. may be could take a look at both sides of the issue and reach a more moderate conclusion. that was everythingclimate.org. host: in other news on the new variant reported a couple of days ago, the omicron variant, this is the new york post. omicron covid variant may already be in america, dr. fauci says. the variant could be in the united states dr. fauci said saturday is countries like israel implemented a new ban on foreigners and the u.k. took new steps to contain the wild new strain. it was discovered only last week in south africa and newly detected in the united kingdom, italy, germany and the czech

republic. dr. fauci and dr. francis collins will be on a number of sunday shows today across the various networks and we are certain to hear more about that. new york implemented an emergency order. governor kathy hochul mainly dealing with medical facilities at hospitals in new york but the congressman from new york texting opposition saying, it doubles down on the twist of logic that signs should follow politics instead of politics following science. it is past -- the past 20 months of proven how dangerous it is to kick all other medical needs to the backseat. 15 more minutes of opening topic this morning on washington journal asking you how would you grade the job performance of vice president kamala harris? the lines are (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and (202)-748-8002

for independents and all others. to our republican line gary calling from indiana. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to ask you, do something about these people that do no credit to this woman. ? what is she doing? nothing -- -- what is she doing? nothing. she don't belong in that. she does not belong as a vice president. he does not belong as a president. he let all these people come into this country illegal, no masks, who knows what they got? plus, you get these cartel people making money on this country. i mean, how can these people call and say she is doing a good job? for me she is the worst vice

president i ever seen in politics and the president. that is my opinion. thank you. host: brenda is in oakland, california. go ahead. caller: kamala harris represents the united states plus the state of california. she can only do so much. the president is the one that is supposed to run the company. the only time they talk about her is because she is a woman. that has nothing to do with it. she is a person and she is doing her best. this is a racist republican party so naturally they are going to say she is not doing anything. but i hope she continues to do

whatever the president assigns her to do. she did a good job here in california and i feel she is doing a good job for the united states of america. thank you. host: mary in las vegas, nevada on the democrat line. caller: morning. host: morning. caller: respectfully, i think we have more important things to do than coming in on partisan calls about some report card on the administration. i hope c-span would start putting some scholars in on how democracy fell. right now the autocratic wing of the republican party is putting partisan electoral commissions to nullify people's votes. that his stuff that happens in banana republics. when you take autocracy and you have violence like we did on january 6 from the domestic

terrorists that equals fascism. you want to worry about something? think about that. host: to doug in san jose, california, republic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i live in california. kamala harris was a terrible d.a., a terrible attorney general. she only cares about political power. she has done nothing to solve the border crisis. when she ran in the primary she could not even get support in her home state and frankly, i think she was only selected to run for the optics. she has done a terrible job as vice president and she has no business being president. that's my opinion. thank you. host: henry is in spring hill, florida. opening question about kamala harris.

good morning, independent line. caller: good morning. it is unfortunate but i agree with the last caller and i don't want to add any more division to what is already happening in this country. but unfortunately when the president and his administration picked his cabinet the first thing he brought to our attention was either race or color. i just believe people be chosen on merit and i believe we should maybe study what dr. martin luther king wrote about in his speech because we only hear the part of what i have a dream" and there is more. host: do you think joe biden might have picked kamala harris on merit? former attorney general of the state of california? caller: i believe she got all those positions because she was funded by mr. soros. i don't believe she made them on her credit. host: but she was elected by the citizens of california. caller: unfortunately we cannot

take our vote back. the future will decide how well she has done but right now i don't believe what she is doing on the border -- it is a farce. the cartel will be right next you pretty soon in your neighborhood. that is just the beginning. host: you can send us a text at (202)-748-8003. here is one from alfredo in michigan, the republicans want kamala harris to fix the border problem in a few months when they could not do it in four years. the border has been a problem since 1492. mcgill from brooklyn, i would give kamala harris a b. i would like to see her out promoting biden's agenda but in contrast vice president pence she is doing great. republican line is next. oak hill, florida this is jay. caller: how are you? host: fine thanks.

caller: it is not so much kamala harris is not doing anything because she is. she is all over the place. she is definitely doing something it is just in her own world. she was out of her league when she was chosen. the last caller is correct. most of this was a free ride based on her race and the fact that she was a female. biden chose her for that reason for the black vote. this is what happens when all the worst case scenario accidents fall into place. biden accidentally ran because he was not going to run and somebody pushed him for that. the same thing with kamala harris. she was polling at 1%. you going to tell me that his popularity anywhere? host: you call it a free ride but can you call it a free ride when she was legitimately elected as attorney general of the state of california? she was elected to the u.s. senate. whatever you think of her as vice president those were not

given to her. caller: ok i lived in california for 15 years. i married my wife in california. you look at the participation in the area where she was elected and you look at the money flow that came in and you tell me she was not elected because of what was going on. it had nothing to do with the merit. she was locking people up that were smoking pot. she was not favored. that's the point. you look at her credentials before and what she is done and how she got elected, you tell me how nancy pelosi has been elected that many times to san francisco at the age she is. that is cronyis and allm is work for the government and become one of the richest people in california? it is ridiculous. everybody started at $25,000 a

year and now they are worth $1 million and they ran for office? host: she has taken on -- here is the vice president after the bill was passed. [video clip] >> when we think about the needs that we have this is just basic stuff. not to mention what the repair will need to the jobs we create an lifting of the american people through that process. this law will fix our roads but it is going to do a whole lot more than that. this law will also modernize our ports and airports which will build on the improvements we were already making to reduce the supply chain bottlenecks. it will expand broadband so every american can get an affordable, high-speed internet connection and i don't need to tell the parents here, i don't need to tell small business owners with that means in terms

of your ability to get through the day. if you have or you don't have access to high-speed internet. what we have done, what we have accomplished together is investing carbon capture projects, bring in clean energy jobs and it will replace lead service lines and pipes so americans can get clean drinking water. plumbers and pipefitters, we are going to need you to do that work. [applause] here's the deal. our bipartisan infrastructure law will put millions more americans to work in good union jobs. host: vice president kamala harris last week. twitter says, she is doing what the president has to within that is the job of vice president. the media does not cover her much because she is quietly doing her job.

would like her to be given more chances to be a spokesperson. on the overall record of the administration that is the subject of dan's call in though washington post. he writes, the stimulus package poured money into the economy and in some cases directly into the bank accounts of millions of americans. the spending aided in overall recovery with unemployment dropping to 4.6% and many small businesses posting help wanted signs insert for adequate staffing. labor force participation is up, many states and cities are flush with cash, but the recovery triggered a rising inflation, the worst in three decades. gasoline, home heating and gas prices are up as for prices of goods. they are driven by rising demand among consumers, supply chain issues that have made some products scarce and the demand for energy around the world as nations try to bring back their economies after the shutdowns of 2020. it is this inflation that is

costing biden politically and just as the president was premature in his claims about the pandemic his administration was slow to acknowledge what people were feeling and therefore begin to act. they write, many democrats claimed the big problem for the white house is the absence of clear and effective messaging. there is truth in that assertion. biden and his advisers have not found the best way to explain and sell what they are doing. this might be a solvable problem, particularly if the climate bill is approved. the administration will need to move more quickly as the republicans have found talking points for next year. immigration, crime, education and inflation. couple more calls on the opening topic about the vice president. amy, birmingham, alabama go ahead. caller: i give her an f as well. i agree with the last caller.

i don't see anything she is doing to improve the economy. the border is still being overran by illegals and you brought people over here from afghanistan without vetting them. host: crystal on the democrat line to host: crystal in west palm beach, florida, go ahead. caller: good morning. i wonder who these people are that are actually doing these polls, based on the calls that have come in this morning. it seems to be about 75% to 80% favorable. i would say that kamala is doing an excellent job supporting the president and being his -- doing what she's tasked to do and i think she's being harshly judged by the 24/7 hate fox news and i just wonder who are they talking

to? lastly, i want to say that the negative is actually a reflection of the american people and the american spirit and i thank you for giving me the chance to call in. host: thanks for calling, crystal. linda in texas, nobody complains she says, when we never heard from pence so i am not that harsh on kamala. republican line is next. evelyn in laurel, maryland. caller: good morning. i agree with the last calmer. -- caller. i am also looking at joe biden and kamala harris has only been in office for a few months now, and they haven't even been there for a year and a lot of people are complaining about them when they actually -- they're taking over office and you really can't say a whole lot that they're doing because they're having to fix things that was broken from the other administration.

