it's available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by the television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested williams, building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in committees big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on "washington journal," the indiana represented -- representative discusses new legislation and the brady

organization talks about the gun bill. later, washington post on efforts by the biden administration to prompt the oil industry to increase production and reduce gas prices. be sure to join the discussion with your calls, texts and tweets. ♪ host: good morning, everyone come on this thursday, june 20 third. it appears today is the day the senate will vote on a bipartisan gun violence prevention proposal . earlier this week 14 per republicans agreed to allow debate to happen and as soon as 11 a.m. this morning, in the senate, they are expected to approve this proposal on final passage and you can watch the debate and vote on c-span two this morning.

turn over there around 11 a.m. eastern time. before that happens, though, right now, your turn to tell the senators how you think should vote. if you support the legislation, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. not sure, (202) 748-8002. gun owners, call in at (202) 748-8003. at that same number you can text with your first name, city, and state. you can also send us a tweet at the handle @cspanwj. we will get your thoughts on the gun violence proposal in just a minute. a bipartisan piece of legislation the better after the mass shooting in uvalde, texas. "the washington post" with the headline this morning, "coalition reveals a sharp

senate republican split." he writes -- host: here is the republican leader on the floor yesterday talking about the rights, the gun rights preserved in the legislation. [video clip] >> the bipartisan group has put together a package of common sense popular solutions to make these horrific incidents less likely. it does not so much as touch the rights of the overwhelming majority of american gunowners who are law-abiding citizens of sound mind.

i have spent my career supporting, defending, and expanding law-abiding citizens in their second amendment right. the right to bear arms. the right to defend oneself and one's family. it's the core of civil liberty. among other things, senate republicans spent years confirming a generation of federal judges who understand the constitution and the bill of rights actually means what they say. the american people know that we don't have to choose between safer schools and our constitutional rights. our country can and should have both. but throughout recent years our democratic colleagues have indicated they were not interested in substantial legislation to create separate communities if they didn't get to take massive bites out of the

second amendment in the process. there have been attempts at bipartisan talks after horrible incidents in the past. but they fell apart when democrats would not sign on to anything, anything that did not rollback the bill of rights for law-abiding americans. well, this time is different. this time, democrats came our way and agreed to advance some commonsense solutions without rolling back rights for law-abiding citizens. host: the republican leader from kentucky. the senator he tapped to lead negotiations made a presentation behind closed doors to his republican colleagues on tuesday and in it included what senator mcconnell was talking about, nra provisions that were included in the bipartisan proposal.

tony, greenville, north carolina, gun owner, what do you think? are you there, tony? caller: yes. host: go ahead, tell us, what do you think of this bipartisan agreement? caller: it can't go much farther. host: alright, well let's show you what's in it. expands background checks for gun buyers between 18 and 21. incentivizing the state to provide access to previously seal juvenile records. funding a grant to apply to red flag laws. it includes a comprehensive federal criminal statute banning gun trafficking and straw purchasing and clarifying who needs to register as a federal firearms dealer. what is not in this legislation,

according to cnn.com, this is what was left out. expanded background checks. notably the agreement does not include a provision to expand background checks for all firearms sales and transfers in the country. they are currently not wired for gun sales and transfers by unlicensed private sellers and it does not include an assault on -- it does not include an assault weapons ban, leaving out a federal ban on military style assault weapons and other measures democrats have been pushing. a higher minimum wage approach. the agreement does not include a change to the age at which a person needs to be to purchase an assault style weapon. democrats including joe manchin, the most conservative democrat, said the age must be raised from 18 to 21. after hearing that, what do you think the senator should do today on final passage?

again, according to news outlets that will take place at 11 a.m. eastern time. watch gavel-to-gavel coverage in the senate on c-span two. james, you oppose. saint augustine, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. yes, i oppose because the federal government has proven over and over that they have abused their authority. passing new laws, i would rather see them just start enforcing the laws that we have instead of passing new laws. i don't trust them basically with the red flag law. host: why not? caller: i think they will unfairly target people with that. like if they were, if they would do it, if i could trust them i would support it. but i don't trust them. i think they would manipulate it in just go after certain groups. say, trump supporters. host: what republican or what

group could come out behind this bill and convince you to trust the government on this? for example, the nra or a certain republican, if they said -- i have looked at this, i think you can trust the government on this. who is that person? caller: i mean, maybe ron desantis. florida already has a red flag law. host: is that what you reference when you say people are not enforcing the laws on the books already? caller: look at illegal immigration. look at this january 6 hearing. congress is just out of control. they are not even legislating for the people. i don't know what they are doing up there. they do not enforce the laws that we already have. another example of that would be look at the protests in front of

the supreme court justice's house. that's never happened in my whole lifetime. and they are allowing that yet there is a law that specifically prohibits that. mitch mcconnell comes in and says we are going to make a new law. how about enforcing the old law? host: all right, james. the supreme court is slated to issue more opinions from this term today in the abortion case out of mississippi, as well as the gun case that is still pending an official opinion. we could hear from the court on those two issues as well as 13 other remaining opinions from this term. on the gun debate, the bipartisan gun proposal, the nra says that this legislation could be used to restrict lawful gun purchases --

host: ed, good morning. caller: things have not changed much since the last time we spoke. i think it's good that they got something through to the republicans, but i don't agree with a lot of what they got through. first of all, taking the magazine from 20 to 10? instead of carrying 20, they will carry 40. that's the magazine capacity. but it's about how the gun is loaded, first of all. putting together a concert -- comprehensive way to address the ar where everyone can come out a

winner, keep the ar-15. i don't want it. i don't need hunting rifles and under -- other hunting weapons. i put together a letter that i'm sending to six senators and congressmen on how to address this problem. i know i'm very limited. it's a very in-depth and comprehensive way to modify the weapon, to make it "proponents the same as every other automatic weapon. it's not the same as other automatic weapons. the rate of fire on that gun is 600 pounds a minute. the powder they use in the bullet is a heart -- highly charged powder and then needs to be addressed. there are many things we can change. host: sean, gun owner, what do you say?

caller: i definitely oppose this. our government is tyrants and we can't have them the power. i'm alright with raising the age but we need to look at mental health and the games that children play. no one goes after the gaming industry. it's been stated that all of these shooters played games excessively and work ruined by these companies that push to these games for killing people. don't come after the guns. i hunt. my neighbor could red flag me for the target backed us on my ranch, my hundred acres. they could come take my guns away. the tyrants cannot be trusted. they stole an election already. the republicans passing this are slated to a. senator mcconnell and senator cornyn are saying that there is money for mental health. i don't believe it.

they already limited ammunition. they are doing an end around to take guns away. the government just wants more power. all right, hold on the line. this is from politico, john cornyn touted conservative wins, including funding for law enforcement that will only impact violent criminals and those indicated to be mentally ill with enhanced background checks that would sunset after 10 years, lifting provisions included in the bill at the request of the nra. you just heard me read the nra statement. they are opposed to mental health funding with exemptions to the boyfriend loophole that restricts the right to firearms for those who have abused romantic partners, highlighting exemptions with limitations that wouldn't apply to past relationships unless they were recent with a separate slide

showing the due process that states would need to meet if they used a bill to create red flag laws, a key concern for republicans. do you feel better now? no --caller: nope. there's other stuff in there. let's go after the entertainment industry. let's go after the fatherless kids. those kids who have no father's. the democrats want to break the family. [inaudible] host: you are breaking up, sean. jason, you are not sure. caller: i don't know if it will prevent the problems we had. it won't change the fact that the cops didn't react the right way. i'm unsure, not sure why this

bill is being piggybacked off that incident and those cops aren't being investigated more and i'm not sure they have the best intentions with this bill right now. this is being drafted way too fast and not really thoroughly shared. that's all i really have to say and thank you. host: tim, alabama. caller: in the film that day, i saw it. i don't see anything in there. if they are depressed or bipolar, you can't determine, mental health that way.

they can, you know, flag anybody and say, well, you know, he's practicing on his 100 acre place and i feel unsafe, so they go take the guns. then you have the other thing i saw, that you have some politicians who are advertising out there with the ak's or other weapons. they just firing and blowing up. you know. host: to another gun owner, john, pennsylvania. your turn. caller: thanks for having me on. i don't like what i see with

these school shootings. i do have guns but i don't have nar. -- an ar. what if you are a rancher on the border and you see the open borders? i've got a wife and children and i've got a ranch that i'm trying to live in. there are drug cartels. when i was a boy -- host: hold on, i read the provisions of the bill. let's read it again. expanding background checks for gun buyers between 18 and 21. incentivizing states to provide access to previously sealed juvenile records. funds a grant applying to red flag laws. comprehensive criminal statute. clarifying who needs to register as a firearms dealer.

how would it stop a person on the border. how would it stop a person from owning a gun on the border? caller: i saw a gun to my sister-in-law a few years ago in she had to have a background check to get it. this is my sister-in-law. what i'm trying to say is paying guns are the problem. you have to be 21 to own a handgun. philadelphia, teenagers, 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds with handguns. larry krasner would not put black youths in jail for these crimes and if you will not enforce the laws already i don't see how you can make new laws. to demonize republicans over

this, it's nothing but political theater over this. i'm sorry. host: let's listen to chuck schumer, who was on the floor to talk about the historical nature of this bipartisan deal. [video clip] >> a little over a month ago our nation witnessed some of the most tragic shootings in years, a racially motivated attack in buffalo and a school shooting in texas. the senate had a choice, succumb to gridlock and hope to vote on a bill with many things that we would want but had no hope of getting past. difficult as it seems to get anything done. i spoke with senator murphy and he asked me to give negotiators

time and space to do their work. i was happy to agree. even if there was a chance to get something positive and tangible done on the space he needed. and consensus from the advocates. to get something done, even if it won't be everything. passing in the first major gun safety bill in 30 years. host: the senate could vote as early as 11 a.m. eastern time. tune into c-span2.

you can listen and watch that debate. passing the senate, first, then it has to get approval in the house before it can be there in the house. mccarthy, the leader for the republicans from california, the senate gun deal, they would be working against it in the house floor. recording this morning, they know of these 14 republicans, only two of them who broke ranks

to support it are facing reelection this year. for different reasons. neither is really worried about losing support. the 2020 impeachment trial, repeatedly rewarded for independent streak. todd young of indiana, breezing through an uncontested primary. richard burr set to leave congress at the end of the year. the rest, including joni ernst of iowa, will not face voters for years. including mitch mcconnell of tuckey, the minority leader willing to select a bill seeing it as a sign that some republicans have calculated given the scale of public outrage over mass shootings that their party could not be seen to

be blocking a modest compromise on gun safety in an election year. bob, utah, how do you think they should vote today? caller: yeah, i believe in gun laws. but i believe you have the right to have guns. what i think people are overlooking on this is mental illness. people go out and load up on alcohol and they go to bars and they go around, when you are full of alcohol, you aren't mentally there. there should be a law that you cannot carry a gun and drink. host: you support this bipartisan bill up for a vote in the senate? caller: yes. host: ok. junior in pikeville, kentucky, you oppose? caller: yes, i oppose the legislation as it is because the thing that it is, it doesn't go

far enough. everybody should have the right to have a gun. that's what the civil war was over. my concern is, if a family member leaves an inheritance to a child of a gun, i wonder how this law would affect it. also, the main thing of it is a gun is nothing without ammunition. i have heard nothing about limiting the amount of ammunition that can be sold at one time or within a year. this is very concerning. the democrats are playing into the republicans hands again because it's an election year for republicans. they have seen the polls. they know that there is support for legislation. so, they come up with a gimmick

and democrats will fall into their hands so that when they have the election they will say well, we done something. well, again, the democrats not learn their lessons. host: do you think it helps them take back the majority in the senate and the house? that they did this? caller: tell you the truth, i really think the polling is wrong. i think there's going to be a very secret thing happen. there's a lot of polling going on saying republicans going to win. but i think that with all that's been happening, you know, when you lose a child, you don't never forget that child. uvalde is not the last one that we have had. but you've seen it before, these republicans affected by reelection. so again, it's pitiful what's

happening, but it does nothing about the ar-15's. if you have a gun that has no bullets, that's another thing. there's nothing in there to limit the amount of bullets that can be purchased in a year. making stockpiles. host: even though it doesn't have everything you may want and it, or, you know, maybe too much in the minds of some people, some republicans, quoted here in "the new york times," were not sure how they should vote on moving forward with debate. they are quoted here in the times this morning in this story we have been sharing with you, beginning with emily cochran's reporting, the story begins with joni ernst, republican of iowa, weighing on whether she should vote to take up the measure.

