continues its public hearings, releasing evidence. to him today as the committee -- tune in today -- and witness testimony. watch live today at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free video app for any time online at c-span.org. you can visit our website c-span.org/january6. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> coming up on washington journal, a look at the week ahead on capitol hill at the white house with associated press white house reporter and axios professional reporter. -- discuss the programs, fiscal

viability. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning, day, the january 6 committee will gavel in today for the second in its series of high-profile public hearings this month. we will spend time previewing witnesses and testimony this morning the first event artisan group of 20 senators yesterday announced a new agreement to reform u.s. gun laws. president biden said that it doesn't do everything needed but he called on congress to swiftly pass the proposal and send it to his death to sign into law.

we will get your reaction to that agreement this morning. phone lines are split as usual by political party. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. a separate line we are setting aside this morning for gun owners of any party, (202) 748-8003 is that number and it is also the number you can send us a tech. if you do, tell us who you are and where you are from. join us on twitter, @cspanwj, or facebook, facebook.com/c-span. here is the lead story from "the new york times," "a rare bipartisan deal." republicans and democrats putting together a proposal. here's a statement, they said 6n

host: along with that payment eight write down of the main provisions in the statement. here's a few of them this morning. funding for states to implement crisis intervention orders, the so-called red flag was. another provision of the agreement, to close the so-called boyfriend loophole, the effort to ensure that no

domestic abuser can buy a gun if they are convicted of abuse against their partner. there is funding therefore school-based mental health services and clinics, more funding for school safety resources and efforts to clarify the rules on who needs to register, a licensed gun dealer. then that provision of enhanced background checks for those under 21 years old and new penalties for those who try to commit straw purchases, buying a gun for someone who isn't allowed to do so. those are the provisions in the gun proposal as president biden noted yesterday saying it doesn't do everything needed but calling for the passage of the legislation, calling on members of congress to send it to his desks. getting your reaction to it this morning. phone lines, numbers as usual with the special line for gun owners of any party. we will start with andrea this morning here in washington,

d.c., good morning what was your reaction? caller: good morning. host: go ahead, andrea. caller: can you pose a specific question for me to respond to, please? host: what are your thoughts on the got milk? do you have a question about it? caller: i want to know, i'm a washingtonian, i want to know how this is impacted by the federal savings. seems if we are blocked from owning guns here. host: so, these are new gun safety provisions here in d.c., but republicans on this deal saying that it doesn't infringe on your second amendment rights, on legal gun purchases for law-abiding citizens. you think that right is already being infringed here in d.c.? caller: yes, i do.

host: all right. glenn, lakewood, florida, your next. guest: in -- caller: in my opinion this doesn't move the needle because republicans before coming to this conclusion decided that there were certain things they would not permit or even agree with before the proposal was even done. to me the things that the american people want, they wanted to get rid of the ar-15 and have extensive background checks and some other things. they came to the table saying that those are nonstarter's. and when you consider the second amendment being used as a means of not taking away right, eliminating the ar-15 does not eliminate your second amendment rights. just because there is a weapon being sold doesn't mean your second amendment rights are being taken away, you just can't have that weapon and that's the thing democrats need to jean. it's about taking away that weapon and allowing not to have

any weapons at all and again i think that's where the democrats fail at because they don't fight against that. just because the ar-15 is available, that doesn't mean you have to own it. doesn't have to be on the market. take it off the list with other things like that, it doesn't change anything. republicans seem to have a way of saying it takes away your rights. host: on this idea of whether this legislation goes far enough, a headline from the inside pages of "the new york times," "a start." in the picture there, leonard sandoval, whose 10-year-old grandson died at the uvalde shooting.

host: sunday being the first -- the sixth anniversary of the pulse nightclub shooting. a voting rights activist survivor saying that he was of two minds about the potential deal on gun safety, saying -- host: just some of those quoted in the new york times story, one of the lead negotiators on the story from the beginning. tweets yesterday about the release, "will this do everything needed to end the gun violence epidemic? no, but it is real meaningful grass and it rakes a 30 year logjam

demonstrating that democrats and republicans can work together to save lives." senator john cornyn saying that this agreement will provide schools the resources they need to enhance security and keep children safe, investing in mental health programs to support communities in schools and not infringe on rights, they cried out for action and i work closely with my colleagues to find an agreement to protect communities from violence while protecting the rights of law-abiding texans. john cornyn, one of the 10 republicans who join together with democrat to come up with this proposal. the other nine, roy blunt, richard burr, rob portman, patrick toomey, thom tillis, and bill cassidy, lindsey graham, and the times noted yesterday that of the 10 senators

supporting the deal on gun safety, four are leaving congress at the end of the year and five are not up for reelection for another four years. only mitt romney is going to face utah voters in 2024, he is up for reelection this year. getting your reaction to the bipartisan gun proposal announced yesterday, this is jane out of las vegas, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i don't know exactly what's in the proposal, but i've been listening to the discussions and regarding of course background, mental illness. but what seems ambiguous amid the discussion is the two most dangerous mental illnesses. specifically antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy, which is not in a

lot of attention to screening for. those are probably, i mean i'm not going to diagnose the shooters but obviously we had the worst of all and no doubt that he wasn't a young man, but those red flags or signs of antisocial personality disorder. as many of them do. it seems to be, it's a very ambiguous discussion. talking about screening for those. and those people do not, sorry, those people do not seek therapy very often but they do interface with schools and for medical treatment. having come from a medical background, they are not screening for those types of

mental illnesses. host: what is in the proposal is funding for school-based mental health services and grants for states to have their own red flag laws, a crisis intervention order. it wouldn't be a federal red flag law but it would provide the means for states to have individual laws but i guess my question for you is what do you think is the main cause of mass shootings in this country? do you think mental illness is the main cause? do you think it is easy access to weapons in this country? what do you think it is that makes this country so unique in the amount of mass shootings that we have? caller: well, i think obviously, my belief is that there are dangerous people that don't care about other people and i think

they are on the spectrum and when it comes to guns or the ability to deal with other people's money, they are dangerous to society and not being screened. host: that is jane out in nevada this morning. harper from "the washington times," each day taking a different pole doing with the discussion happening in the public sphere. today's is this, quinnipiac university, asking 1600 people, u.s. adults, conducted earlier this month, asking what those adults felt the main cause was of mass shootings in the u.s.. 40% of respondents said they thought mental health issues were the main cause of mass shootings by young people. 19% said the availability of guns is the principal cause. 17% blamed family instability.

7% citing social media. 7% citing entertainment. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i got a dui in 1980 in a car going down a one-way street. i don't want to shoot a gun, but i want to go to a gun range and i need a background check. i guess it's a good thing, but i just wanted to shoot a gun at a range. host: and do you think that is fair or not fair? caller: i think it's fair in a way, but again not trying to do anything wrong. host: so, what is your take on this legislation, these

proposals? caller: what happened in tulsa, it's getting out of hand to me, that many mass shootings going on. they should outlaw it. host: what? caller: assault rifles. assault guns, machine guns that were used in vietnam. host: that was vincent in oklahoma. this is rick on the line forgot owners. rick, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing this morning? host: doing well, what are your thoughts on this proposal? caller: well, you can keep piling on gun laws and gun laws and gun laws but one of the problems we have, looking back the timelines, all the states started stopping the death penalty, there become no fear to kyle out and commit a crime.

also if you think about something, three incidents that have had mass casualties where weapons were never used, look at timothy make a using a u-haul van with a pro pipe -- propane line that blew up. the hijackings when they struck the towers. one of the worst, jim jones used poison kool-aid. there's no fear out there to put in front of people to keep them from doing these kinds of crimes . maybe if we had a death penalty? if someone does commit a gun crime? don't give them 10 or 12 years if they are captured. sentence them, two weeks later. put on tv the execution so kids will see what happens if you break the law. sorry that's just the way i look at this. host: andy out of clarksburg, good morning, you are next.

caller: good morning. i hear people talk about ar-15's and loan guns. i may be quiet now. what caliber is the ar-15? has anyone ever told me that? host: you tell me, sounds like you it -- you know. caller: hello? what caliber is the ar-15? i don't know. you say take away automatic weapons, but we have these automatic 20 twos for these people. they want to take away the automatic 22. that's a small caliber gun. in the law was never broken. we've passed the law in 1920, no more alcohol in the united

states and that lasted 12 years. it was one of the worst laws ever passed. the laws, they are never enforced. and there's no way to enforce them. thank you very much. host: ed out of west virginia this morning. we showed you some tweets from those lead negotiators in the group of 10 democratic senators who came out with this proposal yesterday. "the new york times" with that list of republicans on that gun deal, republicans being the ones who would be needed, at least 10 of them needed to overcome a filibuster at all if democrats stay together on this legislation and we are waiting on the actual text of this legislation, according to the reporting it still being written at this point. it's not there if that would be able to be passed for the july 4

resort -- recess when members of congress could be going home ahead of the campaign season. we will see what the timing is for this legislation. i want to get back to that list of 10 republican senators because of the reaction on the others of the aisle. that's the list from "the new york times," those 10 republican senators, and lauren boebert, of colorado, the gun rights supporter, second amendment supporter, tweeting this yesterday afternoon, "siri, show me a list of senate rhinos." mike lee, not on that list, a senator from utah saying that they will always stand on the side of the second amendment with law-abiding americans processing justice, criminals must be stopped. he said he looks forward to reviewing the legislation. that's some of the reaction in

the last 24 hours. this morning foam lines as usual. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000s. independent, (202) 748-8002. and the line forgot owners of any party, (202) 748-8003. in about two hours and 40 minutes we will be taking you here on c-span to the hearings of the select committee, the january 6 committee. that hearing happening today at 10 a.m. and we will be covering it here with a focus on this hearing that is expected to be post-2020 election fraud claims by former president trump and those in the white house. we are expecting several witnesses, four or five today on that one. that is at 10 a.m. eastern on

c-span, c-span.org, you can watch for free on the c-span radio app. three hearings in total on wednesday, some being the role of justice department officials and white house advisors affected to focus on effort by former president trump when it comes to trying to get the justice department to support his fraud claims. that's happening on wednesday. thursday, the fourth hearing in the series, the focus there on efforts to pressure mike pence when it comes to overturning the elections. that is sort of the road ahead this week. it again starts today at 10 a.m. eastern right here. you don't even have to change the channel. we will take you there before 10 a.m. to give you a sense of what's happening in the room and you will be able to watch it gavel-to-gavel in its entirety into hours and 40 minutes from now. mike, crescent city, florida,

good morning, your thoughts on this gun proposal? caller: i thought it was funny that a federal judge had to be threatened by gun violence to do anything about guns. is he more important than all of these schoolkids that have been murdered? host: to understand what you are saying, you think this agreement finally came together after the man was arrested after brett kavanaugh's home in maryland last week? caller: yes, a republican appointed judge, but these schoolkids, they were nonsense. i just thought it was kind of funny.

