>> good thmorning, everyone. on this january 12th, we'll begin in just a minute with your thoughts on changing the senate rules for thises voting rights legislation. but more from president biden in atlanta, georgia. >> sadly, the united states senate designed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, has been rendered a shell of its former sel gives me no satisfaction in a saying that, an tuinstitutionalist, as a man who is honored to serve in the senate. but as an institutionalist, i believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills. debate them, vote, let the majority prevail. and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the senate rules, including gettingng rid of the filibuster for this. >> so again, president biden pushing for senate changes. now, what is the president and most democratsth pushing for? the freedom to vote act, which would require states to set a 15-day minimum early voting window and makes election day a federal holiday. it also mandates each state offer same-day voter registration at all polling locations by 2024, and it bars states from drawing political boundaries that favor or disfavor anyls political party. thento there's also the john les voting rights act. it restores full protections of voting rights acts of 1965, it expands the formula for the justice department to identify discriminatory voting patterns in states and localities, and those entities would need the justice department approval before making further changes to elections. republicans led bypo minority leaderer mitch mcconnell of kentucky, according to "the new york times," are promising a scorched earth response. here's the leader on the floor yesterday. >>rd if my colleague tries to breakk the senate to silence those millions ofnt americans, will make their voices heard in this chambert in ways that are more inconvenient for the majority and this white house than what anybody has seen in living memory. last year, the senate passed major bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, on hate crimes, on governmentnc funding, on competing with china. last year, senators helped speed through noncontroversial nominations. so what would a post-nuclear senate look like? i assure you it would not be more efficient or more productive. i personally guarantee it. do my colleagues understand how manydo times per day the senate needs and gets unanimous consent for basic housekeeping? do they understand how many things would require a roll call vote? how often the minority could demand lengthy debate. our colleagues who riching for o procedural nuclear winter have not even begun to contemplate how it would look. our colleagues who are itching to drain every drop of collegiality from this body have not even begun to consider how thatat would work. if the democratic leader tries to shut millions of americans and entire states out of the business of governing, the operations off this body will change. oh, yes. that much is true. but notth in ways that reward t breakers. not in ways that advantage this president. this majority. or their party. i guarantee it. >> from the senate floor yesterday. nower it's your turn to tell washington lawmakers what you think they should do on this voting rights legislation. should they change the filibuster rules? carl holtz of "the new york times" notes this in his piece. democrats are looking at multiple proposals to curb the filibuster that unless the changes canly attract the 67 vos ausually needed to change senate rules, t highly unlikely situatn given strident republican opposition, the only way to achievee that change is through what is known as the nuclear option. in that case, democrats would stage a series of flor votes to overrule senate precedence on a strictly partisan vote. that's howns democrats eliminat the 60-vote threshold on most nominees in 2013 and how republicans did the same on supreme courtve nominees in 201. at least two democratic senators,ar kyrsten sinema of arizona and joe manchin of west virginia, have said they would not take partei in such an effo. mr. manchin opposed the previous change, and on tuesday, he reiterated his argument. here he is. >> filibuster is what we have our rules. we need good rule changes to make the place work better. gettingbo rid of the filibuster doesn'tly make it work better. >> did you get pressure from your constituents at home? >> what they know about the filibusterle is what bob byrd educated people on over the years, and the filibuster is what makes the senate hopefully work when it is supposed to work. we needan good rules changes an we can do that together, but you change the rules with two-thirdn of people present. democrats and republican changing thehe rules to make th place workin better. >> "the new york times" notes that senator joe manchin does support voting rights legislation, more from the newspaper, katiesi rogers reporting. she says back in washington, there arebl multiple proposals find a ways to appease mr. mancn and ms. sinema, and other possible hold-outs are circulating including restoring the talking filibuster by requiring law makes to take to the floor. reducing the number of votes needed to break a filibuster, and limiting its use altogether in some circumstances. so let's go to calls. catherine inve ohio. democratic caller. what do you say on this debate? >> caller: i think every american should have the right to vote. yes, i am.es >> all right. we're listening. every american should have the right to vote, you said. >> caller: yes, f every america has a t right to vote. i think that if the republicans can change the filibuster when they want to, the democrats should be allowed to do it as well. this is an issue that affects all americans. voting. we know that the united states