so when you look at the job of the vice president, too, you need to also read the constitution because the vice president basically is doing what the president wants them to do. host: thanks for that. still more ahead on "washington journal." there is a new poll out looking at americans' attitudes towards social media. we are going to talk to william rinehart whose group the center for growth and opportunity put out that poll. we will talk about the details of that and more about social media, big 10 and the news media. later tom wheeler will talk about the new funds in the infrastructure law and expanding broadband in president biden's build back better agenda. >> tonight on q&a, in his latest

book drunk, edward slingerland professor of philosophy looks at the evolutionary purpose of intoxication and the role that drinking has played throughout history. >> alcohol makes it harder to lie, for instance. it's harder to make up a lie. also, this is more surprising, it makes us better and detecting lies. so humans it turns out are not focusing consciously on detectiving lies, but if we relax and take in a variety of cues we do a better job, and so i am arguing alcohol in the same way that when we meet, we shake hands to show that we are not holding a weapon in our right hand. cultures use intoxicants at treaty meetings or business meetings, anything where potentially hostile people figure out a way to cooperate. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a.

you can listen to our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> abraham lincoln and his wife were the parents of four boys. only one, robert, lived beyond his 18th birthday. author jason emerson spent a decade visiting and researching in numerous archives, museums and historic places. he was studying the 82-plus years in the life of robert lincoln. emson focused on the president's oldest son as a union soldier, a minister to great britain, a u.s. secretary of war and the president of the chicago based pullman car company. jason emerson is an independent historian who has been writing about the lincoln family for over 20 years. >> on this episode of book notes plus, book notes plus is available on the c-span now app

or wherever you get your podcasts. >> sunday, december 5, on in-kept -- in depth joins us live to talk about war, politics and citizenship in the united states. his book titles include the father of us all, the case for trump and his latest the dying citizen, in which he says the idea of american's citizenship and the ideals associated with it are disappearing. join in the conversation with your comments and tweets for victor davis hansen sunday, december 5 on book tv and before the program visit c-span's shop.org to get your copies of his books. >> "washington journal" continues. host: will rinehart is with us, a senior research fellow at the utah state university's center for growth and opportunity,

joining us to talk with us, talk with you, about americans attitudes to social media, big tech and social media. welcome to "washington journal." tell us about your organization. you are us from washington today. what does your organization do? guest: we are an economic research group based out of utah state university. i am based here in washington, d.c., during the remote job work lifestyle we are all doing now. but organization, i think we are on the cutting edge of a lot of research on pressing public policy issues. i primarily work in tech innovation, but we have a whole bunch of other folios. immigration and we also do a lot of work on environmental stewardship. this poll is kind of one part of the tech and innovation portfolio, including an economic

research lab, which both of these things, in addition with the research, is meant to get at different public policy issues going on today, and this big tech hole is the third in our series. we are doing it about every six months. we are doing this to try to get a sense of how people are thinking and feeling, and we have been able to show some trends but also for people during time periods are important, specifically during the most recent election. host: to get into one of those trends, one of the headlines that came out was this from axios. the poll shows wide distrust of tech and media. some of the details from your survey -- i would like you to dive in a bit more deeply. about half of the folks surveyed would like to see the largest tech firms broken up.

the majority support free speech in principle but also support increased restrictions on social media content. you found in your poll both liberals and conservatives want to crackdown on social media but are not united into how to do just that. when you use a phrase like "breaking up media companies," did you get further detail from people's responses on that? guest: what we did was ask a whole bunch of different questions related to breaking up tech companies and media companies. i think in further polling, we will try to get further into that and try to dive a little bit deeper, but broadly speaking, we found pretty wide distrust for social media companies -- tiktok, facebook, and twitter were among the least trusted of the big tech firms. then, all the other big tech firms we polled, google, microsoft, and amazon, they

seemed to be a marked difference between the social media firms and these other big tech companies. while there were high 50's or low 60's level percent distrust for tiktok, facebook, and twitter, when it came to google, apple, microsoft, and amazon, people were split, about one third, one third, one third -- one third being positive, one third being neutral, one third being negative for those companies. host: do you think that is because people have more of a commerce relationship with those companies, microsoft, apple, google? guest: yes. i think our polling has showed there is a different relationship when you look at the amazons and apples of the world as compared to the tiktoks and facebooks of the world. there is some sort of price exchange. you are paying some sort of money for apple and you are typically not paying something for facebook.

host: people who identified as liberal and conservative want to crackdown on social media. guest: yes, that is a pretty broad finding we are seeing and not just this poll, but there are a whole bunch of other polls that suggest this. what we found is a growing distrust for big tech of all kinds, but the desire to do something about big tech seems to be a new trend we have been able to chart over the last year and a half, two years or so. host: any reason why that trend is increasing? we see social media company's before congress testifying on something it seems every other month, so the issue is obviously prominent. guest: the one thing i think is interesting about our breakdown is we have been able to look at people who have -- who are more politically engaged. when we look at people who are

politically engaged, they seem to be both liberal and conservative, they seem to be far more wary of big tech companies of all stripes. my going theory with this is the more you're engaged with politics, the more politics and news on the future of your life that you are worried about, the more likely you are worried about tech companies, social media companies in particular. with what is going on behind the veil of these companies, i think we are going to probably see those trends continue. host: i want to look at some of the questions and responses on americans' views of news media. you found that americans are pretty much split on whether most news coverages good for american society -- 41% agree, 43% disagree. in your post is that news companies and media company should be fined for reporting

biased or inaccurate information. guest: yes. that is what is most interesting about the conflict, the perceived conflict, between this general support of free speech and what seems to be the majority support, social media companies in particular, with those false posts and offensive content. people seem to be worried about writ large. host: does your pull get any sense of americans who, for lack of a better term, are in their own silo of news and information, their own media sites, their own focus? so their view of the news is influenced solely by what they view on social media and mainstream media as well? but their views are just limited to that range of what they watch and nothing more? guest: our poll did not get into it, but i've been following this closely.

one of the other -- pew has done a lot of great polling in this space -- we have seen people have become more diverse in the places they get their news. social media, at one point that before the election, seems to have reached its crest of being where most people get their news, but by and large, most people still get onto local television and even newsreaders and apps. as much as we are concerned about social media companies and big companies, they have never really been the primary, singular place for most americans to get their news. this obviously breaks down pretty dramatically via age, so when you look at younger cohorts, they are more likely to go online. but by and large, what i've seen from most of the polling suggests there is this kind -- there's an omnivore kind of consumption. people are consuming news from social media but are also going

on readers and apps and news sites and going to other places -- listening to the radio, obviously watching television, as we are engaged today. there is a little bit of everything going on. this is part and parcel of a complex media ecosystem that is developing and continues to develop. host: will rinehart is our guest, with the center for growth and opportunity. they have a new poll out on our attitudes on news media in the u.s. we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8000 the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 the line for republicans. and (202) 748-8002 for independents and all others. you can text us and reach us on social media, @cspanwj. we would like to see your tweets and instagram comments, facebook as well. is there an indication in these polls you're doing on either republicans or democrats,

conservative or liberal, wanting more government regulation of social media? guest: i think the biggest thing we are seeing is most of these trends, at least when we started, seemed to be baked in, but the people who are the least politically engaged and the people who do not watch news or are not really following political news as often, they seem to be increasing their distrust in these big tech companies and social media companies writ large. what is interesting is we are basically seeing a poll of those least engaged in politics and that they are getting pulled to the front, and, much like everyone else, they are having much more criticism and skepticism of these companies. that is one of the biggest trends. i think the other big thing we are seeing, obviously as we mentioned before, is there is still a lot of support for free

speech, but there are clear divisions by age, which i think is also an interesting thing going on, especially if you are aged 65 and older. we see that there is actually more likelihood that you want to have more regulation of social media companies, so specifically those aged 18 to 29, about 40% or so agree there needs to be more regulation of social media companies, but when you look at 65 and older, there is about 52% agreement. this is indicative of a lot of the other trends, that people who are younger tend to be a little less willing to regulate tech companies, which i think is a little bit of surprise, given what we typically think, that younger generations, especially my generation, is really ok with regulating media and speech of all types. in broad strokes, we actually tend to see people who are 65 and older tend to be a little bit more willing to regulate social media companies of all