host: this group has been meeting since uvalde. senator cornyn in particular being out front immediately in the wake of the shooting to try to find some proposal. it took them about two weeks to get this together. caller: they always say that, they need more time, they need more time. the next day mike lee is on tv saying we got to get something done about the federal judge. other countries have guns but they don't have mass shootings, they have mental health and social issues. it's not just us, it's got to be something going on here. host: chris in pennsylvania, bronx pennsylvania, is that right? caller: hello, yes, it is bronx. it's a small, conservative town in lancaster county. i'm a schoolteacher and a republican, which makes me kind

of rare, i think. a few things, i'm desperately looking for true leadership from my party. i think mitt romney is the only one of the last who is actually putting anything forward that is a risk, that is real leadership. i appreciate him and hope he runs again. one of the other items not on the list for by putting teachers in the schools pink that's not wise. more guns in a school, especially with teachers, i don't think that would be a wise position to put educators in. i think there are enough stressors in that job already. host: i don't have the full text of the bill but one of the provisions's funding for school safety resources.

we will try to flesh that out a bit more for you and what that means, but that's what's in the bill right now. caller: and i think that's very important as an educator. especially for supporting students. we have students coming up we need that support and it hasn't been there. we have some structural pieces where families are not the same across the united states. we need mental health services to help these students who have been struggling for so long and i want to say thank you to the leadership, especially mitt romney and the rest of the republicans. i guess traditional republicans? i don't see leadership coming from my own party. especially for the past six years. i'm very frustrated with my party and this is finally something showing me that the party needs more common sense. i hope it continues to grow in return, but right now the only

one on the list that i saw was mitt romney, who forward you know a consistent effort. host: what rate do you teach? caller: special education, grades nine through 12, actually, supporting them in the academics center. host: on that funding for school safety resources, in delving more into what that means, it says safety measures around primary and secondary schools, providing training to school personnel and students, that is how they describe that effort. and we are against awaiting on the legislative text, but that's what i can tell you right now. caller: i truly hope you keep the weapons out of teachers hands. as a republican and eczema military, people that don't need guns? priests, rabbis, schoolteachers.

we need these places to be considered safe zones, i think. host: from this morning, punch bowl news, we are to told the group in the coming days is expected to have only part of the proposal formally drafted. it won't be reopened until the full text is out as the members are still supportive of the document but it will take roughly a week to get it through the senate, they write and they need to begin removing the legislation by the end of next four the senate leaves for the july 4 recess. they said it doesn't leave much time to work out any technical problems that might climb up -- come up during the process. that's fungible news. brian, independent line, good morning, sir. caller: good morning. my view on this bill is that it is actually rubbish. the president wanted a ban on the gun. i want bands on this gun.

i don't think they should be allowed. i think the republicans have really outsmarted the democrats with this. the democrats had the headwinds and could have pushed for more. but that's why i'm not a democrat or republican. i don't see them doing what they are supposed to do. eight out of 10 americans want these guns banned. they really should have went for that. host: which guns do you specifically mean? talking about ar-15? caller: ar-15, whose ease, ak 57, whose ease, all of these guns that were meant for the battlefield. the fact that they didn't even change the age from 18? i mean that is an insult and a slap to the people that lost their lives. i feel that we are being sold a bill of goods and the democrats

went along with it. it's a shame that they didn't stand up and do what the majority of the american people wanted. host: on some of the automatic weapons you referred to, there are already heavy restrictions on automatic weapon ownership in this country and it's hard to maintain -- obtain one of those legally. but the discussion has been around assault weapons and what it means and what shooters should be included in the idea of assault weapons. any thoughts on those semi automatic weapons? not automatic. that you think should fall under this? caller: well, again, yes. the ones that i mentioned, if they are semi or auto, and i

know you know semi automatic weapons can be, you know, modified fairly late to become fully automatic. but the point was why are they even allowed? why is it that our children have to suffer because people continue to have this false idea around the second amendment right being more important than the rights of, you know, humans in children in our, in our everyday lives. like i said, the democrats got really taken out. host: you mentioned the children. did you watch any of the march or our lives coverage, that event here in d.c.? caller: yeah, i was there to show my

support. if we cannot protect elementary school, high school students, what does it say about our country and our people? what about the politicians who think that the second amendment involves the rights of our children, what does it say about america? host: what was your take away around the march? caller: excuse me, that was my second time. i went there for the parkland students when they came. it was the same thing. i felt that they were there definitely to help children and to help their fellow students around the world and to help all of us. our children need to be protected. this idea again that we cannot, it doesn't sit well, it

shouldn't sit well with any american. i don't think children, i don't think anyone 18 should have access to that or the guns should even allowed to be sold. i just don't. host: frank mentioned parkland, one of the survivors of that was one of the speakers at the march for our lives on saturday here in d.c., here is some of what he had to say this weekend. [video clip] >> all americans have a right to not be shot. a right to safety. nowhere, nowhere in the constitution is an respected -- unrestricted access to weapons of war a guaranteed right. we've seen the damage ar-15's due when we look at the innocent

children of uvalde. tiny coffins horrify us filled with related and decapitated bodies. that should fill us with rage. demand change. not endless debate, but change. now. now. not tomorrow, not the next day or the next day or next year, now. do you agree with that? do you agree with that? do you agree with that? you have to be louder. do you agree with that? make sure every single senator can hear you. do you agree with that? sorry,

i'm so angry. if our government can't do anything to stop 19 kids from being killed and slaughtered in their own things and decapitated. it's time to change who is in government. host: that was one of the cap -- cofounders of march for our lives at that event, the one being held here in washington, d.c. this weekend and if you want to watch it in its entirety, you can do so at these mandatory. 25 minutes left in this segment of "the washington journal," focusing on the bipartisan gun deal released by republicans and senators yesterday. want to hear your thoughts on that proposal. phone lines as usual.

with a special line for gun owners of any party. (202) 748-8003 is that number. phoebe, good morning. caller: morning, how are you? i agree with the last caller so much. i was very glad you played david hogg. he expresses exactly how i feel. they just should not have passed this bill without outlawing the assault rifles. i don't know what they are thinking. it doesn't matter about mental health. somebody could go crazy at any time. but if they can't get a gun, they are not going to shoot up a school. that seems very simple to me. we should be getting rid of the ak-47s, get buyback, whatever, get them out of the public. it's too dangerous. that guy in canada, justin trudeau, he passed the law the next day banning these things.

i don't know what's the matter with our government. i don't feel protected at all. host: austin, texas, roy, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, good morning, how y'all doing this morning? host: doing well. caller: there was a gentleman on the news the other day, i apologize, he had a good point, he listed out over decades the number of mass shootings, starting with 1950. the point he was making is that there was like one mass shooting in like 1950, 5 and 60 a must so on and so forth. the point he was making was that guns were available all the time back then. we just didn't have the mass shootings. the point he was making is what has changed is the mentality of our country and that we don't hold people accountable anymore. we don't make the punishment fit the crime. we have a society with video games that glorify shooting

people that kids are playing. that's my first point. second, i'm tired of people calling these assault rifles. by definition it's a field rifle that you get between semi and fully automatic. the average american cannot legally buy those rifles unless they have a plethora of permits, ok? i've got a remington 30 ought six that has a clip with a -- making it a semi automatic weapon. it does not resemble an assault rifle but it can do just as much damage as an ar-15. those guns are assault style rifles, not assault rifles. i wish people would get that through their head. thank you very much for your time and keep up the good work. host: can i ask you a question before you go, roy? lost roy. mckenzie, good morning. caller: thank you for your show.

that one fellow wanted to know what ar-15 caliber was, it's 22 but like five times the powder. the velocity is a lot more. it's like that fellow just said. the 60's and 70's, this mass single shootings and all that. instead of making our schools gun free zones, how stupid is that? obama was doing that? if it's against the constitution , we are not going to do it. like at the border, enforcing the border laws. federal laws just don't mean that much anymore. host: you talked about the

fellow who was on before who mentioned the five round magazine that he had for his rifle. that brings up the idea of these high-capacity magazines and why should they, should we focus on those. should we outlaw high-capacity magazines? why do more than five or six rounds in a magazine? why 20 or 30 round magazines? what are your thoughts on that? >> you can put as many as you got. i've got one with 30 but you don't put that in because it ruins your clip you can put dang close to it. host: and why do you need 30 rounds, roger, for folks who are not gun owners and have not shot a gun, why do you need something with 30 rounds? caller: i inherited guns from my grandfather, my father. i had 30 ready. i gave them away.

you got to clean them every six months and they rust. i didn't need them. but you have a right to own them. you came tell me i can't. -- you can't tell me i can't. host: brockton, massachusetts, democratic line. caller: the gentleman from texas and alabama have good point. would it make you feel better if people work thrown out of windows? lee harvey oswald got off three shots and six seconds with a bolt action rifle. the problem is society's changing. stresses on society of change. we don't have health care, you know what i mean? the republicans don't want public health care because they profit from it. why did trump want to be president? he was profiting from it. it comes down to who is making

money off of what and that's why they don't want these things outlawed, you know what i mean? when you got a single mother working 40, 50, sit -- 40, 50, 60 hours week, raising a son by herself, no grandma helping, the kids not happy with his life, getting harassed at school, like these guys said back in the 1950's, go back to the 1900. there were guns, all types of guns. pocket guns for women, gun knives, people going into the schools. it's horrible that these people are going into the schools and i sympathize greatly. but the answer, the problem isn't the gun. it comes down to more structural society issues than our problems with profiteering. there was a poll i saw the other day on the trust of politicians

broken down by democrat or republican. it was 12% democrats trust in politicians to do the right and 9% of republicans trusted politicians to do the right thing. that says a lot about our country. thank you. host: that was brian in massachusetts. a few comments from social media. hunter saying that it's a brand -- band-aid on a broken arm. anything less than age limits is nothing less than appeasement. this could be our last real opportunity to limit gun violence in this country. this is from mark, saying it sounds like second amendment absolution is hate it and gun ban advocates hate it, therefore he says it's heading in the right direction. writing that the store in buffalo had an armed guard and that there was a squad of police officers. every school needs a nurse who

can refer at risk students to mental health professionals, that is where we need to spend our resources. steve out of north charleston, republican mine, good morning. caller: i'm also a gun owner, i didn't know which line to call on. host: it's fine, either one. caller: i got to admit, i don't know what's in this bill. but as a gun owner with a concealed carry permit, i know i'm going to make nra people mad, gun owners mad, i think the single biggest thing you could do to reduce carnage's get rid of the 30 round capacity magazines right away. just do away with them. i know that enthusiasts like to shoot them. when i go to the gun range it sounds like a small war out there. those people are not going to go shoot up a school. frankly i don't know how you get the money to shoot that much

right there with the ammo. i can't even get on. it's a great -- it's incredible. a handgun there, there's probably been a run on them in the last because of the gun legislation. i think if you got rid of those high-capacity magazines it would, like i say, reduce the carnage if someone took aim at a soft target. the ar-15, the last few callers calling in on this, you cannot select automatic on it. five or six weights, that's a high powered cartridge. you can also get it alone just for thinking or go to a very powerful cartridge like the 308, which is very damaging. but if you take all that military looking paraphernalia off of it and get rid of the high-capacity magazines, you've just got another automatic rifle.