of america has had a history didn't want black people to vote, they didn't want women to vote. they didn't want children to have ahe right to vote.nt because they were going to schools or colleges, and they had to go back home to their state, whichever their state was, to vote because they didn't want them to have the right to vote. if you are a party, republicans, and you don'te have a majority, then you lose. it's that simple. you do not and have refused to see that we americans all have a right to vote. and it mayay not be your way, b that's just the way it is. my name is catherine, i'm 73 years old, and we have a constitution that says that we a right to vote. and they are trying to take our vote away from us again. >> okay, catherine.ce let's hear from jimbo in bakersfield, california. an independent. what's your take on this. >> caller: thank you, greta frrx the 6.chance. hey, shout out to you and the "washington journal" staff for your coverage on january 6th. hands down,e you had the best coverage. you had w information that i couldn't get anywhere else in real time. that was -- that was cracker jack work. you have never gotten any recognition for it. i n wanted to make sure you got some kudos for it. all right. hey, what i think chuck schumer needs to w do is he needs to crt a very narrow piece of legislation thatou deals with jt which after the votes are counted, who gets to count the votes and which votes get counted andnd which ones don't. right now, in like georgia, they have passed legislation that makes it possible for the state legislators to discount some votes and to count some and discard other ones. that is the area of greatest concern.f again, i have no problem with people proving that they are american citizens, that they are registered to vote, that they are eligible to vote, that they stand in line. whatever. that is not thee issue here. the problem is that we're not focusing on the fact that state legislators are taking over the right of determining which votes count and which ones don't. and that's what i think matters the most. >> you think there needs to be some sort of federal standard. >> caller: i think that what we need to do is we need to make sure thatof it is not state legislators who are determining, for r example, parts of atlanta. we do not believe that these votes in this part of atlanta are valid, and we state legislators or we appointed politicalical people in positions which used to be nonpartisan, are going to determine that those votes aren't valid. they don't meet our standard. so that's what i'm worried about mostly, and that is what chuck schumer, again, make manchin and sinema and the rest of the republicans vote against something like that, that the people of america can easily understand. the president missed an opportunity, as well as the vice president, theyer didn't focus the key problem, and i don't think the media or everyone, all of a sudden people are discovering that iss the real issue. we americans, we'll stand in line in rain and snow and sleet. we will vote. we willro vote, give us the chance. but oncete we vote, make sure m vote is counted. >> all right, jimbo. front page of "the new york times" says the president waited, states curbed voting. and they report in the nine months since republicans in georgia muscle d through a host of new voting restrictions, 18 other states have enacted 33 sump such laws. more than 30 states have concluded the redistricting processes with extreme partisan o gerrymandering, locking in republican control overno legislatures in the electoral battlegrounds of georgia, north carolina, ohio, and texas, for another ten years. steve in york, pennsylvania, republican. steve, what do you say? >> caller: well, i'm 75 coming up in a couple weeks. i always vote. i missed one time. my main thing is, as everyone that votes should haveth a vote id. in new york right now, there are illegals that are going to be able to vote in the next election, which is ridiculous. i'm afraid that what the government is going toer do, th federal government, they're going too take the rights of th states who have power over that, and that'se. dictatorial. eventually. and that's what i'm concerned about. we should have a o right to vot. everybody has a right to vote, but a they should have voter id. when you buy a house, when you buy a car and things, they have to prove that you are who you are. and this is what they should do in the major elections. here in pennsylvania where i am, what is not fair, a political party -- theh republican party can take all the state but philadelphia and pittsburgh and he lost, or she lost. i'm afraid this country is going to end up taking more of our constitutional state rights away. >> okay, so steve, let me ask you. you say this is state rights. how do you interpret the u.s. constitution article 1, section 4. the time, place, and manner of holding reelections for representatives and senators shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the congress may at any time by any law make or alter such regulations. >> i don't see there's anything actually wrong with that. what i amm concerned about is they want the power. let the people of america vote on what they want. but i'm afraid what's going to happen is, and i'm blaming the republican party, we are the people. we the people are the government. not our representatives. our representatives are put there by us when we vote to follow what we want done. and it's not been done. i'm 75 years old. i haveca always voted since i he been 18o years old, and both parties don't care about the american people. all they care about is power to control what youon can and cann do. >> okay, all right, steve. tim in rochester, new york. democratic caller. your opinion, tim. >> caller: