administration's newly established gender policy council, and what it could mean for women's equality. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: it is the washington journal for march 14. the biden administration plans to send emergency personnel to the u.s.-mexican border to deal with the thousands of unaccompanied teens and children heading there. this has come as there has been a number of migrants heading to the u.s.. we will ask you to tell us how the u.s. should do what those people coming to the southern border. here is how you can let us know your thoughts. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans.

and (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you live in a border state, (202) 748-8003 is the number to call. you can also text us at that number. post your thoughts on twitter and on facebook as well. this morning in the washington post, a story on fema being called to help do with those numbers of children coming to the border, particularly teens and children. saying the biden administration is applying the federal emergency management agency to care for thousands of unaccompanied migrant teens and children who are arriving in the overwhelming numbers. the deployment marks another escalation in the administration's response to the crisis at the border, where an unprecedented numbers of minors are arriving each day and must sheltered until they can be placed with a vetted sponsor.

that story going on to say about 8500 teens are living in shelters. unaccompanied minors are arriving -- are arriving more quickly than hhs can place them with sponsors. these sites have become dangerously overcrowded in recent weeks and days. that is from the washington post this morning. we will show you other stories relating to what is going on, if you want to let us know your thoughts, and what the u.s. should do as far as this situation, you can let us know on the lines. (202) 748-8000 if you are democrat. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you live in a southern border state and you want to give your perspective, you can call this number, (202) 748-8003. use that number to text us as well.

one of the people talking about this issue last week comes the close of congress is the house minority catherine -- kevin mccarthy. talked about how republicans plan to react to it. >> in february alone there were more than 100,000 migrant encounters, a seven-year high and 173% increase from last year. in one month 100,000. those are the ones we encountered, not the ones that got through. what does that equate to? joe biden's hometown, scranton, pennsylvania. 100,000 is a higher population than scranton. health and human services reported they are taking in 321 children a day, up from the weekly average just a few weeks ago. as i said, last week i sent a

letter resting a meeting to talk about the crisis. haven't heard back. the american people also have not gotten an up date, since it has been 50 days since the president held a press conference. on monday i'm going to the border. i'm taking 12 members with me. from the committees of jurisdiction. looking for ourselves, working on trying to find a solution. what we know the solution is quite easy, because most of this is caused by biden's actions. host: again, that was from last week. you can find that press conference on our website at c-span.org. axios reporting that representative joaquin castro is also planning to bring a congressional delegation of house democrats to the border during the march-april recess. preparations comes a few days after axios reported about that

republican trip, saying that group of members plans to visit the same facility in texas that the white house and department of homeland security officials toured over the weekend. a final itinerary for the democratic trip has not been established, and it could be postponed. you should know the house also taking up a couple of pieces of legislation when it comes to immigration this week. this is "usa today," saying they're going to begin action on both the american dream and promise act and the farm force modernization act. congress has a struggle for decades to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and adding that the last comprehensive will sponsored by bipartisan senators was brought up in 2013. that legislation, which included a path to citizenship and tighter border policy passed the senate with bipartisan support, died in the house.

so, with all of that in mind and particularly what is going on with the southern border, you can let us know your thoughts on what the u.s. should be doing. the typical lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. if you live in a southern border state, feel free to give your input at (202) 748-8003. it was later in the middle of last week on wednesday that the biden administration's border czar talked about that issue of migrants coming to the border and talked about the biden administration's response. >> i think it is important to understand that you can't and shouldn't say in this administration's opinion, that the only way to message do not come in an irregular faction is

to separate children from their parents, return people to places like the migrant camp for two-plus years at a time, and that is the only way you can get your message across. this administration's belief is that we can get our message across that it is a more humane policy by opening up avenues of legal migration, which will encourage people to take those legal options and go through the asylum process if they are seeking that, and not take the irregular road. i think you have to find different ways to message, but it is message it -- if messaging reflects your actions, that is why we are increasing the actions for legal migration, so that the message is, you have another option. host: again, that is from the

press conference that took place middle of the week. if you want to see that again, go to c-span other work. bob starts us off from texas. he lives in tyler. bob, good morning. what do you think about this situation? caller: it boils down to the constitution again. there are seven words that none of our legislators will ever mention. that is in the article four, section four, clause two. that is, shall protect each state against invasion. that clause has not been mentioned in the last two years, other than when the constitution was right on the floor of the house in september of 2019. so, anyway, i just wish you asked people about article four, section four, the only guarantee

of the constitution. that is to protect us from invasion. host: why do you describe it as an invasion? caller: well, it is a mass movement of people across a border that is guaranteed to be protected by our constitution. it is exactly that. how does anybody invade another country but with troops? host: this is from jerry in goldsboro, north carolina. hi. caller: good morning. i am really -- i am really upset with what is going on at the border. we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of law. i did not vote -- i did not agree with president trump's border policy, but i did -- i was really -- it was really great to see the enforcement of

the border laws during his administration, but now i think that we are at great risk for having people just come into our country, breaking the law. if i went into walmart and stole a pair of shoes, they would immediately arrest me and take me to jail. i don't understand how a person can walk into our country illegally and just be allowed to stay here. give them a court date and they don't show up. it is not a complicated issue. if you come here illegally, you need to go back to your country. as a matter of fact, my final thought is, to resolve this issue the administration just needs to send people back to

their countries, including children, and let their home countries figure out what to do. host: jerry in north carolina, giving us his thoughts. let's go to georgia. sheila, you are next. hi. caller: hope you are doing well and your family. i think -- i would like to know why mexico -- how they are doing with the covid, and why are they not keeping the people they are? are they so overloaded with not having vaccinations or something? and these children coming over, i think it is a bad thing. host: if that's the case and you think it is a bad thing, what

should be the u.s. response at this point? caller: well, i heard on the news this morning that they are overloaded and they are putting these children in jail cells now , and they are becoming overcrowded. they are all going to get the diseases. they only to be vaccinated for everything, because we are going to end up with another -- we are going to end up with more diseases -- polio, everything. host: sheila there when it comes to mexico's participation on this, if you go to the washington post this morning there is a story looking at what the mexican government is doing as far as detaining some of those kids, adding that while president idem has promised to

respond humanely, mexican authorities have continued to act as an arm of u.s. immigration enforcement, as they did under donald trump. to what degree that partnership -- mr. biden will have to answer. the biden administration has told migrants to wait in their countries of origin, saying it is not ready to receive them, has not specified how long that weight will be or what will become of those whose journeys -- and they profile a couple of them -- began before president biden took office. the tear from john, philadelphia, pennsylvania on the republican line. you are next up. caller: hello, good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i think that they should keep building the wall. i don't know why biden is trying to work with republicans who don't want to work with him.

there was supposedly $25 million by taxpayers invested in building the wall. this seems to be an issue with texas and california more than anyone else, and how could someone just give their child away and say, hey, walk to freedom across here and the conditions are not what they think it is? then you are just giving your child up, like putting it on a doorstep. another thing is that the birthrate in the united states since this pandemic has lowered to half. same as the abortion rate. so many states are stopping it. they should have did that a long time ago. host: back to the issue at the border. you said build a wall, and that takes care of those who would come in illegally. what about those who come to places where they cross?

such as this migrant situation is developing into? caller: i said that. how could a parent let their kid walk across the border and say, i'll see you later? that is ridiculous, and they don't stop them right there or get the parents to -- what's going on? it is the child come over, become a citizen, and say hey, come on, to his parents 10 years later. come over on a visa and i will get you in. how does it work? it seems very messed up. host: john in philadelphia. he mentioned texas. one of those people commenting was governor greg abbott there, after a trip to the texas border. talking about president biden's border policy, particularly in it comes to drug cartels. >> the cartels are quite literally being enriched because

of the policies that are being used by the biden administration. the biden administration is helping the cartels make more money and grow more power. they are allowing smugglers, who are members of cartels on the mexican side, bring in narcotics smugglers. as well as drugs that include fennel, cocaine, and opioids. one thing that is clear, from all of the observations that i have been able to gather is we need more ice detention facilities in this area immediately. the border patrol simply is not given enough resources and do not have enough resources to be able to deal with this overwhelming tidal wave of people coming across the board.

host: politico adding to this story in a recent piece. some of that story reads as such. congress is once again bracing for political combat over the burgeoning crisis at the southern border, as a waiver of children arrive at the border, a potentially perilous scenario. republicans are using moment to rally their base around the same anti-immigration president trump did. democrats are racing to help joe biden control the influx without breaking their promise to make the immigration system more humane. this is also in light of that story from the washington post about fema being called in. usa today highlights some of those legislation pieces that will be discussed this week. the american dream and promise act, saying it would create a pathway to legal status for dreamers, the term used to describe individuals brought to the u.s. as children.

the legislation would grant conditional permanent resident status for 10 years and cancel removal proceedings if they meet certain requirements. those include being physically present in the u.s. before january 1, 2021, were 18 years or younger on the initial entry, have not been convicted of crimes. everett is next in california. kratz line. -- democrats line. caller: hello. like to tell my boring stories about my experience in the military. people are telling me to showed up -- to shut up, don't talk to me, you were boring. 100 million people who want to come to this country and be my friend. where are we going to put them? if you don't love this country, please leave it. host: what does that mean as far as what is going on at the southern border? caller: it don't matter.

we build a wall, they are going to knock it down. all they have to go -- all they have to do is go to a border crossing and say, i am a political refugee, and we can't turn them away. people fly here. people can take tourist visas, have a baby, and their child is a citizen. we are not going to keep people out of this country by force. we don't have the resources. we have to cope with the fact that we want people to come here legally, and we have to have legal avenues, and we don't have to grant people citizenship just because they want to come here and pick our vegetables. host: let's hear from jay in virginia, republican line. caller: yes, i name is -- host: jay, you are on the air. go ahead. caller: listen, i really think they need to close the borders

until we can help our own people , because we can't even help our own people. everybody over here is starving and trying to get a job, and we can't make it. they are letting people in and everything, and that ain't right. all of these gas prices host: host:. back to the border. what makes you think totally closing the border would fix this, and is that achievable? caller: i'm not saying it would fix it, but it sure would help. host: that is jay in virginia. michael in portland, oregon texting us, saying, how to manage the situation compassionately with an eye to the welfare of all affected? the migrants should be prevented until if and when they are legally eligible to enter.

