>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by these television companies, including comcast. >> i used to think this is just a community. it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering to enable students and low income families to be ready for anything. >> comcast is along with these other providers giving you a front row to democracy. >> coming up, brett samuels previews the week ahead at the white house. the committee for responsible budget talks about federal spending and the national debt.

and the associated -- association of estate -- of estate looks at vaccinations. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: faced with a rising number of migrants on the u.s.-mexico border, homeland security secretary ella hundred mayorkas -- alejandra mayorkas criticized the policies of the trump administration and reiterated that the border is closed except to some unaccompanied minors. good morning, it is monday, march 22nd, 2021. our opening question this morning, is there a crisis on

the u.s. mexican border? democrats, call (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. if you live in a southern state, (202) 748-8003. that's the same line you can send a text on as well, make sure to include your name and where you are texting from. on twitter, @cspanwj. and we will look for your posts on facebook. we will show you that appearances yesterday made by secretary mayorkas on the morning shows yesterday. he spent the morning addressing the border issue across the networks, the defense secretary, lloyd austin, was in afghanistan. the first member of the biden cabinet to travel to the country. "the new york times" wrote that

meeting the may 1 deadline would be tough for withdrawing troops. 3500 troops are stationed in afghanistan. host: the defense secretary was asked about that may 1 deadline. [video clip] >> i'm in the obsessive additions that have been met or not met. it's ongoing and as you can see with our efforts in doha, i don't care to comment on that, i won't comment on that, but i will say that it's obvious the level of violence remains high in the country. we like to see that come down and if it does come down, it

could begin to set the conditions for fruitful diplomatic work. host: secretary lloyd austin yesterday in afghanistan. one more related story here, this is from nbc news in washington. their story, iran threatens u.s. army post and top general, saying that iran has made threats against fort mcnair, an army post in the u.s. capitol and against their vice cheese of staff, communications intercepted in january show that the revolutionary guard discussed mounting a uss cole style attack against the post, referring to the

host: back to our opening question this morning, is there a crisis of the u.s. mexico border? the lines for democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. if you are a border state resident, that line is (202) 748-8003. let's hear first from shirley in new castle, pennsylvania. welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate it. this is worse than a crisis at the border. this is terrible what's going on here. and i'm telling you, what they need to do immediately is just

get the planes down there and load all these people up and take them back home. we don't need this in our country. what all are they bringing here? we are already fighting this terrible virus all over the country, trying to get our states opened up, our kids back in school, jobs opened up. that is what we are trying to do . they are bringing all this in we don't know what's coming in. it could be anything from the virus to malaria, this and that, all this other stuff, this is awful and something needs to be done immediately today. host: here's sec. mayorkas yesterday on "state of the union." [video clip] >> did you change the policy too quickly without having the infrastructure in place to take care of these children?

>> we will not abandoned our values -- abandon our values and principles and the needs of vulnerable children. that is what this is all about. we are executing on our plan. it does take time. it is difficult. the plan includes the deployment of the federal emergency management administration to build its capacity more rapidly to shelter the children. but it is taking time and it is difficult because the entire system was dismantled by the prior administration. there was a system in place torn down during the trump administration and that is why the challenge is more acute than it ever has been before. host: here's a report this morning from "usa today." thousands of migrant children trying to enter the u.s., renewing a fight in washington.

they said the president's administration faces a growing issue at the u.s. mexico border with an increasing number of migrant children being detained. the white house has maintained that children are being let host: let's hear from hazard, kentucky. we go to robert. republican line, good morning. caller: this is an excellent topic. me and my mom was discussing things yesterday and it was exactly what you just read to. about the children in their parents, when they actually get here having to go back there. i think they are doing a great

job right now. and i'm a republican. i hope mr. biden hears that. i think maybe a hotel, maybe not necessarily a hotel but a large building, built like a hotel. if you make a place for those people to stay when they come across, you know, mexico is our neighbor. the lady from pennsylvania has some good ideas, but she's got to be for all people. mr. biden is doing a great job in that's great. host: the administration has already deployed fema. what agencies can play a bigger role at the border? caller: the federal government -- federal government themselves, with democrats and

republicans working together for the people down there, they can show them that we are for them, not against them. we have a neighbors for a long time. god bless you. host: thank you. the line for democrats, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. all others, (202) 748-8002. if you live in a border state, (202) 748-8003, the same line that you can send us a text on. this is from "the new york times," "democrats confusion on immigration policy." "for most of the last few decades, the democratic party favored a mix of and fair -- enforcement, deportation of

"democratic support has not led to the bipartisan compromise it was supposed to be. republicans continue to block hills offering a pathway to citizenship. the surge appears to have surprised the biden administration. as doris meisner, who ran the immigration and naturalization service in the 1990's told me, republicans have pounced, accusing democrats of acute -- supporting an open border and some democrats are not happy. the biden policy incentivized droves of people and the only way to slow it down is changing the policy at the doorstep. in texas he told the post that another house democrat from texas was sending a terrible

message and that it all stems from the fact that the democratic party no longer has a clear policy on immigration." pine bluff, north carolina, albert, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. like that lady for said, we have got a lot of situations going on and haven't gotten a full handle on it yet. we just don't need people coming in that's not been subject to getting full vaccinations and stuff like that. something about the hotels, putting them up, paying for that, that's just more burden on the taxpayers. we are already getting it through gas prices and stuff. we need to get a handle on this stuff that apes going up. if you look at the stock market,

it's going crazy. it's going crazy. one time it's already, maybe one or two greens. host: albert, do you think that is caused by uncertainty on policy like this? on the border policy immigration more broadly? caller: well, i think that shutting down that pipeline, more fuel can come in on a pipeline then on a truck. i drove a truck for years. host: appreciate your call this morning. talking about the u.s. mexico border, it's not just the homeland security secretary. here's senator rob portman of ohio on "face the nation." [video clip] >> the message this morning is a clear do not come. will those words change what's happening? >> people will listen to actions, not words. i spoke to single individuals coming over at night, a number

of migrants, men who told me that they heard what president biden said because -- and they were coming anyways. i spoke to children and they heard that you can now come into the united states, which you can as a kid. they will keep coming. the problem here is that the biden administration on day one made about a half a dozen changes and have since then made several more encouraging more people to come to the border and they didn't put anything in place to deal with that, either another policy to discourage people from coming, which the president says he wants to do, or to put the preparations in place, including their shelters and holding facilities that have been so criticized. i saw some the other day. kids are in situations you would never want your kid to be in. it's irresponsible. i don't get to maine to encourage kids to make this treacherous journey north and live in these conditions. we need to change course. host: as we begin the week here,

we take a quick look at the busy week ahead and we are joined by brett samuels. let's start with the conversation we are having with our viewers this morning. yesterday, the administration made the rounds on the sunday shows. any word on whether the president will address this on thursday or in other ways? guest: i think the homeland security secretary being on the sunday shows sort of underscores the extent to which this is really an issue that the biden administration is having to address on a daily basis. coming up thursday at the president's first extended press conference, with reporters. in addition to that we will see if other officials traveling to

the border from the biden administration or from the podium addressing it, almost every day we will see questions come up about this. certainly it is the challenge of the moment that this administration is having to tackle not just on messaging but also on policy, figuring out the short term and the long term. host: one of their key messages here is that the efforts to get out and talk about the $1.9 trillion covid relief bill, the president has a trip scheduled tomorrow for columbus, ohio. tell us about that. guest: he will be in columbus tomorrow, following on the anniversary of the signing of the affordable care act. i would expect there to be a lot of emphasis on that commemoration as well as some of the health care provisions in the american rescue plan that are intended to lower health care costs. that will be a big talking point

tomorrow in the ohio trip specifically. this is sort of the latest effort from the rut -- the white house to sell the bill. in the public we have seen a really concerted effort to get out, especially to red states and purple states. the president and vice president were in georgia last week, the vice president will be in georgia today and in ohio tomorrow. i would expect that to not be his last stop selling this legislation to the american people. certainly tomorrow will be the focus of health care, but it's also just one thing that they are doing in a weeks long effort to really drill home why this law is important for the american people. host: the house and energy commerce committee is today taking a look at infrastructure. what's next in terms of what they are focusing on? is it a massive infrastructure plan? tax reform? guest: that's sort of, sort of

the big question everyone is waiting to see, how they will proceed once they are done with this publicity tour about the american rescue plan. infrastructure is sort of the conventional wisdom at this point that we expect the administration to pursue. for years we have seen lawmakers on both sides of the aisle talk about the bipartisan interests and you have to get through the hurdles of how to pay for it and it seems to be no different this time around. i think that infrastructure is a popular one because it's going to be hard to get support for their agenda on items like immigration, gun-control, or voting rights even. infrastructure is a good bet and then it becomes about can democrats get republican votes to make the package work? or are they going to have to look at reconciliation to encrypt -- include tax increases or pass this on a partyline

vote? that will be the underlying question that guides where the administration goes next. host: the senate is set to approve marty walsh to be labor secretary. you are writing in the hill.com, the headline of your piece today, biden hampered by lack of confirmations. how has this evidenced itself? guest: the pace of the presidents cabinet confirmations has been slower than his predecessor. not only is he 60 days in without a full cabinet and we are still waiting for the labor secretary, just last week he finally got his health and human secretary confirmed, overseeing not only the pandemic response, but also certain aspects of this migrant issue at the border. so, not only in that respect, but then there is a sort of trickle-down effect where if the

president doesn't have his full cabinet confirmed or it's taking weeks on end to finish, the president also isn't getting other agency heads confirmed. the president hasn't even nominated agency heads to the senate for ice or customs and border patrol. you know, these agencies would really play a key role in what's happening in the border in particular. i think the senate will see them move a little quicker now. they have the impeachment trial, the legislation out of the way, certainly that is something to watch, how quickly the president puts forward these nominees and how quickly they can confirm them to get them in place. host: it's the two month mark for the administration having their first news conference. you alluded to it earlier, it's thursday. do you know anything about the format, the length, what pushed

the administration to come to the decision to have a news conference? guest: there was certainly a lot of pressure to put the president out there and have him engage in one of these lengthy q&a's. he already sat down last week with george stephanopoulos and abc news and the white house will say that president biden engages in these briefer q&a's but unlike his predecessor, you know, if you are asking him a question in an oval office spray, his answers are usually one line or very brief, whereas former president trump would hold court for 10 or 15 minutes at a time. so, there is pressure to get the sort of extended press conference where the american people can hear his views on issues of the day. we will see how long it ends up

being. there is an effort from the white house to have it in a larger setting where more reporters can be accommodated despite the pandemic, where people can space out. we will see how it goes, but it will be interesting to see that first big press conference. host: our viewers and listeners can read your reporting on it, brett samuels, at the hill.com. guest: thanks for having me. host: back to your calls and comments on the u.s.. is it a crisis? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. for all others, (202) 748-8002. a couple of comments from twitter. it will never be fixed until we work with the countries to our south to fix their economies.

this one says the only fixed of the invasion is not a cogent enforceable statute that the nativist brutality of other human beings. the border situation is not a crisis, it's a 40-year-old problem that needs to be fixed. michael says that it's an opportunity to render aid and assistance to do good for others . what else are we here for? andy and texas says the only people who don't think there is a crisis don't live here. why is there a media blackout? and you imagine having a media blackout from trump on the border? we will get to comments from the homeland security secretary on that in a minute. raphael, montgomery village, maryland, democrats line. >> high good morning. i'm a democrat who lives on the border. i've always voted democrat.

i find it telling, the fact that it's a humanitarian crisis and will hurt them politically. we all know that these issues have existed for a very long time. democrats and republicans need to put their heads together to fix this. i don't think republicans have any leverage or moral backing at all to try and ding biden for this. the crisis has been there and all the happenings of the administration push that. you hold all these people back. it's absolutely going to overflow at some point. that's what it is. both parties have to come together and find a solution for this. with no one to take advantage. that's not right either. at the same time we cannot look at these people and treat them like animals and pass them through a boat or a plane and send them back to where they are. they are going to come back. that's my two cents.

