tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News April 4, 2021 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
chris: i'm chris wallace. president biden's push for massive infrastructure spending plan runs up against questions in congress and a recovering economy. >> the largest american jobs investment since world war ii. chris: the president's proposal not just investing in roads and bridges but green energy and care for the elderly and facing opposition from the right, left and center. we will talk with brian, white house top economic adviser and architect of the bill, only on fox news sunday. and we will discuss republican opposition with senator roy blunt of missouri. then covid vaccinations on the
rise, lockdowns being lifted but what has the nation's top public officials so worried? we will ask dr. michael osterholm about chances of another wave. plus. >> mr. derek chauvin betrayed the badge. chris: and power player of the week. >> senate chaplain barry black on how to heal a divided nation all right now on fox news
sunday. hello, again, and happy easter from fox news in washington. what president biden calls a once in a generation spending plan faces big challenges on capitol hill. republicans call the president's proposal a trojan horse having liberal social programs and massive tax hikes and moderates have their own demands. new job's report signals a strong recovery and raises questions whether the country needs trillions more in government spending. this hour we will drill down on all this with brian deese, the president's white house economic adviser and republican senator roy blunt. but first, let's turn to mark meredith at the white house with the look at how the president plans to overcome the opposition, mark. mark: chris, president biden says he's going to be inviting republicans over here to the white house to talk about his spending bill but before the
meetings get scheduled, gop lawmakers are fighting back vowing to fight any efforts to block it. president biden sending significant on infrastructure now will pay off for decades to come. >> eight-year program that invests in roads, bridges, broadband, airports and ports and fixing our water system. mark: republicans say the country can't afford it. >> i'm concerned about the level of our national debt. we've reached a critical point here. >> the white house wants congress to rewrite tax code to pay $2 trillion in new spending, that includes raising the corporate tags rate to 28%. >> we can pay for this once in a century investment in jobs and growth by asking corporations to pay their fair share. mark: republicans argue tax increases could pill post-pandemic economic growth. those concerns aren't stopping some democrats, though, from urging the white house to spend even more money. >> in order for us to realize
the inspiring vision, we need to go way higher. >> house democrats hope to plan to pass the plan on fourth of july. not only infrastructure but also plans to spend a lot more money on other programs like education and social programs. chris. chris: mark meredith, reporting from the white house, mark, thank you. and joining us now brian deese, head of the president's national economic council, brian, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> thanks for having me, chris, happy easter. chris: happy easter to you, sir. let's start with the latest job's numbers. in march the economy added 916,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate fell to 6% flat and that was before the $1.9 trillion covid relief bill and the spike in vaccinations. question, given all that, does
the country need another 2 trillion-dollars in federal spending in this bill and trillions more in another bill that the president is going to lay out some time in the next few weeks? we are talking about another at least $4 trillion in more government spending. >> well, the job's numbers in march were certainly a welcome sign. it's good to see the economy starting to improve and we certainly think that it's a sign that the economic and vaccination strategy that this administration has put into place from day one is starting to have an impact. but we have a long way to go. we still are down 8.4 million jobs from where we were a year ago. we have millions of people out of work, more than 2 million women have left the labor force because they've had to choose between caring for their family members and their jobs. and so we have a long way to go. what our plan says, let's keep the economy going, let's see more job creation, that's a really good thing for the
economy but let's also think to the longer term of where those investment that is we could make that would really drive not just more job growth but better job growth, not just job growth in the short-term but long-term by investing in infrastructure and research and development in a way that we haven't since 1960's. if we do that we think that with can have a strong job rebound this year but we could sustain it over many years. that's the goal. chris: let's talk about this, the white house basically calls this an infrastructure bill and, yes, there are hundreds of billions of dollars for roads and highways and bridges and for some other things that i think you can argue are infrastructure like expanding broadband, but there are also some other parts of this bill and i want to put them up, $213 billion for housing, $400 billion for taking care of the elderly and disabled. brian, those may well be worthy projects, but they're not
infrastructure. brian: well, look, i think we really need to update what we mean by infrastructure for the 21st century. if you look at the number on housing, what we are talking about is construction, building housing all around the country, to help make sure that there are more affordable housing units for people to access jobs and access economic opportunity. we are talking about construction to build things like va facilities, our schools and community colleges, putting people to work, construction work that really needs to be done to be commitments that we have to our veterans and others. and we believe that the infrastructure of our care economy is something that we have to take seriously. if anybody out there, parents that are taking care of elderly parent or adult child with disabilities, they know that if you don't have an infrastructure of your to support your loved ones, you can't effectively work and can't effectively interact in the 21st century economy.