yes, this is about the erfilibuster. i feel like they should leave joe manchin ealone. him and sinema, let them do their thing. they have an election coming up. so the democrats need to put up more candidates that can win, like in north nccarolina, ohio, wisconsin,n, pennsylvania. if they win those, sinema and manchin would be irrelevant. so they have to put up candidates, you know, i think that can have a chance to win. they should put the burden on those two like that. >> so tim, do you think the democrats are risking their majority with this, with a possible rule change? >> yes, i think so. it's just get more people, you can vewin. you cant do what you want to d. i feel like leave those two alone.ol just putrd up better candidates and do what you got to do and take it from there. >> okay. in other news on capitol hill yesterday, there was the confirmation hearing for jerome powell to serve again as fed chair. front page of the "wall street journal," powell ready to raise rates but sees supply woes easing. you can read more from the "wall street journal." you can also look at his testimony on our website, c-span.org. ifvi you don't have ours on you schedule to watch, you can simply goo to the hit play on te video t player and gold stars wl show up from the key moments of yesterday's hearing. you canan quickly go through th hearing and find out what he had to say. markdo in northwood, new hampshire, republican.al mark, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning.g. i do have some comments. some of the callers so far have been spot on and some of them are pie in the sky hopeful thinkers. i don't understand the problem with voting. we all have the ability, but what i saw on your screen this morning i found disturbing. 15 days of early voting but theb election day is going to be a national holiday. i don't understand. if it's a national holiday, everyone's i home from work. then there's plenty of time to vote. i used to live in the big cities. i live in rural new hampshire now. when i was a kid, schools were closed. everybody went to voteim atal t local school.go here in my town, we vote for the longest time atro the local church. but then we w got too big, and had to move to the school. where is the problem in showing proper t.id? where is the problem of making sure that dead people are not on the voter list? i don't understand any of this rhetoric and craziness that's going on. basically, it seems to me like the democrats are trying to maintain power in any way, shape, or u form that they can. andof it's not fair to the avere person. plain and h simple, i just don' understand the thought process of so many of the people who call in. i watch everyso morning. >> howow do you think republica should respond if democrats couldy convince senators manch and sinema to go along with this? >> caller: in any way, shape, or form that we can. c i mean, you know, we talk about fair and equal elections in other countries. people get a stamp on their forehead, they get a stamp on their bhand. we're doing the exact opposite on that with the mass mail-in ballots that can never, ever be verified. and i don't care how many audits there are across the country in each individual state. if you continue to count invalid votes, you're going to continue coming up with the same number. we have to verify that the person voting is in fact alive, a citizen, and allowed to vote. in california, they're going to let illegal immigrants vote. they givein them driver's wh licenses. they can belly up to the bar and vote whatever they want to do. i heard a caller this morning say they're going to do the same thing in new thyork, where i spt most of my life growing up. ii do not understand the push ad the. rhetoric of allowing anyon who lives in the country is entitled to vote. that's not fair. it's not true. >> okay, mark, i have to get in some other voices. kurt in fenton, michigan. independent. >> caller: how are youou today? thanks for having me. i'm calling because i honestly feel the left and the right are so far apart, there's no compromising going on. so they're not -- they're just literally not doing anything. it's ae shame to where it is f power. the definition of insanity is doing the samee thing over and over again and expecting different results, and that's whats we're getting at. it's not about the people anymore. too many people lost their lives for us to have the right to vote. and it's a crime that most people don't vote, to be honest with you, but i think the government is at such a hard time. abraham lincoln once said a house divided cannot stand. and we're literally watching it. >> all right. james in wilson, north carolina. democratic caller. what do you say, james? >> caller: good morning, greta. >> good morning. >> caller: and good morning, c-span. i'm calling this morning. i'm an 81-year-old black man. and i was drafted into the army in 1959. i had no right to vote. went to vietnam, got hurt. come back, they sent me to maryland and sent me back to fort jackson, south carolina, back to vietnam to fight. come back. out of thed army, i still had right. i don't go where these people are talking about right, right, right. i had no rights at all. went and fight for this country. and still now, they're talking about i need id and stuff like that. i fought. i'm 81 years old. on my way to the grave. one said the dead can vote.go i'm not dead. i'm 81. and n i thank god i'm still ali now. and can speak to you this morning. and god hasic blessed me. i'm not worried about nobody else and nothing. i'm just worried about myself. and god bless america. and you have a blessed day. >> samed to you, james. chris in maryland, republican. >> caller: good morning. how are inyou? >> good morning. go l ahead. >> caller: you know, there's a lot of