thank you. host: landon, richmond, virginia. guest: it is somewhat of a crisis, but in a few years the governments of south america, they will start complaining to us because we have their children. no country can afford to lose their children. that's what's going on on the border. the young people are leaving and when young people leave, the old people can't take care of them. the border is a beautiful place. i have friends there. mexico won't even let you own the land on the border because of -- well, i'm not a speculator on the reason why mexico will sell the land and won't give you

the title to the land there, but it's all about the children. those children are very important. if the children there will grow up, 10 or 15 years you have grown people that will get the american way about them. look at it, the politicians in mexico and all them south american countries will start complaining about america. america is trying to take over our country. it's a good thing, let the children be educated and live good. this whole north american continent, south america, will be americanized. that's the way i look at it. host: all right, landon. patty, north connecticut. independent line. caller: this is a catastrophe.

and it all has to do with biden trying to make trump look bad. taking apart everything he did. when president eisenhower was in office, when they came over the border they called it operation wetback. they had planes there that pick them up and took them down to the southern tip of mexico so they had a long walk to come back. biden asked for this. he told them come on in. he also said free health care and you are going to get money from our stimulus. they are all going to get that now. this is beyond repair now. the man from homeland security with a smirk on his face has no clue. host: the homeland security secretary on fox, "biden giving media zero access to border

operations at." here's with the said. [video clip] >> we are working on providing access so that individuals will be able to see what the conditions in a border patrol station are like, but first thing is first, we are in the midst of a pandemic and we are focusing on operations and executing our plans, that's our highest priority. we are working on providing that access and certainly reporters can see the department of health and human services facilities in which children are sheltered for a longer period of time. host: asking you this morning is there a crisis on the u.s.-mexico border. on facebook dave says this administration cannot blame the last administration. comprehensive immigration reform must be addressed now before infrastructure. children fleeing violence, poverty's, cartels with machine guns controlling water, trying to figure out how fleeing

children are dangerous individuals. we must now control who enters to properly keep them safe and allow them avenues to be refugees or send them home. charles in pennsylvania, there is a crisis however march 19 was even worth -- worse. where was the uproar then? congress passing very little legislation but nickering about these divisive issues. gary is next in sterling, virginia. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i worked in 10 different restaurants as a handyman from 2004 to 1997. bush came out with a guest worker program in 2005. everybody was watching it in black-and-white in the back. i asked this one guy, [speaking

spanish] and he said i will get back to you next week, why do you want to know? i said you are the ones that have, [speaking spanish], i've got papers. first thing he said next week was help with birth control. i hear all these people against immigration are a grandest birth control, like everybody down there january 6 was against birth control. what kind of hypocrisy is that? people don't understand why you go to your mother for breakfast, she gives you four or five grains of corn and she says make a chicken lay in a. -- an egg. host: we will go to jamaal,

next, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think it's a complete disaster and what i really don't understand is how other minorities like african-americans don't really understand how this affects their jobs. the lower jobs are going to go to these immigrants. if this were the middle east, america would drop bombs. and i just don't understand why they can't go down there and handle the drug cartels and to make the country better for them host: guest: the u.s. military presence -- military presence? guest: absolutely. we go to the middle east and steal the oil and everything that belongs to them and we will drop bombs on them but we won't go to the southern countries to

deal with the drug cartels? i believe that the military needs to go down there to deal with the drug cartels. these countries have a lot of resources. we are talking about vegetables and oil, talking about tourism. these countries in the south america have a lot to offer and the u.s. government needs to go down there and send the military down there to deal with the drug cartel and that is where i stand. host: this is the homeland security secretary -- homeland 's appearance on cnn. in that piece they report that as of saturday, more than 600 children who had been in custody for more than 10 days, according to documents, federal law requires them to be turned over within 72 hours to hhs, which

oversees a shelter network design to house minors, but within constraints related to the pandemic they are staying in custody longer and on average children are staying in border patrol custom me in jail like facilities for more than five days and on that it's a tweet here from staff who covers immigration for axios, tweeting this morning exclusive photos from inside a facility taken over the weekend in texas revealing that the crowded makeshift conditions at the border and the government longer-term child shelters and family detention centers fill up. a response from the administration, the acting secretary, acting deputy secretary a public affairs for homeland security follows up to say that it's important to note that the donna texas facility is the best one on the subtle -- southern border and that the overcrowding is a result of the lack of capacity to move

children to more appropriate longer-term settings. want to remind you that we do have a line for those of you living on the border states. (202) 748-8003. kevin, calling from windsor, connecticut. good morning. caller: this is a crisis. all the kids coming up now, knowing that they could come across the border, this is going to be a flood. this is a world problem. these are refugees end of the kids,, you might not hear it no more if they go to other countries. keeping all these people, already these guys shut the wall up. i never thought we should say that, but i think we need a wall now. host: las vegas is next, republican line. hello to robert. caller: i think it is a crisis,

getting back on topic, is it a crisis? yes, it is. i'm a man of the people and for the people and i think joe biden is trying to do a good job and it was a knee-jerk reaction to just disassemble all of trump's policies. some of them were good, some of them were bad. there are big problems out there and i feel sorry for the people coming uproar -- coming across and i feel sorry for the border patrol. we have to worry about the covid coming up. all the vaccines, that's great and wonderful. but i hope they do get this straightened out. they will have to pay a lot more attention to what's going on down there. it's not an easy problem. it's a multifaceted problem that won't be easy to solve. they will have to get it together to work on this. speeded up and it does concern

me a lot. i will hang up and let some other people talk here. thanks a lot and i appreciate your show. thanks so much. host: here's kenneth in marianna, arkansas. caller: i have two main points and this is for president biden and the vice president, kamala harris. there are two main points i want to share with the american people. when the civil war ended, what they did was they brought in all of these leaders and dealt with them first and until you deal with these leaders who started the insurrection you will never stop this. the second point about these kids at the border, what they have to do is get these kids because more than likely republicans have something to do with this. when you stop to fence all of a sudden you have these people come here? how do these kids come 800 miles without money or food? these republicans will do anything.

i believe with all my heart that they had something to do, once the fence popped, all of a sudden you see these people coming into the united states. they want to steal the election but they couldn't so the next thing they want to do is start a crisis on the border to make kamala harris and vice president -- kamala harris and president biden look bad. they need to look into how these kids got here. if you bring those kids and leave them here, what are they going to do in 15 or 16 years? try to give them citizenship? the american people won't stand for it. if they don't deal with this, it's a one term president. they have to try to take the kids back where they came from and have some supervision. when they take them to the bottom of the border, have someone go with them and find out who those people are in those countries and take them back right now because if you don't, you will be a one term president. enke. host: on the -- thank you.

host: another headline on vaccines, astrazeneca, effective for all ages according to u.s. cdc. "advanced trial data shows it 79% effective and although it has been authorized in 50 countries, it has not been given the green light in the u.s., comprising 30,000 host: as in the past with fda advisory meetings, we have carried all the previous ones. no word yet on when that will be but you can look for coverage here on the c-span networks.

on the astrazeneca vaccine it makes the front page of "the washington post" because of the vaccines and it is being used in 50 other countries. vaccine falls off a wave of hype, "astrazeneca's coronavirus vaccine was supposed to be the shot that dug the world out of the pandemic, cheap, easy to administer, helping citizens and wealthy nations and those in the most vulnerable countries but instead the inoculations between researchers and drug companies have been plagued with missteps as other vaccine rollout skein speed. first there was the confusing basic science, then missed delivery targets. now confidence sapping from europe following reports of rare blood clots and if the steaks hadn't been so high, the saga of astrazeneca might have felt like a soap opera, soaring moments of scientific brilliance undercut by mistakes.

they were bold and appeared arrogant to many scientists on both sides of the atlantic. still waiting the go-ahead from the fda here in the u.s. back to our question on the u.s.-mexico border, is there a quiet -- a crisis there and what's to be done about it? comments from social media first and then your calls. russ in california says that the only politician to recognize the border problems are republicans. the rest have no clue. diane says there is a problem with too many children. we can't just turn away children. the humane and honorable thing to do is to take care of the children. that's what they are trying to do. and then crest said there's a crisis if you are afraid of newcomers. we hear from janice in san diego. go ahead, janice. caller: i live less than 15 minutes from the border,

driving. basically, people want to say that the republicans are doing this to make the democrats look bad. are you kidding me? biden's own words opened up this floodgate of ridiculousity. it's insanity how they now seem to have all these children in the same boxes with bars on the windows and cages that that they accuse the trump administration of doing. when trump was in office we had control over the border. this is strictly a democrats open border policy and if ayden really didn't want the immigration problem to be as bad as it is or for them not to come , why are they not passing bills to do something about it? the policies don't match what's now coming out of their mouth. don't come to the border, wink,

wink. we won't do anything to stop you from coming and we won't do anything when you get here. it's ridiculous. and they want to put the handcuffs on border patrol and ice agents? that's a contradiction. i've been in my home for 26 years and when i bought my house i was one of the only people to move into this brand-new subdivision. in chula vista. i woke up one morning to 25 illegal aliens standing in my driveway. damme near gave my mother a heart attack. by the grace of god they were literally just poor immigrants looking for a better life but what is coming across the border today is hella scary. they are not just looking for a better life. they are drug dealers, mn 13, opportunists. these people are scary. coyotes, you name it. they are coming across that border.

host: kenneth, democratic line. caller: this is been going on for four years, ok? biden has been in office for three months. all them kids there, this and that, we can do a whole lot. the only thing they got to do is get those military bases, close them down. take them people to a military base, retrain them, give them jobs, you know. they can be welcomed into the united states, the immigrants. you know what i'm saying, all they have to do is retrain them. doctors, nurses, don't discard them, they will be right there on that military base. all these people come all these

houses that hold these people, you know? why are you not doing that? and then they cut back on all this stuff. they do it to prop up the border. all of these military bases have houses, they have everything. why are they not that? they are just shutting it down. host: john cornyn tweeting this morning about henry cuellar, retreating those comments, saying that the administration was sending a terrible message, john cornyn saying that it stems from the fact that the democratic party no longer has a clear policy on immigration. comments reflected in the statements of michael mccaul yesterday on "this week." [video clip] >> he says he has a plan, i

haven't seen a plan. they talk about humanitarian conditions? they have created a crisis at the border and the reason that they are coming is because words matter and the messaging is that if you want to come, you can stay. when he says don't come at all, don't come -- just don't come now, it's irresponsible for homeland security secretary to do that. he won't call it a crisis, but it's the greatest we have had in 20 years. federal prosecutions spiking from last year, it's a direct cause and effect on the messaging, but then to do away, politics aside, to do away with what was one of the most successful negotiated agreements with mexico and central america to remain there and apply for political asylum, now they have created this crisis of children coming in.

the traffickers are smart. cartels are smart. they know our laws, or policies. this started after the election and in the last few months we have seen a real surge. host:4 the headline -- host: the headline this morning, biden on his heels, migrant surge at the mexico border. this, this morning, i don't live in a border state but i feel for the people that do. the mexican government seems to be silent and the border issue is not something new. this message, the media portraying the border like it's a scene from the movie "world war z." jim, republican line, good morning. caller: a couple of observations . i'm here and i'm steeped in this

stuff. i would like to see you or your callers move here and send you their kids to these school systems. this town has some of the highest covid rates, 10,000 in brentwood. 5000 in all the other towns. in this long island area, they don't come close to that. don't hang up. you guys love to hang up. this is the only ethnic group that has come here that gets, that gets you, that gets their language. you push through four spanish. no other ethnic groups that came here, none. they all simulated. -- they all assimilated. i'm flooded with spanish stations over here. the environment is another problem. the houses they live in.

they've got 10 cars on the lawn. do you want to live like that, these single-family houses? i've got to call the police all the time and i wonder what the environmental impact is. i don't know where the garbage is going. host: atlanta is next. alan, hello there. caller: this is a topic close to my heart. first, let me point out that the border wall is useless for a couple of reasons. on my blog i wrote an article sometime ago and had pictures of the el paso border patrol officers where they had piles and piles of ladders in their storage area. storing it on the mexican side of the border. recently there was a major car

accident where 20 people died in an suv because they were apparently illegal immigrants. a huge hole was cut in the wall and they drove an suv through it, the wall is useless. but the reasons that children are being sent to the united states is for a reason that no one has ever mentioned, the children will learn american english really fast. children naturally pick up language and pick up the accent very quickly. i speak spanish, my spanish is not good and i will always have -- have an accent and even though i have lived in this country for many decades, it's easy to detect i wasn't brought up in the united states. the solution to the children problem is the color before mentioned is to send the children to an army based, probably in new mexico, where

only spanish is spoken. therefore they will never pick up american english so when they come back, they sneak back in and will not be assimilated. the actual solution to that other problem is the reason the people come to the united states, they make a lot more money. the solution to that is a national id card. where there is a qr code on the card with photographs and it's authenticated. want a job, show the card to any employer and they verify the person is eligible for work. if you can't work here, you won't come. it's just about the money. nothing else. i have a friend in mexico whose daughter is a cardiac surgeon. she makes $20,000 per year.