why change it now because president biden now has presidential power? russ in california saying that, being in a border city, i have seen everything. president trump was right. president biden is finding out it is not a picnic. his plan is to let them cross and it will all work out. this is william in middletown, connecticut. saying, these people cannot be let into the general population because of potential viral infection. second, they need to be properly vetted. third, they need to pay a fine or fee to offset the tax cost to legal american residents. his wife emigrated from hungary legally and it cost $4500. that is some of the perspective on our social media site. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. you can also call on the phone

lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . republican line. caller: i originally registered republican because i wanted to fly under the radar from george bush after 9/11. but i'm still trying to be a republican, and it is pretty difficult. host: as far as what is going on at the border, what do you think? caller: well, i think that other scholars have mentioned how people leave their children. i think that indicates the level of desperation. we have to consider that conditions must be pretty awful there to have somebody do something like that. that, for me, brings up my

compassion for the people. but it is really hard to say what should happen. i guess some kind of soft border crossing and not allowing the illegal immigration, if you can do that. i'm not really sure. i think it is a very, very complicated problem. my really feeling is that, you know, the people that come here enrich our country. where i live in northern california, we have a lot of people from guatemala and mexico. they are working hard and enriching the community quite a bit. so, i have nothing against them or, you know, wanting basically to help them. host: she said, northern

california is where she resides. charlie is another californian, calling on our democrats line. he is a border state residents. charlie, give your perspective. caller: i just want to talk about, i feel like it is really inevitable that the border crossings are going to continue, because the impetus is too strong. nothing is really going to scare people from crossing. i think we should focus on, instead, improving how we are dealing with the people already here. i used to work in plumbing. you know, a lot of my coworkers actually worked on an independent contractor basis. they were undocumented. they are great people, and i wish people would say that. host: what do you think about president biden's handling of the situation? caller: if you like people are

giving him a hard time, particularly with talking about the migrant camps. because, you know, it takes a long time to steer the federal government in another direction. he has only been in office for a short period of time. i think it is early to criticize his handling of the crisis on the southern border. and also that he requires the cooperation of the legislative branch. he cannot just rule by fiat. if republicans obstruct action in the house or senate, well, or likely in the senate, and he is not going to be able to get much done. host: that is charlie in california. senator joni ernst has an op-ed piece on this topic. you can find it on fox news, but she writes in part, this is bidens border crisis as republicans lead. i view this crisis not just as a humanitarian one, but a growing

threat to our national security. our unchecked border jeopardizes regional stability and impedes much-needed economic reforms in central america. we learned from 9/11 how patient sleeper cells -- i skipped the line -- while challenging the security of the entire western hemisphere. one of the lessons we learn from 9/11 was how patient sleeper cells can be when it comes to plotting their next attack. there is a crisis at our border, the president bidens has or not. it is time to pause the liberal grandstanding and work together to solve this crisis. that is joni ernst from iowa giving her thoughts during will hear from walter from palm springs, california. an independent. good morning. caller: i think these collars have been looking at it from a very shortsighted perspective. i don't think it is a crisis, i think it is an opportunity. he was the reality.

the population in the united states is aging. we need more young laborers coming in to take the jobs. who is going to take care of all of us oldsters? so, you have a lot of these mostly teenagers coming in. in a very short time they will be entering their labor productive years and they will be able to contribute to the economy. host of these already have relatives living here in the united states, so they have a place to take care of them. it seems to me that the big problem is getting those individuals to their relatives already here in the united states as quickly as possible, getting them settled in their family or relatives situation, and make sure they are in a good home environment and get them into schools so that they learn english.

and get them trained to take the jobs that we need workers to do. host: as far as the actual numbers coming to the southern border, so much so that fema is being called in, do you think president biden has handled this well? caller: yes, it is a big surge all of a sudden. of course there are going to be some difficulties with that. you know, that is what you need to have an efficient system to process these minors coming across the board. so, a lot of these people are coming from very desperate situations. basically in central america, or climate change is making it worse. it's going to continue to get worse in the future. this is an ideal opportunity for the united states to bring in new young people that will replace the aging population. host: ok, yeah. made that point.

we'll go to anderson, south carolina. john, republican line. caller: how are you doing, sir? i believe god is the center of the earth and americans are not together as one nation. they are divided by government. that is the one problem. we have a problem as a human race, by not sticking together as a human race. host: and how does that deal with the situation at the southern border? caller: because the great tower of babel was built when everyone was as one nation. that is why everything was divided into language. host: how does that deal with the situation at the southern border? caller: we have to stick together and pray to god. host: ok, that is john in south carolina. art on our twitter feed says, people come here looking for a better life. we need to find a way to make that possible while keeping out anyone who will come here for

the purposes of doing something harmful. we want to help the poor, ok, but we cannot have massive immigration. we need to help temporary workers and help migrants in their own country. there are plenty of jobs for these migrants. jobs in dangerous conditions. the wall was never going to stop them. sandy says, he might never be able to across-the-board. in the meantime, treat migrants with humanity and dignity, especially the children. the children is a feature of a series of stories looking at what is going on along the border. the washington post reporting that fema and called in to assist by the biden administration. we are asking you -- we have asked you for the last half-hour what should be done by the u.s. when it comes to this situation. you can call and let us know.

democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . perhaps you want to text us. you can do so at (202) 748-8003. as you have seen, you have people respond from twitter, facebook, and our texting service. you can respond those ways as well. in washington, d.c., independent line. hello. caller: hello. i hope we all turned our clocks ahead. host: thank you for the reminder. what do you think about what is going on at the border there? caller: i have some ideas. i think outside the boxed. one idea to share and people can comment on is, maybe we create a sponsorship website like we do for everything else. facebook, matchbook, adopt a

pet, jobsites. we sponsor immigrants, they can list their skills, and people can sponsor them. my ancestors moved from ireland long ago. they had a sponsor that paid their steerage, and they worked a job so they could work their way toward citizenship. also at embassies, diplomats sponsor people from different countries to work for them there. one idea, some kind of sponsorship site to bring them in so they can work their way through citizenship, and for the children, maybe we put them up for adoption? another website. a third idea is, with all the money we are spending on the south -- and i have lived in los angeles. i know the border is a serious

problem. with all of the money we are spending, why don't we move our border south, you know, buy it from mexico? just throwing it out there. host: that is three ideas from joanne. you can comment on those. roxanne in south carolina, democrats line. hi. caller: hi, how are you doing? i feel like we should be a little bit more compassionate. we have all of this land across the united states. we should be able to figure out something. host: do you think natalie this administration but previous administrations, do you think we have still come to some type of reasonable plan or thinking when it comes to how to deal with the migrant problem? caller: you got to look at it like this. i have heard people say, oh, they are sending their children. for a mother -- i am a mother -- to send your child somewhere you don't even know they going to

make it or not, it has to be bad to do that. just listening to everybody, i need to go back, or they need to do this, or need to do that. their children. it can't be the cartel. come on. they got better things to do if they are trying to sell drugs. they are not trying to come over here holding every child's hand. compassion needs to be the number one thing. host: ok. let's hear from christine, chicago, illinois. caller: compassion? how about compassion for the american citizens? my girlfriend can come from tucson to chicago without having a covid test, without having masks, and they are letting all of these people in. i also want to know, where is the three billion dollars that was for the wall, and now he

just cut it off? i saw this gentleman in texas, he is terrified, he lives by the border. no, trump was taking care of it. you keep them out if they want to come in lawfully. keep saying, our country is a country of immigrants. yeah, came through ellis island, the came through with the law. if they had smallpox, they were quarantined. they don't even know how many of these people are coming in with covid. and i want to know why they are walking with smartphones and biden shirts, and i cannot even afford a smartphone. i'm using a flip phone. the compassion has to go to americans. host: that is christine in chicago, illinois. if you go to the hill website, a recent story looking at how members of congress are reacting

as far as coming to president biden's defense on this situation. a couple of lines from that story saying that leaders, rallying to defend president biden's handling of the migrant surge has threatened to spark a humanitarian crisis and undermine democratic thomases to tackle the dilemma with more compassion. the issue is a prickly one for democrats, who spent the last four years dashing the trump administration's approach to order arrivals, which included separating children from their parents. while biden has shifted sharply away from such draconian practices, the sheer volume of new arrivals has put a profound strain on the capacity of water authorities to process the detainees and move them to more sanitary facilities. one of those leaders rushing to the president's defense is the house speaker, nancy pelosi. at her press briefing last week, which you can find on our website at c-span.org, was asked about the situation at the

border. >> i think what they are doing is talking to regional governments to say, keep them home, as well as if they have a case for refugee status or asylum seekers, to have that adjudicated, to have those interviews happen in the country of origin. but for those who are coming, they have a humane policy about how -- as quickly as possible, and it takes time, because you want to do it right -- can get them situated with family members or safe place for them to be. and it will be nothing like what we saw in the trump administration. of a beast being snatched from the arms of their parents. to me, as a mom and grandmother, that to me is the most vile.

with stiff competition from the trump administration, but one of the most vile things they did. i trusted by the administration's policy to be based on humanitarian and love of children rather than political points or meet for the republican base. host: one of the legislative efforts from house democrats is the u.s. citizenship act of 2021. it would produce an eight-year path to citizenship. it would bolster refugee and asylum systems. would put in additional technology to secure the southern border. when it comes to actual numbers for interceptions at the southwest border, these are numbers from february of this year, saying that 100,000-plus persons intercepted. that is a 28% increase over january 2021. 19,000 of those were in family

units. 9500 were unaccompanied children. 72,000 were single adults. that is information from customs and border protection. you can find that online. again, fema being called in to care for those teenagers. bryant in missouri, republican line. hi. caller: i like to say that biden's whole policy on the border is a joke. i brother was killed over five years ago by illegal immigrant that was in this country illegally. he was deported in 2004, allowed to stay here during the obummer administration. there is no compassion for any american that is killed by illegal immigrant. this man killed four other people before he killed my brother. he was allowed to remain here in the united states. he was put on the death penalty, and up hanging himself in jail

because he is a coward. nobody has any compassion for any of the americans that are killed by people like this. host: but as far as what is going on currently, what is the situation? what should be done? caller: biden should have never done anything. the policy we had with trump was perfect. people stay on the others of the border, they waited until they had their opportunity to come into this country. now he has just open up the door, he has created a whole crisis. they won't even admit it. democrats don't care about any americans. they just want more voters. host: sheila in oklahoma. republican line. hi. caller: hi, and thank you for taking my call. whenever nancy pelosi excepts a humanitarian problem, it already has, and you are going to have

more children coming in. my statement is, they should get a sponsor to take them in, pedro. you know, the american taxpayer pays for those children being kept a sponsor. we don't have the jobs. they say they're going to take these other jobs. they already have illegals taking these jobs. we've got to pay for them and it just increases the debt, because we are not making money. so, then they say, a lot of them have the vaccine coming over. how is that going to reduce it? so there is a lot of problems. host: so, those of the problems. what should be done? caller: i know that you will have illegals coming in the whenever president trump was president, even though he set up things. i think it should have been left until people -- i don't know how

congress can come together, can figure out something different. but to just let them come in? i heard the statement on time by a legislator. he said if we continue to let the people come in like we do, because they don't have jobs -- they are not learned people, a lot of them -- we are going to become a third world country. i think that is where we are going to be headed. the only way they are going to be combated is raise taxes on the middle class. the people are not going to have as much money. that is where you had to the third world country. host: that is sheila. if you go to cnn, a piece they are taking a look at president biden's border strategy as it is being played out. facing the crucial test. according to the headline, some of the piece reads, president biden entered office vowing to reverse cruel policies put in

place by president trump that made it difficult for people to come to the u.s.. now president biden is working to strike a balance between promoting more humane approaches, while sending a message to would-be migrants not to come. that strategy is being stressed by the hundreds of unaccompanied children arriving each day at the southern border, overwhelming facilities and raising alarms among officials. this piece adding that the sudden spike in children is being driven by the devastation left behind by two major hurricanes, the pandemic, and a perceived relaxation of enforcement. we will hear from norman next. he is in massachusetts. caller: hello, yes, i'm a leftist of the green party. i think biden's handling of this is cruel and unconstitutional. article one of the constitution says they should be no -- no person is illegal.