chris: brian, i'm not going to argue about whether or not it's worthy project. but the infrastructure of care, you're really stretching the word beyond all meaning. what you're doing is you're going to pay people to take care of the elderly and disabled. it's a social program. >> well, we are going to invest in building child care facilities, we are going to invest in upgrading home and community-based care facilities, we are going to invest in our va hospitals, we are going to invest in putting people to work, building and addressing deferred maintenance and addressing the lack of access to this type of care that keeps parents from being able to work, that keeps families from being able to work. that will create more jobs. it'll create more opportunity for people to get into the workforce. it'll expand our economy's potential. chris: the president says that this bill is paid for with $2 trillion in increased
corporate taxes. but you pay for 8 years of spending with 15 years of taxes and, brian, this is as you well know, this is a classic washington gimmick because when you're paying of 8 years of spending with 15 years of taxes, the fact is that the biden administration, will be long gone and a new president will be in and new congress will be in and oftentimes they repeal the tax increases. >> no, i think it's just the opposite. this is a capital investment. what we are talking with the infrastructure plan, it's a one-time 8-year capital investment and just like any good business or family would make capital investment and you pay up front and pay over time. what we are saying we would pay for it in 15-year period and fiscally responsible because it would reduce debt after the a2005-year period as well. look, we get that we will have a conversation about how we need
to pay for this investment and other investments. the president laid out his plan. one thing he was clear on this week, he would like to hear other people's ideas. if people think this is too aggressive, then we would like to hear what their plans are. it's something that we want to have a conversation about. this is a responsible way to pay for a significant capital investment which itself will return multiples in terms of the private investment it will unlock. we see analysts across the spectrum that we make investments in things like port and unleash private investment as well. we think it's a reasonable thing to pay for across time and you don't have to do it year for year. chris: i want to pick you mean on exactly the point. the president made it clear he's willing to negotiate, willing to compromise. here he is this week. >> i'm going to bring republicans into the oval office, listen to them, what they have to say and be open to other ideas.
chris: is the president willing -- you say he's willing to compromise, is he willing to come down and if so how far from the $2.25 trillion spending bill that -- that he's talking about here, from the price tag and in terms of paying for it, is he willing instead of corporate taxes to do what usually is done with infrastructure which is to base it on user fees, whether it's increasing the gas tax or a new mileage tax? brian: well, the president has put forth his plan. some people have said it's too much. some people say it's too little. we just think it's right. $2 trillion over 8 years investors in roads, bridges, research and development and as you say, we want to have the conversation. we are starting the outreach already. i've talked to dozens of members of congress over the course of this week. chris: how far is he willing -- how far is he willing to go down? when he talked about covid
relief 1.9 trillion, that's where he began, that's where he ended. is he really willing to come down substantially below or other pay fors like instead of corporate taxes? >> i'm not going to negotiate that on this show. i would say this is a good faith-effort. we want to hear where other people are and we want to get people's reactions to this package, but both in the specifics and in the overall. on the tax side, the president has laid out what he believes to be a very common sense and reasonable way to do this. our corporate tax system is broken and remains broken. the 2017 tax law made things worse. there's a lot of sensible reform that we could do there that would generate revenue across time. people have different approaches, he's open to doing it. he should not believe to raise taxes of people over $400,000 a year and fund investments on the backs of working people and
bottom half of the distribution many whom you hitter by hard through covid crisis. he wants to hear what other people's ideas are. chris: let me talk to you about another aspect of this which is you've got a lot of opposition inside the democratic party and in the house, you can only lose 3 votes and in the senate you can't lose any votes and pass this measure. moderate democrats in the house are saying they will not vote for this package unless that you're willing to lift the cap on deductions for state and local taxes and then you've got people on the left who say this isn't big enough. take a look at alexandria ocasio-cortez this week. >> we are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. so we can do 10 trillion. chris: are those negotiable? not 2 trillion, 10 trillion, the cap on deductions for state and
local taxes? brian: look, we want to hear people's ideas. we were talking about how the pay for it. those are ideas that would cost more and we want to hear how people are thinking on how they would offset those ideas. so what i would say is the -- this is a good faith-effort. we want to hear people's ideas. we think that investing 2 trillion over this period would make a huge difference. you look at just the analysis we have seen this week, moodies suggest it would create 19 million jobs, goldman sachs projecting more than 7% growth this year if we pass the investment and the corporate tax plan. so we think we have a really opportunity to do something big here and we have to get into it and listen to people's ideas and that's something that we are going to be open to. chris: well, we got a lot of time to discuss it. you and congress and us on this show, brian, thank you, thanks for your time this weekend. please come back. up next, republicans push back that most of the president's
wanna help kids get their homework done? well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. over the next 10 years, comcast is committing $1 billion to reach 50 million low-income americans with the tools and resources they need to be ready for anything. i hope you're ready. 'cause we are.