host: tom, new britain, connecticut, what do you think? caller: i don't agree with the new law they want to pass. they have enough laws on the records to take care of everything going on.

you see it all the time, anytime there is an incident, it's tragic, you know, but i live in connecticut, i'm well aware of what goes on here and everything. when you have something like that, if usually goes down to some sort of mental health issue . like the case here, from what i remember. what bothered fallon offenders with possession of firearms, why are they allowed back on the streets in some states? we have a lot of restrictions on firearms, even owning ammunition. just to buy ammunition here, you have to have an ammunition card.

which requires a background check on people. so, that went back to 2012, being able to purchase hunting guns and everything else. the ammunition for it. it used to be you could walk in and buy what you need and walk out. like for an ammunition card if you didn't have a pistol permit. you had to have the ammo card or the pistol permit. you don't see here in connecticut, but i see it across the country. new york, you had that gentleman , the guy with like 20 felonies on any bill. he's out and walking the streets. host: david, you support this bipartisan bill.

tell us why. caller: i do support it. i have a high school education and i tried my best to not call in this morning, but it's obvious to me that the, the situation is being approached from the wrong angle and the lady from utah stole my thunder. it's the mo. let the people get the ar-15's. those rifles, allow them to get 50 caliber shots into the sky. if you don't have ammo, it's useless. the point i'm trying to make, like the guy that spoke before me. get a ration card, take the mo away. let the nra have their way. you can purchase all the weapons you want. catch 22 is the ammo. the weapon is useless without ammo and it's really, really not complicated as far as i see it. host: all right, david.

as we told you, 64 senators voted earlier this week and what some see as a test vote in the senate to allow the bipartisan deal to come to the floor for debate. it's headed for a final passage by today, early as 11 a.m. eastern time. however there are still 34 republicans and maybe more that end up opposing it on final passage. here is josh hawley appearing on a radio program where he criticized the bill. [video clip] >> weeks of closed-door door negotiations where no one goes with -- knows what's going on and then they dropped this bill into the our laps and said no vote on it. it's incredible, especially for legislation as fundamental as this that touches everything. what the bill does, to answer your question from a second ago,

it pays states to set up programs to take away second minute rights from law-abiding citizens including 19 states that already have these red flag laws where you don't get due process before your guns are taken away and you could be accused of having them taken away before there is a crime you are used of, let alone convicted of. those states will get money under this bill. they will get paid. paid and encouraged to set up laws like this. it's not a bill i can support, not by a mile. to me it doesn't do anything to address the real problem here. crime and criminals who commit acts of violence with firearms, they are the ones who should be punished, not law-abiding citizens. host: josh hawley is opposing the bill. rand paul writes on twitter -- i cannot support legislation that funds or encourages laws that

call for gun confiscation with a standard lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. saying that the anti-gun battle elect -- rhetoric is already leading to discrimination against law-abiding firearms businesses and this would need to establish consequences. we will see what the final vote is today. you can watch it yourself at 11 a.m. eastern time, what news outlets are reporting when the vote takes place. johnny, kentucky. you oppose it. welcome to the conversation. go ahead. we are listening. caller: >> i oppose it for the same reason, the main reason, to stop school shootings.

this bill doesn't do anything to stop those shootings. if they just enforced the law currently on the books, there should be a mental inquest. [indiscernible] they ran a background check [indiscernible] the one time the weapon becomes an assault weapon is when someone picks it up and uses it to assault another person, like a baseball bat or a crowbar. they need to enforce the laws on the books when they run a background check. if the individual is on the background check, he should be incarcerated in a court of law. under president obama there were

250,000 background checks in only four of them were prosecuted. host: let me ask you, first provision in the bipartisan proposal expands background checks prospective gun buyers between 18 and 21. do you agree with that, that one provision? caller: i have no problem with background checks on anybody whatsoever as long as they enforce the laws on the books. host: ok. mark, westwood, you support, let's hear your thoughts. mark, good morning to you. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. good morning. i support the legislation. i support anything that makes it harder for people to purchase firearms. i know there is a second amendment right that everyone

forgets the words well-regulated . you don't have the right to just get whatever you want. what about my rights to equal protection from the people that have guns? in my state you have to wait three weeks to a month to purchase a firearm. you have to go through a complete background check. the problem is anybody in my state could drive over to pennsylvania or one of the other states where they could purchase a gun and it does no good. we need to stop ar-15's. i want to remind people that the republicans do not represent we, the people. they represent the nra and the manufacturers. donald trump got $30 million from the nra for his presidential run. so that's all you need to do. look and see how much money each republican gets from the nra and you will know that no republican

would legislate to protect us from people with guns. host: house republicans have already said they will whip against this legislation when it comes over to that chamber. politico has the headline, biden scorning the bipartisan senate and deal with republican mentor hers set to expect 15 or 22 support it, far less then it garnered across the capital, members of the freedom caucus vowing to defund the bill if they win back the majority this november. senator matt gaetz, republican congressman matt gaetz of florida, earlier this month, during a markup of a house bill to prevent gun violence, had this warning for senate republicans.

[video clip] let this message to senators be astonishingly clear. if you back red flag laws as a reflexive response to some emotion you have, you betray your voters. you are a traitor to the constitution, the second amendment, the fifth amendment. you do nothing to make mass shootings less likely and you put a target on the back of your constituents. to be subject to bizarre proceedings that you wouldn't see in any other type of circumstance that has a profound impact on your rights. these would end are being abused. someone probably red flag your colleagues in the senate. how long until those conversations about kicking senator hawley off the aircraft turn into conversations about

taking his guns away. it's not just about guns, it's about power. what the democrats want is to make sure the government has the power to take your guns away without giving you due process. shame on any republican in the senate who would pave the way for that type of deprivation of our liberty and constitutional rights. host: that was congressman matt gaetz of florida earlier this month. gun owners, pennsylvania, what do you think of the senate bipartisan proposal vote slated for 11 a.m. eastern time? caller: high oppose it and i will tell you why. you are supposed to have watch groups out there. go on any social media and you start dropping the n word, what do they do? they drop your account. how many of these shootings have these people gone on any social media and said i'm going to go

to the mall or to school and do this or that. the red flags are right there. what in the world is a terroristic threat anymore? what is it? when you make the threat, there it is right there, the hammer should be dropped on you right there on the spot. a lot of these shootings could have been stopped if the government had jumped on those red flags if the people went on social media. host: reminder to you and others, please listen and talk through the telephone when you call in. turned on your television. lewis, you are opposed? pennsylvania? caller: i support the right to own firearms. i went over the legislation and i have a couple of issues with it. first of all, there were

comments several years ago about the laws that were put into effect around helping school security and safety. it doesn't take much to secure a school. all you need are metal detectors. the courthouses have metal detectors. you can't get into the building. there's no reason we can't have these installed in schools so that anybody who brings a weapon into the school is stopped immediately. another thing i take issue with is these straw laws. saying you can stop people from selling to people who cannot pass a background check. you cannot stop all done sales. it's impossible. third-party, private party sales, the government won't be able to watch all of those.

how do we know for a fact that everyone who buys from someone else is on the level? the biggest issue for me is school safety. i believe we need to do more to protect our kids. it's ridiculous. i don't believe the republicans should support this. democrats are trying to take away our guns without due process. it's ridiculous. people need to defend themselves. host: senator john cornyn told his colleagues that there is money in here to harden schools. caller: that i'm waiting to see. especially after you've all the. one of the recent callers spoke about social media red flags.

that's one thing i'm noticing a lot on facebook. you can report something, somebody threatening to hurt someone else or to take their own life and facebook will respond by saying this does not go against community standards. host: i'm going to jump in, you are pretty muffled. i'm going to show you and others what's in the agreement. expanding background checks for gun buyers between 18 and 21, incentivizing states to provide access to previously sealed juvenile records, funding grants to apply to red flag laws, including comprehensive criminal statutes banning gun trafficking and criminal purchasing, clarifying who needs to register as a federal firearms dealer, closing the boyfriend loophole, preventing people convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun, allowing one time non-repeat offenders restricted from gun access to have their

gun rights restored under certain conditions, providing money to expand access to mental health, school safety, training, and community-based mental health programs. brandon 10, florida, david, you are not sure. i just read that, after that now what do you think? caller: i'm actually for it because something is better than nothing but you wonder why, when you join the military, you go through a complete and full background check before they let you use any of the guns. i also think that without a background check, what's sure to happen for the average american who isn't protected, when they go into a walmart they have to look around, all around to see if some nut cases out there with a gun trying to shoot somebody.

i really don't feel when i go out into public safe. and i am a gun owner. i went through complete background check and i feel very secure that my rights will not be taken away. a national background check, any average person, there second amendment right will be secured because of the national background check and no one can take it away from you. thank you. host: jim, michigan, you support it. caller: yes. basically yes, i support it, it doesn't go far enough at all but

it's a start. the whole issue that everybody claims, that it doesn't stop these shootings, ok, but the only way to get started on stopping the shootings is to get started with these tiny little measures. it's a sensible way to get darted on out in public without breaking a law. they need to have that in the future. we have all these guns. the second amendment right was messed up idc versus heller -- by idc versus heller that said you could carry anything you want because of someone else saying well-regulated manila -- militia.