$28,000. here she would make $200,000 or more. host: and she's mexican, was born in mexico? guest: yeah, she's mexican. very clever, very talented at what she does. she's a cardiac surgeon for children. host: a tweet here from barbara who says what may be one of the causes for people coming, she says it's a crisis of our own making and that since the boom years of the 1980's employers have welcome, encouraged, recruited undocumented workers and would happily look the other way as long as both parties benefit. she says she lives on the border. capitol hill news and from the election front, this is from the hill, tom reed apologizes for sexual misconduct claims, won't run for elected office in 2022 and in a statement in which he apologized to a former lobbyist

who accused him of sexual misconduct years ago, his statement comes after a former lobbyist now army second lieutenant published a story friday that he had sexually harassed her four years ago and he apologized by saying that even though he is only hearing the matter as stated by her in the article now, he hears her voice and won't dismiss her and that his personal depiction of the event is not irrelevant and that simply put his behavior caused her pain, show disrespect and was unprofessional. here is steven sheraton, illinois. good morning, steve on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: i think we should take a look at the drug war. when we talk about the sackler's killing tens of thousands of americans, we talk about el

chapo being put in prison for drugs, a big part of the crime and the whole industry, it's probably a trillion dollars in illegal drugs that americans use. that fuels the crime and destroys their countries. we who do the drugs in this country should be allowed to do our drugs. like people have guns. you get your gun, you go shoot your neighbor. i get my drugs and i stay at home and i do my drugs. i think we should address the drug war, thank you. host: hearing from rick this morning, good morning. caller: that car accident referred to the earlier caller, the hole in the wall was not finished. america lets in more illegal immigrants than any other country in the world.

we are not anti-immigrant. the thing that most people don't talk about is the fact that we are enabling human trafficking. that's what this is all about. these people are wearing bands given by the cartels for how much money they pay like an amusement park. it's totally organized and we are enabling this. we've got to stop this human crisis. everyone is talking this angle, that angle. the cartels up the agents over here, bring the fentanyl over there and have this organized to a t and i think we are full of sh and he's got, mr. biden has got his eyes and ears closed and he needs to take care of his country, first. host: all options open, they write "democrats have belatedly begun to discuss concerns. sheila jackson lee of texas told msnbc that the biden plan to

handle the surge of children does not look like it's working. tammy duckworth, the senator from illinois, was on "face the nation." here's what she said. [video clip] >> let's make it clear, this is a result of the inhumane policies and a systematic dismantling of the asylum system by donald trump. we saw what he can do in terms of damage in a single day on terms of january 6 and he has had for years to basically under not -- undermine the nation's immigration system. >> but they are coming now. blacks as a result of him dismantling the asylum system and the pathways for seeking asylum that used to exist. i know that president biden is going to be committed to repairing the system that donald trump broke to make it not only work better, but to make it humane so that the it's and

other migrants can apply for asylum in their home countries without coming here. he can stop the aid to the northern triangle countries, he did everything he could to dismantle that system that led to the crisis we are in now. host: politico magazine this week, biden bringing back family separation, this time in mexico. across the board of the situation different, thousands of undocumented minors showing up and creating something of a political firestorm as the biden administration scrambles to house the children in some of the same overflow facilities made infamous in the previous administration. there was a similarly large arrival of unaccompanied minors in 2014 and 2015, but unlike then when they all made the journey on their own from central america, today many are splitting from their families right here in the squalid shelters and camps of northern mexico."

we will revisit this later in the program if you don't it in in this segment we will hear from barry in williamsburg, virginia, democratic line, go ahead. >> good morning. i can't see why republicans, they didn't complain for four years under trump. and now they are going to start complaining about this? what gets me is the way that we manipulated south america for all of these years for the benefit of the big oil corporations and other corporations. we never allowed south america to ever become a vibrant nation because we keep slapping sanctions on everything and breaking the country and tearing them up and keeping them small and poor. so, eventually that's what we've got to do. look at europe. there's a lot of rich countries all around that one area. here all we have got is canada,

mexico, and us. something has to be done to keep the people in their own countries. host: linda, good morning. caller: i think that where the fences aren't built, they ought to build big things, the kids who are thrown away from their parents, they can be adopted either on this side or on the mexican side. thank you. that was my idea. host: in a related story from "the wall street journal," high courts have farmworkers organizing the cases where one of the proudest achievements of cesar chavez faces scrutiny at the supreme court where the growers are challenging the rights that union organizers hold under california law to make their case to farmworkers in the fields.

that access has been part of california law since 1975 when state legislation declared its intention to ensure peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all agricultural workers granting collective bargaining rights to farmworkers. that was a change that mr. chavez and his farm working union had sought and the supreme court upheld the access regulation over a grower challenge and in 1976 the supreme court declined to hear the appeal and california growers are now arguing that the regulation that allows organizers to meet with workers during lunch hour for one hour before the shift is a relic of the predigital era and unions can nowadays organized through other means like social media, text messages, and off-site encounters. here is mike in laguna woods, california. caller: good morning. the so-called war on drugs is a

foolish replay of the war on alcohol. alcohol prohibition, causing all the same social problems. crime, this is what propels it in mexico, innocent people being driven out by those involved in the drug trade. want to solve the problem? solve it the same way we solved it from alcohol prohibition. stop trying to protect boneheads from themselves, legalize drugs for adults and focus law-enforcement on protecting children. thank you. host: thank you, mike. more coming up next on " washington journal," when we will be joined by maia mcginnis, who will be talking about the tracking of federal spending. particularly this time around the tracking of covid spending. later on we have the chief medical officer for state and territorial health officials and

we will talk about vaccinating citizens, disparities, and citizen reception and hesitancy over vaccines. >> tonight on the communicators, california democratic congressman jerry talks about legislation on data privacy and social media regulations. >> the american people feel like their privacy has been invaded and they are not wrong about that. not just the big tech companies but a lot of people have access to your data. that means they know what sort of activities you do when you are not working. where you might frequent, what sort of things you might buy at the stores. that is a lot a very private information that should not be in the hands of whoever wants to buy it. i think that is the reason we need to look at privacy. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span2. >> visit c-span's new online store at c-span shop.org to check out the new c-span products. we are taking preorders for the congressional directory. every c-span shop purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. shop today at c-span shop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by maya macguineas, president of the committee for responsible federal budget, here to talk about federal spending in particular on covert relief. welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you. host: let's talk about the tracking that your group is doing and a couple of charts, the broader look at the deficit and debt in the united states. the first chart says the u.s. deficit will eclipse last year's

. a look at the deficit of 2020 and the deficit ahead in 2021. the other chart is about the federal debt. that says the federal debt will set a new record this year. is all of this being driven by the spending and the recently passed $1.9 trillion measure? guest: the speed at the rate in which we will get to those milestones has come from the huge economic told the pandemic has cost us for recovery measures. borrowing was the right thing to do. one of the main reasons you want a strong and healthy physical balance sheet as a nation is so that when emergencies come, you can borrow without worrying about it. luckily for the u.s., we are in a position of economic strength because people by our debt. we are able to borrow a good deal of money and we did for

this emergency. that is what we should have done. the risks are that it is not -- we borrowed $6 trillion now. i know chileans -- trillions of dollars is meaningless. none of us can get a grasp. that is a lot. this is a huge amount of borrowing that increased the deficit this year which will be unprecedented. the underlying problems are the ones that have been driving this for the long-term and continue to be the most troubling. the fact that we have structural imbalances in our overall spending, these things are driven by growing health care costs. the aging of the population, tax cuts, which continue to mean the revenues do not cover the spending levels we have. there is a difference between good debt and bad debt, when you

should and should not borrow. for the past year, we should have borrowed. we are moving into the time where it is time to stop borrowing assuming things will get better and it looks like it may, and start to worry about the deficit numbers which pose a lot of risk to us as a country. host: you mentioned the concept of a healthy balance sheet. what is the road back in the u.s. to a healthy balance sheet? guest: that is the hard thing. when you talk about fiscal response building, a lot of people nod their heads and it does not sound good for us to have huge deficits and unprecedented debt levels. it is the ways that we will fix this that are hard on the policy front. when politicians tend to be so polarized and work together on very few things, particularly hard things, it is much more difficult to do. the reality of what we have to do is we have four government trust funds that will be

insolvent within just over a decade. social security, medicare, highway and trust funds. -- highway. how are we going to get our spending and taxes to be aligned? there is a host of policies that we should be talking about. we should be thinking about whether we raise the retirement age. we should be talking about if we should meet test benefits so that people who don't depend on programs don't get as much from those programs. we should talk about putting more revenue into these programs, whether it is from payroll taxes or other sources. we should talk about apartment tax, which would help deal with the climate challenge is to create revenues. we should get rid of so many of the tax breaks in the tax

system. most important, we should think about how we control the cost of health care, whether it is prescription drugs or health spending overall. i could go over a long list of them. it is difficult for politicians because nobody likes them. don't raise taxes, these things are not popular but they are a reality. they are the only way we will have a budget that doesn't continue to borrow. the borrowing leaves us vulnerable on so many fronts. that is not a path we want to stay on. host: maya macguineas is with us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. there is more spending coming down the pike, infrastructure. let's talk about that for a second. you mentioned the highway trust fund. do you think something like -- it is something like an infrastructure package that

congress has to address how to modernized the high weight -- modernize the highway trust fund? guest: we are moving from one crisis to another when it comes to the federal budget. with the federal budget, the saddest part of all of this is most of the time we don't have a federal budget in place. april 15, we would expect the senate budget committees to submit their budget. it is highly unlikely we will see that. in my mind, that is the greatest lack of response ability -- response ability -- responsib ility. the way that we budget is these trust funds are about to run out of money and we cobble together a plan instead of how -- figuring how to structurally make them sound. we should stick to those limits. the infrastructure will be much

larger than dealing with the highway. the trust fund will have a lot of things in it. i am sure there will be many calls for borrowing. you will hear we should do this, it is so important, which i completely agree. borrowing more to make those investments, even when interest rates are low, still adds to the huge debt level we have. already at near record levels and it continues to make us more vulnerable to changes in the economy or overseas. we should make some adjustments in infrastructure and other areas in the economy and think about how to pay for them. people talk about we need to make these investments. i agree with that. they borrowed trillions of dollars to pay for them and leave that to the next generation, which is not the same as the plan to leave the economy stronger from one generation to the next that we

should be aspiring to. host: you have reiterated this morning and in conversations previously, you have expressed your support for that being a time to borrow in terms of covert spending. what about the american rescue plan, $1.9 trillion? guest: this is unprecedented. we thought we would have a recession soon. let's think about what you want to put in place. despite all of that planning, this was a recession where you close down the economy in order to keep people safe. that is a different recession than a financial markets shop -- market drop. hopefully that means we open up the economy once it is safe and there will be a strong recovery. but, it made absolute sense to borrow. the first of many bills were

about $4 trillion and supported all of that. i was pleased to see the bipartisan cooperation. it is easy for politicians to do easy things. that is an obvious thing to say. it is easy for them to do that. they can do that on a party line basis, tax cuts, spending increases. when you are talking about hard things, you need the political cover of doing it together. bipartisanship is critical when it comes to response ability -- responsibility. it gets them working together more than we have seen in recent years. the most recent bill, we were mixed on. there were a number of things that needed to happen, particularly unemployment insurance, which was going to expire. which, other than actual health care issues, that is the most important thing you can invest in and spend money on in a crisis like this.