chris: congressional republicans are united in opposition to joe biden's 2 trillion-dollar infrastructure bill. joining us now senator roy blunt, a member of the gop senate leadership. senator, welcome back. senator: chris, great to be with you today. chris: so you just heard my conversation with brian deese and here was president biden
this week selling his plan. take a look. >> it's not a plan that tinkers around the edges. it's a once in a generation investment in america. unlike anything we have seen or done since we built the interstate highway system and the space race decades ago. chris: president trump talked about an infrastructure program for years of his presidency, but, no, he never actually offered one. doesn't the country need a significant infrastructure upgrade? senator: oh, absolutely. you know, locations, geography, one of the great advantages, we need that. the great white whale of the last ten years frankly, neither president obama or president trump could seem to get this moving in the right direction. i think there's an easy win here for the white house if they would take that win which is make this an infrastructure package which about 30%, even if
you stretch the definition of infrastructure some to about 30% of the $2.25 trillion they're talking about spending. my advice to the white house has been, take that bipartisan win, do this in a more traditional infrastructure way and then if you want to force the rest of the package on republicans in the congress and the country, you could certainly do that. you'd still have all the tools available for what is clearly going to turn out to be another purely partisan exercise. i think it's a big mistake for the administration. they know i think it's a mistake and i also think it would be an easy victory if we go back and look at roads and bridges and ports and airports and maybe even underground water systems and broadband. you'd still be talking about less than 30% of this entire package and it's easily doable,
30%, i think, chris. chris: so, so senator, are you saying that you and perhaps some of your colleagues in the republican party up on capitol hill would support, i'm just quickly doing the math here, 700, $800 billion in infrastructure? senator: well, i think 30% is 615 or so billion dollars. i think you can do that and with some innovative things like looking at how we are going to deal with the electric vehicle use of the highway system, what we can do with public-private partnerships. in past congresses senator bennett from colorado and i introduced that legislation and senator warner from virginia and i have where you can get the traditional funding sources and add a few things to them and have a real infrastructure package. we need that. it will have huge economic impact. i thought it was interesting
this whole concept, well, we need an infrastructure of care. obviously democrats have figured out that infrastructure is something we need and something that's popular and so they're trying to take 70% of this bill and call it infrastructure in a new way than we've ever talked about infrastructure before and that -- that means you're looking at another partisan package just like we had with covid, which by the way, only a fairly small percentage of that package really dealt with covid. it was income to states. it was lots of things but not what the much-needed title of the bill said they wanted to do. chris: well, okay. so let's say it's 6, $700 billion. how would you pay for it? senator: well, i think i just
answered that. we traditionally played for infrastructure, everybody is familiar with the gasoline tax as we have more electric vehicles we are going to figure out some way that those electric vehicles pay their fair share and we may have to figure out a different way that driverless vehicles pay for the increase kind of monitoring that needs to happen with the highway system itself. you have with that and then you can look again at private-public partnerships and some version of an infrastructure bank where you take a federal investment and leverage it pretty dynamically. all of those things are possible, plus the basis you have and the current gas tax structure that produces 300 or so billion dollars in that -- in that time period and i think it's very doable. whatever it would be, it would be a true bipartisan discussion as opposed to asking every republican in the senate who was
there in 2017 to change their mind on a tax package that frankly i think had a lot to do with that 3.5% unemployment rate we had a year ago when covid started. chris: but let me push back on what i think would be the white house argument. they would say, look, we are talking about raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% when president trump came in it was 35. so it's still a tax cut from where it was in 2017 and instead senator blunt and the republicans are saying, instead of raising taxes for big corporations, let's -- let's tell the average person, the working class person you will have to pay more for taxes if you drive more on the road, you're going to pay more in a mileage fee, you will have to pay more in tolls. they're going to say, they're protecting the fat cats and putting it on the backs of the working class.