stripes, and i think that bucks the narrative ever so slightly. host: your poll, the love-hate relationship people have lived social media and big tech. tomorrow is cyber monday, and how many of us will be online, amazon, google, or apple, buying things and then posting it on facebook and instagram and twitter? guest: yeah, i am looking forward to it is as well. i did a little bit of shopping for my parents, but i still have a little bit of it to go. to be blunt, i usually do not share that stuff on twitter, because i am hoping to surprise some folks with some good gifts this year. [laughter] host: what about personalities of big tech companies? mark zuckerberg of meta, jack dorsey of twitter, mr. bezos, jeff bezos with amazon, does

your poll touch on do americans trust big tech leaders? guest: we have not actually looked at. that is something we have talked about getting at, whether it matter, whether jeff bezos or elon musk, another important character when it comes to big tech or emerging tech issues, whether those individuals have an outside influence and to see how people think about. that is something we have toyed with but not something we have actually reviewed. i do know that, from interacting with these companies, that i tend to think some of those concerns -- not to say that zuckerberg is not ultimately responsible for what his company does -- but just the influence these individuals have over their company, over the tenure of their company, my sense is that obviously they are hugely

important in the way the company goes, but at the same time, these are big institutions, and sometimes i think we put too much blame and too much credit on those leaders. it is hard to change the institution itself. it is hard to change course feen you are the leader. i think it matters a lot more when it comes to some of the things they have said they want to change over the last couple of years, those tools. those things happen front and center for what zuckerberg and dorsey have talked about. that is an interesting question, whether or not we should be integrating and considering the leadership matters to them. to me, i try to see it as this complex institution that does a

lot of different things. sometimes the leadership knows what is going on and sometimes they do not know what is going on. host: we have calls waiting. before we do that, you mentioned mark zuckerberg. i want you to take a listen to what he said earlier this year as chair of facebook, now meta, on how that company is attempting to battle misinformation and disinformation. [video clip] >> the reality is our country is deeply divided right now. that is not something tech companies alone can fix. we all have a part to play in turning things around, and i think that starts with taking a hard look at how we got here. some people say the problem is that social networks are polarizing as, but that is not at all from the evidence or research. polarization was rising in america long before social media was invented. others claim that algorithms feed us content that make us

angry because it is good for business, but that is not accurate either. i believe the division we see today is primarily a result of the environment that drives us apart. we have to reckon with that. i know technology can help bring people together. we see it every day in our platforms. facebook is successful because people have a deep desire to connect and share, not stand apart and fight, and we believe connectivity and togetherness are more powerful ideals than division and discord, and that technology can be part of the solution to the challenges our society is facing, and we are ready to work with you to get started on real reform. host: an optimistic tone. what did you think -- guest: i think -- one of the things i've been

trying to get at, and we have more research coming out on this very quickly -- covid has put a stop to some of our research, because obviously a lab requires individuals, and that has slowed down -- one of the projects that came from this research and is an interesting part of all of this is that we found there is actually not a desire, as zuckerberg was saying, that even though there is this kind of really quick pop for content that is false or may be engaging, so obviously people worry that the only incentive facebook and some of these other companies have is to ensure that there is harmful content or surprising content or misleading -- misinformation on their platforms, we found that, in the

short term, that does occur. but that long-term easy less engagement. so somebody like facebook or twitter, if they are trying to maximize long-term engagement, which is what we expect them to be doing, we would expect them to manage and reduce the amount of misinformation and harmful content. as easy as it is to say that, that is kind of the game theory, the result of these experiments, in practice, i find it is probably really difficult, and from everything i know, having talked with friends who worked at some of these companies and having followed the research closely, it is hard to figure out what misinformation looks like, what false information looks like. it is really hard to get rid of that and to detect it. all those things, i think, make facebook's job very difficult. at the same time, we have to reckon with the fact that i think zuckerberg is correct.

there have been longer-term trends in the united states of polarization. as much as we would like to say, and obviously there is some small part that social media companies play in all this -- the 2000 election was nearly 50-50, and we have seen a lot of 50-50 elections, which suggest there is actually a lot of polarization. that, to me, is a fundamental feature that we need to figure out and deal with at a more fundamental level. at the same time, we know these websites bring people political information. long-term, i am still hopeful, because we have seen this, kind of the early stages, we are still kind of at the teenage level of morality when we are talking about these technologies. and the kind of personal responsibility it requires to

engage in these technologies smartly and safely. that is something we are all dealing with right now. we are at this stage of adolescence that we are going to have to grow out of and become adults, that understand technologies, use them responsibly, and also use them intelligently when it is necessary but also recognizing that sometimes these things are not the best for us and for us to reduce our own use of these technologies. host: we are talking about big tech and news media. our guest is will rinehart with the center of growth and opportunity from utah state university. let's go to ridgefield, washington. greg is on the republican line. caller: hi. thank you for c-span. "digital adolescence"? you have a job at the university of utah, doing what you are doing?

come on! i have to laugh listening at what you are talking about. "digital adolescence." come on. host: caller, what is your problem with the term? all right. we will go to tony in pennsylvania on the independent line. caller: good morning, america. so the previous caller, i think, is bristling. i am not sure what the concern exactly was. but there are a lot of folks concerned about social media, and i think that republicans, especially in the last election, saw a lot of biased behavior by facebook and other social media companies. i am frankly concerned about who this gentleman is, where his funding comes from. i suspect that -- if i had to look closely, i would say it comes from big tech, and he is sort of an apologist for them. i have to state that.

another thought i have is that we just had a whistleblower that went to congress, that congress lauded and love and media lauded and love and created this woman around, privileged and white, and we do not treat whistleblowers like that in this country. we treat whistleblowers like we treat julian assange or edward snowden. there's a lot of lying and manipulation going on. i think that is what the republic caller when he used the term digital adolescence, like cute, quirky language. but it is really ugly what is happening and what facebook is doing. when you look at suicide rates and self and hospitalization for teen girls, it is really damaging. the evidence is really clear. it is a little bit like climate change science. host: a couple of issues raised, if you want to address any.

guest: yeah. obviously, there is a lot going on here. in part, the self-harm related to teen girls is very, very serious. it is something we have seen -- we have seen self-harm increased during covid. it is difficult, to be honest, to clearly connect it to social media and tech. typically it is connected not just to tech but the cell phone use and other related cell phone use. but i think the research does suggest there is probably an increase in harm for teenage girls related to this. the thing that is really interesting, which is also kind of odd to me, is that we have not seen as much of that for teen boys, so even though teen girls have increased and we have seen more hospitalization for suspected suicides, that the rate for teen boy suicide is

something like 14 times higher. i am not an apologist of big tech at all paid i been critical of it in many contexts. i am try to figure out what we do with it now, live with these technologies, given that they clearly do exist, and we have to figure out how to deal with them. and to be honest, this is a research program and space are set some 10 years ago, 12 years ago now, in grad school. i've been working in this space for over a decade on something i care deeply and passionately about. there is a whole bunch of, obviously, related issues that we need to be dealing with in social media. when i talk about digital adolescence, i am merely suggesting we are at the early stage of trying to figure out what to do and how to integrate or not integrate these technologies in the their lifespan that is something parents and individuals should do.

and -- is not on facebook, because she does not like the conversations that go on. that's the choice i want people to engage in with their own lives. finally, with frances haugen, she has made a big stir in the senate and house, and both of those hearings were hugely important. i followed them very closely. fundamentally, i think that she has changed some of the conversation. she kind of forced facebook to actually make the changes to give teen girls and teens better resources to control their online lives. that sort of thing is actually

really important. we are seeing the impact on the positive impact, of whistleblowers here in the united states. that, i think, is an mportant component of the broader tech changes that we have seen, is to have people, intelligent people who know what is going on inside these companies, come in and give their opinions. but we need senators and representatives to be very clear with their questioning, and we need them to ask the tough questions that i would like to see actually asked. that also requires more individuals, not just the whistleblower to come in but people who have been working in these spaces over the years. all of these people who happen working in this space for nearly decades, thinking about how social media engages or does not engage with people, how it affects individuals. those are the people that need to be brought into the hearings, not just the people who are whistleblowers, who obviously have an important story to tell

and have important details and studies to relate to us, but we need a more robust picture of what is going on. host: on facebook, steve sent us this tweet saying i deleted my facebook account after it became obvious the company profited off of russian troll farms. zuckerberg knew this, but did close to nothing to stop it. what are the trends in terms of facebook use? that company, now meta, will visit see its future? guest: facebook itself seems to have plateaued, and average use on facebook seems to be declining. it depends on the survey you check, but an average facebook user spends about 30 minutes or 32 minutes or something along those lines online on facebook. a lot of that ends up being ends up being messenger. some of it ends up being through the news feed itself. but for the most part, people would be spending half an hour each day on facebook. facebook itself, the traditional

