>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. -- >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter invested billions, building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering technology in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on washington journal, white house correspondent joey garrison previous the week ahead of the white house. and then we will speak with jean

bolero on what the -- about the bipartisan infrastructure deal. a look at vaccination efforts with and you're done -- andrew dunn. washington journal is next. ♪ >> it is the washington journal for august 2. bipartisan senators revealed their proposal for infrastructure spending, a 2700 page bill with over $1 trillion in spending. it will face the amendment process. there are hopes by some it will pass as early as this week. you can tell us when -- if you support it or are unsure. if you support it, (202) 748-8000.

if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . if you're are unsure, (202) 748-8002 is the number to call. if you want to text us, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. post on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. you can post on twitter at c-span wj and follow us on instagram at c-span wj. the associated press has an overview, taking a look at the reveal that was done yesterday in the senate. when it comes to the investment side of it, among the major new investments, the bipartisan package is expected to provide $110 billion for roads and bridges, $39 billion for public transit, $66 billion for rail. there is also said to be $55 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as billions for airports and broadband internet and electric vehicle charging stations. the story added that the

spending is probably popular among the lawmakers. it also as that paying for the package has been a challenge after senators rejected ideas to raise revenue from used gas taxes. one of the people at the forefront was a republican from ohio, on the floor, talking about the efforts to pay for it. here he is from yesterday. >> we are hearing about how it will not increase inflation, partly because it is long-term spending for capital assets. it is spending that will add to the supply side, which means it will be counter inflationary and create more jobs. we hear about that. one thing i want to make sure we hear about tonight is the fact that this process of starting from the center out has worked. people have talked about

infrastructure in this city forever. president trump had a 1.5 trillion dollar infrastructure package, ours is $550 billion. ours is paid for. we made a commitment we would do two things. we will focus on core infrastructure. when president biden introduced a 2.65 billion dollar -- trillion dollar in for such a said let's pull out the good stuff. -- for infrastructure, we said let's pull out the good stuff. we will not hurt the american worker more and make america less competitive. we will do the opposite. we kept to those two principles and i am proud of that. we can say the substitute amendment will be offered and it will keep to that commitment. $555 billion, no new taxes, core infrastructure only and it is great for the american people. host: the washington post highlighted the text of the bill

, saying the bipartisan compromise as a result amid both new taxes and user fees. -- there is nonetheless remains concerned -- there nonetheless remains concerned in both parties that some of the math is fuzzy, raising the potential that the package could bring significant fighting on the senate floor. when you take a look at the potential for the passage as the senators have to look for it, you go back to that associated press story, quoting senator john cornyn, a republican of texas, saying it will be a grind. that is the starting point when it comes to this introduction of the bipartisan bill on infrastructure. you can let us know in the hour

to come if you support what is being proposed, generally. if you oppose it, or maybe you are unsure. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. text us as well at (202) 748-8003. lynn kennedy from facebook says when it comes to being proposed, she says congrats, happy to see republicans and democrats can work together. bob says when it is -- when it comes to what is being proposed, another shovel ready fiasco. ben smith says when it comes to spending, deficit does not matter anymore. those are some of the facebook postings. we will add on as the show progresses. leonard on the support line,

good morning. you are first up. caller: good morning. the fact is that i saw yesterday's senate hearing and between the six hours or seven or eight hours of nothing, to have this filibustered was absurd. i think he should have been cut off after 20 minutes or so. i support this deal. i wish there was more money into it. i don't think $1 trillion will be enough for all 50 states. host: as far as the reasons you support it, why do you do you support it, generally? caller: because our bridges are collapsing, our bridges are decaying. you can't rely on the governors of each state to do what the federal government can do. they can only do so much,

because they are caught with deficit spending, because they are not allowed to. they are not allowed to deficit spend, but the federal government can and the federal government should. host: you talk about the state of bridges, is that how you would describe it in new jersey as far as roads, bridges and the like? caller: yes. a lot of our roads and bridges are horrible. we have more potholes than i have seen in the years that i have been living here. the bridges, a lot of our bridges are old. very old. and the governor can't afford to deficit spend to get these bridges back into perfect shape. host: ok. that is leonard in cherry hill, new jersey. he talks about the ability of governors to spend.

it was joe manchin on the floor yesterday, talking about at least giving the pitch for other senators to come along and pass the bill. in doing so, he made the case, in his mind, for how the bill is passed and how it in? -- how it impacts the economy. >> american people are speaking loud and clear, the polls are overwhelming. they want their infrastructure repaired. let's rebuild america. we talked about it a lot. when you think about this, this is the largest long-term jobs program we have done, that we have ever done for a long time. they talk about basically the economy is soaring now and it will taper off or maybe go down. this would prevent that from happening. these are great jobs in every city and every county and every state in america. great jobs are going to be available for people who want good pay, high skilled jobs with benefits.