i think that would help. host: it just comes back to what an assault been is? caller: they are scared of this. give them an inch, they take a mile. for the ar-15 owner in a home, he's going to say well if someone is invading my house i wanted east the same capacity as they have got. that will be the argument for them. host: you mentioned you are not exactly sure everything in the pozo and that it's helpful to go over it again as we are all learning gather as it came out yesterday afternoon and that this is likely what's going to be talked about for the next two or three weeks, but what is in this group of 20 bills, funding to implement the things you want, efforts to close the so-called boyfriend loophole to make sure that no domestic abusers can buy a gun if you are

she is convicted of abuse against their partner. funding for school-based mental health and community mental health clinics with resources clarifying the rules on who need to register and enhanced background checks for those under 21 who are buying a gun with new penalties for straw purchases. you mentioned high-capacity magazine bands to be in there. does the rest of it sound ok with you? caller: i will tell you this, i sold a handgun in the 1980's with sailor and i still have a handwritten bill of sale. i wasn't letting that gun out of my hands until i recorded the serial number and who i sold it to. when you transfer ownership of a gun, you should have a bill of sale. i don't want to start a whole new expensive state agency for man, just mail that thing and let the atf people know that you

sold the gun to the sky. and i don't own any more. a criminal will file off the serial number, but that's just the way -- i sent you a link and you may have run across it, it's in a twitter feed, the safest school in america, indiana. you look at that you would say hey, we got money to send to ukraine, if we could make every school like this school. one more thing. a month ago i called and on abortion and this happened right before uvalde, right before my 10-year-old son got out of school and i looked at him and i thought i'm so thankful for him being in my life and i sit there in the parking lot and i'm like i don't take my handgun on school grounds but i feel so helpless if some perpetrator were to, you know, try to take aim at that soft target and i'm sitting there. i'm a trained gun owner and i can't anything. i think they should train -- change that law. host: thank you for that call.

hear from you again in about a month. norwalk, ohio, good morning. caller: good morning, america. boy, there is a lot here this morning. a comment earlier about trump making money? why don't we start on the bidens? that's the future. what we got going on now is a lot of mental illness. what happened during the iraq war, the bush administration, they killed all the mental hospitals in them into the streets. now we have to deal with all these mental people. look at california. it's such a scene of homelessness and crime and everything. am i to understand you correct that they passed the bill without it even being written yet? how can we even trust these individuals? host: to be clear, it isn't passed at all and isn't written yet. this is the proposal, the framework agreement announced

yesterday. we are waiting legislative language and text, it is expected to take a few more days for that. the earliest they could pass in the senate after that happens is perhaps a week. and of course president biden would have to sign it into law in as invite has already indicated he would sign the bill, though he thinks more should be done. that is kind of where we are. we are on the early stage of this with agreement among these senators and republicans. caller: ok, i'm sorry, i'm just waking up. i just hope that this bipartisan group is better than the january 6 committee. you can enforce the laws, what's a law-abiding citizen supposed to do once someone kicks down the door and tries to assault us? we supposed to all the police?

wait, democrats tried to defund the police. listen, people. the people on the hill behind you there, we are in trouble and they are worried about passing gun laws? we have hyperinflation. everything is going on. i understand that there are bad people out there. the reason there is is the family structure. there is no more family structure. host: that's mike in ohio. we will stay in the buckeye state with jerry, carrollton. caller: thank you for having me on. it is so ironic that most people that call into your station don't even know what ar is, actually. they think it's some kind of military assault weapon. no it taint. i would not want to go to war

with an ar-15 by no means. them proposals that you just laid out there? that ain't gonna stop nothing, nobody from shooting. the best thing they could do is to put cops in the schools. that will stop at the day they do that. but do they? host: on that, the argument in the past couple of weeks on the others of that is that there were plenty of cops outside of uvalde and the investigation is still happening into what exactly happens, but there were a lot of cops with a lot of guns outside uvalde and yet that still happened. do you have any thoughts on that, jerry? any thoughts on that? caller: yes, then police officers that was standing

outside, they was either afraid to go in and get shot at or they was just being just plain, what i would call, chicken. we you get there on the scene if you are a police officer, gun fire inside, it's your job to go to it. you don't set outside for half an hour to five minute, thinking about what you gonna do. you should know what you are going to do. when you get there. i mean it's just, it's just amazing. host: that's jerry in ohio. richard, illinois, good morning. caller: yes, i think part of the whole problem here, it's a multicausal situation, ok? one, i think there is an attitude

that ar-15's are like an extension of a game. as a matter of fact, people talk about the idea that there is an assassination generation being cultivated. there's a book on that. people are looking at why are things like this being taught. the ar-15 is a close quarter urban combat weapon. fundamentally it was designed for jungle warfare. i was in the generation in which we trained over from the m 14, which a selective switch could fire in a burst of two. the other weapons fire multiple smaller rounds. so, things are little bit friend regarding the nature of this weapon can it's not hard to find

what an assault weapon is. personally i think fundamentally we ought to have a buyback program and those that want to continue to shoot, create a force that is basically tied to the national guard. they can have vetting, they can have opportunities to fire their weapons if they like. we need another 750, 500,000 people that could basically be ready on a moments notice regarding national security. look at what's happening in the ukraine. they are adapting conscripts and we are having problems getting people to serve. that one person who's having problems, let them refer to military service. host: that is richard out of illinois, the conversation about

magazine size sparking messages from viewers. paul says that the correct compromise is to keep ar weapons and restrict the size of magazines to hold no more than four rounds, the same as all semi automatic hunting weapons. no killer wants to be reloading, he right. sheila says she would like to see the gotten blago further, she's glad that congress is working together to find a compromise. a few minutes left in this segment. gary, dayton, democrat, good morning. caller: hey, i've got a point for you. a while back, michael, the former lawyer for 45, did a deposition about what 45 was afraid of.

he said that trump was mainly afraid of selling, someone getting to them with a high -- pie, throwing pastry at him. host: so, take me to the compromise yesterday. caller: ok, it's a good start but it needs to, it needs to include the restriction on the magazines and the amount of bullets that can go in a magazine. it's a good start, but they need to do better. host: does it lead to more or is this all this congress can do? caller: i think it's all this congress can do, really. until you get rid of macconnell and mike lee. boebert and what's her name from georgia. host: marjorie greene?

caller: yeah until you get rid of them people, we don't have a chance. it's everybody, it's everybody for themselves. host: all right, we will take your point. republican line, good morning. caller: how are you doing today, sir? host: doing well. caller: i'm at work, i've got to make this quick, but i feel like there's a lot of people with a lot of opinions without a lot of education on the suss -- subject people -- subject. people really need to touch up on what you guys are talking about, but the point i want to make is we have done a lot of things and had a lot of things in place. school resource officers, buyback program's. we had the ability for people to voluntarily turn in their guns or voluntarily commit to mental health treatments, yada yada.

what i need -- we need and i hate to be the guy who pushes education, but you cannot purchase your annual hunting license tag permit without hunting safety course. educating you, operating your firearm in a certain manner. and such. i feel like in a program like this if we were going to have any kind of gun control, you would have to go through a weapons safety course before you can even think about purchasing a firearm. i'm a republican, a gun owner in the military and i use a fully automatic rifle every day at work as a law-enforcement officer and they are designed for us. those types of weapons are designed for us to respond in a

reactive manner. they aren't to be used in an offense of manner in a civilian capacity. i can't give one good reason for a civilian to utilize one. hunting, we have round limits. three rounds in the tube. i don't know if you want to ask any questions about what i just stated. it's kind of a lot. host: on the magazine capacity issue, why was that a bridge too far for this legislation, do you think? it is certainly being talked about in the days and weeks since uvalde. why is that something that cannot make it into a compromise like this? caller: i think it's very controversial. you get to arrange and you feel great. it's an awesome experience. but out on the streets? i don't think so.

to answer your question, is controversial because i think too many people on both sides are refusing to budge. they don't want to educate themselves on what the other side thinks because hey, we are american. stubborn and free. i'm as pro-freedom as it gets, but there comes to a point where there is a public safety concern. why would you need 35 by six rounds to protect your home. i own handguns that do the same job. yeah, you can own your set out -- semi automatic rifles at any caliber. why you need 30 or more rounds? if you need 30 rounds to kill an intruder, you might want to go to the range, you know what i mean? host: thank you for the call and i appreciate you taking the time to join us.

that was joseph, last caller in this segment. plenty more to talk about. we will preview the week ahead from the folks at pennsylvania avenue. we will be joined by darlene super ville and elaina train. later, a report on the fiscal viability for medicare and social security. we will go through the numbers and policy implications. we will be joined by darlene superville >> there are a lot of places to get political opinion, but only from c-span2 you get it from the source. no matter where you are from, c-span is america's network.

unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. it happens anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> be up-to-date with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists, industry news, and trends through insider interviews. you can find out about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or were ever you get your podcasts. ♪ close the january 6 committee continues its public hearings, releasing evidence gathered in its investigation. tune in today as the committee examines former president

trump's role, with previously unseen material and witness testimony. watch live today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. you can is at our website, c-span.org/january 6 two watch videos related -- to watch videos related to that day. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by two rick -- reporters, darling super bill, the white house reporter with associated press, alayna tr eene. alayna, take us between the lines. explain why this matters. guest: the gun deal issue, the

fact there is a bipartisan group that has a framework that has at least 10 senate republicans who have signed on, that is huge. we haven't seen a deal like this get republican support in decades. if passed, it will be the most significant legislation around gun safety in this arena since the 1990's. one thing, it is the framework. in my confidence -- conversations with republicans who worked on this, they were quick to work out there is a lot that needs to be done when this turns into legislation. translating this into bill text is going to be difficult, there are going to be difficult -- details difficult -- details crucial.

i know that senator john cornyn, republican from texas, has been a key leader on the right for these talks. he has said he wants this bill, any bill they pass within gun safety area to get at least 70 votes, if not more. they are going to be looking this week and coming weeks to see how much support they can get from the right. it is massive progress in the right direction. i have to point out, it is not everything the democrats want. there is a lot in there that doesn't -- it doesn't do. there are questions, it doesn't make a dent in america's gun problem, which is obviously so potent and has been terrible for many years. a lot of democrats are looking at this as a step in the right direction, they knew they had to work within the boundaries of what republicans could want. no, it does not raise the age to buy assault weapons to 21.