-- i think it is called blue or big blue -- the traditional blue, in the united states, has largely plateaued, and the real growth we have been seeing is an instagram. i believe it was last month that instagram effectively surpassed, or is suspected to surpassed, facebook as far as total ad revenue is concerned. instagram will continue to grow, but not as big and strong as other companies are expected as well. the big change here is obviously tiktok but snap as well. those companies, you know, the user group facebook cares about which is the 18 to 29 group. even though facebook and instagram are obviously very, you know, widely used by people of all ages when it comes to younger individuals, 18 to 29,

there seems to be this worry and concern that facebook is not able to actually capture the market. there are broad changes happening in the advertising marketplace which are really important in all this conversation which is, you know, things are changing. amazon has gotten bigger in advertising. there has been a shift in the advertising platform on apple. this is the ios 14 update. all these changes really are headwinds to facebook and instagram in the long-term. we might be seeing the top mark for those companies as far as influence and use but i would never count either one of those companies out. host: will rinehart is our guest, senior research fellow at the center for growth and opportunity talking about

attitudes toward the social media, towards the news media. (202)-748-8000 the line for democrats, (202)-748-8001 the line for republicans, and independents (202)-748-8002. on the independent line in idaho, ned, good morning. caller: good morning. you are up in utah state. what is going on right now is we are building some nexgen reactors in idaho in the next few years and you are in a cooperative that is going to be tied into the whole project. bill gates is starting another project in wyoming. that is what is going on out here right now. i don't know what to tell you about big tech. you know, 50% of the vaccine disinformation on facebook is actually russian propaganda. you know, it is being used as a weapon against us.

you know, it is being used as a weapon against us. i think what you're talking about about disinformation, it is very critical that people, especially you, can identify what is propaganda. that's the problem. people cannot identify it. there are a few scholars, a few people still teach a class on it, but i think people will eventually be paid more in their jobs with their ability to disseminate information. that is going to become a factor in people's pay. host: let's hear from will r inehart. guest: the reactors is something i am watching. there is a lot going on with energy tack in cache valley

which is where the university is located. speaking more broadly about this problem of vaccine disinformation for example, we see this localized to a couple of individuals or the report suggests there is something like seven or 10 individuals who are putting out the most information. which is what we expect or have seen in other spaces which is that a small number of individuals are very vocal and they are able to have an outside influence on the voice that exists in the space within any sort of information ecosystem. but again, i think you are right. there was a lot of difficulty in trying to figure out what misinformation looks like, how to trample this down. facebook when they released one of the frances haugen releases,

misinformation is hard to detect if not impossible. they said it would take them a very long time, something like two years, to actually begin to figure out if they could detect misinformation when it came to vaccine hesitancy. this is something fundamentally they were having a lot of issues with. that is not surprising. having worked in this in previous years and earlier in my career having done natural language processing and large-scale communication processing, that is understanding the funnel meaning of language through computer technology, through automated systems, through algorithms. it is exceedingly difficult. and just as important if you have billions of pieces of content and your content and filters are still the best filters you can get, if they are still the kind of 99.99%

effective, you are talking 30,000, 40,000 pieces of information per year. even with the best filters that exist there are still a lot of content that will be released, a lot of misinformation, a lot of false information is going to be released. that to me seems to be going back to our poll. that seems to be the big issue i think we are facing which is people what social media companies to be held responsible for these false information and yet, it is difficult to fundamentally understand what that looks like on a platform. even if you are able to have the best filters that exist, there is still going to be lost content. host: members of congress, the house and senate, called for the modification of section 230 of the 1996 committee presentation law. headline from "usa today" on how

the body demonstration is addressing the trump administration's moves in that regard. the justice department intervenes in the lawsuit against big tech to defend 230. tell us what section 230 is and how it affects big tech companies. guest: section 230 was a pretty key component of the communications decency act passed in 1996 as part of a broader reform of telecommunication and of communication at large. it basically limits liability for platforms and it does not just apply to big tech platforms. it applies to platforms of all sorts. this includes, you know, this includes not just google and facebook but also the comments that exist on "the new york times" website or the fox news

website or even the content that would exist for spam filters for instance. those things actually are interesting as well. section 230 fundamentally allows for a lot of flourishing for a whole bunch of different software companies to exist. what we are talking about now, or the conversation has been about, is changing that liability and changing or amending what that looks like. that to me is a really important conversation going on right now. i have not really seen at this point -- there have been suggestions but a lot of those suggestions include some sort of, you know, tying in the ftc or sec being involved. to me it seems like a really big problem to be having these agencies, these independent agencies, determining what content should look like online. more fundamentally, the current

proposals to change section 230 i don't know they are very workable in practice. but this conversation constantly changes. the legal landscape constantly changes and also the other thing that is happening is the court seem to be less amenable to section 230 claims and that is developing as well. courts are increasing challenges some of these cases and that will shift over time as well. host: in terms of the regulation both the fcc, ftc and other agencies are not currently robust enough to handle the issue of any sort of regulation of social media? guest: i am at large -- i would be very concerned with an agency of any sort determining what type of content is supposed to be put over the wires or over these platforms.

you know, the thing i have not really mentioned is the first amendment which limits the ability of the government to stop somebody from speaking. that is the big, you know, that's the big wall i think all of these laws are going to have to jump over. we have seen a couple of states tried to do this. florida had a law that tried to go after social media companies and it failed at the florida supreme court. a lot of these laws are going to face this problem which is the first amendment. i think that is a good thing. long-term what we should be considering our alternatives. the alternative to this is different kinds of speech. it is, you know, different sorts of online programs. you know, i hate to mention the block chain but social media platforms on the block chain. we also see twitter is opening

up their platform for protocols to this idea of a protocol method of solving some of our content issues or content moderation problems. there is a lot of transformation, there is a lot of change occurring currently and to me, i would really like to see where some of this goes. i would also like to see some very clear harms before we go in and try to have a top-down regulatory system or top-down regulatory change which i don't necessarily think is needed at this point. host: let's hear from stephen in ohio. go ahead. caller: hi. i wondered if your guest would have a comment on what he thinks about the gullibility of people reading paragraphs off social media posts and going with that as if it is the truth. if he has done research into the psyche of people reading this

information. thank you. guest: interestingly enough there has been recent work done on this. not surprising we find that people who only go toward one source be at facebook or television, that only have one singular source, they tend to be or tend to have, you know, hold incorrect views. they tend not to be informed as well if they only go to one site or another. i think this shows or at least suggests people should be, as i suggested before, be an omnivore when it comes to different sources. don't just look and see what is going on in social media but pick up the newspaper, read magazines, see what is happening via radio. if you are interested in politics and you really want to get as many sides as possible, you are going to need to look at as many channels and is as many

communication mediums. that means not just looking at social media but be more wide-ranging and the kinds of places you search. host: one more call. elizabeth in holland, michigan, independent line. caller: hello. my name is elizabeth. public comment and then a question. very pointedly the question i want to ask is how can it be the fcc can continue granting the use of the public airspace to all of these tech companies that obviously are not serving the public interest? that is the standard in the situation, the public interest. these corporations are only in business for one reason -- they are using airspace that is owned by the people of the united states under the control of

congress. the agencies, the fcc and the ftc, as well. they have had a chance. they have gone wild. they have made billions of dollars. they are the most wealthy companies on the planet. it is unmanageable. host: i will let you go. we are short on time but will rinehart, if you would like to respond. guest: the fcc public interest mandate is a very sticky area and has been. you are correct. this has been one area where we do see -- you do see the imposition of free-speech issues are stronger over the airwaves than anywhere else. but by and large what we have

seen is because they have given a car route to wi-fi and other devices that are using these unlicensed spectrums, for the most part there is no major connection between the fcc and these large tech companies. the only thing the large tech companies end up using is, you know, one piece of content that is typically put through the unlicensed, you know, the unlicensed spectrum in someone's home. having some imposition, having a question of whether the fcc could even come in and be able to determine what content would look like at the end user level is, i think, the biggest hurdle we see of the fcc imposing those laws. that is a really tenuous connection that they would have public interest in that specific case. the way most of this law has trended over the years i don't think we would expect the fcc

would have that big of a hook. so, you know, there is unfortunately when it comes to the fcc in public interest mandate there is still a lot of law that i think is bad. but the connection between the big tech companies which are mostly using, you know, fixed wires and wireless technologies, the connection between that and, you know, the radio operators and people who are actually using spectrum to broadcast our in two different spaces. host: the new poll from the center of growth and opportunity, senior research fellow will rinehart, we appreciate you joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: there is more ahead on the program. up next, still on the topic of technology we talk with former fcc commissioner and chair tom wheeler. we will be talking about new

infrastructure funds to expand broadband in president biden's build back better agenda and other telecom issues next. ♪ announcer: this week on the c-span networks congress returns monday at 3:00 p.m. eastern with the senate continuing work on the 2022 defense authorization bill. watch it live on c-span2. live on c-span3 on tuesday oral argument in trump v. thompson considering the request for the national archives to release former president trump's call logs and other records surrounding the attack on the capitol. we will have live coverage of two hearings on c-span.org and the c-span now app. a subcommittee hears from consumer safety advocates on holiday product safety concerns such as counterfeit toys and malfunctioning decorations.