things going on out there that i just think need to be pushed back and challenged a little bit. you know, the rhetoric about not being able to bring somebody water in line, and if people are just accepting that as what that sounds elike, i mean, they just need to peel back the layers a little bit and look at that. there are people going up to people in line, saying they're bringing them water, and they're polling foror their candidates. and they're trying to convince people to vote for their candidate. soso it'sto not about not bring somebody a bottle c of water. that's absolutely ridiculous. it's about using that bottle of water to be able to convey your candidate's message and try to voting line.sohe so unless you're peeling back the onion, you're just listening to things like that, you're going to be very upset and say, what do you mean, you can't bring somebody a bottle of water? but that's not actually what it is. if you look back at the 30,000 foot view and say the republicanss on one side say hae id, show that id, and vote. and that would basically solve a lot ofth the republican problem. >> sochris, do you know what's this legislation? were you listening when we read it at the top, the two bills democrats are pushing for? >> caller: absolutely. >> let me ask you this, if they added voter id to this provision, to these provisions, would you support the rest of it? >> caller: well, voter id. if that was the law of the land, i think that we could definitely negotiate l the rest. have a big problem with is having the states, if they l want to change their election tslaws, having to go t the federal government. now, we're getting a little backwards there because the rights are withinht our country are within the states. the federal government is to i oversee just a few things but not take thehe rights away from the states. if voter id was in there, that would definitely help. but i could not give each individual state has to gos. through the federal government to amend their voting laws. >> all right. got it, chris. so while the president was in georgia, pushing for a change to thees filibuster rules, in the senate, lawmakers were debating this idea on the floor. here's one moment yesterday in an exchange between senator john cornyn and the majority leader, chuckdo schumer. >> so let'sti have a look. did voters actually have a problem casting their ballot during r the last election? well, following the 2020 election, the pew research center conducted a poll of the voting experience. and it found that the vast majority ofat voters, 94%, 94% said thatt voting was easy. i don't think you could get 94% of the people to agree that the earth is round anymore. but here we have 94% of the voters who voted with ease in 2020.fr t this is a stark contrast with the claimed assault on voting rights we have n heard so much about from our colleagues on the left. despite what the radical left might lead you to believe, there is no nationwide assault on voting rights. if there were, every person in this building would be lined up to defend the right to vote, not just democrats. mr. president, this is a manufactured crisis designed to achieve a political outcome. >> i would yield to you. i have the floor. mind if i borrow your chart? great. thank you. i'll hold it. now, my colleague -- now, my good colleague from texas says 94% off voters said voting was easy in 2020. so why don't we keep it that way? isn't it true that all of the changes that we are arguing about are post-2020? and is it overwhelming likelihood that this number, if these changes are allowed to go into effect, will go way down.bu so yes, we agree. keep the 2020 laws. maybe we should improve them, but right now, what we're combatting is a a series o legisl legislators, 19, 33 laws that will makee this number surely g down because it makes voting lesss hard, so we agree. 2020 worked out okay. i guess my friend is saying the big lie is false, because donald trump said it was fraudulent. the election results. i would thank my colleague for his chart. and we'll be using it again. >> lawmakers in washington yesterday. now it's your turn to tell them what you think they should do on voter rightss legislation. should they change the rules to have a 50-vote threshold to pass thosego voting -- those two votg rights bills? chris -- excuse me, matt in maryland. democratic caller. hi, matt. good morning to you. go ahead. >> caller: yes.eo first thing i want to say is i want to let that individual know, my fellow marylander, that in georgia, it was indeed going to be made ate law that you cant bring any sort of food or drinks to someone in line waiting to vote, which is completely barbaric. but other than that, what i had to say is i think it's time we had a national right for voting, make it a national issue. be because the red states have proven to us all my life that they can't be trusted tom protect people's rights. as far as voting is concerned. and if you told them that they would needit that kind of id to get guns, they would flip out. i just -- i think it's time. i thinkgh it's time we started protecting people's rights. you know, if the right thought they could winrr an election fairly, with their artifact policies, they wouldn't be worried about this, but that seems to bee what they worry about. they seem toev be worrying abou elections years in advance. and that's all they seem to work on. and they never offer -- they offer criticism for everything but never say how about doing it this way or that way. i don't think the right is looking for answers. and il think it's time people realize the right survives by ll conflict. without conflict, they would fall apart. thank you. >> all right. don, cookville, tennessee. independent.rs hi, don. >> caller: good morning. good