the whole point about the founding fathers in this country was they didn't want a foreign government coming in and taking over, so they had to allow people to have a gun to protect themselves. if you want a gun to go out and shoot whatever you want to shoot , you need one of the guns only during the days of the 17 and 1800s, a muzzleloading single shot put the ball in there and shoot it and then loaded again. you get to fire about three rounds a minute if you are really good. host: a producer on capitol hill from fox news notes that the senate takes up her feet drill votes this morning as we talked about to break the filibuster on the gun bill. 60 votes are needed. kind of a test vote, the first hurdle. you will be able to see what the final vote look like, the final

numbers, with final passage coming later today if they can get an agreement to expedite the process. the house and the senate are not in washington next week, they are back in their districts heading into the fourth of july holiday. marie, greenville, mississippi, go ahead. what do you think, marie? caller: i hope i called the right number, i'm so used to calling that number, i'm for the legislation. going to talk fast, got things i want to say. one of the things they need to increase is the policing in suburban areas they can stop more of these people and they don't do enough policing in their areas the way that they do

it in black areas, like police stops. i wanted to say, i noticed on this particular subject you have about the guns, most of your callers are middle-aged white men, just listening to them, they talk about the logistics of guns and the breakdowns of ammunition and bullets, they talk about that like it's, like they went to learn on education. i watched a documentary about japan and asia, those places whereby ninth-grade, those children have already graduated high school and started taking college classes. children 6, 7, 8 years old playing piano and violin like the greatest pianists in the world. these are the things that they do and we get angry when we say they come take these jobs from us, but our education, listening

to these men's, these guns, that's all they know. i wanted to say, they talk about the mental health, it always comes up, mental health with these mass shootings, the majority of them are white. the white supremacists claim all this supremacy, but how was everybody supreme when they mental at the same time? they also complaining about gas. everybody calls in about how high the gas is but these young men spend $3000 on two guns. some of your callers have 20, 30, 40 of these guns. if you can spend that much on guns and you complain about for dollar, five dollar gas prices? the educational system from one end of the spectrum to the other has destroyed this country. you can't complain to say you are being replaced when you're education is just about guns.

they break it down like they break down -- i have never heard anything like it. host: marie, i will leave it there. president biden called on congress to suspend the gas tax for three months. the headlines in the paper today , pitched by the president with few believers, not backed by chuck schumer yesterday. saying he tried that, republicans blocked it. the speaker of the house did not fully endorse the idea either. we will see what happens with that. we will talk about it coming up on "the washington journal," 9:30 a.m. eastern time, we will talk about the federal gas tax holiday and the gas and oil markets as well. happening today in washington, jerome powell, federal reserve chair will be testifying again

today, day number two, before lawmakers. yesterday he went before the senate and today he's in front of the house financial services committee at 10 a.m. eastern time and you can watch it on c-span3. download the free c-span video app. you can also watch it on our website, c-span.org. they said rate increases are likely and it could risk a recession. want to hear what he says today, tune in again, 10 a.m. eastern time. the january 6 committee will be meeting again to examine alleged efforts by the former president to pressure the justice department to challenge the 2020 presidential election results. you will hear testimony from jeffrey rosen, richard donoghue, and the former assistant attorney general for legal counsel, stephen engel. adam kinzinger is expected to

lead the questioning today. live coverage begins at 3 p.m. eastern time on c-span3 and you can watch on the free c-span now video app or online, c-span.org. going to be busy at 3 p.m. this afternoon? you can watch the re-air at 9 p.m. on c-span of the january 6 committee, that hearing today will re-air today at, tonight at 9 p.m. eastern time. it's also available on that video app, c-span now, or our website, c-span.org. we have got eight minutes left in this conversation were so. robert, lynchburg, you are not sure on the senate gun proposal. caller: good morning, greta. i would just like to have a couple of points to make on this gun deal. i'm a gun owner. i'm retired military, 20 years.

i also worked with the sheriff's department. i think they didn't go far enough. they need to limit magazines, the rounds you can put in a magazine. and next, if you have to harden your home with bulletproof doors like everybody talks about, the school was hardened. they had it. they were scared of those ar-15's. when you have ar-15, you can't compete with that at all. all the people, i'm an independent. i voted for richard nixon and for ronald reagan and i'm going to ask all these republicans calling in, when you vote, do

you vote for your guns are your children? one or two. you have no other choice. the next thing is, they need to publish all of these republicans receiving money from the nra and how much they receive yearly. host: "the new york times" did that recently, you can find it on their website. carolyn, texas, your support. good morning. caller: i do support it. i'm very close to you've all day . mass shootings, i taught in a school, san antonio independent school district, already hardened with a lot of gun safety issues. you have to realize that major players are very much in texas and they are very -- they are

all being controlled by nra money. i wish it were easier for people to see that. it's all about the money. give me money to make my next step in politics. it's very sad that texas pretends it cares about education. they don't. i'm a retired teacher. they have it for over 20 years. it's very hard to believe anybody in texas. senator cornyn is sometimes well-meaning but behind closed doors he's going to make absolutely sure that this does not go through. that's why he's there. host: well, he voted for it to

move forwarded debate. caller: [laughter] [singsong] such a little thing. i'm sorry, so cynical about all the major players. host: i understand. are you going to watch today? the senate is going to stick their first procedural vote at 11 a.m. eastern time, so do you think that when it comes to these votes today as it heads for final passage, which could happen today, that he will know in the end? caller: i think that it doesn't matter. behind the scenes, behind closed doors he has already assured it will fail. because he's that kind of a sneaky son of a gun. host: donald, alexandria, virginia, you own a gun. caller: i take a different approach to this.

i read an article where they quoted four psychologists, professionals in their field. with regards to the profile of the young adult shooters, i would like to read it to you. it's very short. the sense of damaged masculinity, it to many shooters. second, the perpetrators are trying to regain control through a masculine solution after a long amount of frustration and third, boy over, fully ignored and who don't have the pocket last, when coupled with low self-esteem because of anxiety, deficient social bonds to other

people. what it says to me is that what would be a reasonable way to approach this would be like, with most european countries, what they do is like, and i mean this seriously, not being flippant, we need to look closely at legalizing and licensing prostitution host: -- prostitution. host: ok, we believe that there. health care, larry bushong. later, a discussion on the senate gun legislation set to be voted on this week. we will be back. >> book tv. every sunday on c-span2, train

leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. join our coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern of the san antonio book festival featuring a former congressman on his latest book, thinking we need a reboot in america to address challenges of the 21st century. he offers his thoughts on how to move the country forward. and at 10:00 p.m. eastern, senator raphael warnock talks about his book, about his life, faith and journey. he has interviewed by congressman james. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> c-span shop.org c-span's online store. the collection of c-span

products, apparel, books, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and it helps support our nonprofit operations. drop on c-span shop.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span2 you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning is congressman larry bucshon, a republican of indiana.

he is a medical doctor and sits on the energy committee and is on the healthy future task force doctor-patient relationship subcommittee. he is the chair. thank you for joining us. but as talk about this task force subcommittee. what is your goal? guest: you know, house republicans want to make sure the american people know what we think about policy as it relates to health care. i think it is important to not only talk about what you don't like about the current policy, but talk about what your ideas are going forward so we can let the american people know. that's what this task force is all about and it will be about the doctor-patient relationship since i'm a physician. we can let the murky people know what we think and how to get better care for patients. host: some recommendations from

the task force include reauthorize the support for patients and communities act, remove harmful federal mandates and improve quality metrics on providers, ease the complicity of electronic health records to ensure a patient stays the main focus, and sure access to quality providers and grant timely access to care for patients by performing prior authorization process. congressman, how does this reduce the cost of health care? guest: here's the thing. the biggest part i'm focusing on is the doctor-patient relationship. cost is another big issue and there are a lot of factors involved. when you talk to doctors, the biggest complaint is they don't could to spend as much time interacting with patients and families as they used to. because the records at what you have to submit to insurance companies or medicare to be paid is onerous.

they tell me they spent time staring at a computer screen than talking to our event -- or examining patients and that is one thing. when it comes to reimbursement, particularly for primary care, it is difficult to get physicians into rural america because the reimbursement, how much they get paid by medicare and insurance companies, has dropped dramatically over the last 30 years. they found it troubling to practice into rural america and you add on top of that educational debt, it is a big part of this when it comes to physicians and other professionals. because they can't afford to practice in rural america. so we need to work on that. another thing that happens is this prior authorization where you want to treat the patient with either medication or therapy and you have to look at the insurance company to approve that, even though you are the physician and that's what yo

u're recommending. that's a bureaucracy. tecumseh the, interacting, all of the things medical care have to go through, delays patient care and makes it difficult to have cover stations with the patient and their family. host: i this point i want to encourage our viewers to call in and tell you what their -- they are experiencing with their doctors. if (202) 748-8001 you are republican (202) 748-8001, (202) 748-8000 democrats, and independents, (202) 748-8002. talk to congressman larry bucshon, focusing on the doctor-patient relationship. tell him and get his input on what you are experiencing when you go to the doctor. what about the support for patients and communities act? it is legislation to combat the opioid epidemic. why is it needed?

guest: we have an epidemic, as you stated. in fact, i have someone i know in the political sphere in indiana who just had one of their family members succumb to a drug overdose. we have dramatic problems, not only in urban america but rural america. most of my district is rural and people think, you see on the news this happening in urban america. let me tell you, rural america is in more trouble. we have a plethora of drugs flooding into our country from the southern border, but we also have people mailing them from china for example. we are trying to stop that. they can actually mail medications from china that is laced with fentanyl. so this is affecting everyone. across socioeconomic groups. this is not the old days where the oppression was, because of

tv shows, this only affects certain people. this is affecting families, across ethnic groups, racial groups and a socioeconomic class. all the way from low income to these people. it is a scourge. last year we lost thousands to opioids. anything we can do to shine a light on that, increase access to therapy including radical assistance and treatment, is important. host: let's get to calls, rita in orland park, illinois from a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, i want to tell the representative i think it's awesome he is doing this. i used to work for physicians and we went out of business due to going from service -- we

cannot afford it and it was affecting our patients, but i'm portly, the amount of paperwork was overwhelming. had to wait on approval just to treat our patients. the amount of paperwork, medicare or medicaid, regular insurance companies, our doctors throughout our arms. it was so pressured a. i think something needs to be done about it. i'm just not sure they will ever address it because the insurance companies so powerful. but i think it's awesome and i support it. guest: well thank you. you are hearing directly from someone who has worked with physicians. that is what i hear from physicians every day. people go into health care, a physician, nurse, nurse practitioner or other health care writers, because they love interaction with patients and families and they want to help people with medical issues. it becomes frustrating when you find yourself spinning most of your time dealing with paperwork without talking to or examining

the patient. in the me tell you, and has been shown if you have a poor relationship with your patient or family because you have not interacted with them a lot, and results in more litigation as far as medical malpractice claims because there is no personal relationship established. this is a big problem and we want to try to address it. host: brenda and california, democratic color, what is your comment -- question or comment for the congressman? caller: comment. host: go ahead. caller: my comment is, what i found as an african american woman, what i found is i used to have a good doctor and he passed away. it is almost impossible to find another, good doctor who is going to take care of my needs and treat me in a respectful way.

what i find is with the new doctors i go to, they don't even order tests. they don't even follow up with you to make sure you're getting what you need. so yes, i want the doctors to be paid better, because i work in health care. i worked in a primary care clinic at a general hospital for over 30 years. so i know what the paperwork is. i know the struggle the doctors have when they have to look at the computer and not at the person when they are trying to evaluate them. and how many other people have had to get involved so the doctors will be able to talk to their patients? so i supported, but i also think that within it, you need to still deal with health care disparity. it is a real issue and it

happens to people. and that is also affecting the patient. the patient-doctor relationship. host: ok, brenda. congressman? guest: i would agree with every she just said. we know their health is verities , whether in parts of urban america based on the relationship and patient populations including the african-american community, but let me tell you we also have disparities in rural, white america. this is what we're talking about here. it is hard to recruit new quality physicians, as she described finding a new doctor into certain areas of our economy. rural america, or urban america. because physicians come out of medical school with a lot of debt and it is just not practical for them to go into a practice, for example, or almost all of the patients are in the medicaid program.