there should be a path to citizenship, far from arresting them. if someone is held for three days, that breaks u.s. law. if a child is held for 10 days, that is tortured by the u.n. law. while gonzalez's book "harvest of empire" -- by the way -- host: what should be done? caller: they need to build sanitary and clean spaces for them to be housed until they can get to their relative sponsors in this country. in no case should they be locked up against their will. host: from charles in fort collins, colorado. independent line. caller: i think everybody is talking about ho, biden, and

trump, and all of these problems have been going on for a long time. until you address why these people are coming here -- and they are not coming here because they want to go to disneyland or anything. they are sending their children here because places like el salvador, nicaragua injuries. -- nicaragua are dangerous. i think they should create kind of a waystation for these people to come and be processed that is humane and sane, and safer for all of these people. host: we already have border crossings. what is the difference in what you are proposing? caller: well, instead of having to come up through mexico on a dangerous journey, they can come across their native border into mexico and have a processing station there that is safe and humane.

then we expedite them to america , and then we implement an e-verify system. we need people to come here and you the jobs other people one too. -- people won't do. what are we doing now? we are just letting people come into the country. they are making an unsafe journey across mexico. then maybe if we address the problems in el salvador and nicaragua and guatemala with the governments down there, so, say for the people to stay in their own countries, it might help. there is no perfect solution. host: that is charles in fort collins, colorado. from our twitter feed, when it comes to the situation at hand, with as much compassion as possible, we will do onto others

as you would have them do unto you means everyone. arbery says it is time for a more u.s. international engagement. the state department, combined with nongovernmental agencies can help those countries in central and south america to become more economically and physically secure, and incentivize citizens to stay in their countries of origin. this is from roy, saying that when it comes to the medical companies involved in the coronavirus vaccine, put the elixir of empathy in their vaccines so republicans can adopt a humanitarian point of view that will blunt a trump derangement syndrome they have suffered from. then from a unified the u.s. off of twitter, saying, there is one way u.s. migrants have to enter the u.s., claim asylum. one thing the trump administration had right was to wait in mexico for asylum-seekers.

forget the wall. set up a u.n. refugee site in the mexico. the topic of asylum the subject of a piece of forensic korea -- fareed zakaria. saying this, the asylum system is out of control. the concept dates to the years after world war ii when the united states created a separate path for those who feared ethnic or political persecution. a noble idea. it was used sparingly for decades, mostly applying to cases of extreme discrimination. the vast majority of people entering the southern border are really traditional migrants, fleeing poverty and violence. this is a sad situation, but it does not justify giving them special consideration. again, if you want to read more, that is in the washington post.

from dave in indiana. independent line. caller: hey, this is dave. pedro, how are you doing? host: i'm fine, thank you. caller: the guy from california had it right. they are young and they are going to be working age. i think we ought to look into something like that. one thing i do have a problem with is -- i don't know if you have been following greece or some of these other places in europe, the syrians, they have been sending migrants back to syria, it is a pretty dangerous place too. i'll be honest, i'm not sure how old you are, but we took all of the people from vietnam. that worked out real well. i think quite honestly they could be productive here.

i know this sounds funny and i know i'm probably going to get a lot of people that don't like this, but there is a lot of people that is on social security right now that quite frankly, they are not productive to society. you can take that money and probably give them to these guys and work it all out. put them on medicare, you know that's my point of view. host: that is dave in the indiana. we will hear next from a resident of massachusetts, sheila, republican line. caller: good morning. i have three great points i would like to make. i have no problem with legal immigration. we need it and we love legal immigrants that come here and want to assimilate. the problems i'm finding are that nobody answers the question as to what compensation are these families getting that take in these migrant children? there is a huge compensation given to these families.

american families, i bet they would love to have compensation for taking in an aunt or uncle. also, what is going to happen to our education system? these kids have no idea of culture and can speak english. our kids are behind already a year, and this non-english-speaking group is going to keep them further back. that has been proven in the past by non-english-speaking children. i would also like to say, there is no e-verify anymore. i believe in this bill that was passed by the democrats, there is no more e-verify. i would like you to check that. i would like to know what the compensation these families are getting. host: ok. let's go to joan, florida, democrats line. hi. caller: yes. you didn't say my name. host: you are joan, right? yes, you are on. caller: why doesn't mexico, the

state of mexico or have you call mexico -- country, county, whatever -- why are they helping their own? why are these mexican people, why doesn't mexico want the people to stay there so they don't have to cross? like all countries, you come in, be a good citizen, or whatever. host: do you think mexico is capable of providing the kind of life they might find in the united states? caller: i have no idea. they should want their people to stay. not to run away. some of them, maybe, did have relatives years ago. it is just crazy. they came here and there is all

kinds of different nationalities that came and they are fine, but there -- but they are so desperate to get away from there. another thing is, why are these people having babies, and babies, and babies? they are poor, why are they having all of these babies? they just want to run to the united states so they can get welfare or something. host: that is joan. let's hear from donna in illinois. crestline. caller: i -- democrats line. caller: i agree with the previous caller. to see people fleeing from their countries to the united states. they should be able to provide for their own people in some way. this is been going on now for ages. our dictators or drug lords running these countries? the united states should have

ways of investigating and checking out just why so many people are leaving their and coming here. host: ok. go ahead and finish your thought. caller: proud to be from el salvador or honduras. instead they want to leave. they are not proud to be el salvador ends at -- el salvadorians and hondurans. host: she mentioned the drug aspect. one of the people commenting on this was representative andy biggs of arizona, appearing on foxbusiness last week. talked about what he described as was going on there. here is his perspective. >> this border crisis is actually inhumane, as any search is going to be, because the people coming up -- by the way, it is a crisis. and i think if you live in the washington, d.c. bubble maybe you don't see that, at any time

you have the number of people we have coming across the border illegally being controlled by cartels, human trafficking, and drug trafficking, it is inhumane to the people coming in illegally, it is inhumane to the people who suffer as well. by the way, they knew this was coming, and we know that because they are the ones who opened up the facilities in preparation for this surge. they are bringing covid across, they are bringing other diseases across. this is a crisis in anybody's rational point of view. host: from twitter, i believe this person would go by jeff, saying, deal with it at the country of origin. should stop us fixing it in countries like result. saying, screen them and bring them in on work visas. michael adding that, i think they think fema has space to hold them, but it is something

to get it out of the headlines. hhs is dropping the ball. biden will deploy fema to care for teenagers in record numbers. the washington post, referencing that story. if you want to bring your thoughts on our twitter feed or facebook page, it is facebook.com/c-span. text us too, if you wish. (202) 748-8003 is the number. all we ask you to do is name your city and state. just in up next in the shawnee, georgia. independent line. caller: yeah, i consulted on parts of this back in 2010. and leon panetta said the biggest threat to our national security -- he didn't directly say it, but he read the intel reports -- is a welfare state and entitlement programs. back in 2010, the real intel report i read was that 18 million illegals are here and they were, after taxes

considered, a net drain of $14,000 per illegal. host: what does that mean for the current situation? caller: the current situation is snowballing out of control. another big aspect of it, none of these people in their estimation back in 2010, was that 99% of them have no valid id or vetted id. host: ok. one more call. this will be from nina in florida. democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a question i have not heard before. the ones that sponsor the crossing of the borders, why can't our top politicians each make a commitment to take in at least two to foster, and guide,

and teach them the american way, and get them shots. and sanctuary cities should be able to come forward and take at least two children and acclimate them to america. instead of talking about open borders, let some people have skin in the game and prove to the rest of the country, we can do this. we can do it humanely. they may have to live in your house for a couple of years, the top politicians need to step up and start offering that if they can do it, all americans can do it. thank you, have a good day. host: thank you. that is nina from florida finishing us off. thank you to all of you who participated. we will hear from an author, and chair of the calvin coolidge presidential foundation. amity schlaes. taking a look at the future of

the republican party. then institute for women's policy research ceo see nicole mason. she talks about the impact it could have on women's equality. those conversations coming up, on "washington journal♪ >> book tv on c-span 2 has top nonfiction authors every weekend. tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "after words," claremont review of books editor charles kesler . he was interviewed by author and george mason university law professor ilya somin. then at 10:00, author, biographer, and journalist walter isaacson looks at genome editing in his book "the code

breaker." and at 11:05, journalist gayle tzemach lemmon reports on a group of female kurdish worriers fighting and winning against isis in syria. watch tonight on c-span 2. ♪ >> more than 2000 students entered this year's studentcam documentary competition and told us the issues they want the president and congress to address. here are our winners. eighth grader parson collins. the documentary about the chinese communist party funding courses taught in u.s. universities. 10th graders evelyn chu and edith chang on the comcast cable

system. the first five high school central winners are from james high school. for their documentary on online piracy and copy you -- copyright protections. -- on the spectrum cable system for their documentary about u.s. foreign policy. and our $5,000 in prize winner is ninth grader theodore poulin from williamsville south high school on the spectrum cable system. >> we just wanted to call and congratulate you because you are our 2021 grand prize winner. >> wait, really? >> really. [laughter] [applause] >> congratulations. >> congratulations. >> thank you guys so much. >> theo poulin won the grand

prize. >> the american experiment is built on successes and failures. in order to get out of this pandemic, achieve racial justice, try to reunite a fractured nation, we need to hear the truth, even when, especially when, that truth and the path ahead is going to be long and full of struggle. once we come to expect the truth, even hard truths, we, the people, can place our trust in a better future. >> thanks to all the students who participated in this year's studentcam. the top 21 entries will air april 1. and you can watch anytime online at studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest of the morning is the coeditor of the

autobiography of colin -- calvin coolidge, also the chair of the calvin coolidge presidential foundation, amity shlaes. guest: so glad to be back with you. host: we are talking about your piece recently in bloomberg. i will just show you the headline -- republicans should not be democrat lite. can you give the audience a sense of why you use that term towards the audience? guest: an election year is a good year to write election strategy. a nonelection year is a good year to think about what your party is already about. we are the listeners concerns this morning on borders, that is something important. in another factor that seems beyond key is economic. what you're getting right now is a lot of people writing economic policy for possible candidates that sound good but is not really optimal in economic terms.

what this piece says is if you write economically politically, even in a nonelection year, you get some optimum policy, and voters can tell the difference and do not like you. what do i mean specifically? a child credit sounds great. a lot of us have children. but a child credit is not optimal policy. optimal policy is a reduction in the income tax or capital gains tax. what republican advisers are concerned about is that that makes republicans sound elitist, but it is not elitist when you create a job, and the person who gets that job often is not what some people call elites. i think the word "elite" ought to be banned from the english, or at least american, language. it is misleading. the job is created for the person who wants the job, and the policy being written right now is not pro-markets or pro-jobs, it is provosts --

pro-votes. host: you spoke -- you focus on specific plans. tell us what is wrong with it. guest: i do not want to be mean, but the point is that the policies of a child allowance may be necessary to get votes, may certainly be valuable to certain -- some families, but they will not necessarily be valuable to other families. it is a consequence of singling out a single group, which is frankly creepy. and there is no real economist in the united states who does not deny -- who would deny, rather, that if we cut the capital gains rate to 5%, we would not have enough jobs. if we cut the capital gains rate, which is a very right wing or free market thing to say right now, very low, then we

will have jobs even for people who are not that well trained. the second part is to train them with all the money we get when our economy grows fast. another example would be the income tax, to make it more complex with child allowances. there are already multiple definitions of child in the code. there are so many letters of child advantages. we are going to put off voters by hurting our trust relationship with them. someone who always changes terms and favors some groups is not someone you want to do business with. host: you also give historical perspective, particularly to the economic proposals from gerald ford. can you provide some of that context? guest: we came to this piece saying what happened in the past when the republican party went for votes or what sounded good rather than what is optimal.