there were additional vexing distribution needs. all of those belong in the bill. beyond that, i have to say, it was really unfortunate that this bill was much larger and much more poorly targeted than it could and should have been. we probably ended up borrowing $1 trillion more than we needed to. we are hearing trillions thrown around and are becoming numb to that. that is a huge deal and the resources need to be spent thoughtfully and in the right way. by putting a lot of money into places in the economy that did not need it, sending into people who had done better during the year of covert rather than targeting people who are suffering, -- covid, rather than people who are suffering, that is the kind of loading up bills that wastes resources. it is important not to do it when we are as indebted as we are. it makes it feel like it is more political than economic in

nature. this last bill was a big disappointment in how it did not target those resources in a way that we should. the pandemic was starting to look better. the economy was starting to look better. we know there is another reconciliation bill available. if we need to do more, we will be able to. this bill should have been targeted to the direct needs at the moment. host: there is a covid money tracker at covid money tracker.org. the numbers so far, administrative actions, $.7 trillion. federal reserve actions, almost $6 trillion. is this money allocated or actually spent? guest: this is money that has been approved. money that is out the door is closer to half of that. what we have right now in the pipeline is a tremendous amount of money available to go into the economy.

that is another reason that we probably, at this point, are borrowing unforeseen circumstances on the pandemic front or the economy front, where we have too much money that will be washing around in the economy. that is why there are concerns about inflation out there. we have certainly aired on the sign of -- side of more than we needed and not less than we needed. there were concerns about passing such a big bill when there is $1 trillion that has not been spent from the previous bill. we had just passed a $900 billion bill. the ink was barely dry when we were putting together this large package. there is a lot more money that will be paid out in the coming months. in some cases, years. in some cases, there is more money than the entities will be able to spend during this emergency. host: one more question before we get to calls. on taxes, we talked about this on the program yesterday, there is indication the administration

is looking to raise the corporate taxes from 21% to 20%. is this the time -- 28%. is this the time to raise taxes to address revenue concerns? guest: the economy is still fragile. you don't want to shut your deficit until the economy is stronger. it is the time to start thinking about it and talking about it and planning for it. because we are going to have to raise taxes and cut spending. i know nobody wants to do those things but we are going to have to do them. it is important to start the discussion of if we are going to be fiscally realistic and responsible, which one should they do? the administration has been clear they want to raise taxes on corporations making more than 400,000 dollars per year. there are options of things you can do in that space. there is a lot of other ways to raise revenues or reduce

spending. those still support -- who still support the minister asian plan should put out other ideas. one of the problems is people respond to ideas of ways to reduce the deficit i saying we should do nothing, which sound -- by saying we should do nothing, which sounds much easier. it is important all policy makers thinking -- think about closing the fiscal gap. which changes do they support? i think there are some good options to discuss, certainly. i would put out that the corporate income tax rate, which is tax reforms turning to tax cuts was brought down much lower than anybody anticipated. there is room to increase the rate without harming the competitiveness, which is why we had concerns about such a high rate before. there is money to be raised in

this area. i want to be really clear, it is not enough to address the fiscal challenges we have. we will not be able to do this solely by increasing taxes on the rich and corporations. so, in addition to being willing to talk about these choices, we have to be realistic about how much it will involve. it will involve some of everything. everything will have to be on the table and we will have to make changes in all areas of the budget in order to put it back on a sustainable path where the debt is no longer growing to unprecedented levels. it is a time to start thinking about it. you can pass it along and put it in place. the actual reductions in spending or increase in revenues should not hit the economy until the economy is stronger, with the exception that some of these kinds of tax increases, they affect only the very well off. don't think it would do any damage to the economy. host: my mcginnis is with us. -- maya macguineas is with us.

let's go to illinois. michael on the independent line. caller: a couple of shorts comments and then my question for my mcginnis -- maya macguineas. cutting social security goes against the reason why it was created, to lift the elderly out of poverty. that is a nonstarter. secondly, i want to -- the guest -- maybe it will be two questions. i want her to explain to me of this trickle-down theory, with these tax cuts to the wealthy, is benefiting me. because my life has been destroyed by these tax cuts. the other question is this. i want to know why we don't have a net worth tax in this country.

because our politicians, the whole political class is bought off by these 1%ers. they are all on their payroll and looking for donations and they protect them. and i disagree with the debt. we can get out of this by taxing the wealthy. clawing back 35 years of tax rates. host: we will respond. guest: so many good questions. i hope i get to all of them, accurately. for social security, i am sure my father turned on c-span this morning and he is making the same point and yelling at the television. this is the most common color we get on c-span when i am talking about this which is get your hands off my social security. there are a couple of clarifying points. because people are living longer, they are tending to get much more out of the system than they paid in. remember when social security

began, the retirement age was 65. life expectancy was 62. that has shifted dramatically as people are living into their 70's, 80's and 90's regularly. we have not adjusted nearly enough to compensate or adjust for that. structurally, there are huge imbalances for people. many are getting much more than they paid from the system -- than they paid. we have to make these adjustments so that we don't have a system where it does not have enough money in the trust fund to pay the benefits. that is the track we are on. if that happens, we will have an automatic, abrupt, 20 to 25% benefit cut. that will be for the millionaires who don't need the benefits. that will be for the widow depending on 100 percent of her social security income. the delays we have had for decades in not fixing this

program art leaving people vulnerable. we should be able to acknowledge what the trustees tell us is that this is heading toward the trust funds not having enough money. where there is plenty room for disagreement is how are we going to do that? i think a little bit of everything. raise the tax gap and retirement age. fix the way we calculate inflation and lower benefits for people who don't need them or increase them slightly for people who depend on programs. that is my approach. someone else could want to do it without spending cuts. what we cannot do is continue to delay. a quick point on social security, many people come -- for many years, people paid taxes that come in trust funds. the same people paying payroll taxes had much lower income taxes. it is complicated and accounting. but, it is not only necessary

that we adjust the situation and social security. i think it is the right thing to do in terms of the budget. that said, no politician has any interest in adjusting benefits for people who are retired and collecting social security. people getting benefits right now, i cannot imagine a scenario other than if we do nothing, where there benefits will be reduced by politicians. if we do nothing, they will be reduced. host: let me tie in a comment about taxes on the front that michael had. michael in cleveland asks this. is there a correlation between reagan-bush two and trump tax cuts and financial shortfalls? if so, what? guest: that is great because a previous caller asked. tax cuts, we have had a number of them in the past years and they were highly irresponsible.

the most irresponsible tax cut i can point to is that we 17 tax cut -- is the 2017 tax cut where we did need to have tax reform. we sure did not need to have a tax rate that was brought down to 21%. 28% much when he 6%, that leaves us -- 28%, 26%, that leaves us still competitive. 1996 was a good model for tax reform. we lowered the rates but we broadened the base. that means we got rid of so many of those tax cuts. the tax breaks, excuse me, credits, exclusions. we have upwards of 1.8 trillion dollars per year right now in tax breaks. we should be looking there to help raise revenues. so many of those are missed targeted, going to people who

will be doing this anyhow and actually run up the cost of the thing that you are trying to help subsidize and helps people who need them the least. we oppose borrowing when it is for political expediency and not for a good reason. those tax cuts were one of the most irresponsible policies passed in recent memory. they were not paid for, not paying for them made it worse for the economy. no one was willing to support the hard choices of offsetting the costs. you could have cut spending by the equivalent amount. you could have broadened the base. it was a really unfortunate choice. not only for the fiscal situation, it points to the political environment. i will say, after those tax cuts, congress turned around and

on a bipartisan basis, past over $2 trillion in -- passed over $2 trillion in spending increases. it did not get as much attention. the economy was on a sugar high. there was no justification for all of the borrowing that we saw in the three to four years running up to when covid hit the economy. host: let's go to dave in maryland, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think getting with congress, the thing to remember is that congress, the senate, they have one thing on the brain. one thing and one thing only. that is do whatever they need to do to get reelected. period. nothing more, nothing less. it is that simple. that being said, when you are talking about the topics at hand

, debt, deficit spending, social security, what is not happening when the scholars call in and say don't touch my social security, what is not being discussed is all of the other benefits that are hidden within social security. that people don't talk much about, that have mushroomed and grown incredibly. specifically disabilities. it is not that hard to get yourself onto a disability plan, still collect disability benefits and remain in the workforce. the other topic is the welfare program. and, you know, saying you want to focus on all of these things. i want to do this, i want to do that, instead, if we just simply focused on the programs that are

preventing people from entering the workforce, the workforce, if it grows, it solves a lot of revenue problems. for me, cutting spending, increasing taxes, i would much rather see the economy focus on the people who are not in the economy and why they are not in the economy. what social benefits are preventing them from working? host: thanks. we will get a response. guest: a lot great points. i will say that the economy, minus the recession we have had, even minus the damaging implications of having huge debt, is not on a great path. it is because of demographics. many more people are retiring. because we did not reform our big programs to support the elderly, we did not prepare for this moment. we know we are having huge amounts of people leaving the workforce. not as many moving in. as a result, their trajectory

will be slower for growth than it has been in the past few decades. whether you want the government to raise tax, you always want more growth. it is important that we put things into the economy that have as good intentions as possible for saving and all of the things that help for economic growth. i believe that the caller is right. disability is a great place where we can think about a lot of different improvements. we will -- wrote a book on it with many options. there is a way to help it be tailor-made so that disability is not all or nothing. support them if they can't. we want a strong disability system for people who are harmed and unable to work. but, we should not overpromise. economic growth is a huge,

important goal in all of this. no matter what, it will not solve the problem. i want to remind people out there that you will hear tax cuts pay for themselves. no, they don't. not even close. and you will hear this infrastructure bill will pay for itself. no, it's not. it is an important investment. some of the tax reforms were important to put in the economy but they will not pay for themselves. we need to return to the basic issue of if something is worth doing, how will we pay for it? just because debt is such a huge burden on the future generation, i want to point out something, getting back to the discussion of social security earlier. we were talking about how social security was to lift elderly people out of poverty. it did and it was incredibly important for that reason. that commitment needs to remain. i will point out that the single biggest group in our

country living in poverty right now is children. i find that one of the most stunning, disappointing and wrong issues in our federal budget. we are spending six dollars per senior on every one dollar we spend for children. one of the reasons fiscal responsibility is important because -- is because it is for the economy. you cannot have that health if you are not investing in the next generation. when you have the highest poverty rate in the country being children, that is a huge risk and we should be doing something different. host: let's go to richard in illinois. good morning. caller: how are you? host: fine. caller: we would have to replace all of the people in congress. to do that, we would have to put term limits on them. they won't do that themselves.