because medicaid does not pay well enough for them to feel like they can pay back their student loans. so i agree with everything she said. there are disparities, no doubt. rural, urban america, different ethnic groups and racial groups. there are disparities, we know this. it is factual. and that is what we are trying to address. want to make sure we can get quality physicians in every zip code in our country to take care of patients. host: jefferson, ohio, john is a republican. good morning. caller: hey, larry. i am wondering, how come it is important that medical report shows that medical professionals report everything they do to the government? if i hire a garage door opener repairperson or something and they replace as spring, i don't have to send people work to the federal government to tell them

about it. but if i go into a doctor and i have a cough, he has to spend time entering it into the government. if they do away with all that requirement for a doctor, he is just a small businessman to have he is a general practitioner or something. he could look at prices or make more money or both. why in the medical industry is there old requirement? that is my question. guest: that is a good question, and the reason is you have to submit all this information to medicare or medicaid programs to get paid for what you are doing. if you are doing an evaluation of a patient, there are different levels get paid out depending on how complex the evaluation of the patient is. to get paid properly for what you provided for the patient, you have to submit a certain amount of information to the

federal government to send for medicare, medicaid services so that they will reimburse you. the same is true for the private sector. if you submit insufficient documentation, the private insurance companies will not pay you. they deny it because they say that you did not properly document the evaluation of the patient. that is part of the problem. i'm not saying you don't have to document your work, but we have got to the point where whether that is the government or the private sector, they find all types of reasons to deny payment for the services you are providing. when i was in practice, we had people, for 16 doctors, who spent all day full time getting physicians pay for services they provided. usually, denials were technical things like you forgot a number here or you did not put the middle name of the patient on the document.

this is what we are trying to fight against. host: mike in huntington, indiana, independent. caller: yes, i just don't know why they don't put a tariff on china until they stop sending opioids over. i'm 77 years old and i put tariffs on everything from china. until they stop that. that would stop it quick. host: congressman? guest: there are already tariffs on a number of things going from china, as you know. primarily put on china during the trump administration for that exact reason. one of things they were doing is shipping medication directly to the united states through the mail, believe it or not. but also providing product to the drug cartels in mexico who then produce the fentanyl and it comes into the united states.

that is already being done. but this is such a big financial opportunity, so to speak, for people who provide illegal narcotics to americans, that it is almost impossible to stop. we do our best. but honestly, we have to do something about the demand for these narcotics in the united states. it is a multipronged approach if we want to stop this. there's so much money involved that people in china are doing this illegally and from other countries also, primarily mexico. it is hard to spot, but we are talking tens of billions of dollars. host: melted in philadelphia, democratic color. good morning, you are on the air with congressman larry bucshon, medical doctors well. caller: good morning. i want to say a few things. republicans for years have been

blocking it for them to go out and negotiate cheaper drug prices. that would make it cheaper for seniors. they been blocking it. second, they have been after obamacare, the affordable care act, but they have not put one thing and they. publicans criticized elizabeth warren and bernie sanders for wanting to do away with student debt for kids coming out of congress. he is proposing the same thing, but when they did that they call them socialists. thank you. guest: yeah, first of all i want to say that republicans did have an alternative to obamacare pass out of the house but did not make it through the senate. that was back in 2017. so it is factually not true that republicans don't have plans for

health care. we are always talking about who is paying for health care and both parties do that. whether it is people that believe in single-payer like sanders and others, or people who believe in a combination of the private sector in strong public health programs like that here and medicaid like i believe in. but one thing we don't talk about it washington, i say this all the time, how come the bills are so high in the first place? we're never going to catch up to the medical system if we continue to allow health care inflation to be so high that bills are so expensive. nobody can pay for that. not the government and not the private sector. we are working on that and as far as being medicare, negotiating drug prices, medicare and the private -- the federal government don't negotiate. if you allow the federal government to price fix, which the democrats want, they want the federal government to price fix medications in the united states, saying this is what you

care -- pay, take it or leave it, about half the medications on the market go away. we know this because that is what happens on -- in other countries around the world the price fix indications. it makes it economically unfeasible for the companies to produce these medications. the supply chain, how we pay for medication in our country is -- we have pharmacy benefit managers and insurance partners, edelman making hundreds of millions of dollars off medications. they get rebates to do this and that savings does not get passed on to the patient. the problem is real. you have identified the problem, hydro prices. but the solution is not to price fix at the federal level because if you do, you lose access to medications. she is in other countries. host: what about the affordable care act? if the republicans win back the majority this november, will you try again to undo provisions of

the affordable care act? guest: no, i don't think so. that has been done in the past, i've been in cover since 2011. the affordable care act now has been the law of the land for a decade, and of course, there are a lot of people on the expanded medicaid, which is primarily how the expanded health care access through the medicaid program. then you have some people on the exchanges and those are baked into the health care system. i don't think, as far as actually repealing obama care, quote unquote, is something that will be beneficial to the american people at this point. but we need to get the cost of health care down. we need to work on ways to get the cost of health care down and there are a lot of ways to do that. talked about pharmaceuticals, pbm and insurance plans.

we need to address the cost. obamacare address how you pay for it and as i mentioned, we can have that debate. but i think for the most part, on obamacare, we need to consider that what it is and work within the system to try to get the cost of health care down. host: from new york, richard is republican. welcome to the conversation. guest: -- caller: good morning. i want to thank him for being a patient -- a patriot, more than 40 years of c-span, being represented. we have cannabis and marijuana, and the town is against it, but the state located and colorado had it years ago and now they have an epidemic with emergency rooms, people going to emergency rooms every day.

up this way, they want to have a farm, they call it, to grow marijuana indoors and i heard that from other sources on the media that marijuana should be grown outdoors at a farm, so some kind of legal problem here. i want to know why these estates ok. i think it is the great -- the gately drug to other things. -- gateway drug to other things. i heard that marijuana today is not as it was in the 70's, is more powerful and they lays it with other products to the detriment of people. thank you for your time. guest: sure. right now, marijuana -- thc, the active ingredient, is a controversial subject. when we give you my medical view. there showing the chronic use of

thc products in young people after the late 20's, 27, 28, causes long-term cognitive changes in the brain. i.e., you're going to have permanent brain injury for chronic thc use, particularly in the developing brain. so i'm against broad legalization of marijuana. again, that is a controversial subject. the reality is that there are very few medical reasons to use it. people that have cancer, that have intractable vomiting, things like that said benefit from it. honestly, there is no scientific data. one of the first things we need to do is allow people to study it. right now, it is a schedule one drug, the same class as heroin. so you can. we have had discussions about changing the schedule, making it schedule too so you can reverse

it. i think state governments see this as a cash cow. they add taxes to it and they make tens of billions of dollars on taxing legal marijuana. in the issues are as i mentioned. one is cognitive. the other is law enforcement. talk to them. they will tell you they have impaired drivers all the time, below zero as far as alcohol, but they know they are impaired but there is no scientific way to prevent court that someone is impaired with thc. there is no standard. i see it primarily as a moneymaking prospect at the state level. but we do need to seriously look at changing the schedule from one to two so we can do research on the thc and get the facts. host: let's go to california, charles, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling because i have a

strong background. i was one of the people who helped 50 years ago to establish the medicare system in baltimore. and that procedure was to set up the codes and billing process. it was not to give all the conversations about the medical defeating that is going on now. it was a very simple system. i don't think we will ever get back there. but i want to share a story. because everybody is bombarded with, and the covid question in my doctor's office. and our medical billing services in doctor's offices are being bombarded with the word covid. covid is a completion of a complete cycle. where all of the relationships of the doctor and the patient

are guided by that word. now, in order to get an impact to you about what is going on, the word covid is a marketing word. i will stop there. but the thing that has happened is best told by a story that has gone back 50 years. i was responsible for putting in the medical billing and also the tracking systems for the atomic energy commission in washington. i went to all kinds of places. host: can you get your point for the conner smith? we have more people -- for the congressman? we have more people waiting. caller: the point is, when you do a billing test, that test is not the end-all. the doctor still has the responsibility, but it has been taken away by the word covid in all billing systems.

host: ok. congressman? c-span.org -- guest: there is some reason for that. in 2020, as part of the cares act, we fluffed up reimbursement for medicare for hospitals for people with the diagnosis of covid because it was overwhelming our hospitals. we want to make sure they were properly reimbursed so they could take on how these extra patients. so there has been a financial incentive to have the diagnosis of covid on a patient's chart. that is true. we have looked at that and that is not going to continue, i should say, into the future. but temporarily, during the pandemic there has been a financial incentive for patients at least in hospitals to have the diagnosis of covid on their chart. you look at data in new york that shows the patient's who

have died from covid, i don't have the exact numbers but we found out a lot of people died for other reasons with covid, not from covid. they were admitted to the hospital for other reasons, like a heart attack, and they happened to text positive for dust test positive for covid. there is financial incentive for that to be on their chart. there's solid data that shows that is factual. and that is the reason i think covid on patient charts is prominent. host: rudy in california, democratic caller. really, are you there? -- caller: good morning. i would like to make the proposal that the united states government help people with medical school. and they go where the government

wants to send them, and they don't get to go practice in beverly hills or the hamptons. if you want to be a physician, you are in it to help people. so what do you think about that? i will take your response. guest: sure. i mean, there are already private plans where people get scholarships to go to medical school if they agreed to serve in certain areas of the country, particularly underserved areas. so you see that in both the private sector and, honestly, in some states. they incentivize people to practice in underserved areas. i went to the university of illinois in chicago and we had an urban health program where students got those scholarships

if they agreed to practice in urban areas of chicago after medical school for certain period of time. the main thing we need to do is get the cost of education itself down so there are more options for students. the tuition is extremely high, and it is a complicated problem to solve. it is not only medical school or law school, but just for undergraduate degrees, the cost of education has spiraled out of control. i don't think there is as much that the federal government can particularly do on the issue of getting physicians into certain areas of the country, other than the things we talked about at the beginning. make sure reimbursement is enough. that people feel like they want to live on a practice in rural america. a lot of physicians want to practice in rural or urban america, they just can't afford to do it because they have to get a high-paying job at a hospital and they can't hang out

their own shingle in certain areas. it is a complicated problem. we can address some issues like paperwork reimbursement. but we can't force people to practice that is areas of the country that we want them to without some incentives. host: before we let you go, how will you vote on this senate gun violence or gun prevention proposal that they're going to start toward final passage of the senate today? guest: i want to see the final version come out, but it is likely i won't vote for it. i think this is a complicated issue and i know the american people want us to try to address it. but the reality is that we have big issues that we are not addressing. we are doing a disservice to people like this young man that shot people in uvalde.