also, treasury secretary janet yellen and federal reserve chairman jerome powell test testify on covid-19 really funds. they return to capitol hill wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern to appear before the house financial services committee that will also stream live at c-span.org and on the c-span now mobile app. also wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span3 the u.s. supreme court hears arguments in dobbs v. jackson banning abortion after 15 weeks. you can watch full coverage on c-span now our new mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ announcer: at least six

presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones that made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and their's. >> you will also hear blunt talk. >> sir? >> i want a report on the number of people that signed to me now and i want to write quick. >> sir. >> i promise you i will not go

anywhere. announcer: presidential recordings, find it on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ announcer: washington journal continues. host: tom wheeler is with us. he is the former chair and commissioner of the federal communications commission during the obama administration. currently affiliated with the brookings institution in the nation's capitol as visiting fellow. tom wheeler, welcome. guest: great to be with you this morning. host: we are going to -- having you with us to talk about the broadband provisions both in the infrastructure bill signed by the president and the one -- the money proposed in his build back better agenda. give us a baseline if you can on how many americans do not have access to some sort of broadband in the united states. guest: you know, there is

roughly about 17 to 20 million american households that do not have access to high-speed broadband. and if you stop and think there is a three plus people per household you are talking 50 million americans don't have access to the most important network of the 21st century as we have learned over the last couple of years as a result of covid and how we have come to rely on broadband connectivity to go to school, to go to work, to get health care. host: could the expansion of broadband be analogous to the expansion of electricity? the rural electrification that happened during the roosevelt years a particular. guest: sure and it telephones following dial. there is a basic level of

connectivity that allows for the technologies of that era -- but let me just go one step further. there are two parts in this equation. the first is places that you can't get a broadband signal. as i say that is 17 to 20 million homes. but there is a number two or three times that which are those people who can get access but don't because they can't afford it or they don't see the need for it. host: here is the money. the money allocated that has been signed into law by president biden, the money in the infrastructure law. $65 billion in total spending, $42 billion will be granted to states to expand access, $14

billion to the fcc to provide monthly internet subsidies, something you were just mentioning, and $8 billion for other related spending. how will this work? guest: the rules have yet to be developed for that, but it is an interesting variation on the way things have done previously in that the policy is that there will be rules established at the federal level first states to come forward with their plans and then the states and localities in some instances will be the ones that disburse the funds in the theory that the closer you get to the need the more efficient you are going to be. host: you mentioned 17 to 20 american households that don't have broadband. it seems that that would be for the telecom providers to put

facilities, to put technology in place to provide that access. guest: i think that is what you're going to end up seeing, bill. what we are talking about here is if there is additional cost required for stringing the fiber, which we hope it is principally going to be fiber-optic cable, if there was additional cost for stringing across these miles and miles before you get to any homes or businesses, how do you offset the additional cost of that with some kind of subsidy so it can then carry its own load as a result of monthly subscriptions? and that is the philosophy behind this. so, i would expect you will see

the infrastructure providers whether it be cable companies or the former telephone companies saying, i am ready to expand out of my core area. i just haven't been able to afford to do it. now you get a subsidy that allows that expansion to take place and we will see those companies be able to do something they were not able to before. host: are we wrong to assume most of this lack of access in rural areas -- are we missing areas and urban situations that are also underutilized for lack of technology in those areas? guest: obviously there are islands where that happens but it is much less widespread. the challenge in urban america, as it is in major parts of rural connected america, is the affordability, the adoption of the technology. host: our guest is tom wheeler,

former sec chair. we are talking about broadband access and the expansion of that under the infrastructure bill. we welcome your calls and comments. eastern and central time zones that line is (202)-748-8000, mountain and pacific (202)-748-8001, and you can send us a text at (202)-748-8003. 2. the other piece of this is the build back better agenda, the social spending measure that will be soon before the u.s. senate. here is the money in that measure. the bulk of that is $475 million for wi-fi connected devices to low communities, it includes an connectivity fund of $300 million and improving access in urban areas. $300 million for the fcc, how does that work? guest: right now the fcc is

going through a process to determine how they are going to transform into an ongoing support for those who are unable to afford broadband. let me go back in time. i believe it was 1984 during the reagan administration that the reagan administration put forward the lifeline plan which said, hey, everybody in america ought to be able to call 911 and we will provide a monthly subsidy to those who can't afford telephone service to make sure they can call 911. and we are looking at that same kind of situation now where the policy is saying, hey, everybody ought to be able to get axis to the internet -- access to the internet. what the bill provides is for

$30 a month to support a subsidy for low income americans to get access to the internet. you mentioned the infrastructure bill. there is one other important part of the infrastructure bill which ended up getting reduced by the house but i sure hope that issue gets addressed in the senate. that is what is called next-generation 911. we are still running the 911 system i referenced earlier as it was run 30 or 40 years ago at a time when digital technology has changed everything. i mean, imagine the ability of a firefighter for instance to have on the screen of a device as he runs into the building what the floor plan is. imagine an emergency squad, an ems person, being able to pull up bill's medical records as he

races to the hospital so he can say, i don't want to give him this dosage of something. we have that capability in a digital environment and what we need to do is transform our 911 infrastructure to take advantage of the digital capabilities that the internet and the broader connectivity allows us to. host: what's been holding that back, money or political will? guest: money. bill, every single time, every single time when i was chairman of the fcc i testified in the house or senate i always made it a point of saying, members of congress, members of the senate, we have an opportunity here. it is going to take national leadership and national funding because these are basically small, local agencies providing this lifesaving service. we need a next-generation 911 plan. there was a well-funded plan in

the early version of the infrastructure bill. unfortunately, as those numbers got cut back that got cut back but that is something that is worthy. host: same technology as we would so basically the same kind of technology like the fedex of ups driver has when they come to your door. guest: exactly. host: want to talk about some of the funding the sec has provided in the past. a piece was written in the wall street journal and he said the government has already expanded $200 billion and the universal service fund established either 1996 telecommunications act. he writes most of the money was meant to extend to rural areas, health care facilities in low income mobile users.

this had little impact on infrastructure. in 2011, the fcc from 19 million people in seven line households couldn't get state-of-the-art broadband service. 10 years later, despite more than $50 billion in subsidies for high-cost networks, the underserved areas was as many as 30 million according to mr. biden. guest:'s analysis is -- his analysis is how do i make the statistics make my point. there is money the sec was spending on subsidizing rural connectivity. it has not been enough. it was imitated in that it can only go to telephone companies. it is what congress said, a law, which is a ridiculous limitation. i want to go into one thing in particular. that is the connection to schools.

when we came into office, there were a third of the schools in america that had a high-speed broadband connection. and of those, only about half had a high-speed connection to the students' desk. that was the education rate program. we overhauled that and when we left office, over 95% of all of the schools in america had high-speed internet conductivity to every student' s desk -- students' desk. i would say that was money well spent. host: when you saw teachers and kids parked outside wi-fi access because they didn't have it, what did you think? guest: in a country like ours,

it was shameful. i remember having a discussion with the president of the brooklyn library talking about in the cold of night how students were sitting on the steps of the library keeping their wi-fi on during the night even though they were closed so that it could leak out of the building and these kids could do their homework. it is ridiculous that we are in that kind of situation. that is why it is very important in the infrastructure bill is the funds to allow low income americans to have the same kind of subsidy for broadband that reagan put in place for telephone. and i will tell you another story. one of the places hardest hit are indian reservations.