>> well, i think people have always accepted the user tax concept of the transportation system and on the tax bill itself, you know, the proof are in the numbers. we saw the economy growing in a dramatic way and we saw businesses thinking on how they can restructure themselves back into american corporations with a more strong basis in this country and the supply chain, all those things were happening. we had 3 and a half percent unemployment rate as we were a couple years into that tax package and, remember, the corporate rate we did just got us in the mid-level of the corporate rate for the countries around the world. if we want back to 28%, i think, we would be number 2 in the world in corporate taxes. other countries saw the success we were having and many other countries that we compete with reduced their corporate rate to try to keep their jobs at home
rather than seeing those jobs come to the united states of america. chris: senator, i have less than 2 minutes left. i want to squeeze a question in, some of your colleagues in your party are complaining this is going to explode debt, this is going to explode deficits and i want to put up what the -- what the republican record is on those. during the trump presidency even before the pandemic, the national debt increased by more than $3 trillion and in 2017, every republican in the senate including you voted for the big trump tax cuts which cut revenue by almost 1 and a half trillion dollars. so i guess the question is, when -- when i hear, for instance, mitch mcconnell talking about debt and deficits, hasn't the republican party -- haven't you lost the credibility on this issue? senator: well, i don't think anybody has a very good record for the last decade on this. i think the -- the deficit under
the obama years and the trump years are very similar. the tax cuts, however, in real revenue produced more revenue and static revenue, they wouldn't because you can't anticipate the kind of growth we had and remember after the pandemic did occur, we did 5, not one, not, two, not, three, not four but 5 bipartisan bills to make sure we stabilize the economy so we can have a stabilize economy to pay debt off since coming out of covid and now we have seen incredibly partisan bill by the new administration followed by incredibly partisan bill. you can't spread that blame around if you decide you're going to do it all by yourself. [laughter] chris: yes, i supposed, that's true. when i talked about the increase in debt during the trump years, it was -- i did it purposely
before the pandemic started. senator blunt, thank you, thanks for coming this easter sunday. always good to talk to you, sir. senator: great to be with you, chris, happy easter to you and your family. chris: thank you, same to you, sir. up next, public health officials sound the alarm over the prospects of a fourth wave of the coronavirus. we will ask a top infectious disease doctor where things
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ chris: even as millions of americans get vaccinated and governors move to relax restrictions, the biden administration sounded new warnings of covid this week saying the country is letting down its guard too soon. joining us now dr. michael osterholm director for the center of infectious disease research and policy at the university of minnesota. i want to start with a dramatic
warning this week from the head of the cdc, dr. rochelle valenski. here she is. >> i'm going to reflect on the current feeling that i have of view. we have so much to look forward to, so much promise and potential of where we are and so much reason for hope but right now it's -- >> chris: doctor, was that an overreaction? how serious is the situation we are in right now with the virus and how close are we to a fourth wave? doctor: well, first of all, dr. valenski is a truth teller and what we are doing in terms of response to the virus is a major challenge. i congratulate her with her honesty to the public. we are in the world experiencing increasing number of cases due to this variant and at the same
time opening up not closing down and the two will collide and we will see substantial increase number of cases. if i think anyone in michigan thought they would see 840,000 cases, nobody would have believed that a month ago. chris: i want to talk to you about that. because we are seeing 19% increase in cases over 2 weeks ago and cases are going up in 24 states. here is president biden this week. >> i'm reiterating my call for governor, mayor and every local leader to maintain and reinstate the mask mandate. please, this is not politics. reinstate the mandate if you let it done. chris: but doctor, the places that we are seeing the biggest spikes right now you pointed out michigan in the northeast are not the places that have relaxed
mask mandates and relaxed lockdowns the most, states like texas. what's the correlation between lockdowns and new cases because they don't seem to -- to correlate? doctor: actually there's a really good explanation for this. if you look at the history of the pandemic and start way back last april when we saw house on fire in new york and other cities around the country and then followed that from then to memorial day when the upper midwest had a big increase in cases, that dropped and then the south basically from southern california to georgia had a big increase in cases in july, 70,000 cases a day. that dropped and then we saw another big surge of cases in the upper midwest and the northeast in the time period around november where we got to 200,000 cases and then those numbers dropped and then the south lit up again from southern california to georgia in january and we got 300,000 cases. we seem to be in a cycle of regional activity and right now
the upper midwest is lighting up with the northeast and it won't be long before the rest of the country will be following behind. chris: so are we in a fourth wave right now? doctor: well, i believe we are and i believe that in some ways we are almost in a new pandemic. the only good news about this is that the current vaccines are effective against this particular variant, bb17 but in a sense this is a virus that's now 50 to 100% more transmissible or infectious than the previous viruses. this virus causes 50 to 60% more severe illnesses. at one time it wasn't as much of a problem for example in cases in young adults are now becoming serious cases and so that this is really a fourth wave you might call it with somewhat of a different picture than we have seen in the past awes to have pandemic. chris: the 117, b117, that's the uk variant.