did he have a particular psychiatric technician by psychiatrist? no. but he was clearly disturbed and people saw that. we have that, also lack of educational and economic opportunity in our cities that need to be addressed that are leading to a violent society. so i'm very skeptical, particularly with gun-control measures, whether that will make any difference at all. so as for things that will make a difference, we have a violent society right now. people have been disrupted by covid. there is a lack of educational and economic opportunity in many areas, including rural america. and we are not properly addressing some of the stress and psychiatric issues that people are experiencing, whether or not they have a specific

diagnosis. i'm probably going to vote against it, but i want to see what the final version is. host: congressman, we appreciate your time. thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: you're welcome. thanks for having me. host: we will take a break and when we returned we will discuss the bipartisan senate proposal with brady's christian heyne. president biden will be meeting with oil executives later, and we will discuss efforts by the administration to increase production and reduce gas prices. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events

that tell the american story. at 11:00 a.m. eastern, on lectures in history, diversity of south carolina professor patricia sullivan on the 60's civil rights movement and the involvement of martin luther king jr. and robert kennedy. she talks about racial unrest in areas such as detroit as creation of the commission. at 2:00 p.m., harry truman signed big presidential succession act of 1947 after franklin roosevelt death elevated him to the presidency. we discussed how that has worked since presidential illness, assassination attempts and death. watch american history tv, saturday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. c-span has unfiltered coverage

of the house january 6 committee hearings investigating the attack on the capital. go to c-span.org/january our web research page to watch coverage of the investigation. we will have reaction for members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you can see it live. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing the latest from the president to other white house officials, the pentagon, the state department and congress. we also have perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks. the c-span now free mobile app, and c-span.org/ukraine.

our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. washington journal continues. host: christian heyne is with us, vice president of policy for the brady group here to talk about inflation -- gun legislation and the bipartisan proposal. remind me about your group. guest: brady is an organization named after jim and sarah brady. jim brady was wounded and injured in the attack on ronald reagan's life and was his press secretary. since that time we have been working across communities and congress to end gun violence, with gun owners and non-gunowners alike. famously, the lesson we were in a room like this talking about legislation that was passing in the senate was for the brady

bill and dr. jim brady. host: what year was that? guest: 94. host: here we are, decades later and you've got this bipartisan senate proposal on the table. do you support it? guest: absolutely. i think what we have here is a bill that certainly does not go as far as we needed to go to address gun violence in all its forms and how we experience it in america. but we also have a bill that is incredibly meaningful. the component and collective grouping of these policies will save lives and the fact that so many senators from both sides of the aisle are coming together to address gun violence in this meaningful way, even though there is a opposition from the national rifle association, i think it shows the moment of time we are in as a nation to come together and address this epidemic. host: what is not in this legislation that he would have liked? guest: right. the start of the debate began

with the idea that universal background checks, a policy that more than 90% of americans support, 74% of an array member support, 82% of gunowners support, that policy was off the table. for us, but is one of the first steps we need to take to address gun violence, not because background checks universally are going to end gun violence, but they are the foundation upon which all gun laws are built. but we know we have to address gun violence in all its forms. we have got to address our access, our civilian access to high-capacity magazines, to assault weapons that lead to the horrific mass shootings we see day in and day out. but also look at how we proactively prevent the role of firearms in domestic violence, suicide, and communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by gun violence. some of those components are this package but we know there's a lot more that needs to be done.

host: what else? guest: we have to keep plugging away. some of the work that has a ministration is doing and congress has been doing to proactively fund a community of updates and violence initiatives is something that needs to be ongoing. we are incredibly excited to see those investments here. it does not mean congress can give up. they have to continue to appropriate dollars so communities can create generational impact. but an area we are excited about that we know needs to be expanded upon is, how do we stem the flow of illegal guns into communities that are impacting our gun violence problems so horrifically? for decades, we have been, not only letting the small number of irresponsible gun dealers off with impunity as they funnel guns and to divert guns to the legal -- illegal market, but we have been burying the data that

has been necessary for us to understand what that flow of illegal guns looks like. there is a lot of work the initiation is doing on this but congress needs to be proactively working on it as well. host: fox news sent out a tweet this morning saying senate takes procedural vote this morning to break the filibuster on the gun bill. they need 60 votes. they got 64 to start debate. it will be interesting to see how many they get to and debate before they move on to final passage. he says final passage could come later today if they get an agreement to expedite the process. if not, they would have to vote tomorrow and that is what we are hearing is likely now. why can't they -- they have six to four start debate. why can't they expedite the process? what are you hearing on the ground? guest: i think things will be fluid today and tomorrow. we know that at the latest we are looking around 5:00 on

friday for when this can move forward. i think the fact that mitch mcconnell also voted for cloture on tuesday shows the indication that republican leadership wants to move this forward so they can push it. we have also heard via twitter from senators like rand paul who not only refused to be at the negotiating table, pushing back on this package which is overwhelmingly supported from individuals on both sides of the aisle, that he would like to gum up the process with a number of amendments and try to direct this as well. our hope is we can break through and get this done. i don't think that anybody who is part of this process wants to drag it out. we want to move forward with it. host: what do you make of the 64-34 vote to start debate on tuesday, and what are you looking for in the numbers tend to be today? we understand this could happen around 11:00 a.m. eastern time. guest: right.

it will be interesting to compare the vote to the final passage. directly after the vote, we saw senator -- host: tuesday question mark -- tuesday vote? guest: yes, we size editor tweet about which way the vote is going to go on, i don't know which way she will be on the debate or moving forward, but we are talking about a number of senators that have not been in play. joni ernst famously had made a strong wind in the sand -- line in the sand in the violence against women during that debate and because of the wi-fi loophole that is part of this package. how she going to vote? my hope is that the moment we are in that has led to this group of 10 democrats and 10 republicans being at the negotiation table will inspire folks to do what is right and take this step forward.

i think to do that, they will be rewarded for that action. host: so you need 10 republicans because you got the 50 democrats. is there a guarantee there are 10 republicans? guest: i think there is no secret why this was originally unveiled with 10 democrats and republicans. our hope is that part of that intentionality through negotiations and why it took longer and kept all of us on a razors edge as we waited for with the policies are going to be, that has been done in such a way that there is an agreement among these individuals, the senators, taken and packaged to the chamber. host: let's hear from a republican from michigan, good morning. tim, talking about bipartisan the legislation proposal, go ahead. caller: good morning.

i was just calling to ask about if they get the bills that they want through, with that. put him out of a job, and with that not go against what you are working with? thank you. guest: yes, i love that question and it is one that i will tell you my entire career is based upon. i would love to put myself out of work. i think this is an incredible start. i think there is a lot of work to be done. i came to this work because i am a survivor of gun violence. my parents were shot in 2005. my dad survived his wounds, but my mom was killed with a single bullet to the back. this is an incredible step forward and i am so glad to be working with democrats and republicans alike toward these kinds of solutions. what is clear to me is that we

still have more work to do. we have got to have dorsal background checks which 90% of american support and we will keep fighting until we get there. but i do hope that i put myself out of work. hope the senate puts me out of work, congress puts me out of work because that would be the dream. host: what about the so-called assault weapons ban? that is not in this, where are the talks on that and what kind of legislation would you like to see? guest: yeah. there is a bill that is the assault man that we support as an organization. we think the modern-day which we have is improved from the 94 band, a test, and we do think it will be critical to ending this violence as we see it. the unique problem we have with mass casualty violence.

what we are talking about, it's not often described as cosmetic features on this weapon. but these are tactical designs, designs that make these weapons more lethal. they were designed to be effective on the battlefield and they have been marketed by the gun industry since they have been converted to semi automatic form as the weapons of war they are. it is no secret why mass shootings have increased since that provision, and if we want long-term success in being able to prevent these shootings are happening, we will have to deal with the hardware. host: talking with christian heyne about what is happening today. the senate will continue their efforts this week to debate and head toward final passage on a bipartisan gun violence prevention proposal.

we talked about it for our first hour this morning. we want to take more of your questions and comments. do you support it? tell us. teresa from tennessee, go ahead. caller: [laughter] i do not support this gun bill. first of all, i will republicans vote for a bill that has 100% support of democrats and divide their party over a gun bill that does nothing to protect children or anyone else? this is nothing but a bailout for states. almost $15 billion to states that they can spend anyway they want to. they don't have to spend it on mental health issues. they don't have to spend it on the boyfriend loophole.

they don't have to spend on mental health. it has nothing to do with gun violence at all. it will do nothing to save lives. and i don't understand the progressives, the squad socialists, that wanted to ban ars. they want 18-year-olds to be banned from buying guns, they wanted all of the stuff. they are so quiet about this bill and they are not upset, which tells you everything you need to know about how discussing this bill is. host: let's take your point. guest: look, i think we are in a moment of time where democrats and republicans, as they have for generations, are trying to come together to have an impact on gun violence. it is not just impacting democrats or republicans. this is an issue pouring into states and impacting -- an epidemic that is impacting people across the country.

i am so excited we are at a day and age, most americans agree, there's a breaking point. a point at which both parties want to come together for comments and solutions to and/or address this epidemic. i pushed back on the points teresa made. i think there are clear guardrails in place for some of the spending and funding to create wraparound services both in communities and within schools so that we can have meaningful funding, not only for access to mental health care, but also for community-based violence initiatives to deal with the trauma of gun violence in communities where it hurts most. let alone closing the boyfriend loophole and other aspects of the public policy that we know will have tangible impacts and states have enacted these. i think polling shows most democrats and republicans are happy there can be common ground here. and our hope is it can usher in

a new era of conversation. host: will it prevent ms shooting at a school? guest: we don't have a crystal ball. and i don't know that we can say will stop gun violence. i can tell you extreme risk laws, when implanted effectively, and we have seen the studies from universities or the gun violence research center out of uc davis. california's gun violence restraining order has prevented a number of mass shootings in the state. so you take the dollars being reserved here to make sure that this -- which after parkland, five republicans including senator rick scott, when he was governor, signed into law. if we can use those to implement those policies, sometimes known as red flag laws, i think we can tangibly stop not just one mass shooting at a school but more.

and for every 10 to 20 of those orders issued, at least one suicide is averted. firearm and suicide accounts for three out of five gun deaths in this country. there are a lot of powerful components of the legislation they're discussing today. host: julie from rhode island, republican. caller: yeah, i'm just calling because obviously i am all for the second amendment, it was given a long long time ago. both democrats and republicans who want to do all of these things to supposedly stop gun violence, it is like putting a band-aid on top of a giant wound. it is not going to stop any violence, gun, knife, vehicle. there are so many ways to create violence out there in this bipartisan thing i think is a bunch of baloney.

democrats, no matter what happens, they want to go after guns. joe biden himself said he has been going since he was a congressman, that no matter what, a criminal once a gun, he is going to get it off the street. i think this should not have even come up. columbine happened, they do not -- like i said, trying to put abated on an open wound. host: let's get a response. guest: yeah, i will say to julie's point we have got this gaping wound in this country that we continue to live with and we let fester. we do nothing to actually address it. we have got to start to do something. for decades we have been working and looking at the epidemic of gun violence, an epidemic that impacts this country in ways that no other industrialized country in the free world has to endure gun violence.