morning, greta. first point, i caught the show onon video, what was it, just a few weeks ago, where he was saying it doesn't matter who you vote for. it'ss who counts the votes. and that is a very contentious point on this last election. what went n on at the counting places. okay. second of all, joey needs to clean his own house in delaware. i have seen numerous times, charts being held up showing georgia's voting rules versus delaware's. and delaware is a whole lot more restrictive than georgia is. third point, the filibuster. i just saw something today, read it, where in 1964, the democrats held a filibuster for 75 days in an attempt to block the civil rights act. and yet now, they want to belly ache and say we need to get rid of the filibuster. >> and what do you think, don? >> caller: i hope and pray for thisid country. that's the best i can do. >> what do you think happens if they were to get m rid of the filibuster forl. these two bill? >> caller: more of a power grab, pure andnd simple. more of aca power grab. >> how do you think republicans shouldt respond? >> caller: i don't want to sound radical here, but they would just be inviting another january 6th.om in all honesty. democrats would be inviting another january 6th. >> okay, let's not promote violence. so back in 2005, when president biden was then senator biden, here's what he had to say during debate on the senate floor at the time about changing the ul filibuster. > republicans control the senate. and they have decided that they're going to c change the rule. at its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill. it's about compromise and moderation. that's why the founders put unlimited debate puin.th when you have to, and i have never conducted a filibuster. but if i did, the purpose would bebe you have to deal with me a one senator. itmy doesn't mean i get my way. it means you may have to compromise. you may have to see my side of argument. that's what it's about. engendering compromise and moderation. ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in this senate. that's it. they're done. moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. they're much less important if you need only 50 votes. i understand the frustration of myfo republican colleagues. i have been here 32 years. most of the timeke in the ge majority. and whenever you're in the majority, it'so frustrating to see the other side block a bill or abr nominee you support. i haveas walked in your shoes, d i get it. i get it so much that what brought me togr the united stat senate was the fight for civil rights. my state to its great shame was segregated by law, was a slave s state. i came here toth fight it. but even i understood with all of thend passion i felt as a 29-year-old kid running for the senate, the purpose, the purpose of extended debate, getting rid ofof the filibuster has long-te consequences. if there's one thing i have learned in my years here, once you change the rules and surrender the senate's institutional power, you never get it back. and we're about to break the rules to change the rules.gi >> then-senator biden in 2005. yesterday, president biden in georgia backed the idea of changingng senate rules, the filibuster, for voting rights legislation. what doore you think should be done?? thomas in florida, republican. we'll go to you, thomas. >> caller: hi. thanks for having me on. you have a great show. a couple things to say. a few things actually. i'm going to talk and feel free off when you want to, no hard feelings. to makein it simple on the filibuster ayissue, i think it' rather silly thing to have. i think a if you don't have anything pertinent or relevant to say, you shouldn't be able to inpe theory go to the podium in the senate and read an apple pie recipe, which is possible, and has in fact happened before. but i do find the democratic rhetoric on themo attack on democracy from republicans very hypocritical when you consider several things. first of all, did the democrats not try and undo a democratically held election by tryingha to impeach trump in 20 on the russia collusion lie? we now know the russian collusion myth was just that. the mueller report was emphatically clear, he did not find evidence to press charges for collusion against trump. and the democrats knew the evidence wassa faulty going int the investigation, but they did sofl anyway. i alsoit find one of your calle a couple calls ago saying how the right only exists with conflict. i think it's the other way around. i think the democratic party is being so -- and republicans are not innocent, but democrats are worse right now. are so willingly to insight people's's fears about our democracy is under attack and republicans are trying to subvert justicere and democracy. it just feels like it's very much one-sided, or at least not one-sided but more on one side than the other. b now, my proposal, how would i fix the voting issues in the u.s. i think it should be federalized. i think itt should be nationalized. i think therea should be a national standard. i think it's absolutely ridiculous how different states have different laws for voting, for a federal election. i do support voter ids, but i understand people might say, well, voter id laws are unfair to thoses who can't maybe affor an id or they're economically disadvantaged. that's true. so make ids free. make asi national id free to al u.s. citizens, make the process strictly regulated but easily accessible. and that would a be my solutioni >> all right, thomas. thomas in dell ray beach, florida. republican. yesterday on capitol hill, in addition to this debate over changing the senate rules for the orfilibuster, there was alsa hearing happening with the fbi and otherin agencies on domesti terrorism threats. here's the abe