i remember being on an indian reservation when i was chairman and hearing the same story of kids who would drive to this library where, by the way, the fcc was funding the connectivity, and they would leave it on all night and kids would be sitting in their cars doing their homework because that was the only way they could get on the internet. that is not an acceptable solution in the united states of america. host: will go to richfield, wisconsin. marty, you are up with tom wheeler. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. tom wheeler, why don't you talk more about your background and how you are being paid by all these different companies that you are supposedly representing? you are a show for so many

different companies it is disgusting. host: i will let you go there. guest: i would go back and check the facts. that is not a fact. i am not being paid, as i sit here, being paid by any companies. i was not being paid by companies as the chairman of the sec. 30 years ago i represented the cable television industry, shortly after that i represented the wireless industry, then i became a venture capitalist, and then president obama put me on the fcc. i was asked about this question during my confirmation hearing or chairman of the sec. i told the senator who asked me, i said, you know, senator, i have been an advocate for these companies years ago, and i hope

that i was the best advocate they could possibly have had. but if i am privileged enough to be confirmed. my client is going to be the american consumer, and i want to be the best possible advocate for my new client, the american consumer. host: next up is gabriel in apex, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, mr. wheeler, for coming on the show. i want to touch on the same question, not in an adversarial way, which was completely inappropriate, but just about the funds being allocated, what kind of failsafes, certain safeguards around the allocation of those funds and to ensure there isn't a system in which

the states will prioritize certain businesses at the expense of the american people, and similarly, is there anything in there that prevents them from giving say tax cuts and offsetting those tax cuts, especially in the rural states by using the block grants that come by the infrastructure bill. guest: that's a really good question. this depth we are in right now -- there is a three-step process. first step is congress had to create the funds. the second step is that insofar as the support for the states is the national tell commissions and information commerce has to develop the roles that -- the

national telecommunications and information commerce has to develop the rules before they get funds and the states cap to make those rules before they will get the funds. i think the question you raised is a very significant question and is the kind of thing that should be addressed in the rules and i'm confident that it will be. host: we go to mark in washington state. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. wheeler. i am calling because i was disturbed about mr. wheeler's comments about the government agencies having our floorplans, medical records at the fingertips. i think that is the final key in the total police state. in the rule communities, -- rural communities, people have

no dental and medical and they don't have electricity, let alone internet connection. the libraries are just places where people get out of the rain. i do not want the government or big government to control everything i do. they are already subsidy the low orbit connections and already subsidizing electric cars that have no car plant to go to. i will not give the government the keys to my privacy. guest: i don't think that anybody is making the kind of the suggestion that you are talking about there. and how do we make sure those individuals in washington have access to the most important

network so that they are not having to sit out in the rain in order to do their homework so they can get health care. when i was chairman, i spent time in alaska. there are something like 245 villages in alaska that you cannot retry road there. we have a responsibility that those who are in those committees have access to health care. i was examined and i was examined in a place that i can only fly into and took a four wheeler out of there. i was examined remotely with the hospital back in the state of washington because of conductivity. that is the kind of thing we

want to make sure is available to all americans. when it comes to a burning building, i sure hope the firemen know where i am or where potential harmful chemicals maybe in this building and that information is already available with building permits and everything like that. host: i would ask you how the biden fcc is shaping up, nominating the chair and commissioner as well. your thoughts on those nominees. guest: i had the privilege of serving with jessica when i was chairman and she was commissioner. i often referred to her as the intellectual of the commission. she has been there for a decade and intellectually she is on

target with the issues that are being dealt with. --was on my staff when i was chairman i am a huge advocate. she has been a public interest advocate for all of her career and we need that kind of attitude on the sec. the halls of the fcc and congress are crawling with industry advocates, but have a public interest advocate on the commission i think is very important, and what's special about her, and i've seen this up close and personal over multiple years, what is special about her is that you can work with her. she is results oriented.

she is not a, let's just take some hardline position and rail away. she is how can she get results. one of the things that is frustrating is that there are some publicans who are trying to block her confirmation and that there are industry groups coming out against her confirmation because they worry about the fact that she is going to be pro public interest and we needed somebody on the commission that believes in the public interest but who is pragmatic and can work with the industry to get things that are good for the american public. host: question on twitter about the new spending. is the new money to be allocated like the auction 904, rule digital fund -- rural digital

fund and can you explain that? guest: that is a good question and the answer is no. it is known and was a good idea that you allocate funds in a reverse auction and say, how little will you take to build this out. it was a good idea that was massively mismanaged by the trump fcc. it ended up providing a billion dollars to elon musk for his satellite service. he was already paid for it, why did it need a subsidy. it ended up not qualifying and leading to the gate companies were unqualified to do the job.

i think one of the reasons why the congress changed things and put it over into the department of commerce is the fact that the fcc, the trump fcc it on the plan and the biden fcc is in the process right now of cleaning up behind that. host: john is up next in california. caller: hello. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: and q, tom wheeler. i had a couple of questions. my understanding of the early development of the space program was publicly funded and i am wondering why we are having to deal with so many internet fees if we helped develop the system to begin with.

and since it isn't out there, why are we using it for all the things that occupy our time? guest: yes, the internet was developed with public dollars and then it is appropriate and quite american and we turn it over to private industry to expand and exploit and that is about as american and capitalistic as it gets. but we also need to make sure that when these companies benefit from the largest of the taxpayers in the technology and the use of the airways, for

instance, that they have expectations. one of the things that we did during my tenure as chairman was to adopt net neutrality rules. that was really simple concept. it said that these networks that were paid for and the technology was developed and they would build out by private companies and those private companies had a responsibility to make sure there was nondiscriminatory access. they couldn't pick and choose and say you can't get on or you have a special price for an additional fee. you could not turn the internet into the relationship you have with your cable company today. you want something, it is an extra fee. that past and was upheld -- that

passed and was upheld in the trump administration repealed it. we need to have an open internet and in an open environment, create the opportunity for all kinds of educational, technical, as well as fun activities available to everybody. so yes we need to make sure everybody has it available and yes we need open access to and on the networks. host: do you think sometimes that technology changes happen so fast it hampers the ability of the fcc to ensure public interest is guaranteed? guest: the challenge of the government in the 20 for -- 21st century is that it was a

structure created in the industrial revolution era and the pace of change in the industrial era trying to keep up with things that are happening at internet speed. and that is what all agencies of government are dealing with today. let me give you one fact. it was 125 years after alexander graham bell invented the telephone before that one billionth subscriber was connected around the world. it was less than six years after the android mobile operating system was created that the one billionth subscriber was on that system. we are moving from a

governmental process that relied on linear change where it was one step to another to a new reality that has existential change. as a result we need to rethink just how government works in this new environment. host: let's go to jerry in philadelphia. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. wheeler. you had mentioned the need for public advocacy and you mentioned that neutrality and i wanted to know what your position is regarding converting the internet from a private entity to a utility status.

the telephone company used to be a monopoly that benefited the people and it was broken up. it was expanded and it is we, the people, who were exploited. and now we are being exploited by a fragmented, commercialized market and i would just like to know what your position on converting it. guest: there are two words that are often used interchangeably, utility and common carrier. a utility is something like gas or electricity or water that you are literally going to die if you don't have it. i think the internet is incredibly essential but i don't think it is like water.

and so therefore what you need to do is say, it is a common carrier and that common carrier has a responsibility to make sure that everybody can get on and that it is available to everybody. it is the government's responsibility to make sure it is available to everybody. it is a nuance between utility and common carrier and what we did with net neutrality was to say that the internet should be a common carrier just like the telephone company was, just like the railroads were, just like the telegraph was. the trump administration came in and reversed that and i hope the biden administration as soon as there is a new majority on the fcc will be able to put that coming carrier spots ability

back. host: tom wheeler has written a couple books and one i want to ask you about "mr. lincoln's t-mails." is there something about lessons learned in the push to expand broadband? absolutely. that is a great question. the essence of my book was that abraham lincoln was the first online president and he was forced to figure out how to deal with this new technology that nobody else had ever before and-

how do i grow in my understanding of that? we have to ask the same kind of questions, how do we grow in our understanding and be willing to

adapt how we operate based on the new realities. host: and the times of the civil war, how pervasive was telegraph technology in the united states? guest: it was far more pervasive in the north than it was in the south. if you look at a map of telegraph lines before the civil war above the mason dixon line looked like a spider web. it was everywhere. below the mason-dixon line, there were only a few lines. there was one along the east coast, the mississippi valley and across. and so the north was able to use this technology better than the south and it had a leader who was willing to adapt his approach to leadership by use of

the new technology. host: let's hear from chris in washington. go ahead. caller: i could spend the whole time about how you could spell the name, but good morning. i am not may with the book of the guest but i will read it. i have been listening to the peters group monitoring the airwaves in ham. i don't have a license but i am going to get one. i want to know his thoughts about ham technology. guest: when you get your ham license it will be administered by the federal medications commission. it is one of the decades of the fcc.