and yet we refuse to act. states have been stepping up and it places they have, laces like california, they have had huge strikes in ensuring that their gun death rate, not only lowered, but when we have seen national trends come up, they have to stay below the national average consistently and that gap continues to grow with every gun violence prevention policy they have passed. as long as we are working with due process and ensuring that we are balancing the rights julie is referring to, the second amendment right to have a firearm for self protection for individual use as seen by the supreme court, there are a host of things we can do to address this issue. i pushed back on the idea that we just can't do anything. because we have done nothing and it keeps getting worse. host: let's go back to the senate today. the senate comes in, they're

going to hold a procedural boat -- vote to end debate so they can move on to final passage. we understand that is around 11:00 a.m. eastern time, this procedural vote. do you think that vote reflects final passage? guest: i think it probably will. there are votes, some i will be watching closely, i will be interested to see senator toomey who was not there, that will balance it. probably the numbers will be similar to what we saw probably around 64, 65. and i do believe when their voting, the debate shows we are closely to what we can expect for the final passage. host: host: so if this passes the senate, which there is a likelihood, you have the republican leader behind this. republican leaders over there, kevin mccarthy and others told

him that they oppose it and will be events again --against it. guest: which is infuriating. there was a poll essay that shows the bipartisan approach has not only overwhelming popularity, upwards of 43 points , but 13 points among republicans. i think even when we have seen policies come forward in the house of representatives, we have seen their been bipartisan efforts to still push them through. the universal background check bill passed with bipartisan support, closing the loophole passed with bipartisan support. and recently, the protect our kids act, which moved ahead of the other package in the senate, that pass with bipartisan support. i believe they will be able to pass this was important -- with

impressive numbers. host: nelson, florida, and impact -- an independent. caller: good morning. i'm a veteran from the vietnam war, and before continue, i would like to express condolences on the loss of your mother and your father being hurt. in addition to that, i am also a retired firefighter paramedic and i served in the streets of miami in that capacity for many years. i know what these weapons can do. i was on the streets of miami during the cocaine cowboys wars. and numerous civil services taking place. the vast majority of people in this country have no idea what kind of weapons these are. you are absolutely correct in what you're doing. i almost never vote democrat. however, i respectfully disagree

with the party that i usually do vote for, which is republican, regarding this issue. things are getting worse. and if they are getting worse because of the frankly selfishness on the part of abortionists on the political left and the pro-gun nuts on the political rights, both of whom are pretty much the same when it comes to their political positions and the question of human life and the question of our nation trying to become civilized. when i was a kid, the big gun problem was what they referred to as saturday night specials in florida, which were 22 and 25 calendar -- caliber pistols. today it is assault weapons. we are slowly degenerating into

a country that is not civilized. it is my hope that for whatever time i have left on this earth, but i will see a reversal of that trend. host: i'm going to have christian heyne respond. guest: thank you so much for your service and empathy for what me and my family went through and continue to go through. i am so thankful for voices like yours in this debate. i think frankly what we are seeing in the senate is just how voices like yours are making an impact and a change by this issue. i'm incredibly moved. my parents were shot in 2005. it has been 17 years. i have -- and i have to be honest with you -- 30 days ago i

did not think this package was possible. i'm incredibly moved to be where we are today because of the perseverance of voices like nelson. voices of senators, republican senators, whom up and to come to the table and really the perseverance of chris murphy to say we can do something better here. i have been in washington long enough to be cynical, and i am encouraged to see the progress that we have today. i will try to be in the gallery tonight and i will be tomorrow when it happens, thinking about my mom. and i will also be thinking about what is in the realm of possibility as we move forward. host: it is possible that final package could come later today if they did an agreement to expedite the process. if they don't, you are saying

there could be republican senators who try to offer amendments and that vote goes to friday. but you're saying by 5:00 p.m. eastern time you expect about. guest: -- a vote. guest: that is my expectation. it depends whether or not gop leadership wants to. i don't have a crystal ball, i think things will be fluid. the impact of to show senator cornyn in his leadership on this policy. republican leadership will clearly want to go forward. host: two republican senators voted tuesday to go forward, joni ernst and shelley capito. saying they received phone calls from constituents overwhelmingly

or 61 co. in the case of iowa saying do something. guest: we are seeing that everywhere in the country. what nelson very passionately was speaking to is an experience that we are hearing from across the country. we are in nonpartisan organization named after ronald reagan's press secretary. the situation has become very partisan but for us, this is not democrat versus republican, gun owner versus non-go known or. -- non-gun owner. i know many gun owners who are desperate for common sense gun laws because they want to make sure they are protecting the second amendment. the vast majority of americans raising their voice to ask senators to do something, that has broken through. host: north carolina, mike is a republican. caller: how are y'all? i've got about three points.

i'm from north carolina and i am a -- kind of disappointed. richard burr is on his way out and thom tillis, i voted for him. he's higher up senators and house members all have private security. what about the people that is under them like me, that don't have private security? this country, the way it's going now, if you can watch fox news, they show the crime going on in broad daylight in cities and rural areas. these gun laws, there is no due process. somebody at work, if i say they are crazy and will kill somebody they will take your guns. host: i'm going to jump in and have christian respond to the due process part. guest: it is something we hear

often and i want to be clear about the extreme risk laws. these policies are rooted in due process and have been designed literally to mirror domestic violence protections that have been found to be constitutional and exist in all 50 states where if you have random complaints as mike was referring to, but courts are going to throw those erroneous claims out and in most states they will go after people making erroneous claims. you have a civil process that works with a petitioner that must go to a court when there is an imminent risk, simply to temple early -- temporarily remove firearms when there is a risk for dangerous, and they are clear with the standards they must use and must meet. judges are given clear guidance. that's why they been successful

and they been successful in states like florida that really stepped up to try to do something, and as a result they are looking upstream in preventing things from happening . these are constitutional laws that have been designed. host: thank you for the conversation. guest: thank you so much. host: we will take a short break and when we come back we will turn our attention to oil and gas prices and talk to evan halper about the call to suspend the federal gas tax holiday. we will be right back. ♪ >> in 1814, attorney and author

francis scott key wrote a song that would go on to become the national anthem of the united states. sunday, news ecology and american culture professor mark league discusses his book about the cultural impact of the star-spangled banner. >> one of my big insights or beliefs about the song is that it is actually a living document. it is not a frozen icon, not something that is static. it is constantly changing, alive, and brought to life in performance by people like jimi hendrix. every time we sing the song we elevate the questions and the tension and the crisis and the hope that in that song a new. >> >> mark leg with his book sunday at 8:00 eastern. you can listen to q&a on our free c-span now up.

-- app. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, blessed that seller lists, injury -- best seller lists, industry news. you can find more on c-span.com -- or wherever you get your podcast. c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every fan and every purchase supports our nonprofit upper vision. shop and eat -- operation. shop anytime at c-span shop.com. -- c-span shop.org. >> there are many places to get

political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: evan halper is the business reporter with "the washington post," to talk about the biden administration and the oil and gas industry. let's begin with what the president asked for, congress to suspend the federal gas tax holiday. the front page of your paper this morning -- biden plan to halt gas tax has few believers.

guest: yes, not a very popular idea even in his party. he wants to spend the gas tax, $.18 for gasoline and $.24 for diesel -- suspend the gas tax. a lot worry this will not help drivers but will give more profits to the refineries at a time that supply is tight. host: why do it? guest: he has few options. drivers are frustrated. gas prices are up to five dollars a gallon and might go higher and people want to see action. the president's approval numbers are terrible and the high gas prices are one reason. he has very few tools and levers to pull to slow down the rice and gas prices -- rise in gas prices and say this is one thing he can try to do to he's doing something. it is not that effective. host: can consumers do it? guest: in terms of bringing down

gas prices? that's the only way. we need to reach demand destruction where prices come so high people stop driving and buy less. because of the pandemic, pent up demand, people have been saving their money and haven't been traveling and this is the summer they want to get out. we are still seeing people hit the road in record numbers and that keeps driving prices up. host: the president, we understand there's going to be a meeting at the white house with oil and gas executives. who is attending and what will they say? guest: the energy secretary will be there. they want the refineries to refine more but that's not going to happen. these refineries are already working at capacity. if seeing the amount of refining capacity go down by a million barrels per day which is quite a bit, over the last couple of

years. refineries have closed, companies haven't wanted to invest, so it is frustrating. oil companies and other owners of refineries are making money when gas prices are going up and they want to do something but there is not much they can do. in a lot of countries, the price of gas goes along with world markets. unless you nationalize the energy companies which they did in venezuela and saudi arabia where they can bring the prices down, you don't have a lot of other options. host: you were just talking about refining. they don't have the capacity to refine more? because they went off-line? guest: right now you are seeing refining capacity at record highs. they are refining almost everything they can and a bunch of refineries in the u.s. and other countries did go off-line. this is big, expensive infrastructure that can get 10 years to get the permits to get one built and can take several

years to get one expanded, billions of dollars. oil companies are saying, this will operate for 20, 30, 40 more years. if we are looking at 10 or five years and electric cars taking a big piece of the market during that time and this refinery will become obsolete and an abandoned asset, it is not a good investment. refineries that went off-line ring the pandemic, not a lot of interest from investors draining them back online. host: they are not investing because of what you are saying. is it also because of the up and down nature of the industry? guest: that definitely plays a role. before the war, we were looking at a situation where demand dropped so much during the pandemic in the beginning where oil had gone to zero dollars a barrel at one point. oil companies were saying,

demand is so far down. refineries need major improvements or investments and it doesn't look that good for the future so we are not going to invest. these investments just don't turn on a dime and you don't start investing because prices are high and we want to see more gas. not all played into the situation. host: the president yesterday called for a suspension of the federal gas tax holiday and talked about the prices and who controls it. what did he say? guest: the president likes to lay blame on the oil companies. if you look at the polls, people feel like oil companies have some blame and obviously they are making all the money and windfall profits when everyone else is paying huge prices, and it's frustrating that it seems there is little to be done to move those profits toward lowering the price of gas or helping consumers.

a lot of the rhetoric has been about oil companies are gouging you and they need to play a role in fixing this. on the flipside as oil companies and some liberal economists will say, if you look at companies and profits and rates of return, oil companies are sort of nowhere near the top. the tech companies make a lot more. over the years, there were years during the pandemic we were just talking about where the oil companies weren't making any profits and were losing money. in a five or 10 year period they are making a lot of money now but it is not like they rank -- they don't compare to apple, for example. it's been pointed out to me, you have a windfall profit tax, why doesn't that affect apple and other companies making a lot more money? host: what is the future for oil and gas companies? guest: they are taking different approaches. bp which has more ties to europe

is trying to make 40% of their portfolio be nobles. -- renewables. there is not going to be as much of a market for fossil fuels going forward and we need to diversify. american oil companies, chevron, exxonmobil are taking a different approach. they are investing in new technologies like carbon capture where you would capture the carbon from the atmosphere and continue fossil fuel production or hydrogen using a lot of fossil fuels. you would pair it with this carbon capture to minimize greenhouse grat -- greenhouse gas emissions. they are wary of investing too much in traditional exploitation of oil fields and refining. host: evan halper is here to take your questions and comments about the oil and gas and what

president biden called for yesterday, the suspension of the gas tax. if you are a republican, (202) 748-8001. if you are a democrat, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. you can text us also at (202) 748-8001. ahead of today's meeting with oil and gas companies at the white house, the president sent a letter. describe that letter and how was it received? guest: it was more like a political act that didn't seem like a real letter intended to move policy forward. he basically said, you are making record profits, this is kind of unconscionable at this time. we are at war and americans are suffering and the economy is in top shape, and was imploring them to boost their refining and negate their profits, help bring down the cost of -- mitigate their profits, help bring down