headline from "t washington post" thisd morning. another january 6th conspiracy theory suffers a reality inflicted blow. now, senator ted cruz questioning of the fbi in the senate judiciary committee hearing,at made -- went viral i it.me it's something that many of you have talked about on the show, and it's a debate that's been happening on social media and other newss networks as well. whether or not there was fbi involvement on january 6th. take a lookbi at this exchange. >> i want to turn to the fbi. howf many fbi agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of january 6th? >> sir, i'm sure you can appreciate that i can't go into theid specifics of sources and methods. >> did any fbi agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of january 6th? yes or no? >> sir, i can't answer that. >> did any fbi agents or confidential informants commit crimes of f violence on january 6th?? >> i can't answer that, sir. >> did any fbi agents or fbi informants actively encourage and insight crimes of violence on january 6th? >> sir, i can't answer that.r. >> who is ray eps? >> i'm aware of the individual, sir. i don't have the specific background of him. >> well, there are a lot opeople who are understandably very concerned about mr. hepps.de on the night of january 5th, 2021, epps wandered around the crowd that hade gathered and there's video of him chanting, tomorrow, we need too get into the capitol, into the capitol. this was strange behavior. so strange that the crowd began chanting, fed, fed, fed, fed, fed, fed. was ray epps a fed? >> sir, i cannot answer that question. >> the next day, on january 6th, mr. epps is seen whispering to a person, and five seconds later, five seconds after he's whispering to a person, that same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades. did mr. epps urge them to tear down the barricades? >> sir, similar to the other answers, i cannot answer that. >> "the washington post" this morning notesyo this, that san born, the fbi official there, said she couldn't answer the question, which theyy say is vey much what you would expect. federal law enforcement and intelligencece officials don't confirm or deny such questions because even a denial potentiallyf reveals confidentl information. after all, she says epps isn't a foreign agent, she's asked about someone else.ru anything other than a denial is confirmation. she declined to answer. it also says that cruz then continued, kept going, asking whether erepps urged people to tear down barricades. sanborn of course declined to answer, buter he also asked why the fbi isn't looking for him. that he's no longer on the list of people thest fbi is looking n for. but of course, people have explained why epps might not be arrested or even sought by federal investigators. here, e for example, is "huffington post"l ryan riley explaining why there's no public evidence that rayhe epps entere the the interior of the capitol building. he was unlawfully present on the restricted grounds of the capitol, but doj cannot possibly charge all ofil those cases. riley iss tracking the grassroos effort to identify those who entered the capitol building so he knows of what he speaks. there's lots of footage of lots of people violating federal law so.oing the available footage does not show epps. in other words, there's another unlikely reason that epps wasn't being sought by the fbi. he was alreadydy cleared. now,mi it says that as it turns out, he had already been investigated by another body. a few hours after cruz's performance, the house committee investigating the january 6th attack released a statement through a spokesperson. the committee, it turns out, had talks to epps, who offering testimony that could subject him to criminal prosecution if he lies,, denied being a federal agent. so again, ifio you missed this hearing, andin that exchange, y want to seeee it, you can go to our website, c-span.org. you canon find it there. susan, democraticsa caller, bac to our conversation here about changing senate rules for voting rights legislation. what do you say? greta.er: thank you, boy, cruz is really tough. he's like a bully to those that are less than him or something, or he feels he can bully, but he gets on fox and he's very, very kneeling to what they have to say. but for this legislation, you know, south dakota, i feel like our votes never really count a lot because the whole electoral votess are, i guess, really wha matters. i have seenme news last night o the electoral official, so-called official documents that were sent to represent these states. and they were false. it was like five states. and apparently, the republicans, and let's just say trump, because he is running the right now, set these documents up. they were all the same format, all the same spaces. they were the same document. and the story shows how clearly each state has a very unique, their own separate seal, and nothing like these fraudulent ones. sosos our voting should be the t basic, easy thing. if our senate cannot stand up for what is right, just what is truthh and what is right, and w haveg states that can send in fraudulent things that can be t counted, people that are dismissed from the offices that don't agree with going along with that, this is our democracy aton its worst point. andas i'm so thankful biden is finally stepping up in a tone that matters. this has been going on way too long. and these people, i think mcconnell had very much a threat ofhi a january 6th type of even in his tone if we decide that we need to do what's right for the people of this country. we are losing our country. and i'm scared. it's on all levels. thisa is not about voters. wewe can make our votes, and if they don't matter at the counting hipoint, at the point where the greatest of