it is still 18. no, it is not universal background checks. there is a lot democrats wish they could get that they are not getting. but, progress is progress. i know that is how most democrats are looking at this. host: you mentioned the 10 democrats on this bill -- 10 republicans on this bill. senator mitch mcconnell, have we heard where he is on this, and what he could bring if he does join in on this legislation? guest: if he does, it is huge. mitch mcconnell is the leader of the senate republicans. a lot of people are looking at him to see what he does. he offered a statement, support yesterday after the negotiations of the deal. the group released the framework. he did not go as far as endorsing it. that is key to see, as talks

continue, whether mcconnell weighs in is going to be a big deal. i am told he supports the negotiations, he is the one who encouraged john cornyn to get involved and engage with chris murphy. he hasn't wholeheartedly embraced this, either. how he navigates whether he is going to endorse this or not will be big to getting not only the necessary 10 republicans to expand it beyond, like i know many republicans who worked on this one. as of now, passive support is the way i would characterize his involvement. host: darlene superville, from the white house perspective. the white house put out a statement, he doesn't think everything was done was needed, but he encourages congress to put it on his desk for signature. is there going to be a renewed

push to get president biden to use his executive powers to go after some of these other areas that were not included in this bill? what pressure does a bill like this, what isn't in it, put on the president? guest: good morning. there very well might be new pressure on the president to use his executive authority to do some of the things this framework does not cover. the white house, when asked about what the president is doing on the gun issue, will say they are looking at ways for him to use his exit -- executive power. it is a wait and see at this point, we need to get the framework into a bill and legislative text. if passed, happy president sign it, -- have the president sign it, see where the white house goes from there. host: is there anything a

president can do from the bully pulpit now that we have a agreement? guest: he can use the bully pulpit and keep talking about this issue, calling for some of the things that currently are not in the framework. as alayna mentioned, one of the things he wanted was to raise the age limit for an assault weapon. he would like to see a new assault weapons ban. we haven't had one of those in 20 years. it is something he can continue to go out there and talk about, talk about why something like that would be important and how helpful he thinks it would be in terms of this issue. guest: let me bring in the callers. a lot of issues, a busy week in washington. call in on whatever topic you

want to talk about with our reporter roundtable. democratic, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. darlene, in an hour or so, it is our second hearings by the january 6 select committee. three hearings this week, several more next week. the question is, what do these hearings and the focus congress is trying to bring, what does that do to the white house perspective? is there room for the president to push agenda items for the next couple weeks? how much does the public focus, push the president to the site the next couple of weeks? guest: i think you will see the president and white house trying to push ahead with their agenda,

what they want the president to do this week. their attitude about the hearings is that the hearings are important, the president has always supported the committee, the public hearings. he has always said it is important for the american people to fully understand what happened on january 6. this week, you will see him do a number of things. on tuesday, he is going to philadelphia to address the convention and we will hear him talk about inflation, the issue that is on everyone's minds these days. the white house and the president try to continue to show he understands what people are going through, talk about steps he is taking to address inflation. i do not see the hearings as putting a hold on what the white house wants to do. they are going to go down there path while congress goes down its path. guest: a picture in the new york

times, that is bill stepien to the right. host: standing with the former president. he is going to be in the spotlight today during 10:00 a.m. eastern, take us what we are expecting the committee to push today. what are they trying to show? guest: today is about the "big lie," how they work together to push the narrative that the -- the false and narrative -- the false narrative that the election was stolen. you will see the committee is having all republicans testify today, all witnesses are republican. this is keeping with what we saw in the first hearing, which we should expect for the hearings to come. they want republicans and people close to the former president

within his inner circle to be the ones who are providing the evidence, really getting the compelling testimony and laying out the case for the committee, rather than the committee doing it themselves. that is what we saw vice chair cheney have a big role in the first hearing, it was the goal of the committee to have what was being said come from all republican -- a republican, she is the daughter of vice president take cheney, -- dick cheney. having her explain what they think is trump's culpability and connection to the january 6 the attack. it is going to be interesting. i know a couple of the witnesses today, they will -- bill stepien, trump former campaign manager. i covered him closely, the media aftermath of the 2020 election,

i know he was one of those people within trump's inner circle that did not believe truly that the election was stolen. but kind of kept continuing his role, trying to tell trump he didn't believe the election was stolen. carried on in that role. we are probably going to hear a lot of that today. i am told stepien has a subpoena to testify, he is not a friendly witness as the committee may classify him. he can probably give inconvenient truths to the trump folks, dj pat, one of the attorneys in georgia. he resigned a couple days before , in the weeks before the january 6. he is going to be interesting, he believes he can give a firsthand account to what he will say as the trump administration pressuring him and other election officials

within georgia to overturn the results. there is also kryst stale worth, a former fox word -- chris, a former fox news associate. big names, all republicans, laying out the case today. host: phone lines are open for you to call in. you can send in your questions yes social media, one of them asking both what you are hearing around congress about ukraine, sending them advanced weapons doesn't seem to be working. any talk about going to the united nations to provide military support for the ukrainian people? darlene, do you want to take that from the white house perspective? guest: i haven't heard talk from going to the united nations on that issue. the president will address it later this month. when he goes to germany and spain for a group of seven

summit, and also a nato conference. as we continue to arm ukraine and help ukraine, will be on the agenda. both of those summits. host: alayna, from the congressional perspective, any spending packages in the works? guest: they have been spending a lot in aid to ukraine. i think we have seen ukraine be the court issue on capitol hill, and taking up the oxygen. we have seen in the last few weeks, their attention turn to this gun package, the january 6 the hearing. of course, they are having briefings on ukraine. they are -- there is discussion about a potential aid package. they have kind of moved on from that specific line of work. host: to nebraska, brenda, line for independents.

caller: thank you. i have a couple of things. on the school shootings, it is like, i do not understand why we did not see that, if you teach kids, white kids, white boys in the white men, that they are all bad, everything in the world is their fault, what do you expect? these kids will go ahead and do whatever they want. like school shootings, they are being taught they mean nothing and cause everything. two, we need to harden our schools. our kids are more impressive than congress and banks. they need to harden our schools. i know there is a big fund for them to have people come in, check the schools out, tell them how to harden it. also, so upset with the white

house press court. the press lady. she gets up there, she lies almost the whole time she is there. when trumps person was in office, you guys wouldn't answer like you were supposed to. now, it is like, you guys do not care. the whole united states is hell. host: let me stop you there. we have somebody who works in the white house briefing room. darlene, on dealing with press secretaries, and the relationships they are in the briefing room. guest: what is the question? host: how do you deal with press secretaries? the caller is saying the current press secretary is lying too much, and think the u.s. -- the white house press court treats her different. what are your thoughts about

that, and calling about press secretaries if you think they are lying? guest: one, we do the callout -- we do call press secretaries when we think we are not getting accurate information, or the information we are getting is false or has holes in it, or is just incomplete. we do that with every white house press secretary. i am covering my third president , i have been through a number of press secretaries. i can speak for the group at large, the press court at large, our approach was the same for all press secretaries, from president obama, to president trump, to president biden. i am forgetting with the second part of the question is, i am sorry. host: i wanted to offer your perspective being in the room. alayna, the second question was

about hardening schools. this proposal of what that means. the information we have from the release yesterday from that i partisan group of senators -- bipartisan group of senators on safety -- school safety, this legislation would help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools to provide training to school personnel and students. do you have sense of what that means in the end? guest: it is difficult and a controversial subject. the idea of putting the responsibility of schoolteachers , on school districts, on the children themselves to fortify the schools, to have this kind of training is something that is controversial. again, something many democrats have pushed back against. with this framework, specifically, i am told a lot of that funding is going to the states and different districts,

where they can determine what kind of training is best for them. it is similar in other parts of the bill, red flag laws, they are giving state grants and allowing them to implement those on a case-by-case basis. it will not be with regard to fortifying schools that blanket training that every school district is going to have is going to be up to the school districts themselves and to the states. it is a tough thing. i want to point out one of the arguments against fortifying schools, looking out -- at how other countries around the globe deal with these issues. america has a real epidemic when it comes to gun violence, to mass shootings and mass shootings in schools, specifically. a lot of questions have been on school safety and security, but

in other countries, they do not have that. one of the arguments has been the other places do not have mental illness -- mental illness exists everywhere around the world. america still has a massive gun problem. democrats argument is, it is the guns that are the issue, not the mental health aspect as much. not having the schools being -- that is something that they will -- this bill will give an option for, you should expect more trainings and security happening across the country as different communities try and deal with this issue. host: san antonio, republican. caller: thank you for taking my calls this time. i am a brazilian american --

someone born in africa. i am american out of choice. it is terrible to hear what republicans and democrats are saying in this country about guns. we have children. in the classroom, he is often thinking about what he would do should a shooter break into the classroom. that is my children. imagine what he is going to do, shoot the shooter? the same thing my daughter told

me, when she goes to church, she does not want to sit at the door, close to the door/ . she wants to sit in the middle. my daughter is just 15. we get talking and talking, bringing up some kind of legislation, some are saying it is only the shooter -- no. i am a mental health professional. most mental health professionals are -- host: thanks for sharing your perspective for your kids. i want to get to a few more callers. ricky in muskegon, michigan. democrat. caller: how are you doing today? host: i am doing well, go ahead. caller: i worked in schools, we

always had gun drills. our policeman, when they came to the school, they had one team to get into the school, -- one key to get into the school, one key for all the rooms. this problem is, it is too many illegal guns and guns of war that is out on the streets. they need to get all them guns out on the streets out of here. that is the biggest problem. that is the gun lobby. host: darlene, on that, we have heard the president call for voters to send him more democrats to congress if they want some of these stronger gun laws. how much do you think the focus is going to be on that headed into the 2022 elections, and as the white house think that message is resonating with

voters right now? guest: a lot of time between now and november, when the elections are held. while the gun issue right now is front and center, that could change in the coming months. inflation is the other issue that is front and center on a lot of people's minds, as long as gas remains five dollars or more per gallon, milk is expensive, and exert expensive, baby formula is hard to find, those -- eggs are expensive, baby formula is hard to find, those issues drive people to the foals -- polls. host: on democratic proposals to battle inflation, anything happening this week? guest: i do not expect it to happen this week.