ham operators were one of the real early peer-to-peer connections that the technology made available. host: let's go to stephen in indiana. caller: what had been listening to with tom wheeler everything he said is true as far as my area. we have comcast in this area. the only way around it is with a vpn. they have fox news over cbs, abc , which is spectrum. we don't get any of that information on our television

sets or everything is being blocked. i have an area that has fiberoptics and they are still using the 1970's cable lines they installed when we first got cable around here, which our speeds are slow and it goes back to the schools. the kids are going to mcdonald's and they have to sit on the steps to do their homework. that and where they forced dns on you so you can't have access to what's really going on out there. guest: that is a laundry list of issues there. i think what we have to do is make sure we have standards for

what is the definition of broadband. i put standards in when i was chairman -- i should say we put standards in when i was chairman that are now totally inadequate today. and we need to update those standards as to what is acceptable and what people should be accepting and we need to have standards for how the federal money is going to be spent. i am a huge proponent for fiber first. it can have co-ask for the final link into the home but you need to have fiber and the best of all is fiber direct to the home. you need to have high-speed access that will expand over

time rather than be trapped as it sounds like you are. host: let's go to anthony in new york. go ahead. caller: thank you so much for having mr. wheeler. his voice is so inviting. i had the opportunity to install broadband and fiber at the spokane international airport back in 2005 as a subcontractor. now i am having a situation to where i have a tool i invented and i am having problems getting my two onto the market from a bigger hand tool operation. i was just wondering if he could speak to antitrust and what it

is doing to small business owners like myself. host: are you familiar with any of that? guest: i wish i could provide a meaningful answer. i don't understand antitrust in the hand tool area. i do know competition is essential to the success of the american economy and that we are to have as much competition as possible everywhere. we used to have a mantra that became a joke that we said it so often. host: on the infrastructure bill and the social spending measure, do you think the issue of broadband expansion will state intact in this bill back at her plan and you expressed concerns making sure certain funding was in there. guest: i hope the next generation 911 funding is in their, but i am just thrilled

that president biden has been able to sign the infrastructure bill as differentiated from the build back better bill. we now are in a situation where $65 billion is going to flow to address challenges we have been ignoring too long. host: former sec chair, tom wheeler, i pleasure to have you on. guest: thanks. host: we will return to our opening question about grading vice president kamala harris' job. for democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 and for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. get die linke and we will get right back to you. -- get dialing and we will get

right back to you. ♪ >> tonight on q na, in his latest book drunk -- q&a, and his latest book drunk, look at the evolutionary purpose of intoxication and the role drinking has played throughout history. >> alcohol makes it harder to live. it paralyzes the prefrontal cortex and harder to live. and it makes us better at detecting lies. so humans when we are not focusing on detecting lies we don't do a good job. but if we relax and take in the cues, we do a better job. so alcohol, in the same way we shake hands to show that we are not holding a weapon in our right hand. culture has use intoxicants at treating meetings, focus meetings, where people need to

find a way to cooperate as a cognitive determent. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to this on our new c-span now app. >> get c-span on the go. watch the days biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile app, c-span now. excess top highlights and listen to c-span radio and discover new pack casts, all for free. download now for free. >> "washington journal" continues. host: vice president kamala harris this week as the senate returns for key debates and possibly on the go back better agenda, the social spending measure they will consider in the coming weeks or weeks.

our question about vice president harris asking you to greater job performance so far. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. it is (202) 748-8001 four republicans. an independents and others, (202) 748-8002. reporting on the vice president work so far, exasperation and dysfunction inside her frustrating start as vice president. to people writing that an incumbent vice president should be issue in next time the presidential nomination is open but guessing who might launch a theoretical primary challenge to harris has become an ongoing inside parlor game. other politicians with their own presidential ambitions has started privately acknowledging they are trying to figure out how to quietly lay the ground are -- lay the groundwork to run when harris falters when they think she may.

harris is the first vice president in decades to come into office with less washington experience then the president and finding her footing was always going to be hard. president and vice president and staffs often clash. president obama tended to be dismissive of staffers. biden himself has had a number of stumbles early in that job. that is reporting on the writing of cnn. let's get to calls and comments. on our independent line is steve in missouri. caller: good morning. for years, i really can't put a grade. it is early and maybe the president, but not so much the vice president. there is one, that has been irking me. it would have enlightened me a little bit, especially about the

vice president, but i wish somebody would have made up, come and preferably a visit to the wisconsin tragedy the families are going through right now. that would have really been an uplifting thing for many americans. maybe not even a visit, but just some comments. have to say the white house has really let me down on that one. host: let's hear from dominic in virginia on the republican lines. caller: kamala harris deserves a solid f. i considered and incomplete because she hasn't done anything except forsake a few words that i thought were less than brilliant. host: let's hear from denise in

oakland, california. independent line. good morning. caller: i think you should ask judge joe brown about harris and how she got in the first place. she is a big failure. can i make a comment on the guess you had on earlier? host: ok. caller: as far as wanting internet for everybody in the country, that is so they could have a social surveillance state. anybody that thinks that these people, they are globalists, trying to change this into a one world government. the democrats have pilfered money for decades. host: this is a survey on the performance so far, a poll, an

average of polls done by the 538 and fivethirtyeight.com. these are a number of polls they have been tracking and averaging less than a week ago the approval ratings. his -- the question is do americans approve or disapprove. disapprove 52%, approval 42.5%. line-up is in maryland -- going to maryland on the democrats line. caller: let me say this. it is interesting that folks want to question how well kamala harris is doing when the entire week she was in france mending fences behind the snafu with the submarine sales, the french and european media covered it extensively. we got very little bit of that in the united states.

what we got was endless conversations about a $350 pot she paid for out of personal funds. everybody who knows anything about kamala harris that she likes to cook and knows her way around a kitchen. when the bills are being passed, there is some and doing groundwork that the president isn't and that is the vice president. the republicans won't do the right thing and stop blocking confirmation votes. vice president harris is the one leading these efforts and making sure these votes are happening. we keep hearing that in 2024 it is going to be harris versus buttigieg. biden has made it clear he is running in 2024. this false narrative that they are against each other is exactly what we had

charlottesville and january 6. let's be clear about what is going on in this country and stop the nonsense about his kamala harris running in 2024 when biden has made it clear he is running. thanks for my call. host: one that said the vice president is doing a good job. i love how many times she broke the lies in the senate. let's hear from virginia on the independent line. caller: the previous caller was saying that she is building ridges and re-think. -- and everything. i don't know what ridges she is building but i think she has done an ok job but we don't know about the behind the scenes work. despite all that, she does have a low approval and i think she fits right in.

let's wait and see. host: let's hear from marvin calling on the republican line from minnesota. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the people that are talking, still divided and will always be divided if they don't get over this racism and the color of the skins of people. we were all created equal by the good lord and the people need to understand if we work together we can get things accomplished. kamala harris is a very insecure person because she laughs a lot when she talks, and i am not talking negative. i am talking personality and she probably is a wonderful person, but our senate and house are the

ones who need to get the job done. the president is the windowdressing. for this i hope they will change in the future that the people will work together, democrats and republicans, which they should be doing and are not doing it. host: josephine next up, livingston, new jersey. your thoughts on the performance of vice president kamala harris. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i really don't have a grade. it is like asking someone taking a test. i am already giving you the grade and that waiting until it is finished. i have two wait and what comes out of the bills that were passed, hoping they will be prosecuted to the states so we, the people, benefit from it. i am interested in what can be done with the build back better.