integrity should be there, we have people that have torn this country apart instead and taken up to lie and to kill our democracy. >> all right, susan. let me hearrs from matt who is new york, a republican. >> caller: yes, good morning. first off, i would like to say we are not a democracy. we are a democratic republic. which protects the individual states. >> okay. we're listening. >> caller: and also, the left is really good with these names they give stuff. you f know, like national organization for women, which turnsin out you have to be a leftist woman for them to care about you. nowi' we're here, voting rights. it has nothing to do with voting rights. it's a power grab.y oh, and by the way, i like you showing biden defending the filibuster. there's also clips of my senator schumer doing that. i wish you guyed would pull that up. a y lot of the things right now that are in that bill we have here in the state of new york this past fall, a referendum on voting and doing a lot of the things that were in that bill, and it was defeated by a very large a margin. which is driving the democrats nuts. e also, theil illegal alien vote just for new york city, and there's an estimated 850,000 illegals in new york city, which would definitely permanently turn that city into just a single partyp system. it's basically that now, but once in a while, when people finally get fed up with crime and stuff, they will elect a rudy giuliani a or somebody lik that on the republican side. this whole thing, and also i'm glad you did read the constitution, because i that fit call from pasadena, when he kept saying the state legislatures shouldn't have anything to do with it, it's in the constitution, that's exactly who doese it. and actually, our first presidents that were elected were not elected by popular vote. they were elected by the . legislatures. it wasn't until later that the people were voting, so this whole thing, i think, is a red herring. first,to the first thing democrs years ago was all people are going to not have social security and they'll get kicked out of their homes. and then the next big red herring was the war on women. and now this red herring, which is so-called voting rights, which is just a distraction from the disastrous policies of the pastbo year that the democrats have pulled. >> okay, so matt, for you and others, listen to what the president and democratsin are arguing about state laws that they say are suppressing the right to vote. >> and what's been the reaction of republicans in georgia? chooseoo the wrong way. the undemocratic way. to them, too many people voting in a democracy is a problem. so a they're putting up obstacl. for example,de voting by mail ia safe and convenient way to get more people to vote. so e they're making it harder f you to votee by mail. the same way i might add that thee 2020 election, president trump voted from behind the desk in the white house in florida. dropping your ballots off to secured drop boxes. it's safe. it's convenient. and you get more people to vote. so they're limiting the number of drop boxes and the hours you can use them. taking away the options has a predictable effect. longer lines at the polls. lines that can last for hours. you have seenn them with your on eyes. people get tired. they get hungry. the biblel. teaches us to feed e hungry and give water to the thirsty. the new georgia law actually makes it illegal. think of this. 2020. and now '22, going into that election, it makes it illegal to bring your neighbors, your fellow voters, food or water while they wait in line to vote. what in the heck are we talking about? i mean, think about it. that's not america. that's what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote. and here's how they plan to subvert the election. the georgia republican party, the state a legislature, has no given itselfro the power to mak it easier for partisan actors, their t cronies, to remove loca election officials. thinkas about that. >> the president in georgia yesterday. now, in washington, republican senator john thune responded to the criticism of the president -- the criticism of georgia's voting laws. >> in 2021, a number of states passed updatesre to their votin laws.ts partly because of the challenges and special circumstances that arose as a result of the pandemic. so democrats decided that these commonsense mainstream updates represented an o unprecedented attack on voting rights. inai georgia, which is one of t firstre to enact voting legislation, has become the poster child forte democrats' campaign to convince americans voting rights are in ge danger. so what terrible voter suppressions measures are state imposing? well, one s provision of the georgia law that has come frin a lott of democrat outrage is its measure forbidding partisan political organizations from providing individuals with food or water within 150 feet of a pollingov place. yes. apparently preventing partisan politicall organizations from providing lunch to voters threatens the very stability of our entire democracy. now, nothing in georgia's law prevents outside groups from providing food and water to individuals outside the 150-foot radius. and georgia's law explicitly allahs nonpartisan election workers as opposed to political groups tond make water availabl to voters. and of course, i'm pretty sure any voter can bring his or her own food and water. but none of that has prevented democrats from suggesting that rules about food and water distribution at polling places represent a grave threat to votingon rights. ironically,ro state of new york has a similar provision in its election law prohibiting any refreshment or s provision to a voter at a polling place. except if the retail value of what isif given is less than $1 and the person or entity