it is definitely an issue at the forefront of democrats and republicans minds, democrats know they have a real issue when it comes to the rising prices of goods in america, rising gas prices. that is something i know the house has been trying to work toward, doing something to help americans struggling from the prices at the pump. it is going to be, if not one of the biggest, if not the biggest issues that they face ahead of the midterms. that is something that is definitely plaguing a lot of democrats. they have been trying to put pressure on president biden and the biden administration to address the crisis more head on, incorporate it into his speeches, travel around the country to speak about the problem of inflation and what is

happening with the economy right now. they are going to continue to want that in the coming months. host: north carolina, matt, independents. caller: how are you doing today? host: doing well. caller: my question is, let's say the democrats and republicans get what they want, gun legislation, what is the outcry after that? no reason that congress didn't get together and control inflation, that has been getting out of hand due to covid. that is the other issue. no one is talking about monkeypox. host: that is met in north carolina. any thoughts on that? guest: i want to make sure i get the question right. i think he asked, what would

happen if they do not get anything done? host: what happens if they do, and there is another mass shooting? what does that mean? guest: this gun framework that they have laid out will not prevent all mass shootings. it is a struggle. that is definitely, i am sure we are going to see this happen in the future. i do not think anyone on capitol hill thinks that this is going to solve all of the problems or the gun issue overall within this country. they see it as a step in the right direction, it is one of the biggest concerns and criticisms that people on the left and democrats have, if this doesn't go nearly far enough as it needs to deal with the countries issue right now. they think it is progress, they know if they want to get anything done, it has to be

within the parameters they have laid out. a lot of people think if they can get this deal, they've got republicans talking with them and come up with some agreement, there may be more of that down the road. i think a lot of democrats are trying to reference this as a necessary first step, but definitely not as being comprehensive in what is needed. host: 15 and its left and this week ahead in washington roundtable -- minutes left in this week ahead in washington roundtable. darlene, on the white house, a broad beat you work on over there, what is the story you are watching for this week that we haven't talked about yet this morning? guest: we have talked about inflation a little bit. the president's schedule, the white house will put out a preview of his week and the

preview we got yesterday did not show an event where the president is going to be focusing solely on the inflation issue. i did mention he is going to philadelphia on tuesday to talk to the aso cio convention, he may bring it up there. the white house has been on a push this month the president to put him out to show to the american people he understands the financial tension they are feeling, that he is doing everything he can to address inflation. he did a little bit of this last week in los angeles, he went to the port of los angeles and talked about inflation. unfortunately, he did it on a day when the inflation number was not very good. it was not in his favor. i will be watching to see what they do with the president this week, where they send him, where they put him, how they put him out to address inflation and try

to get the people to understand, talk to the people and have them understand he is doing everything they can to address it. as we have been talking about here, it is a huge issue for democrats going into the fall. there is only so much time left before the election, something has to turn around for democratic fortune in the midterm to look up a little bit. host: alayna, what is the topic you are watching for this week that we haven't talked about in this first half-hour? guest: the two things i'm watching, the gun debate and the january 6 hearings. that will be dominating all coverage on capitol hill this week. there is a lot of legislation, one thing i am paying attention to behind the scenes, what type of legislation can congress get done before the midterms take over everything? typically, you have until about

august to do anything from a legislative perspective. before everything becomes about the midterms, numbers go back to their districts to campaign. some of the big things in the air are congresses compete act, there china competition and microchips legislation -- legislation, it passed the senate a year ago, they are working with the house to work out kinks and try a compromise between both chambers. they are hoping to get that done , if not by the summer, definitely early fall. the goal is to have that done sooner rather than later. as with everything in congress, things take time, and often, far more time than leaders have allotted. there has been talk about antitrust legislation, a bipartisan bill chuck grassley

-- the senate is confident it could get the votes needed to have that passed. when there is so little time to look at what can be done and try to get the votes needed to pass essential legislation, democrats are running out of time. they recognize, in the fall, they could be losing their majority, whether in the house or senate. if you look at historical trends for the party that the president has in power. there is a lot of urgency to get key priorities done within that timeframe. it is unclear how successful they will be before time runs out. host: a few more callers before our timelines out -- time runs out together. miller, nebraska, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is your question or comment? caller: i have a question on this gun legislation.

how did that get passed? how did these ar-15's get out on the streets? host: what do you mean by that, miller? caller: it had to have been passed sometime back for these ar-15's to be sold on the street, i thought they were only for the military. guest: host: -- host: maybe the caller is referring to assault weapons ban in the 1990's, where we are today after that. the sunset man. you want to fill us on the backs toy that led to what we saw yesterday -- back story that led to what we saw yesterday? guest: there used to be a ban on

assault style weapons, that expired. that has been the weapon of choice, ar-15's, for a lot of mass shooters. if you look at some of the worst mass shootings in modern history , a lot of them were using assault style weapons. that is something that was really a nonstarter for a lot of republicans, the current legislation -- it is not legislation yet. the current framework and agreement that a group of bipartisan senators has worked out does not include, not only a band, there is no ban for assault style weapons, they knew it not get supported. they put one in there, but they do not want a -- they do not want to raise the note to 20 -- raise the age to 21. four handguns, you have to be 21

years old to purchase. these assault style weapons, you can legally purchase at 18. that is something democrats want to change, the president has been vocal about wanting to raise the age limit. as of now, it would not be able to get votes to pass in the senate. host: speaking of that legislation, chuck schumer tweeted yesterday, the announcement of gun safety framework is a good step towards action in the gun epidemic. i will put this bill on the floor as soon as possible so the senate can advance gun safety legislation. one tweet from one of our viewers saying, it speaks volumes out of the 10 senators supporting this gun compromise, only one is up for reelection. half of them are retiring, the overwhelming number of republicans will not touch this issue during an election year. do you think much more than the 10 senators who originally signed on will be added to the

list here? guest: that is the goal for senator john cornyn, it is going to be difficult. the polls around this are tough. if you look at the timing, it was right for some sort of deal. you can go through a series of things, the nra has weakened, it is not as influential as it once once -- was. it has lost power the last several years, it is popular within this country for there to be enhanced gun safety measures if you look at the book -- polling. a majority of americans want increased legislation and security around guns. that is another thing that has been driving why republicans are coming to the table. i think the nature of the shooting in uvalde and the shooting before that in buffalo, a race motivating should -- motivated shooting, is awful. it is such a tragedy, it

happened in texas, which is senator john cornyn's, senator ted cruz'z backyard. feeling on capitol hill as well, they cannot not act now, they recognize that morally and politically. the time is right to do that. we will see. if you have at least 10, it can pass. the goal is to get more republicans on the map. it is going to be difficult. rich mcconnell, whether he decides to end -- mitch mcconnell, whether he decides to endorse it, will be critical. host: darlene, any thoughts from your perch looking down from capitol hill? guest: the goal is to get as many republicans on the bill as possible it remains to be seen

how many more will sign on. one thing to watch is whether any of those who help negotiate the framework could potentially drop off once the framework is translated into legislative text and you get into the details of what they want to accomplish. host: where the rubber meets the road, we see the text when it comes out. sabrina in asheville, north carolina, independent, thanks for waiting. caller: the mass shootings that we have -- we have already got the world's strictest gun laws. i personally think -- [indiscernible] the best thing we can do is offer a defense, we are getting as a country, distracted by the

violence in our country, not focusing on our economics. i would like to see congress release packages that stimulates the economy. out of that, lift the lien on the federal income tax returns that people can make for economic recovery, i would like to see another stimulus check. everybody is trying to recover. the economy is going crazy right now. i think people did stimulus checks, the businesses would create more revenue. if we lifted the liens on the federal income tax, that would put money and the economy. host: did you get a stimulus check during the pandemic, and

did it help? guest: -- caller: it did help. my husband has child support on me, child support is -- i do not care how you say it, how many times they hide behind the children. it is a better system that operates within the country. unlike congress, we do not have money for this, we do not have money for that. what they are not saying, there is trillion in trillions of unclaimed federal income tax returns that are owed to the american people. host: let me pause there. alayna, are you hearing anything about another round of stimulus checks? guest: that is something i have heard from pundits and former administration officials from the past presidencies talk about, rather than on capitol hill now. it is an option.

problem with stimulus checks and other large funding packages is, that is part of the problem. more spending, more spending from the federal government is increasing and adding to the country's problem. there is a hesitancy on capitol hill, particularly from those on the right, to do any sort of massive funding package. again, whether it goes for ukraine or to stimulating the economy again, there was talk of another coronavirus relief package on capitol hill, but as of now, republicans do not really want to have more spending and add to the national debt, and potentially increase and inflate inflation further. host: darlene, do you think the white house would get involved in an effort like that? guest: i will add, it is not only republicans resistant to federal spending, remember

senators mansion and cinema were seen by the white house as roadblock due to the presidents build back better proposal, which had money for things like travel care, free community college, senator manchin's concern about that package, he was worried about inflation. i do not see the white house at this point pushing on that, there was talk about trying to do a smaller version of build back at her. the legislative clock is running out, there is only so much congress seems to be able to do at one time at any given moment. host: one or two more phone calls, this is del in warwick, new york. democrat, good morning. caller: i have called senator schumer, we have a law that will cover this problem about the

people killing people in schools. the law is, if you are driving the getaway car, and someone died in the bank robbery, the driver of the car is convicted. if someone is living under your roof and commits this kind of a crime, you are also held responsible. i do not care if they are for -- 14 or 40, how could they be living in your home and you do not know that they have got all these guns, how crazy they are acting? come on, let's have more responsibility. if schumer hears me, call me. i gave you my number. i want to know why you cannot use this law that is in effect. am i still on? host: yes, let me turn it over to the panel because we have a

minute left. guest: that is a tough argument to make. i think there has been talk in the past of our parents and those who are raising children living with the shooter responsible, it is a dicey path to go down, proof of culpability is difficult. that is not something that is a law currently, as it relates to this gun issue. it is not something that will be in the framework. host: darling, anything you want to add in the last 30 seconds -- darlene, anything to add? guest: this is something to use the bully pulpit to talk to parents about knowing what their children are up to, those kinds of things, stress more responsibility to this issue. host: you can find darlene superville at

darlenesupervilleap on twitter, and alayna treene. about an hour and 15 minutes left. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, we are taking you to that january 6 congressional hearing. you can stay here to watch it on c-span, c-span outdoor, and on the free c-span now video app -- c-span.org, and the free video app. there is a report on the viability on medicare and social security, we go through the numbers and policy implications with joseph antos and max richtman. stick around, we will be right back. ♪

>> the january 6 committee continues its public hearings, releasing evidence gathered in their investigation. tune in today as the committee examines former president donald trump's role in the assault on the u.s. capitol, with previously unseen material and witness testimony. watch live today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. you can visit our website, c-span.org/january6 two watch videos related to that day.

c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government, our newsletter, word for word, recaps the day for you, from the walls of congress to daily press be things -- briefings, to remarks from the president. sign up and stay up-to-date with everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code, or visit c-span .org/connect. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season in -- one focuses on lyndon b. johnson. he will hear about the 1964 presidential campaign, the march on selma, the war on vietnam.

not everyone know -- new they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretory's new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones that maitre d'conversations were taped, as -- that made sure conversations were taped. >> you will hear blunt talk. >> how will i report the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died, the number assigned to me now? if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i will not go. i promise you, i will stay behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings, find it on the c-span app, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: a focus on the health of

social security and medicare, our guests for the next 45 minutes, joe antos, max richtman. good morning to you both. mr. richtman, the projections on how long these programs are going to be around. we found out new numbers a couple of weeks ago. what did we find out? guest: that is the wrong question, how long these programs will be around. the report tells us the trust fund will be depleted one year later than the report it last year, 2035. that does not mean the program will not exist after 2035, that is an important distinction. if we get to 2035, no change in law to bring in more revenue into the program. people will get about 78% of

what they ought to get, does not mean the program is bankrupt. does not mean there is no money there. does not mean money has been stolen. it means there is a big problem, but we can fix that. host: in the form that it has been right now? guest: it will be if congress does the right thing. host: that is what we will talk about in the next 45 minutes, what congress can do. guest: even if congress doesn't do anything, it is in the law. the projections are unrealistic. two assumptions that i think are problematic for social security, the trustees or actuaries assumed that inflation was temporary and mild. we already know that is not true. they also assumed that the labor market would be -- a short

slowdown, but a taxable payroll would grow rapidly, almost immediately and into the future. if we are in a recession, we are not yet, but we did have first-quarter gdp sell, two quarters equals a recession. if we did have a recession then, that is a bad protect -- projection. it is highly likely that the real on solvency date for social security and medicare is not as far out as the trustees have said. as max said, the question is, to what would congress do if congress didn't do anything, benefits would be paid, but it wouldn't be paid in full. host: based on these projections, what should congress do? guest: congress should bring more revenue into the program. there is no reason to cut

benefits, the average social security benefit is 1016 -- 1600 dollars a month. they should not be looking at cutting benefits. we should be looking at expanding the program, improving benefits and bring more money into the program. there are ways to do that. a lot of people are not aware there is a cap on wages, subject to the payroll tax. it changes a little bit every year. it is 147 thousand dollars in wages this year, congressman larson has a terrific proposal that would begin collecting -- keep the cap what it is, "let the payroll taxes on -- let the payroll taxes. it is consistent with president biden's pledge to not raise taxes, extend the life of the program, improve needed benefits. host: explain how these programs

are funded, you talk about the cap. guest: they are funded by the payroll tax. by design, this program has built up a serve to accommodate the baby boomers that have started entering the social security program. there is almost $3 trillion in the trust fund. that is what is going to be drawn down over the next 13, may be less, may be more, years. we will get to the point only enough money will come in in payroll taxes to pay benefits. when i hear people talk about the program is bankrupt, there is no money, as you started in your opening, at the end of the program, that is false. the only way social security could be bankrupt, broke, not able to pay anybody anything, is if we had 100% unemployment and nobody was paying payroll taxes.