we have to have a convention of the states and amend the constitution. the states would have to do that themselves. once the burden of reelection is over with, maybe they will start making the right decisions. host: go ahead. guest: term limits is one i wrestle with. i am not there yet. i am sympathetic to it because people do stay in congress way too long. that is clearly a situation you see quite regularly. on one hand, the caller before was talking about was all they care about is getting reelected. what we have now is people who are trying to get reelected by having tax cuts and checks. it is almost like a system of bribery where big money goes into politics and if you give money to politicians, they try to send it out, whether it is to

district or people are tax cuts. it is not a good sushi airy -- seduciary. that falls on our voters for voting for people who are willing to be straight with us and tell us the truth. not a lot of people go to the ballot box and vote for whoever will raise my taxes and cut my spending the most. we have to be willing to reward politicians who are courageous enough to do the right thing. on term limits, i worry about losing some of the expertise a lot of people have when they have been there for a long time. constituents think they are great and that is great. there are a lot of political forms we should look at. gerrymandering, our elections, the power of the parties in the actual elections, primaries. there are so many things that are can think to this -- contributing to this. we need a host of political

reforms. term limits is one of them. i am not a full believer myself. host: congresswoman lisa hauser said we will go back to using earmark. congress approved that. that does not necessarily increase federal spending but it doesn't direct it to members district. guest: we did not take a position publicly. it is a disappointed head shaker for me where it is like really? there are so many problems. how about getting ready to pass a budget? instead, what they do is pass something where it seems like more political giveaways. the truth is earmarks don't do a lot of damage in the budget and they distract from the big issue. you hear about bridges for nowhere and hamster research and the great headlines they can make, people focus on those things instead of the fact that

our debt is the largest it has ever been relative to the economy since we fought in world war ii. this time, we are borrowing because we don't want to pay the bills. that is the headline. it worries me we are too focused on things like earmarks being good or bad. i don't think they should have done it. it may help ease getting some bills done. it empowers leadership and our political parties leaders have 20 of power as it is. it just plenty of power -- have plenty of power as it is. they are focusing on having their own political ability instead of the huge, glaring challenges we have right now which they should be getting to work on. guest: -- host: we have a caller in indiana on the democrat line. caller: i am interested in what your guest would think about a

plan with federal expenditures. there is much economic theory that has come to the forefront, led by professor kelton regarding monetary theories. it says our capacity for expending on items that are important and of pertinence in our country is more and more abundant than the constraints we place on ourselves for taxes and deficits. that is a great insight on that. the federal government does not need money from taxpayers. they are the issuers of currency. not the users. i think we have far more capacity to spend on social security, infrastructure, other

public works to make this a great country, based on [inaudible] budgeting -- based on budgeting for our real resources. that makes no sense when we have a sovereign currency. i would be interested in the guest's on stephanie kelton in particular. thank you. guest: i hear a lot about this new modern, monetary theory. it is, i am afraid, quite dangerous in that it could lead to very high inflation that you could not control. the notion that you don't have to pay for things and you can just print more money is an idea that has failed miserably for many countries in the past. we cannot default because we can issue our own currency. i don't think anybody is talking about the u.s. defaulting here.

it is dangerous to say there is no budget constraints, tax revenues are a myth and we can just print money. i rely on many of the big thinkers out there, larry summers, who have all talked about this being quite dangerous. what happens is if you have a theory that you don't have to pay for things, people will love that idea. when people think tax cuts will pay for themselves, it is hard not to be excited about the idea. let's cut our taxes more and more and more. same with when you say everything is free. it is not a theory. it is a seductive approach for politicians. but one that will have a hard landing if we will follow that idea. host: maya macguineas is with the committee for responsible federal budget. you can go to crfb.org. thank you for joining us this

morning. guest: thank you. host: plenty more ahead on washington journal. later on at the top of the hour, dr. marcus plescia will join us. he will be with us to talk about how states are dealing with the vaccine rollout, vexing hesitancy and other issues. worse, we will return to our opening question for you this morning about the u.s.-mexico border. is it a crisis? if so, what should be done? the lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are on the southern border, (202) 748-8003. we take texts from that line as well. we take tweets from c-span to bj on twitter. alejandra was on a number of

sunday shows, including meet the press. he placed the blame on the trump administration. >> please remember something. that president trump dismantled the orderly, humane and efficient way of allowing children to make their claims under united states law in their home countries. he dismantled the central american minors program. we are rebuilding those orderly and safe processes as quickly as possible. in the meantime, in the meantime, we will not expel into the mexican desert, for example, three orphan children whom i saw over the last two weeks. we won't do that. that is not who we are. >> i understand that. is this current policy sustainable? or are you concerned that the word will go out and you will get unaccompanied minors from all over the world trying to come to our southern border? >> it does not work that way,

chuck. the system is a complex one. let's say -- let me say we are operating on parallel tracks. we are safely processing the children who do come to our border. we strongly urge, and the message is clear, not to do so now. i cannot overstate the perils of the journey that they take. and, regrettably, i am too aware of the tragedies that have occurred and continue to occur on that journey. in the meantime, and in parallel, we are rebuilding those orderly systems, both in mexico, we are in close partnership with the mexican government, and in the countries of guatemala, honduras and el salvador, so that they in fact do not need to take that dangerous journey. we are working in parallel streams to rebuild a process that has been entirely dismantled. host: the homeland security

secretary on meet the press. we re-air all of the sunday shows every sunday at noon eastern, starting at noon eastern on c-span radio, 90.1 fm . you can follow online at c-span radio.org. your comments on the u.s.-mexico border, is it a crisis? (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. if you are on the border, the line is (202) 748-8003. let's go to eddie in california. you are first up. caller: good morning. it is definitely a crisis. it has been a crisis. it is actually a racist program. the reason the democrats do this is to dissipate the black communities. our federal government is the largest employer of illegals.

they do it with contracting. it is funny. they build private prisons for our youth but they build charter schools, they have taken the money out of the lacu and putting it into charter schools, private schools. it is a war against black folks here. that is exactly what it is. if you don't speak spanish, you will not work. they have taken all of the money out of our schools and they don't even have books. they can't do homework. our fellow government -- why don't you think they put in an e-verify? the federal government will find out exactly what they are doing. they are not obeying the constitution. host: let's hear from catherine, calling for maryland, democrats line. caller: yes. my question is if we are having

so much trouble now, why is it that we can't continue what we were doing in terms of having the people face in -- phase in, why can't we continue that? when they come in illegally, just send them back. host: some of that legislation passed in the house on friday in terms of the undocumented immigrants who come to the u.s. as children. a package of immigration bills, passing the house, yet to be considered the. they passed on friday. bob in california, republican line. caller: hi.

i think we are doing the same thing we did in 1960. in 1960, we had a problem. they had that i went to for four weeks. they had people down in marin county. they were wanting to get rid of a legal workers because they were talking about -- some cesar chavez talks that they were worried about something happening there. they wanted to get rid of illegal workers. by 1965, i joined the army because of the illegals. it was -- we were just -- you know -- there was no work. there was no work when i got back in 1969.

i joined the army because of the work here. it is all about money. pelosi, i think it was her husband. that family down there sent people up here. i saw people physically assaulted. host: the homeland security secretary on several programs reiterated his statement that the border is closed. they are taking in children that are unaccompanied minors coming across the border. writing about this, this is usa today, their headline, thousands of migrant children are trying to enter the u.s., renewing a fight in washington. what is going on at the mexico border? they say that president biden's administration faces a growing issue at the u.s.-mexico border where an increasing number of migrant children seeking asylum are detained. the white house has maintained the border is closed, but migrant children are being let in rather than being turned away

because officials say it is too dangerous for them to make the journey back to their home countries on their own. biden officials and lawmakers on both sides are grappling with how to respond to the situation at the border. the number of unaccompanied migrant children seeking asylum at the nation's southern border began rising late last year. philip is next in orlando. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. bill. i can only say that when you compare the voyages from the triangular slave trade, when blacks were taken out of africa by force, put in chains, and then brought to do service i'l -- service work, and their children and children after that until things changed, i get a limit -- i'm not saying i don't have sympathy for the children across the border.

but, i just think that there is an over sensitivity regarding illegal hate. at the same time, i don't see -- where i live at, there are a number of latinos -- the assimilation. i think a lot of people don't realize how many black people have paid the price for this society to become more open for all of us. as blacks, we are still not accepted fully as american citizens. i low -- although we don't have the chains anymore or the dred scott decision over our heads. i think the latin children that are coming over here, it has to

be made cybill to them that this is an illegal act. -- civil -- simple to them that this is an illegal act and it will not be open for any reason. host: do you think it has changed between the trump administration and the biden administration? caller: trump, he was trump. he -- i don't want to say i am the muscle media of america. but biden wants to present more civil approach to the whole matter. i don't think biden is opening the door but there are a lot of people in his administration that are making him feel more sensitized than donald trump. ultimately, sensitive or not, you have to send a message. you have to be firm. this is just -- it was always

going to be the achilles' heel of the democrats. trying to be more civil than the republicans. at the end of the day, there is a reality. i think they will have to find a middle ground and deal with the problems straight ahead. host: we go to rebecca. rebecca is in youngstown, ohio. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: you bet. caller: i want to say all americans are sensitive to these people coming across the border illegally. why do we not send them back home like we did three years ago and not just turn them loose in the desert like mr. baldy said on the sunday shows. -- sunday shows? the border is wide open. if we let the cameras in there, we would see how humane they are being. host: in sarasota, florida.

go ahead. caller: i feel that president biden has destroyed any security at our borders. and i think that the fact that we are prevented from getting information about what is really happening and also that cameras are not let in, and, quite frankly, i think we need to know the age of these so-called children. when you do actually see pictures, a lot of them are late teenagers. some of them, i am sure, are not even under 18. i think that the democrat party and biden want cheap illegal -- cheap, illegal labor. they are putting american citizens out of work and we are in the middle of a pandemic. we cannot have people coming in illegally, going all throughout the country, and expecting, where we have been wearing masks

and staying home, and we have been out of work for over a year . now, you have illegal, foreign nationals coming into this country, spreading disease. they are going to work, they will be cheap labor. how are our own men and women going to be able to get back to work? what difference does a $15 per hour wage make if that job is taken by someone who will probably work for $10 per hour? host: this is a new york times story, a 60 minutes program, the headline is evidence in the u.s. attack -- i believe the evidence is trending toward that and meets the evidence -- meets that. michael sherwood was on 60 minutes. roy blunt of missouri, responding to former president bush's comments that he was sick

to his stomach when he saw the attacks. >> i am of the george w. bush view. i think it was terrible for america. i think it was absolutely on acceptable. we can't let that kind of thing be repeated again in our country. all over the world, people saw that and what people around the world would see is the citadel for democracy. two weeks later, i am standing at the exact spot where the fighting occurred at the inauguration itself. totally unacceptable, and we need to understand that that is an on reliance -- underlying principle of what happened on january 6. we saw what happened, we know what happened. we know we can't let that happen again. host: some comments on our social media. a tweet says find every employer that hires undocumented immigrant workers and find them

$10,000 -- fine them $10,000 for the first violation and double that for every subsequent violation. you will see those numbers go down quickly. the children are a different story. the headlines are not new. the only way to solve it is the source, which no one wants to touch. roy says it is not a crisis. immigration problems today are no better or worse than they have ever been. these problems have always existed. as usual, politicians use this issue as a convenient way to score political points and scare the american public. jean is next in madison, wisconsin. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. i am very concerned about where our country is going at this juncture. it is a crisis at the border. failure to recognize that has

severe consequences. what about the transparency of the new biden administration? why are border officials told they cannot speak to the press? why are we not able to view the sites where people are housed? covid is a real beast. the president can talk about wearing masks and our schools are not opening up. yet, we are allowing immigrants for -- from all over the world to come in that are testing positive. i don't understand why schools can't open up do to covid but our country allows immigrants who are positive to freely enter our boundaries and potentially, substantially increase the spread of this. host: next up is anne in raleigh, north carolina on our democrats line.