the examples we isolated was the gerald ford situation. he was a really nice man, he was in a difficult situation, coming to the presidency after a scandal. in that instance, it was not january 6, it was the watergate scandal. so he said i will go to the center, to hold the center -- ford was an athlete -- he said i will hold the center, which nixon wanted to do, and nixon was not a great economist, and i am just going to be kind to everyone and try to get democratic votes. that policy did not work. jimmy carter went to ford's right. of course, on economics, he studied up on the misery index, terrible inflation and unemployment we had. and he went to ford's right as well in foreign policy. in the famous television debate where ford sounded like he might

that poland was a free country. republicans should stand for republican policy and not be embarrassed about it. that is my recommendation. and the positive example where it worked is calvin coolidge, who also had to clean up after a scandal, in that instance, the teapot zone, so what we say in this column is, if you go over there to where republicans are supposed to be, voters will thank you for it, and certainly the economy will. because the 1920's boomed. it was not a fake, it was a real boom. and republican free market policy facilitated that. host: our guest will answer your russians about the republican party and some of the things she highlighted. if you want to ask her questions, it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text comments on (202) 748-8003 or post on our twitter or facebook feeds. you mentioned the former president calvin coolidge. what is it about that president that fascinates you and what is it about his velocity -- philosophy that maybe informs your own? guest: calvin coolidge is the most mispriced president in the market of opinions, because he delivered a strong economy. and in the style we use today, that is to say he under promise and over delivered. imagine if you knew a car dealer orkut car company who did that. by doing so, he won back the trust of the cynical public. someone calls him silent cal, then over delivers -- americans tend to like that. host: this is our guest.

you talked about economic fundamentals that republicans should hold onto, specifically -- i think you have already highlighted this, but if you can expand on it -- particularly what they should be holding onto instead of what is being proposed by sun -- some senators . guest: well, tax cuts really work. what we need now, in addition to whatever we are doing, is to spend less, which is why we are in such an odd moment, and to make the economy grow. if you are spending too much, the only hope you have to mitigate the troubles you caused through spending is to grow fast. what was so interesting about the 1920's was we were in a competition with another economy, the united kingdom. the united kingdom went a social democratic path, even though the

leaders who took the country in that direction were not called social democrats. that is the way they went, and we went more free market path. we strengthened and solidified our position as a world leader. england lost their position as the global leader of finance. it was not secure until we pursued better policy in england less good policy. england really suffered from monetary and spending policy. you know the word the dole, which we do not use in america now, because it is pejorative. that is the word they use to describe on a plumbing payments of the 1920's indiana kingdom -- because all parties agreed that that discouraged people from working. when politicians see that a policy fails and is

embarrassing, they just change the name. people are cleverer than that. if staying at home is too valuable, then perhaps people will work less. host: we have calls lined up for you. steve in florida, democrats lying. you are on with our guest. go ahead -- steve in florida, democrats line. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: i started voting in the dawn of the republican -- the reagan administration. we have had to move through supply-side economics. it is a political gifting system disguised as an economic theory. what i see in supply-side economics is a short-term superficial sugar high, followed by recession and a spawning of political scandals. such as the savings of loans and

the housing crisis and such. my question is could we come on some common ground where maybe we give operations -- we tax them less, we go through the regulations line by line, because the regulations that are gutted out are regulations that are needed for free enterprise. the antitrust regulation, price-fixing regulations, employee-friendly legislation. if we could give them an incentive through the tax system to not just buy back their stocks and to not send corporations overseas to protect them from having to pay taxes on their revenue. host: thank you. guest: thank you. that is a good question p8 i think we agree more than we

disagree. what i am talking about is creating a system that is friendlier to all, not friendly to a few groups. and if calvin coolidge was alive and was looking at ronald reagan, he would say wait a minute, they cut taxes but did not budget. part of the problem i think is that coolidge had twins -- one named budget bureau and the other tax reduction. and imagine -- you cannot have a tax cut without an eye to the budget and serious control of the budget. the tax laws of the 1980's were uneven and unfair. i was not speaking of corporations. i was speaking about general direction of tax cuts, and i do not think that you have to add whole bunch of other legislation in, as you are suggesting, was

in the 1980's. i am just saying, generally speaking, when you remove the barriers to growth, businesses can provide jobs. i am working on a book about what markets gave economies in the 20th century, which was a lot. host: from our republican line, andrew. caller: i appreciate this lady honoring calvin coolidge. he is the best president of all time. the business of america is business, not government. if you look at the roaring 20's, regular americans got electricity, model t, radios. i wanted her opinion on the size of the federal government. coolidge would be shocked to see the size of the federal government, involved in every part of the economy, labor, commerce, health and human services, education, housing and urban development. you have 5 of 10 of the richest

counties in the usa in the washington, d.c. area. i want the republican party to go back to coolidge and honor his legacy. guest: thank you so much. pennsylvania, is that correct? host: yes. guest: thank you. that is true. children learn a fantasy in school, and one thing they learned is that the 1920's were a bubble in jay gatsby's champagne glass, that was a fake decade that caused the great depression, and each chain in that was flawed. the 1920's were real. the 1920's did not cause the entire depression of the 1930's. they may have triggered a crash eventually. what did people get in the 1920's under calvin coolidge? electricity, which means they got washing machines. that was very important for

households. they got the model a at the end of the decade, and they got indoor plumbing. if anyone works in the poverty area, you know the lines between abject poverty and beginning to do all right, working class, is indoor plumbing. also radios and saturdays off. it was a fabulous decade. i am concerned about the debt, and i think there will be a challenge to the u.s. dollar, but i've been wrong on that so far, so i am humbled. history suggests there will be a challenge to our economy, because even the u.s. -- more, i am concerned -- coolidge said we have to leave room to experiment. government cannot replace things in the spirit, by which he meant, when government crowds in, people do not know how to think for themselves, and they feel crowded. that is the way the covid experience has been, one long set of orders, ambiguous, often,

which has caused us to question ourselves. coolidge understood that you are pulling government back not just because you are a free marketeer but also because you are pulling the government back to leave the individual autonomy for the spirit. when you thing about it, it feels natural. i will decide when i do this or that, a lot of recovery comes from the individually. host: you are joining us just off the heels of the package of the american rescue plan, no republican supporting that plan. is that a bad look for the gop? guest: no. what coolidge did was spend less. he was mr. austerity, yet he was very popular. one thing about the last question -- i've noticed, over time, that republicans do not really like calvin coolidge.

i mean professional republicans. they will reach back to lincoln, who is wonderful, but not involved in a domestic economy in peacetime. they will reach back who knows where. they like reagan, that is it. would like to invite republicans and democrats -- coolidge was popular among democrats as well. have a look at coolidge, help us bring coolidge to more american kids. at the coolidge foundation, all we do is train cage in -- train kids in calvin coolidge. we do not indoctrinate him. he is just missing from the schoolbooks. he never yelled, did not say mean things about either side -- he said negative campaigning was inefficient, because you are giving your opponent airtime, and therefore depriving your party's policy of the airtime it requires for its barbs, your

devotion to barbs. also interesting about coolidge was he followed the republican platform religiously. -- well, the plot forms are negotiable. this year, the platforms should be the center stage. the writing of the platform for the losing party should be its main job, not horse picking which candidate looks better on tv. host: there is a viewer from twitter saying, if you mention calvin coolidge, you also have to mention herbert hoover, who took his predecessor's programs into the great impression, not a successful end into the roaring 1920's. guest: great response. we have a new initiative -- please write the calvin coolidge foundation the info, if you would like a copy of the quarterly. we will also print the articles and put them online. the answer is if coolidge caused the great depression, there is

one word -- no. hoover was more like a democrat than a republican. it is very interesting -- some of this has to do with personality types. hoover was a control freak. so was fdr. he was like a comic book cartoon figure. he was an eminent man with great experience, a successful engineer. he liked to run a crisis. that was his temperament -- dad was here, like that. hoover's policies work different -- were infamous because he raised taxes dramatically, one. two, coolidge liked business. hoover paraded business in the crash for selling short -- hoover berating business in the crash for selling short.

let the market do what it wants to do. hoover also exhorted business, and this became law to raise wages. when you raise wages, employees will spend more, keynesian policy, proto-keynesian policy. that was perceived as perverse, because if you do not have enough profits, you cannot raise wages, and if you have to raise wages because the president is beating you, you rehire fewer people. high wage policy actually solidified unemployment, which is a tragic record, under fdr -- fdr. host: let's go to north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning.

i do not read much, but i read your books and then steal. guest: thank you for saying that. caller: i will try to make this quick. i do not think people are going to vote against their own best interests. and they do not understand that trying to vote for a policy that would help business in lieu of voting for stimulus money, which basically pays for consumers. it helps the consumer. we are a consumer nation. we do not produce anything, and that is a dead-end route. i wanted to say that. i wanted your thoughts about the stimulus package compared to the great society, because i feel that -- they say it is the most progressive policy ever. do you think that will cause damage to the working class, like the great society? guest: absolutely.

the stimulus package is something that i would say lyndon johnson and franklin roosevelt, two great progressive presidents, would not have dreamed of. roosevelt operated in an economic emergency. we are not in an economic emergency. we emerged fairly well from this crisis. johnson had not really thought it through. where he spent his stimulus money was in manning up vietnam, not at home. i think they would have been shocked. that is the problem with stimuli. you assume you have to ratchet up how much you are giving. to your preceding point, which is an important point, people are not dumb. they sometimes know or will know that, if the government says it is going to cut taxes on business, that they help them,

too, because the records suggest that is true. i am including the income tax in that. but the politicians have to take the lead. if currently what you have to say to yourself, and my co-author looked deep into the policies of the gop, you have to say the gop as long -- is wrong. these political leaders are wrong, because they are focusing on giving child credits instead of helping business. it takes a lot of guts to say people who spend all their time on policy are wrong, but i think people know in their hearts that if it is easier to run the ace hardware or the local shop to revive the local shop because taxes are lower, that has helped them not only as workers but also consumers. host: i want to play a bit from speaker pelosi after the package of the american rescue plan. she talks about the package but also republican reaction to that. [video clip] >> it is so exciting, if you

know, because of what it does. vaccines into the arms of the american people, money in their pockets, workers safely back to work. it is a remarkable, historic, transformative piece of legislation, which goes a very long way to crushing the virus and solving our economic crisis. it is interesting to see during the debate how republicans are talking about tax camp -- $1.9 trillion and their tax scam. 83% of their benefits to the top 1%. and this bill, the same amount of money. $1.9 trillion, overwhelmingly helping america's working families. host: what do you think about those comparisons? guest: i am not quite sure what