even my colleague would agree with that. guest: that doesn't mean things are fine and dandy. that is the point. let me bring in medicare. seniors and disabled americans have both been up with social security and medicare. in medicare, the situation is far more serious. the program is partly financed by payroll taxes. there is on payroll levels that would -- there is no cap on payroll levels. you are earning money through a job as opposed to other income. there is no cap on that. in addition, the program has been getting money from the treasury. and, general revenue.

substantial amounts of general revenues. in fact, the medicare program has been living on borrowed time ever since it started. the deficit are relative to dedicated sources of revenue, as payroll taxes, revenues including premiums. how are we paying for that? there are millions of dollars sitting around the treasury, waiting to be spent on medicare. we are borrowing it. we have a substantial deficit, a budget deficit. the national debt is growing every year. it has now exceeded the level from world war ii. that is trouble. host: let me open the phone lines to invite viewers to start calling in. phone numbers, split differently

in this segment. if you are social security, medicare recipient, (202) 748-8000. all others, (202) 748-8001. we are having this conversation for the next 35 minutes or so. back to that trustees report, what did we find out from the trustees about how they think the pandemic impacted these programs? guest: mr. goss, the testified -- testified at the budget committee meeting. it has a negligible impact. it -- sadly, many seniors have died, that improve the balance sheet, if you will. also, wages have been going up. it is my understanding that his conclusion is that the pandemic was a wash when it came to

solvency of the trust fund. i want to comment, i agree. medicare has a problem. why don't you support the negotiation of prescription drugs? why doesn't american enterprise get into allowing mandating the federal government to negotiate for the best price? when i talk to seniors across the country, they do not get it. why an entity representing tens of millions of people is prohibited specifically, but who created the prescription drug plan, from negotiating the best price. that would bring down the deficit, help bring down the cost of the federal government, and make it cheaper for seniors to buy the medicine they need to live. guest: that is a nice pitch. it almost isn't true. i said -- spent a lot of time

being a part of the medicare program. guest: that is why i am asking the question. guest: their ability to negotiate prices is minimal. they do not negotiate prices now. i am talking about any prices. we are talking about hospitals, doctors, none of those prices are negotiated. congress set limits, congress could set limits. that doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to bail out the medicare program. prescription drugs, is a very small portion of spending of the medicare program. everyone would guess, hospitals are the big spenders. if you think that having the government set prices is a good idea, tell your colleagues on the hill that they should look at the hospital industry.

i do not endorse the at all, i think it is a terrible idea. host: this might be a good time to explain your background on this issue. how long you've been working on these issues. guest: it will make me look older than i actually am, i've been working in medicare issues for quite a few decades. i spent a good bit of time in the 90's working on physician payment systems. i spend a great deal of time helping innovative approaches that could potentially save money, could potentially improve health care. interestingly, many of the things we were working on the early 90's we are still working on the program today. it is not easy. guest: the national committee to

preserve social security and medicare was founded in the early 80's by a former congressman by the name of james roosevelt, who happen to be the oldest son of president roosevelt. he felt the new administration coming in, the reagan administration, was concerned about the future of social security. medicare was added shortly thereafter. he wanted to preserve what he thought was his father's greatest legacy, he founded the committee to preserve social security medicare. we have millions of members and supporters around the country. his son is the vice chair of our advisory board. i would say to your comment, the fact other parts of the medicare program are not subject to negotiation does not mean we should not do that. certainly when it comes to escription drugs. i know that is not the subject

of this whole program. host: we have 45 minutes, we could have a range of subjects. out of minnesota, on the line for recipients. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am on social security disability, i have multiple sclerosis. a way to prolong the lives of these programs -- letting them get away with it. i know several people who are committing fraud on social security, disability. it irritates me. it is a threat to stop that program, disability. it is going to hurt me and i won't be able to work. they are creating fraud. host: thanks for bringing up

that issue of fraud and abuse in the programs. what do we know? guest: in terms of the medicare program, it is more business oriented type of fraud. talking about individuals, a potentially providing information that may not have been appropriate to make them eligible for disability insurance. we have had a series of scandals over the years with things that are called health lands that are not necessarily health plans that overbuild. right now, there is concern with medicare advantage. that is part of the program were people enroll in a private health plan. it operates under medicare rules. there are better benefits.

there is a limit on how much you have to pay out-of-pocket every year. it is a good deal for a lot of people. the concern is the payments are based on a calculation of the health risk. in a sense, that makes sense. if you have a plan and you are providing services to very unhealthy people, they are going to have more expenses. there is going to be adjustment. this is a risk adjustment. also the coding of conditions that are minor, but have an influence on the payment is a growing issue. the medicare payment advisory commission has been concerned and talking about this for years. this is another issue where congress does not want to act. whatever you think about that issue. one must think about negotiation for medicare, the negotiation does not occur the way most

people would think negotiation occurs. that is why you get this results in the medicare program. it is a political deal. if you turn it into politics, you will get politics, not efficient health care. guest: can i comment on disability on the callers point? there are undoubtedly cases where the program has been misused. it is difficult to receive disability benefits. it takes a long time. there are people who lose a claim and appeal it, they wait 18 months. people die waiting for the disability approval. i am sure with the program that large, there are cases of fraud, but it is a pretty solid program. medicare advantage is not better than medicare. you look at the inspector general's report that came out a few weeks ago, a lot of medicare

advantage participants were denied coverage that was approved by the medicare program. why? medicare advantage is reimbursed, set about per capita. the less care they provide, the more money they make, the more profit they make. i think the statement that medicare advantage is better than medicare is bunk. guest: what i was really saying is it offers additional benefits. it is what your constituents want to they want additional benefits. they want to paid for by taxpayers. they want the same additional benefits. guest: pitching medicare programs nonstop on television. host: from ohio on the recipient line. caller: good morning, my

question is if you could go into detail, what does it take to lift the cap? does it take 50, 51 votes? 60, 66? just lifting the cap. i can't figure out in my head why an employer and employee are harmed financially if they are making $147,000 a year. if you can afford to pay that kind of money to an employee, the employee is making that kind of money, what harm -- financial harm are they going to suffer? guest: no harm, in my opinion. politically, it is probably more realistic to maintain the cap. as i mentioned at the outset, it goes up every year. to reinstitute the payroll tax, senator sanders introduced to

billy o'day -- a bill the other day. the larson bill in the senate, blumenthal has sponsored it. $400,000. eventually, they cap will be eliminated because the cap goes up every year. the other thing i wanted to mention, this is very important. we need to bring more revenue into the program. part of it can be done by adjusting the cap. to answer the question, and the senate you need 60 votes to get anything done. a majority in the house. but why not -- things have changed. a lot of people receive their earnings unearned income. not just wages. why don't we think about applying payroll tax to the unearned income?

things have changed. in 1980, 90 2% of wages were covered by payroll tax. now, it is 80% because of growing inequality, income inequality. it is time to make changes. host: how would you feel about paying unearned income? guest: you have to have evaluations. the thing that bernie sanders in particular is fond of, he wants to tax unrealized gains. basically tax wealth. guest: that is not what i am talking about. guest: the transaction, with the prices, piece of artwork are. you do not know what anyone is willing to pay for it, you can't do that. if you are talking about realized gains, that is a fair discussion to have.

you can't just say, all we have to do is out of revenue to the social security program. it is fair to ask yourself, are we doing a good job for low income social security recipients? i would argue no. one of the proposals my colleague strongly supports for expanded benefits of social security for everybody, regardless of income or wealth status, anything else. that seems unreasonable to me. i would direct more benefits to lower income people. i would taper off the escalation of benefits at the higher levels , that will go a long way to making the social security program work better. guest: the bill congressman larson sponsor has over 200 cosponsors and would approve the

minimum benefits of it is at least 120 5% above poverty. as far as tapering off -- 125% above poverty. you have to start tapering off to have any impact. you can't just have the wealthiest receive less in benefits, that will not address the problem. guest: i completely agree. you cannot just tax the wealthiest either, there are not enough of them. host: john larson was on the program last week. if viewers want to watch the on our website and, -- website, c-span.org. from virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, i have a couple of questions for both gentlemen. i understand whatever the inflation is, it is supposed to match for seniors.

last fall, we got 5.99. inflation was at 6.99. i do not understand how they justify that. i also want to know, please enter the second question, too. why is it we never, ever hear anything about welfare running out of money? thank you, gentlemen. host: i will let you start. guest: on inflation, the issue is the actuaries have to make a projection. it is a sophisticated guess about what inflation will be for the next year. i am not sure when they would have done this, i think it is issued in october. it is in the fall. it was well before inflation really took off. this is the year where we are getting hurt by inflation. the caller is right. there's not much we can do about that. even actuaries are not fortunetellers.

on the question of why do welfare programs not run out of money, they are financed in an entirely different way. medicare and social security could be -- at an incredible political cost, changed, it is highly unlikely. guest: it is unlikely. the reason the coda is inadequate is because the formula that is used to calculate it is flawed. the formula used to measure inflation for purposes of cost-of-living adjustment for social security looks at inflation's impact on wage earners and ought to be changed. the larson bill does this by something called the consumer price index for the elderly. i am sure mr. larson talked about that. it would look at the market basket of goods and services that seniors rely on, like medicine.

like the premium for medicare part b, which went up by $22 a month, eating up a lot of the big cola from last year. in 2010, 2011 and 2016, the cola was zero. when i go to town hall meetings and i say you are not going to get a cola this year, you have no inflation -- host: the caller said it was 5.9% last year? if they use the measure you are talking about, what with the number be? guest: i do not have the exact number. it is higher, not a lot higher. keep in mind, the cola is cumulative, like interest on a savings account. over time, it makes a big difference. host: fort worth texas. good morning. caller: i would like to aunts -- ask mr. antos a question. i disagree with something.