caller: over 500,000 people have died from covid. if people come in from the border and replace them, they will work. they are going to take care of the baby boomers, and all of the rest of the people. and the people that don't take the shot -- host: they have been a number of congressional allegations at the border. rob portman, one of the members recently on the border. he talked about it yesterday on "face the nation." >> the message is a clear do not come. will those words change what is happening? >> know. people are going to listen to actions and watch actions and not listen to words. i spoke to a number of migrants and single individuals who have come over at night, men who told me they heard what president biden said and they are coming anyway because they can make 10 times more in the united states. i talked to children and talk to

them about the messaging. what they are hearing is you can come into the united states, which you can. they are going to keep coming. the problem here is that the biden administration, on day one, made about six changes and since then have made several more that have encouraged people to come to the border and did not do anything in place to deal with it. another policy to discourage people from coming, which the president was to do, or put reparations in place, including the shelters and facilities that have been criticized. i saw them the other day, kids are overcrowded. they are in situations you would never want your kid to be in. it is irresponsible. i don't think it is humane to encourage kids to journey north and make them live in these kinds of conditions. we need to change course. host: we will get more, from social media. a tweet from jane that says until republicans me at the

table with open minds and hearts for answers, they need to shut their mouths and let president biden and the democrats work this out. another says we like to forget give me your tired and poor is inscribed at a legal immigration entry point, set up for those who registered when boarding immigrant ships abroad. stowaways were detained and often sent back. in texas, good morning to randy. a democratic caller. caller: i don't see the situation getting any better until they start finding the employer's of the illegals. i have had employers tell me that even with the fines they have to endure, they are better off hiring the illegals. i say fine them, dismantle their business and have them face prison time. host: when they say better off,

do they mean financially? are they better workers or more reliable? caller: um, like i said, you read the text and it said they are unwilling to touch this subject. i think they are because a lot of republicans profit from illegals being here. i think they don't like them because most of them come here and they eventually vote democrat. but for the cheap wages, they love them. i don't think it is going to change until they are fined and given prison time for hiring the illegals. -- even possible prison time for hiring the illegals. host: next in pennsylvania is al. caller: i was thinking about i e environmental impact of mass immigration. our population has increased,

with immigration being a part of that. there is 1.3 million people that came across the border. the immigration court, they wait three or four years before they are heard. in the meantime, they can work in competition with young americans. not good. there should be a limit on how many come in. is it one million, 2 million? otherwise it could just go on indefinitely. host: next, we will focus on the covid response in the states and territories. we will be joined by dr. marcus plescia chief medical officer , for the association of state and territorial health officials. we will hear from you as well. that is ahead on "washington journal." ♪

announcer: 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-span2 viewers as a public service. -- c-span to viewers as a public. tonight, california democratic congressman jerry mcnerney talks about legislation on data privacy and social media regulation. >> the american people feel like their privacy has been invaded. they are not wrong about that. not just the big tech companies, but a lot of people have access to your data, so that means they know what activities you do when you are not working, where you might frequent, what you buy at the store. it's a lot of private information that should not be

in the hands of whoever wants to buy it. i think that is the reason why we need to look at privacy. host: watch "the communicators" tonight on c-span2. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: every week, we take time out for a deep dive looking at the response to the coronavirus pandemic. and across the country. this week, we will focus on the states and territories. we are joined by the chief medical officer for the association of state and territorial health officials, dr. marcus plescia. tell us about your organization. how many members do you have? guest: we have a professional organization for the leadership of state public health departments, so we represent all of the states and seven territories in freely associated

areas -- and freely associated areas. we represent the health officials, but also their leadership teams, so several hundred people when you look at that broader group. and we support them. we lobby for them. and we provide technical assistance to them. host: you have joined us a number of times during the pandemic here on "washington journal." as we talk here at the end of march and 2021, how is the vaccine distribution going? guest: we think it is going well. people seem to be interested in the vaccine, which is a good thing. we are seeing states move a lot faster now that the vaccine supply is greater. in some states, they have actually opened up where anybody can get the vaccine. it seems to be well tolerated. there have not been reports of any serious adverse effects

beyond of the few people who had allergic reactions. so, we are off to a good start. we are waiting for the supply to pick up, so that we can move even faster. host: there is a report from usa today, that they are tracking the covid distribution, the vaccine numbers i should say, and how many people have been vaccinated. they say about 13.3% of the population have received both doses, a quarter of the population has received at least one of the covid-19 shots. what's been the biggest hampering -- talking about supply, but also in terms of hesitancy and getting people n for the -- in for what is the biggest -- for their vaccine, what is the biggest hesitancy? guest: so far, there has been a huge demand for the vaccine and we have not had enough supply to keep up. we are hearing some reports from surveys that some people are

reluctant to get vaccinated for a wide range of reasons. but probably the biggest one is just anxiety about the vaccine. it's a relatively new way of making the vaccine. we have not provided this vaccine in the past. so i think some people are anxious about that. but i think that will improve as we have more vaccine and we will actually start offering it in physicians offices as well. that gives people a chance, people who are nervous, to talk to somebody that they trust. host: good news on the front page of the wall street journal, saying, the vaccine outlook -- output leaps ahead in the u.s. manufacturers are ramping up production, turning out for more doses a week than earlier in the year, progress that is accelerating campaigns in the u.s. how much of this increase of supply and manufacturing is driven by policies of the biden administration?

guest: i think that they have done a good job at really picking up the supply. we were not really expecting to have the bum in until april or may. i think they have been looking at getting more manufacturers to make the vaccine. so we have made good progress. we may have another vaccine come onto the market soon. so things are likely to pick up even further. host: dr. marcus plescia is our guest as we talk about the vaccine response in the states, the pandemic in the states and territories. we welcome your calls. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents and all others. before we go to your calls, --

oh, i have given the numbers wrong. this is by time zones. 202-748-8000, eastern and central. 202-748-8001, mountain and pacific time zones. the most recent appearance by dr. fauci this week on capitol hill. let's hear what he had to say about the program so far in the u.s. [video clip] dr. fauci: the biggest challenge is multifaceted. one is staying ahead of the virus itself. we are doing a good job now, up to 2 million to 3 million vaccinations a day. literally every day that goes by, as more people give vaccinated, we can stay ahead of what i would consider a race between our ability to vaccinate and the emergence of variants. we have well-established variants.

locally, as the doctor mentioned, the vaccine does well against this. but there are others, that when you look at the antibodies induced by the vaccine and their capability of fighting against the use of variants, they are diminished anywhere from two to sixfold. fortunately, the response to the vaccine has been so robust that there still is enough cushion that you likely would maybe not prevent infection, but prevent severe disease resulting in hospitalizations and deaths. the challenge is to stay ahead of the variants. the other is to make sure, and it looks like we are doing a good job, of getting accessibility and implementation of getting the virus, the vaccine into people's arms, making sure that we do it not only quantitatively but with equity, equity with regard to underserved populations.

there's a lot of activity right now focusing on making that happen. host: from your experience so far, the term of equity, getting the vaccine to underserved populations, how well are we doing? guest: it has been difficult to track that, because we do not have good data on -- you know, we have the numbers on gender and age it, but not good data on race, ethnicity, occupation, income levels. some of that is because we are not asking. we should have better data on that. we are working on that. the cdc is working on that. but because we had such a push at the beginning to get as many people vaccinated quickly, i think that we, particularly as the supply ramps up, i think they will circle back to make sure that we are making this available to everybody. i think there is room for improvement. host: back to the map from usa today.

this is a look at the vaccines in the last seven days across the u.s. we mentioned at the top of the program, too, that one quarter, 25% of the u.s. has had at least one shot. if you think back to december or november of last year, are you -- is it about where you thought it would be in terms of the numbers of people getting the vaccine? back then, there was more talk about vaccine hesitancy. or more people than you expected are getting in line for the shot? guest: personally, this is better than i imagine debated where we would be here in the middle or end of march. 25% of people having at least one does, that is really good. some of that is because, we were not so sure -- i mean, we were

informed well by the administration that it would take time for the supply to pick up. and it has picked up much better than a thought. the demand has remained strong. that is what we want to see going forward, as demand drops off, now that we have vaccinated more motivated people -- we will have to seek, there are things we have not had to use it so far to push up the demand. we may have to shift into some of those strategies if we do see demanded drop off. host: for questions, 202-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001, mountain and pacific. mike in woodstock, georgia. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i wanted to ask about socializing this more. i think that we have a dearth of response in the media about getting the vaccine out.

people are talking about the numbers, that is fine, but coming up with a positive message that gets people more to the needle. what do you think about things that can be done about that? you talked about other strategies that might want to be employed when the demand falls off, but without good numbers where can you tell where the demand really is? guest: good point. we are getting to the stage, you know, we have been reluctant to push of the vaccine or advertise at the vaccine up until now because we have had limited supply. and early on, when we first tried to open things up, people got frustrated because there was not enough to go around. so we wanted to balance that, we did not want to overpromise. now, supply is picking up and it is time to do more of that. basic public service announcements can help,

particularly now that things are opening up and people know it is more widely available. working with medical providers, we found that to be effective with other vaccines, where people speak to their physician or health care provider. that is somebody that they trust. also, looking at other sectors of the community. for many people, the faith community is influential. and so working with faith leaders could help get the word out. and so those are things that we are shifting into now that the supply has picked up. host: were you surprised some states "as they did in terms of reducing -- states opened as quickly as they did in terms of reducing restrictions? guest: i think there is a lot of pressure to open things back up. there's pressure on businesses that have not done well in the pandemic. we are urging that we move cautiously -- we need to get the

vaccine participation numbers up a little bit higher, i think, before we open up to widely. so that has been -- too widely. so that has been our idea, to encourage people to be patient, but there is pressure to open things up as quickly as possible. host: charles in new jersey. you are on the air. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: i am in the poorest county of the state of new jersey, and i have looked at the other counties around the state and they have much more, uh, access to the vaccine sites th an we have here in cumberland county. i live in cumberland county. and it's -- i mean, if you try to get it, it's almost impossible. what concerns me is, i got

lucky, i got both my shots. my wife is reluctant to go, so she said she would use me as a guinea pig, pretty much. but now she needs to get her shot. she's a 1a candidate. and they are letting everybody go get those shots, but not checking to see what category they are in. and, i mean, she is an older person. and she -- i'm having a difficult time finding an appointment for her. and i am registered with the state site and all that, but it's just, you know, i am getting sick and tired of people up in north jersey getting all of the shot that they want and us people in south jersey do not

have the same access. host: how far did you have to drive to get your shot? caller: how far? host: how close to your home was it? caller: not very. sometimes, i mean, you can go all the way down to -- we are owed, we cannot be driving -- old, we cannot be driving all over the place. host: i appreciate the call. guest: i am sorry about that. it's been tough with a somewhat limited supply to get the vaccine out and get it into places where it is most convenient for people. my advice, as far as getting your wife the vaccine, you are doing the right thing. unfortunately, you have to persevere with some of the appointment making. the other thing you might consider is reaching out to your medical practice, your provider, they may or may not have the vaccine going to providers in

new jersey, but for somebody like your wife, they may be able to help a little bit with getting her into a line somewhere where she can get the vaccine a little bit sooner. the other thing i tell everybody is hanging in there, it will get better because we will have more vaccine. and probably some of the demand is going to fall off. but, yes, i apologize. it has been difficult for some people, particularly early on, when it was so hard to get appointments and people had to travel far to get the vaccine. and i think that is going to improve. and in some ways, it is a good problem to have, to have so many people wanting the vaccine. but i am concerned about your wife, she is a person we want to prioritize. we want to make sure those who were older get vaccinated as soon as possible. host: 202-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones.