the speaker is saying, actually. what is true is that the record suggests that the u.s. economy does better when left alone more. that is all i will say. i think families understand that. and the attacks between the rich and poor is kind of a cartoon that politicians put on us. most of us know poor people. i think politicians kind of player cartoon game of making the divide worse than it has to be. host: as far as attacks and jobs act of 2017 that she is referencing, what did you think of that as a package? guest: the economy was fairly strong around those acts, so i do not see why they were so awful. look at unemployment up to the

beginning of covid -- it was at historic lows. what is the thing you can give someone that is the most important thing to their well-being, it is not a child allowance. it is a job. host: let's hear it from forest hills, new york, independent line. caller: good afternoon. good morning. i want to bring to your attention, under the greatest republican president, dwight d. eisenhower, he taxed rich people, and in the next audit, they got a nickel, and all of that money went to paying for the interstate highway system, which is now crumbling. the electrical system that is now crumbling, as we can see in texas. most of the schools you see in cities, all built in 1950's as well. trying to figure out how you were justifying lowering the capital gains --

guest: well, one fact -- as i say, my colleague and i are writing a book that is the history of the u.s. economy now. the 1950's were a wonderful decade where it appeared, on some days, that we could afford the high taxes we had, and the caller was correct. taxes were over 90%. why did that seem possible? because we had zero competition. europe was still in a bubble. asia -- we never expected that asia would build cars, for example, we did not expect asia would ever build cars or make plastic toys. we had a selfish policy, and it turned out it went the other way. we are in a entirely different situation now. there were huge disparities

between the european economy and us, between their standard of living and ours, not to mention the asian. if we have no competition and build high walls, we might be able to tax our wealthy that high, except they would disappear or go to an island. but now, we are in an entirely different situation. the 1960's showed that. my book, "great society," is about the high cost of good intention. i spend a lot of it on the docks in long beach, california. the american culture, particularly the autoworkers u.a.w., said the asian cars will never be a threat so we can tax more heavily. we can spend a lot because there

is no competition for mighty u.s. industry. that expensive attitude is what killed detroit. it is what killed flint. the reason flint has a water problem is there are scarce jobs in flint. why is that? because we believed in a high tax/high spend economy. host: christopher from pittsburgh for amity shlaes. caller: leave the economy alone. it is doing fine. it will do just great. now that the democrats have spent their $1.9 trillion, of course we should be spending less, but what are you going to do? spend less on defense? are republicans going to be anti-defense department? and how about the chinese focusing their energy on attacking specific areas of technology like the semiconductor industry?

are you going to try to support the u.s. semiconductor industry or just let that go? guest: the caller is hitting on something. i am not telling republicans what to do because i have scant evidence they care all about calvin coolidge. i am talking commonsense, free-market free market, which many democrats believe, too. i would not divide it that way. larry summers, former treasury secretary, they are deeply worried. you know, historically, less government has been better for the united states, including for the purpose of deriving revenues to spend on defense. we don't spend that much on defense in the united states, certainly not relative to historic standards. on tv, people often talk about defense and say what a big share of spending it is. it is only a big share of discretionary spending.

if you put it next to the entitlements, they are more. in my book, i have a chart that shows we begin to spend more on butter than guns since johnson. i don't think you have to cut defense. you could even expand it if you chose to, even as you cut taxes. that is not a fantasy. second, what i am concerned about, and i am looking at the work of robert haig, is that the government likes crises because it gives government the excuse to be big or to expand. we saw that in covid. we will see it if there is a big scare with china, which may be the next republican policy, to focus on china and scare through foreign policy. i'm not saying china is not a concern.

i am saying government likes that china is a concern and be aware of that. in terms of markets, have a look at what happened this last year. nobody thought we would have a vaccine in a year. people were laughed at when they said there would be a vaccine in the year. and everyone thought the government would do a good job distributing the vaccine. what we found was the private sector more or less developed the vaccine pretty fast, and the public sector bungled the distribution. host: amity shlaes, one of the things we hear reported after the pass of the rescue plan was the effort on infrastructure. is this something republicans can sign onto to as far as working with the democrats on infrastructure efforts? guest: i'm not a republican advocate. i'm markets advocate. market people understand equipment has to work. yes, you just want to be aware

that it does not have to be as expensive as people are making out. it does not need to trillion dollars more like that. local can do more than you think , and government, state or local, less. host: what does that mean? guest: that means you don't have to have it all come from a federal funnel. that means you can have private participation. look at the record of private participation in infrastructure construction. that means infrastructure might not be quite as we imagine it. the bricks and mortar. if we had some kind of spending to spur the economy, we would have built malls 10 years ago. it turns out malls have less of a future than we imagined and would have been a complete waste. look at the history of japanese spending by the government. they infrastructured themselves

into making themselves a concrete company. i wrote about the infrastructure stimuli spending of japan. it did not help the economy for a very long time. host: let's go to martin. caller: thank you. i am a public school teacher. i teach english and social studies. i don't know that much about calvin coolidge except for the quote about "you lose." i think of f.d.r. is pretty high on the list, i would put him at number three on the list, because he brought us show social purity -- social security and other things. he was outflanked by huey long and by the right. he was a centrist in many ways. i am 51 years old. i have never seen a republican or democrat that has been

fiscally responsible. we are all keynesians now. whether that is good or bad. people don't want small government or big government. they want good government. the stimulus we have thrown at this has not been targeted that well. i know that for a fact. it is where we are. i suppose it is better than not having done anything at all. there is a lot of waste in the defense spending as well, so you cannot just say there's waste with the stimulus. there is waste in the defense as well. what we need is good governance and a better educated population. january 6 will show you that. host: ok. that is martin in dayton, ohio. guest: i'm glad to hear from you. i like teachers. we agree on the education. we need a better educated populace. that is the most important part.

union, the reason nobody is concerned about the stimulus and should be concerned because we have no challenge to our currency. how did it become clear that england needed austerity? how did it become clear germany needed the economic miracle and a very conservative government, which is what germany had after world war ii? the currency collapsed. eventually, we will receive a signal from outside the united states. it may not be now. it may be in five years, 10 years. but eventually, we will receive a signal we are lying to ourselves by overspending. and that signal will be that interest rates go to 20%. until that happens, we can see in theory that we are

overspending and we can say let's enjoy it now as keynesians, but even keynesians would have been stirred by the current situation. go have a look and read him. i think the wake-up signal has not come yet or is not loud enough. that is our job to prepare. what would be an analogy in health care? antibiotic-resistant superbugs. we know they are coming. we know soon the antibiotics will not work. we just don't know when, just as we knew that a form of sars disease would come and america would not be prepared. we just did not know when and which version. i don't want to scaremonger. but the fact is the united states is in a dangerous fiscal situation and will be challenged

in its currency. host: which country will provide that challenge? guest: it may not be a country. it may be a combination of a company with a commodity and a country paying for it. that is the thing with change. even 20 years ago, what would challenge us? the franc, the pound, the euro? it does not have to come from a sovereign government now because of the change in technology. it could be a chinese currency. the point is when you are biking, you can say gravity does not exist. but the moment you stop, the bike falls over unless you put your foot down. host: let's hear from gabriel in durham, north carolina, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i want to say that this is c-span. there's a lot less spin that happens here. as a result, we try to pay

attention to the facts and not the sensationalism or talking points. i am a republican actually. i feel very much what you are saying is not accurate. i say that with respect. you quoted larry summers. larry summers was one of the main architects of the cbo's. use the reason we had -- in many instances when we turn our back and allow big business to do what it wants, it races to the bottom. it all shores jobs -- offshores jobs. look at the health care industry. every active pharmaceutical ingredient, and i know because i practice medicine, every pharmaceutical ingredient being made and potentially used in the ingredients for vaccines are coming from china or india.

what is the stronghold on that? how did it happen? it happened because of the same arguments you are perpetuating them, which is let a business do whatever it wants to do, keep the government out of the way, and all of a sudden, we see greed rise to the top. we see laws and lawyers they get in the way and cause devastation to the market. who suffers? the american worker. host: we will let our guest respond to that. guest: i think you might want to look again at dr. summers. dr. summers knows that the spending is problematic even though his friends are doing it. he does not want to betray his friends and look like a fool. that is why he's interesting. he reminds me a bit of arthur burns in my book, "great society," was fed chairman and knew that perpetuating inflation was a bad idea because he had written a book on inflation, but he still did it because he

wanted to pander to richard nixon. sometimes, people empower, you can see their consciences at work. that is the case with dr. summers. to the second point, i don't think we need to vilify one another. i don't think anything i have said that i know of is wrong. you're going lawyers this and that . we can turn in and say doctors this and that. doctors are taking the lead in covid. they are bossy. they don't always have the best information either. the problem with the covid crisis handling was too little was left to the individual. i could not go to my doctor and say i would like a covid shot now that you have them. i could not ask the medical establishment to work for 24 hours instead of 12 hours delivering the shots because of

government regulations. they made those things impossible. everyone came out of the covid era with some resentment. the good news is medicine did give us this vaccine. it is not obvious to me that people cared where the vaccine components came from as long as they had the vaccine. the fact that everything is supplied by china, if it is as you contend, we can deal with another day. but by and large, the covid vaccine victory was a victory of science and the private sector. host: larry summers a piece on february 4 talking about the plan. it is admirably ambitious but brings some problems, too.

charlie, you are on. caller: i have a question for your guest. we like to be in a free economy. she is advocating for the free market. when we pay our taxes, we all get a little less wealthy because the government takes part of what we have to pay for its expenses. when you look at warren buffett in 2015, he had an income of about $15 million and paid a little under $2 million in taxes . at the time, warren buffett's net worth was a little over $60 billion. that means he paid about 3000th of 1% of his wealth on taxes while in the same year i pay well over 1% of my wealth in

taxes, which is much more typical, which means that in order for me to keep up with warren buffett in terms of relative wealth, i have to be more than 1000 times better at investing then he is. host: thanks for the call. go ahead. guest: you want to look at which jobs warren buffett created? i think when you mention a millionaire's name, you should mention how many jobs he created. warren buffett invest in american companies. why compare yourself to someone else? if you're doing alright all right, why not compare yourself to yourself? there are plenty of prospects for bettering one's self and one's bank account in the united states. people at calvin coolidge ensured that is really true, and

we have to do that, too. host: amity shlaes is the co-editor of the biography of calvin coolidge in the chair of the calvin coolidge presidential foundation. thank you for your time. coming up, we are going to talk with the institute for women's policy research president and ceo c. nicole mason as she discusses the newly established gender policy council and the impact it could have on women's equality. we will have that discussion when "washington journal" continues. >> tonight, the catholic theologian and distinguished senior fellow talks about some of the people he profiles in "not forgotten," his new book. >> these were people who went into public life and public service to get things done.

some of them were sparkling speakers and wits. some of them were dour norwegians like scoop jackson. some of them were charmers, but they were all people who wanted to achieve things not so much for themselves but for their country, for their constituents, for the common good. host: tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can also listen where you get your podcasts. >> monday night, the founder and ceo of girls who code on what her company is doing to close the gender gap in technology. >> my parents came here as refugees. i have had a job since i was 12 years old. in 2012, i found myself running for congress.