just before we came on the air, you were telling me about a spike in cases in schools in minnesota? doctor: there's spiking cases all over. kids particularly those eighth grade and younger were not really much part of the pandemic that we saw in the past 10 months. very few cases in terms of transmission. they did not serve as important sources of the virus and to the rest of the community. that's completely turned on its head with b117, they are now as kids getting infected at the same rate that adults do and they are effective at transmitting the virus and right here along in minnesota in the last two weeks we had 749 schools with cases. in michigan the same thing. anywhere you look where you see this emerging, you see the kids are playing a huge role in the transmission of this. so all the thicks that we had planned for about kids in schools with this virus are really no longer applicable. we have to take a whole new look
at the issue. chris: so where are we now? are you saying that we need to close schools back down, that we need to put mandate that people wear a masks, lock down businesses and restaurants and gyms and all of that, where are we? doctor: let's take a look at where the rest of the world is as an instruction what we need to consider. there isn't a country in the world that's seen increase in b117 that is not locking down. we are the exception. and so the bottom line message from all of these countries is we could not control this virus until we did lock down. now i understand the absolute resistance in this country even to consider that. you know, it's kind of like trying to drink barb wire. the bottom message is the virus will do what it's going to do and we will have to respond somehow whether we do accept that if we have large outbreaks in our community we are willing to pull back on some of the restrictions that we've loosened up on or reconsider schools and school transmission as a new
factor here that we didn't have before, nobody was wrong in trying to get schools reopened. now we have new data that says this virus is a game-changer. so i think we are all going to be looking carefully at what to do and i think that's exactly what you're getting the messaging right now from people like the director of the cdc. chris: yeah, but let me pick up on that, doctor, because we are getting mixed messaging from the cdc. on friday the cdc put up a new travel warning and it said that people who are fully vaccinated can travel safely within the u.s. but it also warned against nonessential travel. so frankly, somebody -- i've gotten fully vaccinated, i don't know how to make sense of that. if you're fully vaccinated, is it safe to get on an airplane or not? doctor: you know, that's a very, very fair critique, we do have a problem right now from a public messaging stand point trying to nuance that message. exactly what you do does put you at increase risk if you're around a lot more virus.
so, for example, traveling. if you're fully vaccinated, you have a lot, a lot of protection from the vaccine but it's not perfect. it's not 100%. if you want to reduce the risk from even getting infected with the kind of exposure you might have in the community where the virus level is much higher right now, then avoid it if it's not essential. but we have to do a better job of helping the public understand this is short term. all we are trying to do is get through the surge of cases that are going to occur over the next 6 to 8 to 10 weeks because of the b117 variant. the future looks very bright this next summer, if, in fact, we can keep people from getting there. chris, nobody wants to be the person die 3 days before they get covid shot. that's what we are trying to avoid right now. chris: dr. osterholm, i wish it were a brighter picture but thank you, great talk. thanks for coming in. good to talk to you, sir. doctor: thank you, chris. chris: up next we will bring in our sunday group to discuss the
trial of former minneapolis police derek chauvin in the death of george floyd, but first this month we celebrate the 25th anniversary of fox news sunday and ahead of that, we've been bringing you moments with some of our most memorable guests. so you're done with elected office? >> i am, i am very happy doing what i'm doing and i'm not in any way interested in or pursuing anything in elective office. chris: senator mccain, aren't you in a world of trouble? >> are we behind? >> sure. >> i'm the underdog. i've been in enough campaigns and we've got it. chris: to have another son -- >> absolutely, absolutely. service for the greatest country in the face of the earth.