202-748-8001 for mountain and pacific. here's skip. caller: how are you? guest: good, thank you. caller: i want to know about the predict project and whether it will be funded to protected from the next pandemic. guest: i think that we have really learned how important it is to have a strong public health system that is well resourced in this nation. we do have a good public health system, we have a lot of the basic, um, structure there that we need, but the funding for public health programs has been falling off a for the last few decades. and i am very encouraged now to see that congress is putting more resources into public health departments. and, you know, i think that people still are interested in public health. young people ask, they are

coming in, i think it is a wonderful career to have and people have seen how important it can be to be a public health professional. so, i am optimistic. the resources seem to be there. we have several needs. we need to have or grow their workforce. we need to have better information technology systems so we can track things like vaccines better, get people appointments more easily. but i think that we are moving in that direction. hopefully, that will prepare us so with the next pandemic, which we will probably have another in the future, but we will be in a better situation. host: let me ask about federal spending on covid. the american rescue plan has 7.66 billion dollars for states and territories, for the public health departments, to hire contact tracers, social support

specialists, community health workers, public health nurses, disease intervention specialists, epidemiologists, laboratory personnel, policy experts and other positions responsible or required to prevent, prepare for and respond to covid-19. will your group track that spending, how much money the states get and how it is spent? guest: yes, we are tracking it as best we can. it can be difficult because every state is spending the money differently. it can be difficult to stay abreast of. that's what will be challenging, to make sure that those resources are used in the best way possible. i think that the states have gotten some momentum now around hiring people, particularly contact tracers, those who do not need to be highly skilled in public health. a lot of those positions are starting to fill up. and now we have an opportunity

to upgrade the technology systems. and we are working closely on that. we need to make sure that we do that in a way that is sustainable and we get the right systems in place, not just so each state has a good data system, so that the data systems can talk back and forth. so if you are in one state, and you move to another state, your records and public health information can go with you. host: let's go to peter in hebron, new hampshire. caller: hebron. good morning. i would like to ask the doctor a couple questions. for over a year, most of us responsible citizens in this country have worn masks and followed cdc guidelines. my question is, i want to know your personal take on the recent developments with the illegal

aliens crossing our southern border and that situation. and the spring breakers in florida running around in large crowds with out the six foot distancing, not wearing masks. maybe you have insight on this. guest: two different things. i mean, you know, we live in a society now where people are coming in and out of our nation on a regular basis, whether it is people coming across the southern borders or people flying in on airplanes and from other places overseas. it's just, it's the world we live in. that is why people in public health have always been anxious and concerned about the possibility of a pandemic, because things spread quickly and is something that happens on the other side of the break can quickly end up on our doorstep, which is what happened with covid. so, early in the pandemic, we tried to cut back immigration

from all kinds of places. it may have bought us time, but ultimately we still ended up in the situation we are in. this is something that we have to accept, that people are going to move, that they will go back and forth and travel. so that is why it is a worldwide problem, not just a national problem, although we are very focused on getting our nation through this and making things better. as far as people on spring break, we saw the exact same thing last year, and in some ways things were even more dire last year. i think all we can do is encourage people to be careful. and some of the message has to be, it's not just about you, it is the people you may come in contact with. young people do fairly well, even if they get sick, but older people do not. every young person knows older people, so we need to reinforce

that. they are kids being kids. they are having fun. i understand that. but we need to find a way to temper that, particularly if we could just get through a few more months we will be in such a better place. host: i want to ask about a story that broke overnight in terms of the astrazeneca vaccine, u.s. trials proving successful. astrazeneca, u.s. data shows the vaccine effective for all ages. it will not be in the system until the fda approves it, but there were concerns about the astrazeneca vaccine overseas. some issues reported in a few cases. any concerns on your part? guest: it is helpful that the vaccine may be another tool to use. i am always reluctant to weigh in on the media releases about the vaccines. i would encourage everybody to

wait a little bit longer until we see what kind of data comes to the fda, and also to the cdc and advisory council. at that point, we will have data from the manufacturer and we can take a good look, but it is encouraging. the more vaccines we have, the better we can respond. host: lee in new york. caller: good morning. i have two questions. one, if you are in 86-year-old woman who weighs 120 pounds, do you get the same strength as a 30-year-old who weighs 200 pounds? my second question is, is it better to take the moderna protein vaccine or the -- virus vaccine? host: thanks. guest: my wife was just asking me that yesterday. no, it is the same dose for everybody. i know that that sounds odd.

it's not like a drug that we used to treat an infection, like an antibiotic, where you might change that depending on size. this is a matter of giving your body a very small amount of something that will just resemble the virus so it can mount a response. ultimately, it is a tiny dose, but enough for your body to recognize it and realize that isn't the that is foreign. yeah, the dose is the -- that is foreign. yeah, the dose is the same for everybody. it's easy to look at the number, this number or that number, but you have to prepare -- it's

sometimes comparing apples to oranges. some of the vaccines may have a high effective rate, but than they did not look at how well that vaccine does at preventing severe illness. when you add all of it up, we think that they are all probably pretty comparable. i think that the newest vaccine, the johnson & johnson vaccine, one of the things that is attractive about that is it's only one dose. but, you know, some of this we will have to see as we move along and see how people do with them. and what happens with some of the variants and other things that are complicating issues. in a bit, we will have a better sense. right now, whatever is available for you, that is what i would encourage you to get. host: captain cawley from somers point new jersey. caller: good morning. i suffer from a hyperactive

immune system and consequently i suffer from crohn's disease. about two weeks ago, i took the johnson & johnson shot. and i had some mild reactions, basically i was a little dizzy and weak. it happened at the day after the shot. i do believe i contracted the virus back in january, but i think that because of my hyperactive immune system, i really am not immune to the effects of the disease, but i really did feel a very mild effect of it. it lasted only for me be about two days, then i was back to normal. is this a normal reaction with somebody with a hyperactive immune system? guest: i think so. what you are describing as far as your symptoms that you had

when you got the vaccine, those are common symptoms. it's encouraging if you have a little bit of a reaction, because it means your body is recognizing the vaccine and reacting against it. if you were exposed to the virus and you had the virus in january, then the vaccine may actually boost your immunity a little bit. i am speculating some. we are learning as we go along. but there is nothing that sounds unusual to me. depending on your specific situation, if you are concerned, i would suggest that you speak with your doctor. he's probably more familiar with the condition that you have. but it sounds iq had a good response to the johnson & johnson vaccine -- sounds like you had a good response to the johnson & johnson vaccine. host: statin news, their headline driven by the pandemic,

the algae effect, applicants -- fauci effect, applicants are applying to doctoral programs. the state health departments lost 10% of physicians between 2012-2019. state health department lost 10% of positions from 2012-19. so hopefully, you will see people back in those positions. one more call. kathleen in springtown, texas. caller: hello. i do have a question. my husband and i took our modernity shot in january. prior to taking our vaccine, we were both taking vitamin d and zinc. now that we have had the vaccine, should we continue taking the vitamin d and zinc?

guest: well, that's up to you. i think that taking vitamin d and zinc, if it has not giving you any kind of side effects or problems, you know, it is not going to hurt things. but many people were taking vitamin d, because there was a speculation it would reduce the chances that you would get the virus or it would be severe if you got it. now that you have had your vaccination, and that is a good vaccine, so if you want to cut back on that, i think that they need to use other precautions and try other things -- the need to do other things is much less now that we have the vaccine. but i do urge caution that people are not too optimistic about the vaccine.

we still need to be careful. but the big thing i would do is continue to be cautious about keeping distance from people, particularly people you do not know. if you can avoid being in crowded situations, it is still encouraged to not travel domestically unless it is vital that you do so. so everybody being careful a little bit longer is the best advice i can give. host: gerald in chester, virginia. caller: good morning. i have a question. i just got my first shot of the vaccine at virginia state university. i got the pfizer vaccine. i was worried to get the shot because i have medical problems. i'm on blood thinners, hydrocortisone for my sdidh, and i am taking prednisone.

but are these vaccines safe to take when you have or when you are on blood donors -- thinners and immune compromising drugs? guest: yeah, i think it is safe. safe for people, you know, taking medications like hydrocortisone, that might affect the immune system. the question is whether that would affect the immunity you mount. i thank that is something we will have to see going forward. you may want to stay in close contact about your physician -- with your physician about that. but the new vaccines are safe. they have been tested with thousands, many people who have medical conditions, including the conditions tha yout have, which are not common, but they are not rare either. so, i certainly do not think there's any risk. the vaccine is, um, you know,

what is in the vaccine is not an infection. it's something designed to help your body mount a response. and i do not think that any of the conditions you have described will really put you at greater risk for any kind of other effects. host: dr. marcus plescia is the chief medical officer for the association of state and territorial health officials. thank you for joining us again. next up, the house oversight and reform committee this morning will hold a hearing on a d.c. statehood bill. last week, the majority leader in the house says he expects the house will pass the bill before the summer. so we will spend the remainder of the program asking you, should the district of columbia become the 51st state? here's the lines.

yes, 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. if you are a d.c. resident, the line is 202-748-8002. and you can begin dialing now. we will get to those momentarily. should the district of columbia become the 51st date? the hearing will be -- state? the hearing will be on c-span2 this morning. and a report in the washington post yesterday morning was, "it 's not a local issue anymore." d.c.'s statehood is moving to the center of the democratic agenda. one of the co-authors on the piece is megan flynn. thank you for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: this is a notable hearing for the house. have they ever taken up a

hearing considering a d.c. statehood bill before? guest: they did in the last congressional session, before it passed the house for the first time last year. so at that time, that was the first time they had had it in 25 years, so this will be the third hearing. but it is still a big deal, given it is expected to move through the house for the second time. host: that in emmett -- and the dynamic is different this time. there's support from the biden administration for statehood and a democratic led senate. guest: that is right. the thing is that that has really boosted d.c. statehood advocates' hopes. there's been probably no greater opportunity for statehood, but at the end of the day it is still just a huge hurdle in the senate because of the filibuster. so, 50 democratic senators isn't

going to be enough, unless there is an exception to the filibuster. democrats are seeking to eliminate the filibuster, but that is still a big question mark for d.c. statehood and it remains the key obstacle. host: in your article, you wri te, "the issue, once a fanciful dream of local activists now enjoys near unanimity inside the democratic party. the adult of momentum -- jolt in momentum stems and part from an increasingly urgent desire of democrats. d.c. statehood would probably result in two more democratic senators, shifting the dynamic in the senate, where they will

have more influence on supreme court nominations. but there are still opticals. they do not have 51 allies inside of the senate. and according to the filibuster rule, requiring a majority merging from us legislation remains intact and it will take more support than that." the right also that this has become a bit of a social justice issue as well. guest: right. i think that there has been a real sort of framing of the issue by advocates for statehood as this being a racial justice issue, given that d.c. is a plurality black city. civil rights issues, given if you do not have representatives in congress coming cannot really exercise your voice. so that has really -- in congress, you cannot really exercise your voice. so that has really become the

message. and they are bringing the message to voters in other states. say, you have a stake in this as well. often times, that stake is -- what would the country look like if there were two more democratic senators in the senate? progressives could pass a lot more of their priorities. that's exactly where the republicans jump in and there is no way that they are going to want to see statehood because of that. so that is the real crux. and that makes it very difficult to try to gain -- you need 67 senators to support it in the senate -- sorry, that has been the real issue for the democrats. to have 60 senators, not 67. host: over the weekend, the mayor had placed along freedom

plaza and downtown pennsylvania avenue, black lives matter. flags as weltman just across from the white house -- flas just across -- flags just across the white house. and that mayro, is she -- mayor, is she expected to take an active role in the testimony today or in pushing for statehood? guest: yes, the mayor will be testifying at the hearing today, as she did a couple of years ago at the last hearing. and so she has been, of course, the phase of d.c. statehood for the district. talking to the mayor's office recently about what they are doing now to push statehood, they have about $240,000 set aside for initiatives and they are trying to bring the statehood because to other states, to educate voters, summarily to what that --

similar to what the advocates are doing. they are running ads in arizona, maine, and west virginia, where senators like joe manchin will be really big boats. we do not know where they stand -- votes. we do not know where they stand right now, so they are targeting voters there to educate them about statehood, to see if they could put pressure on their senators and try to gain their support that way. host: we appreciate you setting up the hearing today and detailing the outlines of the proposed legislation. meagan flynn from the washington post. thanks so much. a couple of comments. on facebook, one viewer says, no, they should never be a state. the democrats want it for voting power. that is the true answer. and, it's wrong to

disenfranchise americans who pay taxes. they are citizens. this one says, "federal buildings will never pay taxes, so this would be a difficult tax case." "no, of course not. the only reason that democrats are interested is to pad their majority in the senate. over half the city is poor. its crime rate is appalling. d.c. as a state would be a disaster." yes, 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. d.c. residents, 202-748-8002. jerry in pacifica, california. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that what the democrats are trying to do s not fair -- is not fair and they

are making everybody act like they are a victim in this justice thing that they are doing. and everybody is smarter than that. they are not victims. they can vote. they know how to get to a voting machine. and to sit there and say otherwise, i believe, is racist. host: caller in california. ray says yes. caller: when you take the population of south dakota, 600,000, north dakota at 700,000, d.c. is 700,000 people. two states controlled by republicans. and if you look at california, we have 40 million people and we only have two senators. so i do not think it is unfair. host: d.c. has a campaign out now for statehood. [video clip]