i would go into computer science classrooms and see lines and lines of boys clamoring to be the next steve jobs or mark zuckerberg. i know those jobs in computer science pay well, almost $120,000. it did not make sense. where are the girls? where our girls who could get a shot at one of these jobs? that is when i decided i wanted to build a program to teach girls to code. host: monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> visit c-span's new online store to check out the new products. congress in session, we are taking preorders for the congressional directory. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operations.

shop today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: c. nicole mason is the president and ceo of the institute for women's policy research and joins us to talk about the recent announcement from the biden administration looking at a gender policy council. good morning. thank you for giving us your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: talk about your institute, the work you do, and who backs it. guest: we are committed to winning women's economic security and building. . their importance in society. we have a number of partners we work with to achieve our mission. a lot of public and private foundations, j.p. morgan chase, melinda gates' initiatives for accelerating women's power and influence in society, and individual donors, everyday citizens and women who believe

in our mission and invest in it. host: as far as that equality when it comes to women, where do you see the situation in 2021? what faces the biden administration as they tackle these issues? guest: at the beginning of 2020, we were celebrating an important milestone. women were 50% of the workforce. we had not seen that since 2008 during the great recession. by february, all of those gains had been all but wiped out because of the pandemic. over the last year, women have lost four times as many jobs as men and have been really impacted by the economic downturn. many women have been unemployed for 26 weeks or more and are struggling to make ends meet, in addition to increased caretaker responsibilities because of school closures.

the biden administration, the american rescue plan is a really important step in helping women get back on track, reenter the workforce. and also, i'm excited about some of the policy innovations in the plans i hope we will think about ways to institute. host: we will talk about that. i want to talk about the announcement from the biden administration. as you understand the announcement, what is it designed to do? guest: the gender policy council is amazing. under the trump administration, the white house counsel on women and girls was dismantled. very little focus effort was on interagency commitments to gender equality. the establishment of the gender policy council, which is very

expensive and is working toward accelerating women's power and influence in society, making sure workplace policies across government agencies and the government are supportive of women. and also tackling some of the issues that have come about because of the covid-fueled economic downturn. host: some highlights attributed to the council, it would increase economic security and opportunity by addressing structural barriers, address the caregiving needs of american families supporting care workers. what can a council do to contribute to reversing those? guest: the council has a big job ahead of it. in the first 200 days, it is supposed to deliver a plan to the administration about how to address those things.

women's economic security, the pay gap, structural and institutional systemic gender discrimination. first of all, i want to say a little bit about the leadership of the council. they have been at the forefront of women's equality. having them at the home being able to -- the helm being able to tackle these issues, creating a plan we can use across the government, and for advocates like me to use in our work to help the administration achieve its goals. host: there are the cochairs she mentioned. c. nicole mason our guest with the institute for women's policy research. if you want to ask her a question about the gender policy council, you can call and let us know.

democrats, republicans, and independents. you can text us, too. when it comes to specifics, all cabinet secretaries must participate. it would require secretaries to designate a senior official. it would submit annual progress reports. go ahead. guest: it is a very methodical, strategic, thoughtful approach to achieving gender equity. we are behind. women are only 26% of seats in congress. the pay gap is only $.84 on the $1. there has been a lot of slippage in terms of women's progress in career mobility. in part, because of the pandemic was enormous job losses.

the task of the gender policy council is a norm is in this moment. it is critical to have coordination across government agencies and that they are given a runway to implement solutions and strategies they believe will help to move the needle on women's progress and economic security. host: you talked about how a similar type of council was established in the previous administration. i believe the obama administration had got as will -- had that as well. guest: the establishment, whether it is the white house council on women and girls or the gender policy council, this executive order that was passed on international women's day has been seen as a partisan issue.

republicans come in and quietly undo the council, and democrats are likely to reinstitute it. i want to say that is not the right approach for women's equality in this moment because we know it is a long haul. having one or two terms to address these issues that are deeply entrenched and institutionalized, it is important we have a consistent presence at the federal level to make sure these issues are addressed. in terms of the obama administration, i've been very fortunate to be engaged with the white house counsel on women and girls. there are a lot of really good initiatives that came out of that council such as direct

investments in initiatives that focused on violence against women. they did a study on equal pay. a lot of other things. most important, bringing advocates together talking about how to close gaps. host: what would you recommend as a focus? guest: one of the first things, one of the first priorities is really getting the pandemic under control in terms of helping women get back to the workforce. we have lost a lot of gains. the pandemic and economic downturn as a result is a priority for the gender equality council and things like

strengthening the care infrastructure which has had an out sized impact on working women and families. again, thinking about workplace policies in the government. interagency coordination, title ix. the agenda is so robust. host: this is our guest. c. nicole mason joining us for this discussion. if you want to text us your thoughts this morning, that is how you can do that. there was one thing that came out of the announcement of the council. it comes from a gentleman named warren farrell. he wrote an op-ed.

i want to get your reaction. we need his courageous leadership for an evolutionary shift. we need neither a women's movement blaming men nor a men's movement blaming women. we need a gender liberation movement to bring both towards more flexible roles for the future. the path to unity and peace is carrying the less caring about everybody. guest: i agree with some of the things said and the op-ed. i agree we cannot achieve gender equality without men. that is important. establishing a gender policy council does not negate the work and roll men have to play in helping us achieve gender equality. what we have to know is that on many indicators, pay,

discrimination in the workplace, the care burden women have, especially in this moment, we cannot deny these facts. especially when we think about the disproportionate impact of the pandemic. we cannot ignore that. targeting policies and programs to really win economic equity and promote equality for women is the right thing to do. it is not exclusionary. it includes men. i want to pinpoint something here. as you noted the name of the council, it is gender policy council. that was very intentional. i was part of those conversations. gender was included because we wanted to be more inclusive and expansive and invite anyone who's interested in partnering with us on these issues to be

part of the conversation and part of the work. host: let's hear from rodrick and anderson, south carolina, independent line. good morning. go ahead. caller: how are you doing, ma'am? guest: i'm all right. caller: i have a problem as an independent man. women can rule the world, but independent men as myself have trouble because the government will not help an independent man but they will help an independent woman. guest: i think the american rescue plan is aimed at helping all americans. but we cannot deny the fact and reality that women, across all indicators of well-being, whether it is health, whether it is employment in this moment, especially black and brown women have unemployment rates of 8.5% in this moment.

pay inequality, those are all issues disproportionately impacting women. i do think for men who are experiencing racial discrimination in the labor market, have lower earnings and wages, we do need to pay attention to that. again, it is not an either/or. this is both/and. host: when it comes to the american rescue plan, one of the things touted by democrats in the passage of the legislation was the childcare tax credits, when it would do for poverty. what is the long lasting effect of that? is it only temporary as far as helping alleviate policy? guest: it is temporary if we only keep it for four years. i am hoping some of the policy innovations will become permanent. a year ago, many of the things we are doing as part of our recovery and relief efforts,

things like direct payments, expansion of unemployment insurance to employees previously not covered, the expansion of the advancement of the child tax credit, those things were not on the table. now, they are. we know that they work. we know that they work to help people who are economically vulnerable, to help families living in poverty. i'm hoping as we move forward, we will think about permanent solutions and strategies to make sure not only people are lifted out of policy but stay out of poverty -- lifted out of poverty but stay out of poverty. host: what else would you add to that? guest: i would advocate for making that tax credit permanent. we will see the benefits of that this year. the other thing i would like to see is real attention paid to

the care infrastructure. it has been broken for a while and come into focus as a result of the pandemic. it would be my hope that we create a permanent, national care infrastructure where no family pays more than 10% of their income on care. the government has a role to play here. the united states spends less than 1% of its gross to mr. product on childcare -- gross domestic product on childcare, only behind ireland and turkey, so the floor is low and we have a lot of room for improvement. host: from june in wisconsin, independent line, you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. my comment is regarding transgender and sports. i believe transgender should have their own sports category,

just like they have men and women. transgenders should have their own category because they are their own separate category of people. in fairness, a transgender female who used to be a male absolutely should not play in female sports with females because they are not females. they are still males, but transgender. i think it is only fair that they have their own separate category. host: ok, you made that point, june. we will let our guest respond. guest: i think transgenderism is a distraction from the real issues americans are facing right now.

i believe anyone should be able to play whatever sport on whatever team as their preferred gender. i don't want to get into that. i think the point of this conversation is to talk about the importance of the gender policy council. it is a very inclusive council and includes transgender and lgbtq individuals. that was very intentional. i think it is important in this moment we are unified and focused on the issues important to working women and families right now. host: paul in manchester township, go ahead, you are on. caller: thank you. my question is about the over 100-year selective service act for only men.

i want to ask whether this should be changed because of all of the other equality issues being asked for by women. men have been targeted in the selective service act. i would like to see it changed. thank you. guest: again, this is a trap in terms of trying to undermine women's economy the best quality -- women's equality. that is not the point. the point is the gender equality council is committed to addressing issues of discrimination in the workplace and society, passing things like pay equity. these are all issues of import in this moment.

a lot of the red herrings people are bringing up are just that. they distract folks from the larger problem and from working together across party lines to get some of these issues solved. i have to say women's progress has been long-delayed. women are 50% of the u.s. population but only 26% of officeholders at the federal level. we still earn $.84 on the $1. black and indigenous women aren't even less. women are responsible for 30% more caregiving responsibilities and families. that is only increased with the pandemic. we need to make sure our priorities are straight. host: i suppose you have announced this question before. of you are on twitter says -- a viewer on twitter asks why the government has a response ability to fund childcare.

guest: the government does have a role in making sure families, working women and families, i just want to say having government supported childcare is not new. we have done it before. it was phased out under nixon. it is not just benefit women. it benefits the economy. we understand if we increase women's labor force participation, we would gain billions of dollars in gdp. it is good for businesses. and it is good for families. it is good for men, too. the idea that government has no role in helping us citizens is pretty antiquated -- its citizens is pretty antiquated and shortsighted. the american rescue plan sees that the government does have a role to play helping individuals

stay afloat. host: gary is in north carolina, democrats' line. caller: my mother was a woman. a woman is a transgender. i don't take it would be fair for my granddaughter to compete against transgender and sports. i'm not blaming it on the christians. thank you very much. guest: maybe your granddaughter should not play sports because society is moving and changing, and we have to be inclusive to girls who want to participate. it is up to girls to define who they are. as a society determining who gets to participate, that is not our role. these issues are distractions

from bigger, critical issues. i'm not here to engage in a culture war. i'm here to help win women's economic security and equality. host: when it comes to the job losses you described that women were experiencing because of the pandemic, is that because of the elimination of a job or was childcare a factor in that? guest: that is a really good question. the reason women were disproportionally impacted by job losses during the pandemic is they were overrepresented in the hardest hit sectors. leisure, hospitality, health care services, and education. those sectors were hardest hit. women are overrepresented in those sectors. women of color are also in those sectors and have lost a significant number of jobs. caretaking responsibilities was also a critical factor. in september when schools were slated to open, 865,000 women

exited the workforce. i believe there is a direct correlation between women leaving workforce and those -- in those numbers and schools not opening fully in the fall. increased caretaking responsibilities. many of us, myself included, i am a parent to 12-year-old twins. i work 40 to 50 hours a week. luckily, i am able to work remotely. but i'm also responsible for making sure my children are learning in the next room. that is a hard thing to do as a primary caregiver. the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women. the impact has been devastating. one of the other things i looked up is the fact that many of the women who lost jobs are in lower earning sectors where they earn less than $40,000 a year. many of these jobs do not have any health care or other benefits we know make a

difference for workers. and so, those workers who were already struggling before the pandemic, their economic vulnerability was exacerbated. host: steve in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. i would think you would be more definitive with your answers on the transgender sports. by doing that, it would bring a lot more credibility to your organization. by skirting the issue, you are not doing the female gender any help at all. you are leaving it out there for people to make up their mind what they want rather than what you want for your organization. guest: no, actually, i was quite clear. i want you to hear me say this. transgender women are women. ok? i think it is my role as a gender adjusted advocate -- justice advocate to advocate for all women on all of these

issues. i am inclusion, not exclusion. i think excluding trans women from sports because of transphobia, homophobia, cultural issues, i don't think that is ok. i am here to say that and believe that. host: ms. mason, there is a viewer on twitter, they say we work so hard to get title ix for our girls, and you are here to fight a culture war on your terms. to the title ix aspect, shouldn't these questions fall under a title ix discussion and be open for discussion? guest: i think we need to have it, but we need to be mindful that many of the colors, my perception is transphobia.