>> pulling him down to the ground, face down and putting your knee on the check for that amount of -- that amount of time is just uncalled for. chris: the chief homicide detective in minneapolis and also a witness to the arrest of george floyd both testifying for the prosecution in the murder trial of former police officer derek chauvin. it's time for our sunday group, former rnc communication's director doug heye, pollster kristen soltis anderson and fox news political analyst juan williams. juan, any reporter who has ever covered a trial knows when the prosecution is making its case
things seem one way and then when the defense gets its turn, your view of the case can sometimes change dramatically, but what is your view of this case after the first week, what's your view of how this trial is going? juan: chris, i think this was a week of powerful emotional testimony from people who watched as george floyd died and heard his screams, pleas for the 9 minutes or so while he was handcuffed and they -- their accounts and some of them were personal from the girlfriend, from people who were in the store that he had just exited, all of their testimony humanized him, george floyd in a way that blows a hole in the typical defense of police who are engaged in, you know, some kind of harsh use of force because, you know, you think of it usually the cases that they were dealing with a dangerous
threatening black man, big guy and they had to deal with a dangerous situation. you think back to the rodney king case. you think of michael brown case or the eric gardner case. that was the defense used in all of those cases. so -- but history shows as in those cases, it's going to be hard to convict police, jury is reluctant to do that and the defense coming up in the future weeks is going to make the case that there were drugs in floyd's system, that he had health problems that may have complicated the situation and led to his death and finally that as the crowd gathered around, they felt they were dealing with an unruly mob. but what was new this week was to see all of the police breaking with the blue line and willing to testify against derek chauvin, that's unprecedented, also emergency medical personnel. so now we are down to can the system deliver justice for
george floyd? chris: yeah. we should point out we haven't heard any of the defense yet. kristen, i want to look at 30,000 feet above the courtroom in minneapolis. where is public opinion on this topic? can police support -- can people, can voters support the police, oppose ideas like defund the police on the one hand and on the other hand still have real problems with an individual case like this? >> yes, and frankly, that's where public opinion is even if it's not where most of our public debate winds up being. it ends up being that people are with the choice you support the police and you believe in all cases they have done everything right and there's no injustice in this country or you want to defund the police and that's frankly not where public is.
it was a real wake-up call to many americans who previously thought this isn't -- it's not that big a deal, sometimes the cases get overblown. nothing overblown about the horrors in the videos. democrats push defund the police have given them political advantage. where you find most voters land is oftentimes in between on issue. chris: let's turn to another big story this week, this was the blowback on the new voting law in georgia and the biggest blowback came from major league baseball which announced that it's pulling its all-star game from atlanta in july. here was the reaction from georgia governor brian kemp. >> this is unbelievable, really, unfortunate today obviously that major league baseball has folded up and caved to the canceled culture and a bunch of liberal
-- >> chris: doug, a number of red states, were moving to restrict voting laws. will the blowback from major corporations -- we saw coca-cola and delta and major league baseball did in georgia, in texas where there's also a move to restrict, put new restrictions on voting you're seeing pushback from american airlines and dell computers. is that, you think, going to stop the move to reform voting? >> no, it looks like a lot of republicans will double down and if you're brian kemp, you were worried before this week for being primaried because you were in the wrong side of donald trump a couple of times. one to have unintended consequences politically by major league baseball essentially going to the left of stacey abrams has sured up brian kemp from a primary something that democrats would have avoided and here is one of the challenges that we have here, chris, is we've not really had an honest conversation about this bill or other bills and part of that is because coming
from the white house we've seen rhetoric that just hasn't been true and extreme rhetoric. when you talk about everything being compared to jim crow and even though the president has been fact-checked by the washington post, has written real impressive piece of what's in the bill and what's not in the bill. we are not having an honest conversation about it. if donald trump were spreading this kind of rhetoric and this kind of disinformation it would be the lead topic of every news show but because joe is being joe we don't judge him the same way as the previous president. chris: well, let's talk about a few of the things that are in the bill and i agree with you, doug, that for instance, president biden's claim that it is going to cut early voting hours or voting hours on election day has been proven false. but let's put up provisions that are in the bill. there are new restrictions on absentee voting. the republican-controlled