he talked about medicare advantage being better. i disagree with that. you need to tell the public that medicare advantage is an insurance company that is almost always an hmo. hmo, and the medicare -- in the medicare or medical field, is not something anyone can rely on . to go to a good physician that will give total care. if you have that hmo, you are not going to get that. i want to understand why you said that. guest: thanks for that comment. look, medicare advantage is not for everybody. there are still about 60% of medicare beneficiaries who are in traditional medicare. the system is moving in the direction of private, no question about it. but it is not obviously not fit

for everybody. the medicare beneficiary needs to pay attention. you can make a change every single year. you can go from medicare advantage plan to another one. you can go from medicare advantage plan to traditional service medicare. then you can go and the other directions, as well. it is highly advisable for everyone to look every year in the fall at where they are, knowing what the health situation is now, because it has been updated. they know things have changed. premiums go up, the network of providers changes. a whole bunch of things. that also applies to traditional medicare. people need to make sensible choices. guest: what joe needs to do when talking to millions of people is tell them medicare advantage has limited networks of physicians, that medicare advantage -- you

cannot switch back to traditional medicare whenever you want. you've got to do in the open enrollment period. if you go back to traditional medicare and have been in medicare advantage, it may be impossible or at least very expensive to buy a medigap policy. that is a problem. guest: that is a problem, that is a problem with the medicare program. it tells you how bad the additional medicare program is. one of the things ma plans do is provide medigap coverage. what do people actually paying traditional medicare? they pay part b premiums, they are not paying payroll taxes by and large. but they pay the part b premiums, which go up substantially every year. they are also paying hundreds of dollars for a medigap plan.

arguably, i would think we would be discussing how to reform medicare in a way that provides appropriate benefits without breaking the bank. this is a program that is extremely complicated. this is the reason why the caller is rightly upset. it is hard for experts to understand it. joe is not an expert, i am sorry. host: ohio, good morning. caller: a couple comments. the money text in your social security when you start receiving, they start taxing. why not put that back into the social security fund instead of the general fund? maybe that would help a little bit. the second, i think social security should be based on age. the type of work you have done your whole life. you worked in the coal mine or building bridges, your body is going to be rammed down more than someone who worked at a climate control office. i think that should be taken

into consideration. inky. -- thank you. guest: on the last point, we can sit here and talk about raising the age for collecting social security. we can work, so long as we can talk. we can do these kinds of jobs. but if you are working in a factory, if you are a nurse, if you are on your feet most of the day or doing hard labor, putting up telephone lines, you cannot keep working until you're 68, 69, 70. i've heard policymakers talk about extending it even beyond 70. that is unrealistic. where are these jobs for people that are supposed to collect benefits later?

not only are many people unable to keep working, but where are these decent jobs for all these people? it does not add up. guest: the caller is right. it shows have by the disability insurance program is. it is often very difficult to qualify for di. again, we have -- in particular for social security -- we have a depression era program that really has not fundamentally changed. the numbers have changed, but it is the same design that was there many, many years ago. medicare is not much better, the 1960's era program modeled after insurance that no longer exists. it is modeled after blue cross blue shield plans which explains why there is a separate part a and part b.

there was blue cross and blue shield, two separate plans. guest: social security is a dynamic program. it has changed, added a lot of different benefits that were not included. guest: not with regard to what the caller was asking about. guest: i am sorry, the program that has paid everybody who has qualified for social security on time, in full for about 87 years. it is a pretty darn good model, in my opinion. host: i guess the question is, what is it going to take, and both of your opinions, for the folks who work in the building behind me to make tough decisions or big changes, whether it is additional funding or raising the age? we get these reports from trustees, how many years the program has left in its current form. what motivates them to act? guest: listen to the voters,

listen to the people. all of the polling, democrats, republicans, independence. upward of 80% of those political stripes support expanding the program, improving benefits, have the wealthy pay their fair share. folks in the building behind you, we have to listen to their constituents overwhelming support for the kinds of changes congressman john larson has been talking about, bernie sanders, congressman defazio. blumenthal. listen to the people. guest: i would say times have changed, because of covid, and ways one would not have expected. last year, multitrillion dollar bills were being passed. on an incredibly regular basis. a lot of money did not go toward public health. a lot of that money did not do one thing to help people who were seriously ill.

there is a real scandal there. my concern is may be we have turned a political corner, they thought deficits do not matter. all other countries of the world will accept dollars, no matter how inflationary we become. it is a serious threat not to the programs, mostly to the economy. if you do not have vigorous economic growth, we are not going to be able to support these programs or anything else. host: to sarah in new york, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. mr. richtman, i agree with most of what you are saying. we need a national health care plan. let me speak personally. right now in new york, i am a

retired new york city employee. we are fighting to keep arch additional medicare. they are trying to force us into a medicare advantage plan. let me tell everyone, there is no advantage. the problem with medicare advantage is it is for-profit. that is why you keep seeing william shatner doing commercials. they are trying to sucker people into programs that require prior authorization for many services that can be easily denied. you do not get that with traditional medicare. we are fighting as new york city employees, 260 thousand of us, including retired teachers, professors, police, firemen, ems to maintain arch additional medicare, which was promised to us -- our traditional medicare, which was promised to us. if anyone is listening and is a retired new york city employee, please fight for this.

we need to get eric adams and the city council on board with us, thank you. host: thank you for the call. guest: the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, we are fighting for you. and for traditional medicare. i agree with you totally. i mentioned a few minutes ago, there was an inspector general report that was issued three or four weeks ago that revealed millions of issues where benefits were denied by medicare advantage plans, even though they met the guidelines of the medicare program. you put your finger on it. it is about money. these plans receive a set amount of money per person. the fewer services they provide, the more denials they approve, the more money they save, the more money i suppose they can pay -- i will not say his name again, i do not want to give him that much publicity.

that is the problem. it is designed for profit. medicare has many issues, many things that need to be fixed. but it is not a for-profit program. that is one of the beauties of the medicare program. guest: it is easier for the taxpayer, it is a loser for children or grandchildren who are going to be suffering the consequences of bad policies we have accumulated over the last 50 years. good luck. the fact is, you raise the question, what would take them to move? i think it is nothing short of a miracle. it is not just a question of listening to the loud voices from organized lobbying groups. everybody is a lobbying group, including hospitals and doctors in the case of medicare. went to members of congress do

-- what to members of congress do? where are the pluses and minuses for various positions? they do not flip a coin, but it is not simpler theory of government. it is business. guest: i have a reasonable voice, i think. not especially loud. my point is members of congress should not be listening to the loudest voice, they should be listening to what constituents want. they want an improved program, financed by having the wealthy pay their fair share. host: let us listen to wayne's voice out of missouri. good morning. caller: good morning, first time caller. i do not understand why people who do not need a social security receive it.

in other words, if you have worked in this country, lived in this country and worked and made a nice living for yourself with good retirement benefits, and you are still receiving social security, that is wrong. what is best for the country is for people that need to social security to get it. host: have you thought about where you set that bar of wind you could still receive and when you would not? that is the toughest question. caller: that is open to discussion. if you exclude your housing, your property -- i do not know you can do that, people would put everything in their property. there seems to me that there has to be a way -- there is plenty of people in this country that are receiving money from social security. it is the biggest welfare program in the country for rich people. guest: one of the problems with

making any kind of a big change like that is it will induce businesses and individuals to change the way they are paid, the way they work. if you want to keep getting payroll taxes from people, which i do not think is a terribly efficient way to collect revenue for any program in the federal government. i think pay roy -- payroll taxes misses the point the caller is talking about. general income taxes make a lot more sense. so if we could just read the history again, we were in setting up the security program in the depression, they probably would have gone with income tax, which is a fair way to do it. it does not solve every problem. guest: i hope the caller, wayne,

would think about the fact this is not a welfare program. this is an earned benefit. when you are working, you pay your payroll taxes. you do not know at the other end when you retire what certain financial circumstances will be. their efforts to undermine the program, people are skeptical about it. younger people especially. all of the baloney of it will not be there, money was stolen. if you start putting out the message if you do well, you will not get social security, you will pay in all this time and you get to the point where you retire or become disabled or die young and survivor benefits kick in. if you do well, you will not get benefits. you will not get the invite you were told you were going to get. -- amount you were told you were going to get. what a way to undermine the program. that would be a disaster. host: pat in florida.

things for waiting. caller: if i could say one quick thing before i make my comment. the previous segment, gentlemen called about the ar for jean asking how it was introduced, the way i understood his question was how did the gun become legal to the public in the first place. host: we are running out of time on this roundtable. what is your question for them? caller: i am currently against increasing the retirement age. the lesson the age was increased, it was a big impact. that would be even more devastating. the stamina we lose as we age goes down, what we think we are going to be able to do, we can't do. i would say please, please do not increase the retirement age. host: about a minute and a half

left. guest: i agree completely. we talked about this this morning. it is not true people are living longer. the cdc told us between -- before the pandemic, the average lifespan went down by about a year. even more for african americans, little over 2.5 years. it is not true we are living longer. as i said earlier, where are the jobs for all these people that are supposedly living longer? they are not there. raising the age needs to be taken off the books. we did that in the early 80's. host: we will give you the final word. guest: the better approach is to reset the structure of the benefits so people who are well off do not get as generous benefits as the people who

really need the help. that is more feasible, politically. not taking all the benefits away , you do not immediately create that political opposition. but you are redistributing to the people who need the help. host: joe antos and max richtman, you can find them online. thank you both for the conversation. coming up, and about an hour, that in about an hour -- in about an hour, the second hearing to investigate the attack on the capital of. we will be hearing -- on the capitol on january 6. will be hearing for you.