the cost of gas. they basically said this is a political stunt and ignores the realities of their industry, the point that over the last several years they've made investments where they were losing money and because they are making money in this moment that's not a fair picture. they are also saying, we boosted refineries as much as we possibly can and cannot do anymore so we don't understand what you are asking. host: james in myrtle beach, south carolina, republican. caller: good morning. this whole thing just seems to me like -- i don't know why in this country we cannot get a handle on anything. my four-year-old granddaughter would have had better sense than to do what joe biden has done to our industry. why is it the united states, we are always giving away what we have? we have the opportunity, right now we obviously need it but the

government is the biggest thing that has gotten in the way of our oil companies producing what we need. we are not ready for this transition yet. we do not have the renewable fuels and the american people -- the whole country is destroyed. host: let's take your point about this country not being ready for renewables. guest: we have an incoherent national energy policy and we are trying to move toward this transition. if you look at our climate goals and what the climate scientists are telling us and the international community and paris accord, we are behind on that. on one sense, you are looking at high gas prices that people are suffering from an at the same time we are sort of losing ground on the climate flight -- climate fight. it has been halting energy

policy trying to meet climate goals but something of an incoherent policy where we lurched forward and realized we are not ready in certain parts of the country. that's adding to the challenge of why there is limited refining capacity now because they hoped we would meet -- we would be moving into electric cars, that we would be further along in this transition. oil companies don't want to invest in this infrastructure knowing that the policy is to be phasing it out. you raise a fair point, we don't have enough alternative resources available and people are still stuck in their cars that run on internal combustion engines and the gas prices are high. host: brooklyn, new york, john, democratic caller. good morning. question or comment. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. my comment is that i understand

the united states uses $20 million of oil a day and are producing $18 million of oil per day. that $2 million i guess they are trying to get that from anywhere around the world, from saudi arabia, argentina. i am not sure all by ourselves we could do more drilling. what is an acceptable profit level for oil companies to make and make a difference of $2 million a day that we need in order to meet our demand right now? what is an acceptable profit level for oil companies? guest: that's a tough question to answer. we don't set limits on what profits they can make. that the market dictates. currently as long as people are paying the high prices for gas

and oil companies will make these profits, there's not much the government can do. some other countries have nationalized their energy companies so that's one way to control what profits the oil companies make but it also brings other issues. there's also the president mentioned the possibility of limiting exports of our refined gasoline and oil to other countries. that again sort of creates all kinds of market\. -- market\. -- backlash. all this conversation around a windfall profits tax or eliminating exports, every action has a reaction and a lot of economists even liberal economists worry if you start imposing these things on oil companies, it will hurt

consumers and make the supply shorter. these are things policymakers have to balance. host: president biden repeatedly takes on republican criticism he is not allowing enough drilling in this country. what does he say what is actually happening? guest: that's a complicated thing. the amount of drilling that happens on public land is less than it would seem from the media narrative. but drilling is another thing that just, these are big investments kind of like the refineries. you have to decide if you are going to ramp this up, wearing the people in, invest in the equipment, -- bring the people in, invest in the equipment, and there is a question because of supply chain issues like steel to drill new wells, bring employees in with expertise. like in every other industry, getting the manpower and equipment is a challenge and something that doesn't turn on a dime. host: republicans say these

companies made that decision based on what president biden was saying before he was elected and so they i guess took a bet he would win and started making these decisions not to drill. guest: they are looking for signals from washington and what market signals are being sent. the market signal climate forward administration that we want to lower the cost of solar power in half, this many electric cars to be out, california banning the combustion engine in new cars sold in 2035, there might not be as much demand for a product five or 10 years down the line. it's fair to say there's less drilling than there would be if the signals sent from washington were not during this transition. electric cars are a waste of your time and gas cars as far as

we can see into the future, but that hasn't been the policy signal. host: is it true when president biden says there is more drilling under his administration than the previous one? guest: if you look at the output, there is more people driving, more cars on the road. we are a growing country so there has been plenty of drilling in this administration, probably helped by the trump administration to promote more drilling because there is a lag on when policy goes in place and things happen. there is a lot of drilling happening right now. it gets back to the point that it isn't in so much drilling at the moment. the bigger problem is the refinery capacity shortage. host: prichard, west virginia, joe, democratic caller. caller: thank you for c-span. i guess i got a couple of points. we got numerous oil companies

with a 300% increase in profits this quarter. 300%. we also have more -- at least 9000 approved by the federal government on federal land that allows them to drill. we are exporting gasoline every day from the united states of america. it just goes on and on and on and i am a democrat but i do vote republican occasionally for some offices based on the person. you've got a blockade in the senate, especially by our senator joe manchin, that's not going to approve anything joe biden wants. if he had already implemented the build back better plan we would have started to make this conversion to solar.

we would have in the system already to replace the internal combustion engine and would've helped absorb the shock of the russian oil embargo. host: let's take your points. guest: in terms of the build back better plan, there is no question that the lack of investment is slowing down the transition. that said, if that package were to pass or were to have passed when biden hoped it would have, it still takes a long time to ramp up these investments and i'm not sure there would be a single more electric vehicle today in the past then there is now. these are policy signals that we have been haltingly sending for the last many years as the country lurches in one direction , all in on the paris accord and then withdraws from the paris

accord and mileage standards are scrapped in the trump administration. it is this sort of whiplash that's creating drag on the energy transition and definitely has left us unprepared for this moment. as far as the prices of oil and gas right now, you are certainly right. they are making these very high profits at the moment. as i said earlier, part of the challenge here is that there are few tools that biden and congress have two rain that in. -- to rein that in. all of those things could have a reaction. you put a windfall tax on other oil companies they see if they can move their operations offshore. the same thing with curbing exports, if they are going to be

restrained and what they do with their product by government mandates in this country, these are international country -- companies. they can move operations offshore. it's a challenge for lawmakers. host: raleigh, north carolina, donald is an independent watching. welcome. caller: good morning. i just want to say that -- yes. i just want to say that i, like mostly all-americans americans, and concerned about inflation and the high cost of gas but the price of gas in the united kingdom is $5.79, germany $5.57, france $5.45. the united states is not isolated in this instance. the price of gas is a worldwide phenomenon at this point. but also there's a lot of pent

up demand in america due to people being tied down due to the pandemic, and the pandemic was much worse than it had to be because donald trump denied there was such a thing as coronavirus for the first three to six months of its existence. causing the u.s. to lose more than one million people rather than perhaps the 200,000 it would've been. host: you are going down a different direction. he touched on points you've made. what about the rule of opec? define opec for our viewers and what role do they play? guest: opec has become opec plus. it is obviously this consortium of oil producing companies in the middle east but it has expanded to include russia and other countries in africa and i think it has got 17 countries now.

opec we will remember from the last time we had a major shortage of energy in the 1970's, oil embargoes and opec acting in concert to limit production really hurt the u.s. and triggered the oil industry in this country. right now, i think there is a lot of speculation that while opec is thinking they can raise production, they are not saying much, in a weird position with russia being a member in the expanded opec plus, and their statements have been trying not to take positions on the war and not to chastise russia, but if you look at the numbers and what they are capable of producing, they just don't have that much in reserve. they are almost at capacity. saudi arabia may be able to add a little bit of oil but not

enough to make a market difference in the prices in the u.s. with opec at capacity or near capacity, and not being able to meet the quotas at sets for itself, several countries have not been producing as much as they pledged they would produce. they are at full capacity. there is limited availability of resources at opec to help lower gas prices but the president is trying to get everything he can. he is going to saudi arabia. that's a controversial diplomatic move because he said he was not going to have normal relations with that country. in a separate show, he is doing everything he can to lower the price of gas. he will travel there beyond that . the question is whether it will help consumers. host: jen, whitesboro, texas --

jim, whitesboro, texas, republican. caller: i'm not sure how much the guest knows about the oil patch but the simple truth is that we are paying high prices. we don't refine enough diesel and that's really what's causing a lot of our inflation. the transportation cost, that's not gasoline, that diesel. i would like to see refineries set up to refine for diesel, a much larger share than they currently do, even if it is at the expense of raising gasoline pricing. people jump in their cars and maybe don't have to do that but when somebody is driving a truck delivering goods, they don't have any choice. that's their job.

let me have your guest comment. guest: that's a fair point. the diesel shortage is even more acute in the gasoline shortage and they are talking about certain parts of the country could run out of diesel. truckers are getting notices from the big diesel fueling stations saying we may have to limit it in this part of the country. it has gotten so expensive it is hitting people who drive rigs figuring out how not to fill up in california where the prices can be one dollar or $1.50 more than the midwest. as to the supplier, what stations will have enough. i've been to refineries and seeing their operations. diesel comes out of -- you take a barrel of oil and it gets made into diesel to be made into gasoline and other products that produce lubricants and

industrial products. i don't know the answer to whether you can take that barrel of gasoline and make it all diesel but i suspect with anything, making changes to kind of change the percentage of diesel versus gasoline, they all require upgrades and changes and these are the investments the companies and refineries are reluctant to make. host: ohio, democratic caller. caller: i've been involved in the oil all my life, most of it, from gas stations to oil fields to refineries. i was wondering if maybe some regulations being put back in place. i remember gas wells in the louisiana in the early 1980's and they asked why we put these online. they are going to deregulate that and we are just getting ready. regulations kind of let them go wild.

i wonder if we put regulations back it might help. guest: interesting perspective because what you usually hear from people is that regulations are hurting them, too many environmental regulations. the republicans want these lifted and say it is inhibiting drilling and production. galatians in terms of bringing the price down and regulating how much companies can charge, as we've been talking about earlier, it just creates a possible reaction where you can exacerbate the shortage. regulations are the hotly debated topic in washington. host: allen in chicago, indiana, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call, longtime watcher and huge fan. glad to see you back.

the oil companies are making incredible profits and i understand that the price of oil per barrel is set on the world market but the price of gas or fuel is set by the refineries. the first product that comes off is diesel and the second product is -- in the last product is kerosene. oil refineries, with the amount of profits they are making, a barrel of oil is down to $109 a barrel but we are paying five dollars for gas. i want to ask in the second quarter we will see what their profits are. people say about how joe biden is doing the terrible things, the drilling permit.

the keystone pipeline that everybody wants to cry about, he shut down the keystone pipeline. my understanding is it was a concept from china and it is a company in canada and it was all going to china. not one drop was on the world market. it wasn't going to replace any oil. it was just going to add what they had. none of it was going to the united states. the part that got me really angry was who was going to build the pipe, where are they going to get this deal from? i understand and the con -- the steel from? i understand in the contract they had russia and india set to build the pipeline. how would it look in america to have a 2000 mile russian built pipeline? host: we will get a response. guest: the keystone pipeline is

an interesting case because in terms of where the oil would ultimately go, that's out of my depth. i can tell you the market was not looking good for the keystone pipeline before bidens project. this is something that may not ultimately pencil out so whether the keystone pipeline would be built and providing oil is highly questionable. to your point, whether that would do much to exacerbate the current prices we are dealing with now is very much debatable. as far as the oil companies making profits off the refineries, you are right. they are making these profits and i'm sure we see the next quarter earnings will be even bigger. this is a supply and demand issue. i wrote a story that we printed this week which mentioned a refinery in texas that is up for sale now and no one wants to buy

it even though refineries are making money hand over fist, because they are huge investments and investors feel like this is a blip and in the long term they could become abandoned assets. host: evan halper is a business reporter with "washington post you can follow him on twitter. thank you. guest: great to be here. host: when we come back we turn to our question we asked earlier about the senate gun legislation bipartisan deal headed toward a final vote possibly today or tomorrow. what do you want your senator to do? if you support it or if you oppose, if you are not sure, or if you are a grown dutch gun owner, we will get to that conversation -- gun owner, we will get to that conversation in a minute. >> c-span brings you an

unfiltered view of government. our news word for word recaps the day from the halls of congress to press breaking -- press briefings to speeches by the president. stay up-to-date with everything happening in washington. subscribe using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe anytime. listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker tell play c-span radio and listen to "washington journal" daily, congressional hearings and other events throughout the day, and weekends catch "washington today or cope listen to c-span and 8 -- "washing today -- washington today

listen to c-span. now available on the c-span shop, c-span's 20 congressional directory. order a copy of the directory. this compact book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress including bios, committee assignments, contact information for state lawmakers and the biden administration. order your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan the qr code. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in our last 20 minutes before we end at 10:00 a.m. eastern time, we are getting your thoughts on whether or not you support or oppose the senate gun legislation or if you are not sure. gun owners are welcome to call in as well.