there are concerns about competition. this conversation is about the gender policy council and significance of it to helping women in this particular moment in the things that can be achieved over the next four years having such a council in place. i really want to focus on that. host: one of the sidebars of the signing was looking at how sexual assault claims are investigated on campus. do you have any thoughts on that? guest: obama created clear guidelines and protocols for investigating sexual assault. we know biden was one of the chief architects of the violence against women act. under trump, many of the protocols and guidelines were changed giving perpetrators a lot of power in terms of deflecting responsibility for

sexual violence. under the biden administration, there is an examination happening right now those policies and making sure victims of violence are able to receive remedies and are taken seriously at the collegiate level. and it's really important because we need to create a learning environment that is free of violence so that women and girls on these campuses have a fair shot at real opportunity and are able to finish their education. host: the trumpet administration policy included -- the trump administration policy included the accused having more of a chance of defense. guest: like having the opportunity to face your accuser, clearly, this guy is mirroring what he believed he should be able to do in his own life. we know on college campuses

across the country, sexual assault and sexual violence is a critical and clear issue. women having the ability to report without fear of retaliation or backlash or having to prove, having the burden of proof be astronomical or having to participate in peer led court tribunals is the right thing to do. i am excited about the examination of these policies. i think the inter-import of the gender policy council is critical. we have the examination of these policies but also the examination of sexual assault policies and protocols in the military with the department of defense as well. these are all important things in terms of thinking about women's progress and making sure they are free from harm as they work and pursue their education.

host: carolyn in virginia on the democrats' line for our guest, c. nicole mason. caller: first of all, thank you for what you are doing. second, my question. when i was lobbying 35 years ago for pay equity on capitol hill, we predicted our granddaughters would not have it. what do you predict now? when will we have gender equity? guest: thank you so much. what makes me sad is that i sometimes hear that if we don't do anything to accelerate closing the pay gap, my daughter will not see pay equity in her lifetime. this moment is filled with urgency. i think many of us, yourself included, who have been in this fight r decades, you know, we are ready for it.

i think we are not willing to wait and say we will wait and see what happens. i think we are at a point where we are demanding things change in an accelerated way. i'm really excited about all that is happening, the potential. i hope it does not take another two decades for us to close the gender pay gap. i hope we can do it over the next 10 years, five years. i'm hoping we can work to increase women's representation in elected office. there are some exciting things happening across the country. and i hope you and others listening or watching continue to engage with us on many of these issues. host: we have seen a big change in the way we work over the last year. what do you think that prisons for women as far as opportunities going forward? guest: the pandemic has

obviously been very devastating for a lot of reasons. creating a health crisis, lost employment and income gains. but one of the things it has done is allowed us to be innovative in our thinking about how we work. a year ago, working from home, working remotely, workplace flexibility, was seen as an accommodation for women. now we see it is possible. it is not about accommodation. we can change the way that we do work. and as a result, women can stay in the workforce. we just did a survey. as a result of the pandemic, more than 50% of women said they had to cut back on their hours were reduced -- or reduce hours

or leave the workforce because of caretaking responsibilities. i think moving forward, we can come up with creative solutions for care. remote work. companies, the private sector, they are examining workplace policies and figuring out how to make them more supportive of women. i see this moment as an opportunity. i see the gender policy council as holding some of the strategy for implementing some of these things. host: a question from a viewer on twitter who says you can make all the laws you want. who will enforce something like pay equity? guest: thank you for saying that. one of the things i firmly believe is you can have really good policies on the books, but if there is no enforcement, no investment making sure people are following them, all the hour's policies on the books --

all they are is policies on the books. i believe the private sector has a role to play in making sure their workplace policies are equitable. i think the federal government has a role to play in making sure companies are doing right by women. right now, the enforcement is a bit lax we don't have important mechanisms. we have anti-secrecy laws in several states. what we found in our research is many companies are not following the anti-pay secrecy laws. i think you are right. we do need enforcement and accountability, and also partnership. host: from ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. this is not a distraction. you will find out the majority

of people do not want transsexual people competing with women. you are discriminating about -- against about 160 million women. girls who want to play sports, maybe get a scholarship, for .001%? like handicapped people, have their own olympics, but keep them out of women's sports. it is not a distraction. it is craziness. host: that is common in dayton, ohio. ms. mason, if you want to respond. guest: let's not make this a bigger issue than it is. how may transgender women are fighting to get into sports? i do see this as a distraction from focusing on the real issues of the day which is women's gender equality and equity. and we have so much work to do. host: this week on the floor of

the house, the violence against women's act is expected to be on the floor. talk about its chances in the senate. guest: the violence against women's act, i was around when the first version was passed in 1994, and it has only gotten strengthened over time. when it hits the floor, obviously, it is partisan but i am hoping it will pass with the appropriate appropriations so the office can do its work. the violence against women's act does so much to support women's equality in society by holding perpetrators accountable, providing much needed resources to abused women's shelters, and sexual assault and crisis

centers, and other programs across the country. what i am hoping is that when it reaches the senate is able to be passed and signed into law. host: from new york, david, go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask a couple questions. most women are not equal financially or from parenting. they are just not equal, just like men. i don't see how you can help some financially hurting families with women in them, with girls that are going to school that want to get a scholarship for sports and now are competing with transitioning men to women. i also don't understand how a single girl who decides to have a baby, who does not have any money, all of a sudden gets equal rights light goes to work

and she is six months pregnant, and in six months, she gets a year's salary to stay home. the private sector gets hurt quite a bit because of that. let's say she works in a supermarket. she works six months. she is already getting a year salary to stay home whereas a man cannot do that. host: ms. mason? guest: you know, i think, you know, we need to do so much work to bring american citizens along in terms of understanding that the government does have a role to play in many of these policies we have been talking about. it's role is to ensure all of its citizens have their basic needs met. housing, health care. when people lose income rapidly,

that they are able to tap into a social safety net, to make sure people are able to live free of discrimination based on their race, gender, gender identity. that is critical and that is the government's role in this moment and always. one of the things i like about democracy is it is not ruled by one person or one individual group's opinion of what other should -- other people should have. it is about the common good and what is good for the whole of society. in this moment, people are struggling. the government does have a role to play. i think they have been hands-off on many of the issues we have been talking about. i hope there is more engagement in the private sector on these issues and also understanding and framing the common good and

how we achieve it. host: on our democrats line, we will hear from brandon in dover, delaware. caller: how you doing this morning? my name is brandon. i am from dover. i want to agree with the other guy. first, let me say i do agree nobody should ever be discriminated against. but i do agree with the other guy as far as high school sports because i have seen that happening already where transgender men have been competing with the women and have been breaking high school records. also, i have ran into problems on the job where i have gotten into a small confrontation, nothing big, small confrontation with a transgender or a gay person. and they are treating me like they are a man, but they are expecting from me to treat them like a woman. do you see what i am saying? when i get in this

confrontation, maybe over dishes or anything, and mike to treat them like a man or a woman? i am not sure because i will get in trouble if i treat -- host: you got your thought out. would you like to respond? guest: that is transphobic. the undertones to your comments are transphobic. i think we can all have our opinions, but those individuals should not infringe on anyone's individual liberties or rights. host: how do you know if the gender policy council will be a success? guest: i am excited about the gender policy council. one reason why i believe it will be a success is leadership.

they are excellent leaders who served in both the clinton and obama administrations and they are committed. they have spent their whole lifetimes working toward gender equity and equality. the other thing is the biden administration and the gender policy council are working closely with advocates across the country, like myself. all of these organizations are committed to supporting the work of the gender policy council, it is a coordinated effort. the american rescue plan, 40 -- $40 billion in child care. these leaders, i hope we will continue to be involved in the passage of and creating of more

gender equitable recovery. host: the website of the institute for women's policy institute is led by the president and ceo, c. nicole mason. we thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we will finish up the program with the situation at the southern border with a number of migrants heading there and policy decisions by the biden a ministration. what should be done dealing with migrants on the southern border? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you live in a border state, give us a call at (202) 748-8003 . ♪

>> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend. sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the life and legacy of an enslaved woman who sell -- self emancipated in 1826. a look at a political partnership between franklin and eleanor roosevelt, a behind the scenes look at the couple. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. listen to c-span's podcast. a senior research fellow on the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill and how it impacts the united states' already growing

federal debt. >> my big problem is this is a massive bill which amounts -- totally disconnected with needs that are brought on by this pandemic. >> from c-span's the weekly, where you get your podcasts. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> washington journal continues. host: again, the situation along the southern border is our topic for the next half-hour. the washington post reporting this morning that fema

representatives have been tasked by the bite a ministration to head down there and care -- the biden administration to care for children at the border. we want to get your take on what should be done as far as u.s. policy is concerned. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents, (202) 748-8002. if you live on a border state, give us a call at (202) 748-8003 . one of the people talking about this issue last week was roberta jackson. she talked about what was going on along the southern border. here is a portion from last week. [video clip] >> i think it is important to understand that you cannot and should not say in this administration's opinion that

the only way to message "do not come in an irregular fashion" is to separate children from their parents, return people to places like a migrant camp for up to two-plus years on a time, and that is the only way you can get your message across. this administration's belief is we can get our message across in a more humane way by opening up avenues of legal migration, which will encourage people to take those legal options and go through the asylum process if they are seeking that, and not take the irregular road. i think you have to find different ways to message. if messaging reflects your actions, that is why we are increasing the actions for legal

migration so the message is, "you have another option." host: that is ambassador roberta jacobson speaking at the white house press conference. if you want to hear more from her, can go to our website, c-span.org. a politico piece is taking a look at this issue. part of it says congress is bracing for political combat over a crisis at the southern border, a wave of unaccompanied migrant children arriving at the border. republicans are using the moment to rally their base, trumpeted by former president donald trump, democrats are racing to help joe biden help the influx of migrants without breaking their promise to make the u.s. immigration system more humane.

it will be debated in legislation in congress. stay close to c-span as that plays out. jane in new jersey, democrats lined talking about the situation along the border. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. however, i am very concerned about the numbers of people coming in and possibly with - a, with covid, and b, driving down wages for people like me, i am 66, semi retired with a part-time job -- i am lucky to be working at all. i am one of the people your previous guest was talking about. i did a lot of caretaking.