it concerns me, but i worry about the seniors, because i am one, that it will benefit those. i do have one complaint about the administration. i was always taught you have to learn to toot your horn and you need to tell them what is in the bill. we get one piece here and one piece there. it is not satisfactory. you give the enemy, that is the word i use for republicans, fodder for them. they is the height interest rates -- not interest rates, i'm sorry, cost of living. that is not answering the question what caused it. there is a simple reason, it is corporations. they made a policy decision years ago to no longer wear out

the goods before they would order 10. that costs money paid you can't to that, so now we got rid of the warehouse and we expected the goods to be delivered instantly and all of the sudden covid came along and the people would do the product got sick so could no longer liver. blame -- could no longer deliver. blame the corporations. it is greed. host: we are asking how you would rate kamala harris so far. in an analysis piece in the new york times, the ratings of the administration over all, a disconnect between biden's popular policies and ratings. the disconnect between mr. biden's popular policies and personal unpopularity is hard to understand. after all, voters care about the issues and proved it by sorting

into ideologically divided parties over the past two decades and it is clear presidents can be punished for advancing an unpopular agenda, just as barack obama about the period after the affordable care act was passed. voters punish a president for pushing popular policies and seem to reward a president for enacting legislation. voters seem to award presidents for presiding over peace and prosperity, in a word, normalcy. today mr. biden is not seeing -- is not seen as presiding over the return to normalcy. his policy agenda is not expected to do much for his approval rating as long as americans do not believe that a genia -- that agenda response to the most important issues. in grand rapids, michigan, we hear from eve up next. caller: good morning, c-span. host: good morning. caller: i would like to just say

that i agree with the lady earlier saying that given a grade for the test taken, i think the vice president is doing a good job. i pick issue with the person earlier that alluded to the fact that kamala harris was a token black in that position. she has earned that position. for all the people who do not know this, a person has a personality, and ms. harris has a nervous smile and green when she is making conversation. a lot of people have that when they are out front doing something in the public. so she has that. it is not a flaw something that comes with people. i think she is doing a good job. i don't appreciate a republican

calling in and saying she is some sin that don't -- some person that don't deserve the position. i think she is doing a good job. no one can fix the border. i am tired of talking about the border. host: a caller mentioned the vice president's trip to paris. i am afraid we don't have a french newspaper reporting on this, but politico reporting on the trip and substance itself. kamala harris goes unnoticed in paris. they write that a closed door dinner and her visit was meant to launch on the international scene but offer the u.s. vice president little opportunity to connect with the french people are the opening ceremony of the paris peace forum, harris invoked her mother, who

conducted breast cancer research with scientists with medical institute, a rare personal touch in a tightly controlled visit. three days in to the visit, the vice presidents visit hasn't gone popular ora media interest that visits like president barack obama or president trump did. that was reporting a couple weeks ago on the trip by the vice president to paris. marie is in glen oak, maryland on the republican line. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i can't say anything negative about kamala harris, because i didn't hear anyone say they wanted to hang her. host: to beverly, new jersey, independent line, we hear from kurt, go ahead.

caller: how are you doing? as far as comella goes, we should take white and black -- as far as kamala harris goes, we should take white and black out of the conversation. i do not know him she called joe biden a racist. joe biden may be. i don't think they like each other. behind the scenes there may be a conflict of interest. the border is so intertwined with mandates, vaccines, illegals getting dropped off in the middle of the night without being vaccinated. it doesn't make sense. but i think the big thing is they can't use trump to make her look good. i would suggest trump stay away from her.

thank you so much, and god bless america. host: up is roger on the democrat line in pocahontas. caller: i was around during watergate, and we went to the boil, i was in the oil business. the thing that creates -- we went to the oil -- i was in the oil. we went to $4.50 a gallon and we made a gas rationing law which we doubled and tripled prices. it is all a ponzi scheme and as long as we allow them to do it, we will always be in this no matter who is the president or vice president because they are going to get paid by the oil man. host: wiley, texas, tammy, republican caller. caller: yes, i just want to know

, how is she doing anything at the border? i don't think so. i went through this stuff with obama and i lost my house to identity theft and everything. after 20 years of raising my kids all on my own in the house, the fbi put everybody in jail but i never got anything back for it. i only had five years left to pay on my house. she is letting them come in and steal everybody's identity again. she didn't even go to the border to see the people being locked up in the cages again. what is up with that? host: this is from the los angeles times. we showed you earlier, what does america think kamala harris, they update this weekly. i want to read a piece of this. they write since taking office,

harris is been assigned where the administration's thorniest issues, stemming the influx attempting to cross u.s. borders. republicans have sought to make her the face of an issue they believe could help them politically. after taking on the role, her approval ratings went unfavorable over favorable. it is directly -- whether it is related to the debate's question about, but her approval as a small decline in joe biden's job approval. next we go to houston, texas on the independent line. roberto, though ahead. caller: i was 100% for her and prefer her to biden. i am glad trump is out. i like her 100%. i wish they should have showed her trip.

she stated very glumly, do not come. i thought, is she working for trump? what happened to her personality and character? since then, i would not vote for her. i am really disappointed. every time they play that back, her glumly speaking to everybody in latin america, that was horrible, orval, horrible -- horrible, horrible, horrible. host: now to the democrat line, go ahead. caller: first of all, when mike pence was in office for four ears, you didn't hear anything about mike pence and he was appointed the head of the covid pandemic to deal with trying to get the vaccine out. with respect to her being in

charge of the situation with immigration, it is not at the border. she is supposed to be dealing with the country to find out what is the situation making all these people want to get into the country which has been going on for 20 or 30 years. the republicans refuse, in the house, to bring the immigration, they had an agreement but they refused to bring it up and let them vote on it because they knew it would pass. they never brought the agreement to deal with the border to the floor for it to be voted on by the house. host: we go to michigan and hear

from ray on the republican line. caller: due to the mandate, we can't leave the united states unless we are vaccinated. why are there so many illegals coming in? they are not just coming in the country, they are invading the country now. that is almost a sign of war. went out they going to look at that another way? host: we are asking you to grade the job performance of vice president kamala harris. republican line, this is betty in south carolina. caller: can you tell me what that vice president has done or biden has done? tell me one thing they have done for the american people.

i don't know of nothing. i don't see nothing. host: let's hear from pete the independent line in michigan. caller: good morning. , new hampshire, but that is ok. host: i am misreading everything. new hampshire, go ahead. caller: it is a shame when i came home from overseas in 1970 two and was married and i remember joe biden went into office i believe as a junior senator, and it is amazing to see back then if you remember, a lot of folks remember, back then we had the oil embargo and gas rationing. deja vu 50 years later, we have come full circle and write back to the same old deal. it is a shame our country is being led down the wrong path.

we have an administration with the vice president and president incompetent and unable to run things. they are trying to rule from an armchair. it doesn't work. host: next up is becky in cambridge springs, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: i have heard a lot of conversation about kamala harris this morning that i am so confused about. the border needs a really big fix, and i don't think anybody for many decades has actually sat down and thought about getting the immigration judges to the border, building larger, more modern facilities, having medical facilities. when kamala harris made her serious remark in the conversation about her smiling

and she said, do not come. i think that was a very wise message to send out. and with covid being an issue in the world today and her visit to paris, you couldn't be large gatherings so that people could be exposed to her. host: thanks for your call, we have to wrap it up. thanks for your calls and we are here everyday at seven, a.m. eastern. we are and then the latest news

regarding coronavirus vaccines and therapeutics. also the winter outlook for the pandemic. watch "washington journal" live, on c-span, or on c-span now. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. ♪ >> tonight on q&a, in his latest book, edward schwingerland looks at the evolutionary purpose of intoxication and the role drinking has played. >> alcohol makes it harder to live. paralyzed the prefrontal cortex. it makes it harder to live. also it makes us better at detecting lies. humans, it turns out, when we are focusing consciously on detecting lies we do not do a good job of it. but if we live -- if we relax we

do a at her job. i'm arguing alcohol, and the same way that when we meet we shake hands to show we are not holding a weapon in our right hand, cultures use intoxicants at treating meetings or business meetings, anything where potentially hostile people need to figure out a way to cooperate, as a kind of cognitive disarmament. >> you can listen to q&a and all of our podcast on our c-span now app. ♪ >> cyber monday, the sale you have been waiting for, starts this monday at c-spanshop.org. shop monday and tuesday and save up to 35% on our latest c-span sweatshirts, hoodies, blankets, and more. there is something for every c-span fan.

shop cyber monday deals, monday and tuesday at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. ♪ >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> nasa officials and other experts talked about the future of low-earth orbit spaceflight, with the international space station nearing the end of its operational life. they discussed the