you can also text us to (202) 748-8003 if you want to join the conversation or on facebook.com/c-span or a tweet. let's begin with one of the lead negotiators for this bipartisan proposal, kyrsten sinema on the senate floor yesterday talking about the legislation. [video clip] >> all of these tools will get families in arizona and across the country more peace of mind so they can trust their communities are secure in their schools are safe. and critically, the broad bipartisan support of well over 60 senators from across the political spectrum including both the republican and democratic senate leaders ensures that when our bill is signed into law, it will stand the test of time. over the past few years, we've been told time and time again that bipartisanship just isn't

possible. and even after proving bipartisan success with our historic infrastructure investment in jobs law last year, we continue to be asked by pundits and political purists to select a new standard in which policy can only come together on a party line. but that just isn't true. what could be more important than keeping families and children safe and secure in their communities and schools? the truth is, americans are far more united then today's politics would have you believe. as our constituents, and arizona, connecticut, texas, north carolina, and every state in between, ask what they want to see in washington and they will tell you, and ability to work together, to solve problems, and help them build

better lives for themselves and their families. host: kyrsten sinema, one of the 10 democrats who negotiated with 10 republicans on this bipartisan gun violence prevention bill. the lead negotiator for the republicans was senator john cornyn of texas. here he is on tuesday. [video clip] >> our bill strengthens the national criminal background system to ensure it is more accurate. in uv bang, this young man, salvador ramos turned 18, and when he passed a background check it was like he was born yesterday because there was no way for the background check system to look back on any mental health adjudications or criminal convictions which would have barred him from purchasing a firearm had it occurred as an adult. a 17-year-old is convicted of a violent crime or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that

information should show up in the background check system if he tries to purchase a firearm at 18. 87% of gun owning households in america support making juvenile records available in the background check system in this legislation -- and this legislation will make that possible. states will control what legislation they are willing to share but our legislation provides an incentive for states to upload the records that reflect on the suitability of an individual to purchase a firearm , allowing them to upload juvenile records into the system to ensure that firearms are not falling into the hands of those under 21 who would be prohibited from purchasing that gun if they were an adult when it happened. so as to president, i know this bill will not please everyone. some think it goes too far,

others think it doesn't go far enough, and i get it. the nature of compromise and the nature of actually wanting to get a result requires that everybody try and find common ground where we can, and that's particularly hard in the 50/50 united states senate. i believe the same people who are telling us to do something or sending us a clear message to do what we can to keep our children and communities safe. i'm confident this legislation moves us in a positive direction. i want to thank all of our colleagues who've worked so hard in this process that's gotten this far. my understanding is the text will be released essentially at any moment, although the principles upon which that text is written have been public for quite a while now. this legislation is the product of good faith bipartisan

negotiation and includes bills and ideas offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and makes changes supported by vast majorities of americans. and i think most importantly, it has the real potential to become a law and create real changes in communities across this country. safer, healthier communities, stronger, more secure schools, saving lives, that's what we are all about. host: texas republican john cornyn who helped negotiate this bipartisan bill headed to final passage today or tomorrow. eli oakley reports this morning he may have been booed by the republicans in texas at their latest convention, but according to this poll, his involvement in bipartisan gun talks hasn't hurt his popularity level among texas voters including republicans.

we want to hear from you, the constituents, do you want them to support, oppose it, not sure, gun owners as well. when senator cornyn was talking on the floor, but debate by getting 64 senators, 14 republicans, to approve moving through this legislation. they've been debating it and that will continue today. they will have a procedural vote to end debate. we understand around 11:00 a.m. eastern time. after that if they clear that hurdle, and you will see what the vote is on c-span2, it will depend on whether they can get agreement to expedite this legislation to final approval, which could happen today or friday. they are heading toward final approval. our first caller is in colorado and you support it. good morning. caller: i don't support it.

i'm confused. you have leaders who have no problem arming the world's worst terrorists to inflict death and destruction across the planet but they are hell-bent on taking the rights of americans. if these leaders wanted to keep schools safe, we have perfect examples of getting that accomplished. look at the israelis. their kids spend their time playing in bunkers out of the sights of hamas and hezbollah missiles fired indiscriminately at schools. but targets are perfect for terrorist activity and the israelis have perfected keeping their kids safe. host: steve in oak ridge, tennessee, you are a gun owner. caller: good morning, always good to see you. i'm 73 years old and i've groaned -- found guns since i was 18. i am a hunter.

i don't own high-powered rifles because i don't care about shooting big animals. but also let me say, i totally support this but it is just a band-aid. let me give you a couple of things. i taught school for 31 years and many of those was in a mobile classroom outside the building. one of these weapons will shred one of those classrooms just like paper shredders shred paper . we would have these drills and the kids thought it was funny until i mentioned to them the fact that those guns will go right through the walls of that classroom. also, there is an issue with locked doors. these kids need to go to the bathroom. how do they get in the building? there's issues with that. 1500 kids in most middle schools and high schools, you are going to get 1500 kids through a metal

detector every morning? it's not feasible. put more security. the parkland cop did. the cops in uvalde stood around while people were killing everybody. if you want to stop this, show videos of that classroom at uvalde so people understand what these weapons do. i mean, it's insane. host: joseph in bedford, virginia, you oppose. caller: yes, i do, and i will tell you why. criminals do not obey the laws. the laws only affect us law-abiding. so they could pass all the laws they want until they are blue in the face and it only affects the law-abiding. if you give a socialist and inch, they will take a mile. they always want to exploit a situation like this to publish the law-abiding for the behavior

of the criminal. when they put out no guns, gun free school zone, etc., most of these mass killers admit that's why they chose that place, is because it is a welcome mat. host: dale in grantville, pennsylvania, you support the bill. caller: good morning. i support gun legislation and i also have a question. in the 1930's, 1920's, 1930's, we banned as far as i know tommy guns, submachine guns. why can't we band assault rifles now? they are basically a submachine gun. i may be wrong about this ban on submachine guns but i'd like to know if there is such a ban. that's all i have to say. host: dale supporting this legislation, you can watch on

c-span2 when the senate comes in today around 11:00 a.m. eastern time to end debate on this bipartisan proposal. we will get an idea of what the final vote could look like then. you can listen to the debate and the vote on c-span2, c-span.org, and listen and watch on our video app called c-span now. you can download that to your phone. they could expedite the process and go right to final passage later today or that may spill over into tomorrow. if you are interested, listen to the gavel and watch the gavel-to-gavel coverage on c-span2. what's happening in washington? we are waiting on the supreme court at 10:00 a.m. eastern time to issue more decisions. there are 13 remaining including that abortion case decision as well as a decision on gun laws.

all of that happening at the supreme court today. they could issue opinions or they also added a decision day tomorrow, and potentially early next week as the supreme court wraps up there term. the federal reserve chairman jerome powell will be testifying before the house financial services committee and we will have coverage on c-span3, c-span now, and c-span.org. he was before the senate banking committee yesterday, made some news saying rates will increase and could tip us into a recession. january 6 committee will hold their fifth hearing today at 3:00 p.m. and will focus on the former president's efforts to pressure the justice department to challenge the 2020 election.

congressman adam kinzinger is expected to lead most of the questioning. the c-span video app or online at c-span.org, if you miss it today it will re-air at 9:00 p.m. eastern tonight. dale, grantville, pennsylvania, you support the legislation. caller: pardon? host: you've got to turn down your television. caller: i'm sorry. ok. host: there you go. it's your turn. what do you think about the senate gun legislation? caller: i support the legislation. i have a lot of confidence in our representatives and i think they will do the best they can. what i don't understand is why they can't stop the purchase of

these ar-15's and automatic weapons when in the 1930's and 1940's we stopped the sale to private citizens of submachine guns because gangsters used them. what seems -- why is it so difficult to stop the sale of ar-15's which aren't a weapon a regular citizen needs? host: jim, st. petersburg, florida, gun owner. good morning. caller: i'm glad you got my call. morning. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: hello? host: chris in illinois, you oppose, and a reminder to turn down the television. caller: my question is really about assault rifles because assault rifles are used for home protection and hunting. i'm not arguing that. pump shotguns are used for home

protection and hunting as well and i'm not sure if you can argue. why can't assault rifles be redesigned to be similar to a pump shotgun to have a similar capacity and slower reloading, and hunters can still use them, 8, 10 shots, and not this unlimited 50 round capacity that is just insane? just unreasonable weapon. host: you oppose what they've put on the floor in the senate because it doesn't go far enough? caller: i think it needs to go a little bit further but i think the gun many fractures need to step up and redesign their product -- manufacturers need to step up to redesign their product. you can still give people home protection and hunting used but not military grade. host: "the washington times" has

some numbers. $1 billion in grants for mental health care programs administered by health and human services gives states incentive to adopt red flag laws or other crisis intervention programs, expands the background check system to include juvenile records, makes it illegal to sell ammunition our guns to those with juvenile records, and adds $100 million for the federal background check system, two billion dollars to the educational department for mental health and school safety, expands the definition of the mystic violence to close the so-called boyfriend loophole -- domestic violence to close the so-called boyfriend loophole. caller: you support it? caller:the reason i do is -- caller: the reason i do is because we have to do something. i don't think it goes far enough.

i've been shooting guns since i was 12 years old. my dad didn't even show me where his guns were stored until i was 18. responsible gun owners know that we need gun control. the law that passed will not stop an 18-year-old shooting up the schools and that lets us know we did not go far enough. host: i will hear from a gun owner, maliki in georgia -- malik in georgia. caller: i feel like if there is someone with mall intent and they plan to go out of their way to buy a gun or find one and however they go about it, they will do it regardless of what laws are in place. it is better to have it and not needed then than to need it and not have it. i have a firearm and haven't had to use it but rest assured, if there was something going on i know that i have the ability to

protect myself and those around me. host: kelly in salem, new hampshire, you support. why? caller: i am almost 30 and i've been going through school shooting drills since i was about 10 years old, so when they say the kids are the only ones dealing with this, adults, voters, are people who have lived with this. i very much support and hope this is just the start and not necessarily the end. and a band-aid for a situation that is just out of control. thank you very much. host: aubrey on twitter -- pursuant to haller, some restrictions on firearms is not unconstitutional. i don't oppose redo -- reasonable restrictions. thank you for joining the debate. the house is about to gavel in. live coverage on c-span.