legislature has more control over the state election board and, yes, it does make it a crime for anyone who is not an election worker to give food and water to voters waiting in line. so, juan, to doug's point, does the new georgia voting law, does it clean up some of the -- some of the issues from the 2020 election or is it voter suppression? juan: well, i mean, your point, chris, is very important. let's stay there for a second. this is all based on trump's big lie that the election of 2020 was stolen from him and now you have state legislatures in georgia and elsewhere, we are going to reassure voters in terms of the integrity of the election system because they worry about what happened in 2020, well, there was no election fraud in 2020. so now, you know, to my mind, we can talk about the fact that they're not going to allow water and food to be given to people standing in line, but to me the
big problem here is you are giving power to a republican majority legislature in georgia taking power away from the secretary of state, the one courageous person who stood up to trump and also taking power away from local county election boards and giving it all to the republicans. they are trying to assure that they win every election in the future. talk about corruption. chris: kristen, we have a minute left. who do you think has the political advantage here, republicans who say they were excesses with covid, with all of the absentee ballots being mailed out, that there were problems in the election that need to be cleaned up or democrats who say this is republicans trying to prevent a lot of people, particularly people of color from voting? >> well, it varies greatly based on which piece to have law you're talking about. for instance, things like voter id while they tend to be real political hot buttons tend to have vast majority of voters.
provisions say you can't give food and water to people in line even if there are jurisdictions that while you can't give anything to people waiting in line. it's a very bad look and sort of thing that sets you up for political attacks. what i think is particularly astounding in all of this is, for instance, the one thing that stacey abrams and republicans agree on is that major league baseball shouldn't have moved the game out of georgia. if you're a corporation trying to become a cocombattant, you have to find a better way to do it than what major league baseball did. chris: thank you, panel. see you next sunday. up next our power player of the week. on this easter sunday a conversation with a senate chaplain about division and chaplain about division and faith on capitol hill. did you know that febreze air effects uses 100% natural propellant? cheaper aerosols use artificial propellants. that's why febreze works differently. plus, it eliminates odors with a water-based formula and no dyes. for freshness you'll enjoy.
chris: this is the third time we have gone to see him each time the country especially congress seems hopelessly divided. once again on this easter sunday is our power player of the week. >> i believe there was evil at the capital on january 6. but i also believe there was a greater power of goodness and a
good triumph over evil. chris: senate chaplain barry black on the riot that engulfed the capital. as lawmakers debated certifying the 2020 election. did you fear for your life, did you fear for the life of the people that you worked within the capital. >> i'm a realist so i knew there was a possibility that there could be a loss of life. chris: past 3:00 a.m. the next morning congress finally made bidens when official. it was chaplain black whose prayer concluded a sad day for the country. >> these tragedies have reminded us that words matter and that the power of life and death is in the tongue. chris: what did you mean by
that. >> words have power, when we speak soft words proverbs 15 verse one says that we turn away anger when we speak angry words we stir up divisiveness. chris: we first meant chaplain back ten years ago. >> the apostle paul in philippians chapter four there are saints and caesar's household. >> he will lead us in prayer. >> is opening per seems especially meaningful during the second trump impeachment trial. >> lord, touch and move them to believe that the end does not justify the memes. chris: and just last month. >> maker senators custodians of truth. remind them that when people
call ally the truth they tamper with their value judgment. chris: what is your counsel to the senate, what is your counsel to the nation as we go through these hard times. >> god has brought america through far more than this, through far more than a global pandemic, as catastrophic as that has been, and that same god will bring our nation and our world to a desired destination, chris, the best is yet to be. chris: happy easter. >> same to you my friend. chris: we talk with chaplain black this week the day before the attack outside of the capital that killed one police officer, we need his faith and
things will be all right now more than ever. that is it for today from all of us, have a happy easter and a great week. we will see you next "fox news levin." ♪ ♪ steve: happy easter, welcome too "the next revolution." i am steve hilton. pro america. on this easter sunday, a new religion that is becoming moreo most powerful, in last year it seems to have taken over nearly every part of our ruling class, corporate america, hollywood, and silicon valley and the democratic party, this is woke wokism, wit