>> this is antoinette scott, enlisted in the army, deployed to iraq and decorated with a purple heart. today she fights for d.c. statehood. she is a mother that pays taxes, but she does not have a vote in congress. it's not fair. >> i fought for my country. i deserve the right, just like any other american. >> your story is our story. host: by the way, the hearing this money will be live on c-span2 at 11:00 in the morning. it is an empty room now, but it will fill up and we will have coverage for you. in montana, robert says no. go ahead. caller: thank you for receiving my call. the district of columbia was created in response to the

constitution and i think this is another attempt to cancel ideals of the constitution of our founding fathers. this is going to create more division. the unity talk going on is nothing more than talk. and this attempted by the democrats to take control and have more power is nothing more than division among america, so i do not think it should be a state. as the district of columbia, as it was designed by our founding fathers. host: sandra is a d.c. resident. go ahead. caller: yes. d.c. should be granted statehood, and at least our votes should count in congress. we pay federal and state taxes. we are self-supporting as an entity, a self-supporting city at this time. regardless of whether they grant

us statehood or not, we should have a voice and vote in congress. at this point, maybe people do not realize that we do not have any say so whatsoever in the votes in congress. we do not have a voting point in congress. we definitely need statehood because we pay more taxes than many states. host: how long have you lived in d.c.? guest: 74 -- caller: 74 years. host: you say people do not understand that d.c. does not have representation. what other one they do you think that people do not understand about washington and its residents? caller: we have nonvoting residents, which gives us no voice. the people that are saying it

would help the democrats, obviously are republicans. it should not be their thinking in terms of it only helping democrats. if we had votes, we have people in this city who would vote republican as well. so it would not be or it is not a republican or democrat thing. this is the way that they like to taint things, as if it is going to help us. if we let people vote by mail, it's going to help the democrats. but this is a republican mindset that they are putting forth out of fear that we are going to vote democrat. host: one of those republicans who will oppose the effort for statehood is lindsey graham.

chairman of the judiciary committee. this is from his facebook page. [video clip] >> this is a continuation of the efforts of the democrats to alter the way america operates. this is not a good deal for us. this would dilute south carolina's say in the senate. it's unconstitutional and a bad deal for the country. and it is driven by power. this is a fight worth having. i want every senator to be on the record. i will finish where i started, this is a bad deal for south carolina. it would lose our influence in the senate. ♪ dr. marcus plescia the daily signal -- host: the daily signal gets to the constitutional problem for the district. "225 years ago the d.c. was founded and here is white will never become a state.

congress cannot change of the seat of government into a state or delegate its power to the government of a new state. it took an amendment to give them the ability to vote for president because they are not a state, and congress could not make them a state. congress cannot eliminate the power this amendment grants only to congress. article i would have to be amended and replaced. if proponents of statehood want to live in a state, and not a district, they have options close by." judy is in anchorage, alaska. go ahead. caller: thank you. i do not think it ought to be a state, but i have a comment in that regard . i believe that originally the land for this state came from virginia and maryland. i think that the will the the

-- think that the land originally was ceded back so people could vote. so i am wondering why that could not be done for the present residents, ceded back to which every state, and they would have a vote. 750,000 people is enough to give them a representative. and -- but it is a city. it's just a city. it doesn't have all of the kinds of things that states have to deal with because of landmass. i mean, i suspect the district is even smaller than an island. host: geographically, yes. caller: it is a tiny, tiny, tiny little place. it is a city. host: 10 square miles.

we are going to maryland with do ug. he says yes, d.c. should be a state. go ahead. caller: hello. yes, i think that d.c. should be a state. it has over 700,000 people. but one thing that has to be in the bill is dealing with the 23rd amendment. the 23rd amendment says that the seat of federal government, which is d.c., would end up being a dozen or so square city blocks, it says it has three electoral votes. that cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. what needs to be done is in the law that makes d.c. a state,

something has to be done about that. the easy thing to do would be for congress to decree that the electoral votes for the district of columbia, the federal district, would go to the person who got the majority or plurality vote in the national election. there would be nobody voting from those 12 square blocks or however many there are. but the 23rd amendment says that congress shall decide, uh, how those electoral votes are selected. and it says the same thing about states. but in that case every state has selected that it should be done by a vote within that state. host: we appreciate that. it's interesting to do a

question like this because everybody has interesting takes on the constitution. lauren says, "make it a congressional district of maryland." "the country is changing all the time, the founders never considered that d.c. would have more citizens than south dakota. residents and capitals of other countries have more influence on their destinies." earl says, "no, make it like a military base. give the residential areas to maryland." "if anything, give them virginia or maryland." deborah says, "yes, that is citizens -- the citizens deserve to be recognized." a call from pennsylvania. caller saying no. caller: i'm william. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead.

caller: i would vote no. d.c., 10 square miles. lindsey graham is right, it is nothing but a paragraph from the democrats. it was not meant to be a state -- power grab from the democrats. it was not meant to be a state. it's in the constitution. those people have a democratic bastion. it votes often democratic. it is the way of the democrats getting two democratic senators. host: on the yes line, jennifer in the bronx -- in the bronx. caller: give credit where credit is due. over 700,000 people that live there that need to be heard. over 700,000 people in this district that needs to be heard.

credit is long overdue. host: joseph in pittsburgh, another view. tell us about it. caller: yes. if you remember why d.c. was created, it was so no state would have power over the federal government. if you want to change it, change the capital back to pennsylvania and give maryland and virginia the land back. that way, they will have their right to vote. they do have a right to vote in the presidential election, and for congress, just not for the senate. so they are represented. host: they have a delegate in the house, and she can vote in committee, but not on the house floor. it counts in committee, but not on the house floor. caller: correct. they still have a voice.

if that was the issue, if they really wanted just a voice, give the land back to virginia and maryland and they will have a vote in the state and move the capital back to pennsylvania. or find a part of the u.s. central to american and create a new capital. financially, it does not make sense, but if we are worried about being fair that would be the way. host: we have a yes, no question. yes, 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. on social media, this is a facebook post from mariah. "yes, then puerto rico." tim, "no, d.c. should not be a state. it was established to serve as the nation's capital. puerto rico and other territories should." on twitter, "wasn't one of the ideas no taxation without

representation?" patrick says, "yes, cut the federal buildings out and make the rest a state. it will never happen with the filibuster in the senate." susan says, "who will pay for all the flags to be changed to 51 stars?" over the weekend in the nation's capital, black lives matter plaza, to the capital, then they are having those 51 star flags flown, place by workers and of flown ahead of the congressional hearing. the hearing will be happening today at 11:00 a.m. eastern and we will cover it on c-span2. in clinton, maryland. here's cheryl. caller: yes, i think it should become a state. i was born in washington, d.c. and my children still live there. and people do not realize that

congress still controls the budget for d.c., which means they can do whatever they want with it because they have no representation. and the taxes that the taxpayers pay in washington is sent to the poor states like mississippi and tennessee, also for -- and they would have to give that up if they became a state. i found that my paycheck went up $100 because i do not have to be supporting gun states like mississippi or tennessee and kentucky and all those places, because they are so uneducated that they cannot self sustain themselves. you do not have to take my word for it. go on youtube. you will find most of those people are coming from those estates that are not capable of taking care of themselves. so, i think that d.c. should

become a state, so we can have our own form of government and we do not have to support these states, where their people are coming to the capitol and doing what they are doing. they need to get an education and get a job. if d.c. wasn't supporting them, new york also supporting them, then that would not be going on. host: one more d.c. resident. carlos, hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm calling to say, you know, to really not know if you cannot become a state or become a state and vote -- i'm puerto rican and as i have heard, we are wanting to have representation and to be able to vote. we cannot vote for the presidency, but we are

influenced by all federal government laws. we want to have a say on how we should participate, because the federal government and the u.s., this is where the government is. so maybe give them the voting rights and they can separately treat statehood as another issue. host: the last word to a d.c. resident. should d.c. be a state? caller: yes, i think it should be a state. i've lived here all my life. and the only thing, if they do not want us to be a state, i would be content if they exempted us from federal income tax. and you would see how many people would rush into d.c.. i think we should be a state, but i do not think we should pay taxes and not have any say. host: ok, just to remind you that we will cover that hearing today on c-span.org and on

c-span coming up at 11:00 a.m. that will do it for us, but we will be back on tuesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. enjoy the rest of your day. ♪ [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] ♪ coming life today, the former energy secretary under president obama will be testifying on rebuilding america's infrastructure, during a house energy and commerce committee hearing. watch live beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span2, the focus is on whether the district of columbia should become a state.

the house oversight reform committee will be hearing testimony on that issue. we have live coverage starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two, online at c-span.org, or listen live with the free c-span radio app. >> the senate is back at 3:00 p.m. eastern to continue work on cabinet nominees. they have a vote scheduled at 5:30 to confirm boston mayor marty walsh to be the labor secretary. other nominees awaiting senate approval include: die young to be deputy omb director lew, and dr. vivek murthy to be senate general. they may also take up the paycheck protection program, which expires at the end of the month. the house is not in session this week, that they continue to hold hearings. next week both bodies are out for the easter and passover holidays. watch the house live on c-span, and the senate live on c-span two. >> targeting someone based on

their race, gender, or religion is always wrong in our laws attest to that. the measure under consideration, however, victimizes women, and decimates girls sports. by federal fiat, the equality act creates discrimination against any american who is reasonable, sincerely held view of human sexuality and gender conflicts with the government's morphing ideology. this is not only wrong, but it endangers women's safety in locker rooms, bathrooms, and homeless shelters. >> my daughter would not grow up in a nation where -- as an example, in 25 states, she could be discriminated against because of who she was. that is upsetting to me. she could be thrown out of a restaurant, evicted from her apartment, she could be denied access to education and denied health care, just because of who

she is. on top of that, the likelihood of facing hateful violent acts -- and she has -- verbal and physical, for simply existing and being her authentic self, was almost a certainty. signing the equality act into law will not change that reality overnight, but it will ensure that americans like my daughter have access to the same civil rights already extended to americans across the nation. >> senate judiciary committee members heard from lawmakers and outside witnesses on the pros and cons of the lgbtq rights legislation known as the equality act. watch the entire hearing tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> as we begin the week here in washington journal, we will take a quick look at the busy week ahead for the administration, in particular for president biden. we are joined by the white house

reporter for the hill. good morning. >> good morning, thanks for having me. >> let's start with the conversation on the border. the homeland security secretary making the round on the sunday shows yesterday. any word on whether the president will address this either in the news conference on thursday or in any other ways this week? guest: i think the homeland security secretary being on the sunday shows sort of underscores the extent to which this is really an issue that the biden administration is having to address. essentially on a daily basis. having to address on a daily basis. coming up thursday at the president's first extended press conference, with reporters. in addition to that we will see if other officials traveling to the border from the biden administration or from the podium addressing it, almost every day we will see questions come up about this.