(202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. we will get your calls after the break. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington come live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events of life streams of floor proceedings in hearings from congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns into more from the world politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and life scheduling information for c-span tv networks and c-span radio, plus podcasts. it is available on the apple store into google play. downloaded for free. google play -- download for

free. c-span now, your front row seat. >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive scheduled upcoming programs and more. book tv every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online at booktv.org. television for serious readers. >> now available in the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional direct erie. go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory. this compact book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments and contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today. every c-span shop purchase helps

support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> washington journal continues. host: about 25 minutes left in our program. we found out this morning the house select committee hearing, the second hearing to discuss and look into the attack on the capitol on january 6 was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. eastern, we are expecting at 10:30 to 10:45 start. they are just some staffers at this point doing the set up, no members. does not look like the press has been allowed in yet. otherwise the back would be very filled. some of what we are finding out about why the hearing may have been delayed, we were expecting the former trump campaign manager to testify today. this is the story from the hill

not too long ago. the former trump campaign manager will no longer appear before the january 6 panel today, removing a key witness as the panel seeks to show how the campaign thwarted asus claims of election fraud. due to a family emergency, he is unable to testify. his counsel will appear and make a statement on the record. the committee set according to a statement monday and the advisory, the committee noting the delay of 30 to 45 minutes. so couple of moving parts this morning as we await the hearing to begin. it is the first of three hearings this week. some of the other witnesses we are expecting this morning, there has not been news they will not be testifying. the former political editor at fox news, the new york times notes was fired after fox correctly called the 2020 presidential election in arizona

for biden. a move that angered then-president trump. a second panel of witnesses will include former u.s. attorney in atlanta who resigned abruptly after refusing to say widespread voter fraud have been found in georgia. the panel is also scheduled to hear from al schmidt, the former city commissioner in philadelphia who stood up to president trump's lies as the new york times puts it. jim and ginsberg -- benjamin ginsberg who served as counsel for george w. bush campaign and played a role in the recount of 2000 was also slated to appear. we will see what happens when that gets underway around 10:30 a.m. or 10:45 a.m. eastern. we are showing you here on c-span, c-span.org.

you can watch on the free c-span video app area phone lines are yours to hear from you about your expectations for today. thoughts on the committee work so far. good morning. independent. caller: good morning, i am calling. independent voter. i have voted since i was of age to vote, i am 79 years old. i want to say i am watching these hearings because i want to find out for myself what the truth is. trump didn't win, they keep telling stories about this and that. i wanted to say, if you are charged with something, part of the jury trial -- as i see fit. host: paducah, kentucky.

publican. good morning -- republican. caller: they called a select committee, who selected it? nancy pelosi? why don't they get to rebuttal on any of these so-called witnesses? that is what i do not understand. the people on that committee in washington do not understand. they are doing this just to keep trump from getting elected again. when people are worried about now is how much their gas and food costs. that is all i have got to say. host: members of the committee are walking into the hearing room, we will continue to take your calls. paducah, kentucky. good morning.

just heard from you, sorry about that. the members walking in, that is from last week. the members walking into the room, some of the b roll. apologize for that. they have not entered the hearing room this morning, as we noted. there is a live shot of the hearing room. raleigh, north carolina. independent. caller: good morning. i am really still in shock from the last comments about the "so -called witnesses." i attended elementary, middle and high school and college with officer edwards, she is one of the most brave, strong individuals. her experiences speak to the pain and violence she experienced and endured on

january 6. i cannot even comprehend how someone can even attempt to invalidate the strength and courage she endured while protecting everyone in the capital, doing everything she could to go above and beyond to do her job. host: was it a surprise to you she was testifying at the hearing thursday night? did you have any since before that she would? caller: i have not. she is a few years older than me , i had not kept in touch with her over the years. but i hurt officer edwards would be testifying, i thought there are only so many officers named caroline edwards.

when i researched, she was the same officer they are referring to. i was really surprised. i had not known prior to that she had been that officer that was first injured. host: claudia from pennsylvania, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: my comment, i feel this is a waste of our time and taxpayer money. the one that needs to be a witness is nancy pelosi. she was in charge of protecting the capital, why are they protecting her? what does she have to hide? host: john in cincinnati, ohio. caller: i have about three things i'd like to say. good morning morning, everyone

on c-span. the war going, all of that. the thing i want people to answer for me, we have the hippo law. -- hipaa law. women's reproduction, why are they up in their business? host: we are talking about the january 6 committee. caller: we are getting there. see something, say something. as far as homeland security goes , where were they at when we got somebody in the presidency that is giving us all these problems and they are not even looking at us? where is homeland security. everybody can see it. it is easy to see.

some people just do not have any love in their heart. host: john in ohio, the select committee, made up of nine members. seven democrats, two republicans. one of those members from california was on abc this week yesterday, what they will be asking witnesses about today. this is some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> did we hear your strongest evidence in this first hearing, are the new revelations that could offer hard proof that donald trump was responsible what happened? >> i think you have heard a good sampling of what you are going to see in the hearings to come. the evidence is very powerful, that donald trump began telling the lie before the election. he was saying any ballots counted after election day would be inherently suspect.

that continued after the election and ultimately led to this mob assembling and attacking the capital. you have heard a few examples of what those witnesses have said behind closed doors. there is more testimony where that came from. most important is we are weaving together how each line -- light led to another and another and ultimately, related -- ultimately culminated in the attack. >> would you like to see former president trump criminally prosecuted? would that be good for the country? >> i would like to see the justice department investigate any credible allegation of criminal activity on the part of donald trump or anybody else. the rule of law needs to apply equally to everyone. host: congressman adam schiff on abc's this week yesterday. about 15 minutes left, hearing from you ahead of the second january 6 select committee.

it is expected to get underway at about 10: 30 a.m. or 10:45 a.m. eastern, we noted a bit of a delay this morning. carol is in west virginia, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yes. host: you are on the air. caller: give me a little bit of time. i find it funny adam schiff once justice, but never once justice or to investigate anything to do with certain people. if they really want to find out -- this is just my opinion -- what led up to january the sixth, everybody knows and agrees it was horrible.

horrible. disgusting, watching her george floyd was murdered. -- how george floyd was murdered. all summer long, we watched cities, businesses get burned. police were told to stand back, because they are frustrated. or this is a social justice. you cannot allow and not condemn violence and call it social justice, for one. i was in the some of these, watching live streamers when all of this was going on. you could see people getting more frustrated just by reading some of the comments. i've seen comments were going to

be in washington on january the sixth. get your maga gear, we got to make these people think we are maga. as i have seen on the livestream's, i do not know why -- host: timothy in north carolina, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i would like to make the point, i think a lot of people do not understand how close we came to losing the democracy we are in. they do not understand if those rioters got their way and shut down all the things in place that day for the new president to take over, the society we live in today could possibly not be what we see today.

if you think covid was bad, how bad it is, can you imagine if half the country shut down because we have a president who is not legally an office? as an independent who served my country, who loves my country -- i do not agree with everything in the country, i do not agree with everything democrats do. i do not agree with everything republicans do. what i do agree with his the rule of law. dr. martin luther king, the things people of color had to go through is one thing he made very clear. nonviolence. nonviolence and protests will get you to a place where people will come to your side and agree with you, because of the goodness of the heart. america has lost its way, people are looking past when it should be more important than anything is that president trump, who i

respect as a person, decided he was not going to leave office and was going to stay in there by any means necessary. people supporting him would do it by any means necessary. whether they were justified or not, i will not say. but on the legal side of it, it does not take a person with a degree or scholarly person to see people were egged on because they are able to hide behind the laws and different things. it is going to be hard for the select committee to charge anyone. i want the people to understand, we came close to what is learning what is precious to all americans, our freedom. host: just under 10 minutes left this morning, we are going to end our program as usual at 10 of what a.m. eastern. -- 10:00 a.m. eastern.

the committee will pick up the second day of hearings following the thursday night primetime hearing, it is expected to begin around 10:30, 10: 45 this morning. c-span, as we will be for all of these hearings, is the pool camera. i should say some seven cameras inside the hearing room, we will be showing you all the angles and gavel-to-gavel coverage here on c-span, c-span.org and you still have time to download and watch on the free c-span video app. robert in new york, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat, i voted for mr. biden. i did not vote for mr. trump at any time. mr. trump is a great deceiver to my republican born-again evangelical christians. he is definitely the great deceiver.

i hope people would look into their hearts today with the bailout of people who were supposed to testify, they are scared as heck. they do not want to be hung, as our first president would line them up and put them in the firing squad. host: this is john in wyoming, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, i think liz cheney needs to be talked about a little bit, being in wyoming. she is not from wyoming, but she figured out a place she could get elected on her father's name. she is very interested in a number of ways.

a few years ago, before she got elected, she was excited for buying a resident fishing license when she was a nonresident, which may sound minor. but that is not what we do. she is also doing a great job of raising money from most of the time democrats, millions. in wyoming, we do not have any tv stations and newspapers to spend it. so i think everybody needs to help us get the word out, which in wyoming is hard to do. she is not what people think she is. host: have you voted for her in the past? caller: -- an example of this committee. everybody have a good day, thank you. host: have you voted for her in the past?

i think we lost john. northern virginia, independent. good morning. caller: hello. during the cold war -- they were giving the soviets the information, economic information. if we killed them over such a small thing when can't we kill -- host: we will go to stephanie in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i am really disturbed to hear so many people talk about killing other people. that is not what this is about. as a matter of fact, the violence is what is causing

these hearings. i do not think meeting violence with violence is necessarily the best option. i am a democrat, i lived through watergate, i've lived through the early 60's when we were working on integration and a lot of black people on the eastern shore of maryland were being incited to riot or indicted for inciting to riot. i think we are on the right track here. i am surprised at the vitriol against liz cheney. i do not understand quite why we have jumped to the edge of the cliff. all of this, democrat, independent, republican. listening to people saying, let us hang people. what is going on in this country? i am flabbergasted.

69 years old, i've been watching politics because my mom taught me to read early, since i was about seven. i remember the 1960 debate. i've seen so much. but there is nothing compared to the tension in the air today between people who have no idea where the other person stands. that person you want to hang, you have no clue who he or she is. he did not understand what a person is until you walk in their shoes. host: what is it about america today? what has changed, why have we gotten here? caller: i don't know. the easy answer is the man's whose name i refuse to say, because it floats his boat so much, ruined this country. but that was not it. he was the catalyst. it was on the road to this already. i don't know. this is going to sound crazy,

but there are plastics lining our canned goods. there are -- those plastics have artificial hormones. that affects you. what we are eating as far as processed foods today is moving us toward that rat in the maze. host: this is jerry in new york, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. this is jerry, republican family. i believe in the investigation that is going on right now against what happened on january 6. i think it is something the country and all americans should follow up on. and really support. we cannot let this country go down the drain. we cannot become a banana

republic, like one of the previous callers set. trump is a great deceiver. people out of new york know what type of man he is. i would hope this investigation proves he was behind what happened on january 6. it is like me going into a crowded area and shouting fire. somebody gets hurt, i am responsible. host: bloomfield, iowa. independent. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. my issue is, the only ones that are testifying in the hearing are anybody against the previous president. he did not have anybody they are testifying -- the fbi guy that was there, instigating stuff. why aren't we seeing everybody? we are only seeing the select committee select people.

everybody says we could lose our democracy, that is just it. people need to know their history. this is not a democracy, this is supposed to be a republic, if we can keep it. the people of the country run the country, not the government. people need to understand that. we, the average citizen, run the country. not a government. government is only supposed to handle the federal side of things, oversee stuff. they are not supposed to handle inside the country, that is what the states are supposed to do. host: your point about the witnesses, the former campaign caller: that is what everybody wants to get back to where we, the average citizen runs the country, not the government.

the government is only supposed to proceeds to they are not supposed to handle --. host: your point about witnesses, campaign manager for former president trump was scheduled to appear under subpoena raising questions about how wheeling of a witness he was to be. he is no longer testifying today. we are told a family emergency has come up. he will have legal counsel there and they are expected to make a statement for him. caller: we are there in crowd. host: our last caller on

washington journal, that hearing set to error here on c-span. we will be back here tomorrow morning on washington journal, 7:00 a.m.. in the meantime, have a great monday. >> january 6 six second hearing will start there -- the january 6 committee will start their second hearing today. former trump campaign manager had to cancel due to a family emergency. we will have live coverage starting now at approximately