women are in an extraordinary position of producing the human race and then caring for, which knocked me out of getting a lot of social security, now i am collecting social security, working part-time, not making a lot of money and it is driving down wages with these foreigners coming in and taking jobs like i have -- i am a caretaker for an elderly person with dementia. a lot of these foreigners would love to have my job. it is a little concerning for me. host: let's hear from jackie in greensboro, republican line. caller: my biggest concern is this is not a humane process. this involves a majority of a population leaving one area, which leaves destitution, and human trafficking. these children are being sent

from one country to another, without parental supervision. they are being sent by coyotes. they are being housed with families that are not their families. that is not humane. host: from california, democrats line, carmen, you are next up. caller: i believe the democrats have a -- i believe the immigrants have a right to come in. they have to qualify for asylum. we have to be more humane. we create the most pollution in the world, we have for centuries. a lot of these people are coming because of earthquakes and disasters. two people remember the starving irish that came here and they were looked down upon?

poverty is not a sin. they are sending children because they are desperate. they have to wait two years of the border. i live near the border and there are people waiting for two years in tents with nothing at all. the people who really did not want to be here went back on, but the desperate ones are waiting period there is a backlog because they were not processed for three or four years. we do have to be responsible about climate change. it will continue with climate disasters. host: one person giving perspective this morning on fox news sunday, a republican senator from louisiana reacting to that story in the washington post about fema's role. [video clip] >> first, the fact they are sending fema tells us the 170%

they anticipate growing to 350% or higher. they are sending fema as reinforcements for three weeks from now. there can be no equivocation when sending a message to people thinking of joining a caravan. it has to be -- our border is closed. you cannot say in spanish one thing, in english for another. it has to be the same message. they are not doing that. host: here is dee from silver spring, maryland. democrats line. caller: the immigration laws need to be changed. i am empathetic toward them. children are vulnerable. it seems there is a lot of scheming going on, the parents are paying the smugglers to bring children to them. are they already here, established, waiting for them?

i know all cases are not the same, but the immigration laws need to be changed. we have to consider our culture. as far as language is concerned. 40 million of them speak it now. in another 10 or 20 years, it will dominate. our holidays are changing and everything, the culture would change. people coming here assimilate or don't come. host: let's hear from the republican line. new orleans, louisiana, james, hello. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. go ahead. caller: all of the illegal aliens coming across the border should be deported. we have to think about the americans that are out of work and needing jobs. most of these women over here are coming here, they are pregnant and the are getting all kinds of benefits that we cannot get has u.s. citizens.

people seem to forget about the border agent killed in the obama administration. they ended up killing u.s. boarder patrol agent. host: what about children and teenagers appearing at the border? what should be done? caller: they should be supported immediately. what is the difference between breaking into a country and breaking into a house? it is illegal. they should be deported. no jail, no medical assistance. host: from the numbers we shared with you earlier in the morning, interceptions at the southwest border, 100,000 people intercepted, a 28% increase from january of 2021. 19,000 individuals were family units, 9500 were unaccompanied children. 72,000 single adults.

that is information you can find online as of march 10. democrats line, st. petersburg, florida. caller: thank you for having me. i would like the world to think that right now, we are in a global pandemic. the heart of america is on the line at the border. we need to do the right thing with these people coming to our nation's borders. i hope and -- with all americans to look in their hearts, immigration goes way beyond what we can imagine. the value in the people searching for hope. host: in your mind, what is the right thing? caller: there should be a common sense way to properly process anyone wants to come to this

nation, especially during a pandemic, were other nations do not have the ability to vaccinate their children. these mothers, i am sure, are hoping to get a vaccination for their children and hoping to keep their families alive. they are running from horrible regimes in south america. america needs -- at this point more than ever -- to do the opposite of what donald trump did. instead of putting walls up at the border, put immigration malls up at the border. host: we will go to paul in connecticut, republican line. caller: i just heard a lot of nonsense. first off, we have laws. this should be followed. we should not be changing things based on -- host: go ahead. keep going. caller: thank you.

i heard a lot of nonsense. host: you are listening to the television. finish your thought on the phone. caller: let me turn off the television set. just a second. there are goes. i am sorry about that. host: it is ok. caller: it is nonsense. we have laws, they should be followed. when we say children, it is not the children, it is the people. people need problems solved at home so they are not coming here. we cannot take all of the influx of people that are coming across the line now because we decided to automatically open the borders. we need to address this problem

at its source. not at our area. host: someone advocated using u.s. funds to help those areas that are impoverished and it would keep people from coming to the united states. is that something you would advocate? caller: we have just made a mess out of it -- meaning the world itself. when we talk about a pandemic, what is the pandemic? again, we are not following our own laws. host: let's go to akron, ohio. this is ed, independent line, talking about the situation at the southern border. caller: i think they should put the wall back up. immigrants should come to this country legally, i have no

problem with that. they should take the fence down at the capitol, that is our house. if they have to put a fence up to protect themselves from the people they serve, they are doing something wrong. host: michael in maryland, democrats line. hello. caller: i am very interested in this issue. one of the things i think is a problem is we are not putting enough of a court system available at the border that is necessary so we could sort things out faster and not "have a problem." we need a surge of legal assistance and legal oversight down there. we need to get people to realize it is a quick turnaround and you need to come in with any kind of documentation to show you are truly in need of asylum, versus

just trying to come over the border and have a job for a while and hopefully follow into the cracks and get away from it. the wall and all that, we need to maintain and increase our technological surveillance of the area to be able to funnel the people that are trying to come over, and catch the criminals that are bringing the drugs and sex slaves into the country. host: that is michael from maryland. we have about 10 minutes left in the program. if you want to give your thoughts on what is going on at the southern border, you can do so at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for

independents. if you live on a border state, you can give us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. house speaker nancy pelosi was asked about the situation at the border. [video clip] >> this is a humanitarian challenge to all of us. what the administration has inherited is a broken system at the border and they are working to correct that in the children's interest. i am pleased that the president is a temporary measure has sent fema to the border to help facilitate the children going from one 72 hour -- where they are transferred into homes where they are safe to be. this is a transition from what was wrong before to what is right. we have to also looked to central america, mexico, the corruption, the violence.

my most recent trip to the northern triangle -- honduras, guatemala, el salvador -- you saw the impact of climate change. people are leaving because of the drought, they could not farm, they were seeking other ways to survive. there are many reasons but going to this. we have to deal with it at the border. some of the people coming there are seeking asylum. i always like to quote a friend, one of the hearings we had before we had the majority, a representative sent to us, "the united states refugee resettlement program is the crown jewel of american military is him -- humanitarianism." that is what the biden administration is in the process of doing. host: kathy in albuquerque, new

mexico. you can listen along to the sunday shows, we tape them and replay them on our website and on our radio app as we play the sunday shows. kathy in new mexico, democrats line. caller: that is great information to know. i want to tell some of the people that are calling, a lot of them have resentment toward immigrants coming in. i wish they would take a look. these people are leaving their homes, they do not know what they will run into. it is not an easy thing to do. it is not an easy path for them to take, if you offer some to move to a place where they don't speak the language or know the people. i wish people would look at it in a more empathetic way. i know biden is trying to do that. i think it is different from trump actually implementing a

policy -- hopefully we will get this in better condition. it is not an easy thing to do. i think if they could come in the right way, i wanted to give that. host: harry in georgia, independent line. caller: hello. good morning. i would encourage people to study the history of what u.s. policy has been in the 20th century in these countries, guatemala, honduras, el salvador, nicaragua. during the regular administration, to save these countries from communism, we overthrew the government of guatemala, replaced the government there, we did it in nicaragua in the 1930's.

we supported right-wing governments in el salvador and honduras print and death squads that killed one third to one half of the indigenous population because we were so scared of communists in nicaragua who overthrew a dictatorship that we have supported for 40 years, that we installed in the first place. these governments were all devastated and they are having a hard time dealing with all of the repercussions of history. host: one of those stories that took place on friday, away from what was going on with the border, was vaccine development and distribution. the insider picks up the story on friday's white house press conference, talking about the idea of vaccine distribution and

development going back to the previous administration. [video clip] >> you spent a lot of time tallying the success of vaccines, but there was no mention of the president under whose administration these vaccines were developed. does former president trump not deserve any credit? >> the president himself and many people in the administration have conveyed that making the progress that was made -- we have sent this publicly -- on these vaccines was herculean, incredible effort by science and medical experts print certainly, we have applauded that in the past and we will applaud that again. there is a clear difference, and clear steps that have been taken since the president took office that have put us on a trajectory that we were not on when he was inaugurated. leadership starts at the top, it includes mast wearing,

acknowledging there is a pandemic. even more important than that, it is putting in place an operational process that can ensure we have enough vaccines to vaccinate america, enough vaccine locations. none of that was in place in the president took office. host: one of those stories standing out from friday's press conference. vernon from indiana, democrat line. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to bring up a point. immigrants come to the border, it has been about employment. i think on both sides of the aisle, we never want to address, how do we want to bring other people into our country to work and how we want to pay them and treat them. if you look at the political divide, we fall on different

sides of the line. it is not about people coming to the border, it is about how we want to treat them and the employment when they come to the border. host: that is vernon in indiana. let's go to dilbert in a texas, republican line. i'm sorry, i did not understand that. caller: how come they haven't said anything about that? host: let's go to janet in maryland. caller: i am for legal immigration -- my parents came 100 years ago through ellis island -- but that is not what is going on at the border. we need to take care of our own

first, we are in the middle of a pandemic. so many people are out of jobs and in need of food and with what happened in texas recently, and charities needing to help our own people. my parents said take care of your own first -- god, country, family. take care of this nation first and we can maybe send some money to those countries, but we have to take care of our own. we are in the middle of a pandemic and a crisis. i am for legal immigration, like my grandparents. host: that was the last call we will take. before we let you go, today is the first day impacted by daylight saving time, you might be interested in this thought from npr, some senators want to make that a permanent thing instead of a seasonal thing, adding americans do not agree if they like daylight saving time or standard time better. they mostly agreed that switching between them are

irritating. arizona and hawaii remain at standard time your run. other states want to move permanently to dst. the effort is supported by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including sacher ed markey of massachusetts. i hope you have a good day, even with one less hour of sleep. we thank you for watching our program today. another program comes your way tomorrow at 7:00 in the morning. see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ ♪ ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your

unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these companies, who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> tonight on q&a, an author and distinguished senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center talks about some of the people he profiles in his new book. >> scoop jackson, others in my portraits, a longtime member of congress, these were people who went into public life and public service to get things done. some of them were sparkling speakers, some of them were norwegians, like scoop jackson,

some of them were charmers, but they were all people who wanted to achieve things, not so much for themselves, but for their country, their constituents, the common good. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a as a podcast where you get your podcasts. >> over the next few hours, we will recap the action that led to the nearly $2 trillion coronavirus release package, starting with some of the house floor debate. after that, nancy pelosi and chuck schumer hold a ceremony outside the capitol following the bill's passage. and then president biden signs the bill into law and addresses the nation. we start off with the house debate. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: mr. speaker, as the