providing it is not identified. i don't see the democrats traveling to new york to decry the threat to democracy posed by the new york legislature. >> south dakota senator john thunee yesterday. adele in springfield, illinois. democratic caller.in we're going to you next. what do you say about changing senate rules for the voting rights legislation? >> caller: good morning, ms. greta. w happy new year to you and everyone at c-span. >> good morning. >> caller: i want to make several points, and i want to respond to ang couple of the comments that havees been made. the senator john thune, he just said something about giving food or water. these people take money from lobbyists, meals and stuff. they just banned that recently, but it's preventing voters to get any typey of water. that's kind of hypocrisy. another thing the gentleman just before me mentioned about it's not a democracy, it's a republic. 37 states dont not have a filibuster. okay. 13 do, 37 do not have a filibuster. the gentleman before that also mentioned if this that also mentioned if this thing passed will be another january 6, this is the type of sentiment that is beingem responded to. i you just played a clip on 2005 of joe biden, again, the replacement of the filibuster laws. it's's a different world. after trump, after these legislature passing these laws makingas restrictions on minori and people of color to vote. they're not crying over that for nothing. it's reality. a person has too for an hour to vote if they're black or people of color. white people in suburbia or other places wait five minutes. that's public record, i don't know why people are saying these kinds of things. 66% ofof republicans saying tha the election was stolen. 20at million people are saying it doesn't go back to a republican administration within, with trump, they're going to take arms. this is not the same world that we're living in before trump. 2013, there was a filibuster done against, with harry reid. these things have been amended. i think we need to push towards that. the how's has it, the how's had it in 1848, the filibuster law, got rid of it in 1890, one of the longest filibusters that came up was with mccarthy. he was back there within 24 hours, after that would be a vote. something we can do. we should amend it, and if you think, if the wrong thing to do, when it's your turn and you have something you have issues, republicans, go ahead and use the filibuster rule there. noten saying you can't use it, we're saying this time, democrats forre the sake of democracy, for the sake of the republic, we need to amend it. if we don't do it, we have a bunch of state legislatures that are passing laws like this person just mentioned georgia, well georgia, the secretary state has the power to rat fight the election results. put pressure on that secretary of state, saying no, i need, you know, 10,000, 11,000, 780 votes, if that were to pass, this is a different country. republicans, wake up. >> okay, let me hear from david in northwh dayton massachusetts hi david. >> good morning, thanks for having me on. wow,w, what a show you have, a t of stray, disconnected comments. anyway i live here in massachusetts and fairly active in politics and as you know, it's a blue state, and i can tell you by my own personal experience and eye witness accountshu that voter suppressi is alive and well and ememphasized in state of massachusetts, we got along for the rest of my citizens to evaluate, but with regard to whatever, however wel, vote, we are going to have to live with the consequences of it. so w i don't care if you're a liberal, a democrat, a republican, remember, we're all in the same queue, and if you want this boat to sail right you better think about it when you go to vote, because if you set the wrong stage we're all going to suffer. and i want to remind the people that trump went into office as a reaction to the almost nine, ten years of the economic hardship that wee suffered, as a result f the bad behavior of democrats in high whoffice. so it was a reaction to that, and it wasn't, donald trump, already had that conscious, it was just people showed up to work everyday and slow but surely pulled us out of it. thank you for letting me talk, have a gooder day. >> claire from tallahasee, thank youee claire. >> thank you for letting me call, there's been a lot of good discussion, but i am distressed to hear people who don't seem to believe that the election duly run and won by a democrat. excuse me, i'm a little bit nervous. anyway, living in the south, i've seen voter suppression my whole life. my sister moved yeared ago from florida to georgia, and could never get a a registered to vot up there. she would go down, she moved to atlanta, she would go down and stand in line, stand in in line, and she could never get registered and said the line never moved. so what i'm thinking, excuse me, i got voice problems. but what i'm thinking is this, weit got, we definitely need so legislation and if it takes a filibuster to get it going, then i'm on board with that.. >> you mean curbing the filibuster, getting rid of the filibuster for these bills, you're on board with that? >> yes, ma'am. >> rlokay, claire, i'm going to carla in missouri, independent, carla, your turn. carla, good morning in missouri. >> i'm here. >> iokay. go ahead. >> all right, i think both republicans and democrats are steering a lot of red herrings into this a whole mess. if everybody has a voter id, and i think this guy who called and said they ought to be free, there's a solution to that. only citizens should vote. i don't know what's going on in new york, i just, you know, it's in the constitution, plain and simple, so that takes care of that..ar >> all right, carla, we will return to this conversation with more of