this is the bill that will do it for them. and this will keep us going for five to 10 years, not just one year. this is for five to 10 years. and we can continue to build on it. host: in louisiana, we will hear next from kathy in saint martinville, who opposes this. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i have trouble agreeing with them trying to pass this infrastructure bill, because so many things that have to do with not infrastructure are included in on it. we have a deficit of -- we have a deficit right now. we have to increase that deficit spending in our budget and they don't know that is going to come from. host: when you say that stuff in this text that is released that is not related to infrastructure, what do you mean

by that? caller: weren't things included in the bill as far as amnesty? host: there are two tracks of the bill. this one deals with hard infrastructure efforts, bridges, roads and the like, is that what you are opposed to or are you thinking about larger efforts that might be in the reconciliation bill? caller: they will have to do the reconciliation bill to get everybody on board. those other things are included in that. host: as far as this specific bill, do you still oppose it? caller: you know what it is? i just trust their spending habits in washington, d.c. everyone says the federal government can increase deficit spend, even though the states can't. we have to get a grip on our spending. they have spent so much money in the first part of this administration, the first seven to eight months of this administration, it is already showing in --

host: let's hear from harry in new jersey. you are next up. on the support line. caller: are there going to be any social programs in this? we are in need of good social security. host: i don't know. there are other social programs being considered in the reconciliation package with both the senate majority leader and the house speaker saying it needs to be passed, in order to make the infrastructure bill happen. if you were -- if you are talking about the infrastructure bill, what do you support about it? caller: the electric portholes they will make around the country. host: why is that important to you? caller: well, i lean toward electric cars. host: ok.

that is harry in new jersey. the washington post said the proposal, which is technically called the infrastructure investment in jobs asked further sees a significant -- of funding to combat climate change. 21 billion dollars to respond to environmental concerns, including pollution. they propose allocating new sums to advance clean energy technologies, including $7.5 billion for electrical vehicle charging stations. it was rob portman making that case, saying it takes our outdated infrastructure and modernizes it. and that is good for everybody. senator portman and others, taking to the senate floor after

the release of the text. you can find that on c-span. if you go to the website and other places, you can see the text of the bill. if you care to read it, you can find the details that are included in this amendment that has been brought forth by a bipartisan group of senators. with its future in question as far as the amendment process and its actual passage, that is available on our website. christine in west virginia, on our support line. hi. caller: hello. host: hi. caller: i was wanting to say that i am proud of my senator, senator manchin, for infrastructure. i've been waiting almost 20 years for high-speed internet. maybe we will get some where i live. my roads, finally maybe we will get some roads where i live in west virginia. i am proud of senator manchin for working for the bipartisan

infrastructure bill. and i hope also that our other centers -- senators, -- are other senator, shelley capito, will vote for the bill. host: you mention high-speed internet, give us the situation there as far as what your accessibility is. caller: i have satellite internet and i pay a lot for satellite internet. i can't get the high-speed where i am at. i have frontier. frontier does not bring up where i am at in the rural part of west virginia. i have to fight with them, constantly, about my internet and it is a disaster where i am at with high-speed internet. host: that is christine, telling the internet side of the story and that is part of the funding

that is being proposed by these senators. still a lot to go through before actual passage could be seen. we will tell you more about that. (202) 748-8000 if you support the package. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002 is the number to call. we will continue on with those calls. we will first, talk with joey garrison. he is with usa today. mr. garrison, good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: could you talk about not only the white house possible reaction but also the degree the white house was working alongside senators to make it happen? guest: it has been a very busy last several weeks for the white house to hammer this home. they have been negotiating with

republican senators for days. for the white house, this is the infrastructure, we have been talking about it for two administrations. it is a pivotal week for the white house. there is a host of other hurdles after this potentially passes -- is potentially passed by the house. host: do you have a sense that it was the washington post that highlighted resident biden was talking with this -- president biden was talking with this group. -- with this group? guest: they have to keep republicans on board who agreed to the framework and now the more than 20 or so that signed on for the infrastructure bill. that will not be an easy task. so much of this interplay is

going on with the reconciliation package. -- on the infrastructure bill, he will put forward the reconciliation bill that democrats hope to pass. republicans have spoken and said they will not support that. that is where things will get tricky. it is almost like a three-dimensional, complicated jigsaw puzzle. the white house will have to thread the needle to get this passed and start working immediately to get that budget resolution passed. representative alexandria ocasio-cortez said that progressive house democrats are not going to support a bipartisan infrastructure bill in the house unless they get that reconciliation resolution to the house as well and it is to their liking and it is not

watered down. this is the beginning. for the white house, we have said it several times, but it is infrastructure week. host: one of the other things that is being reflected daily in the newspaper and other sources of media is the rise of the delta variant of covid here in the united states. how does the white house plan to react to this? >> joe biden gave remarks about the efforts on vaccination. he unveiled new strategies, including incentives as well as new rules for the federal workforce. the policy for federal workers is either get vaccinated or be subject to various rigorous testing. i know -- i i think this is

a defining stretch for the president's 10 year. -- tenure. for the first time in a long time, there are real questions about his leadership on the pandemic. his approval rating had been over -- has been over 50% and that is largely because of his handling of the pandemic. i am sure you have noticed it as well, talking to people who may ask you, people who know about the new rules or recommendations in regards to wearing masks for those who are vaccinated, that feels like we have taken a step back for a lot of people. he has to ease the concerns of americans out there and continue to project that his administration has a handle on this.

i think one question is whether we go so far as to encourage businesses to require vaccines for their workers. we will see if that is what they do. he has laid out an urgent plea for americans to get vaccinated, in order to fight this delta variant. health officials know the vaccination rate among americans has to increase. host: one of the urgent please was the passing -- pleas was the passing of the eviction moratorium. -- to make the case for the house to come back. nancy pelosi said it was the white house that made a call on this. guest: this was handled rather sloppily.

it wasn't until two days before the moratorium was set to expire that the white house publicly started urging the house of representatives and congress to extend that moratorium. the clock ran out. speaker pelosi pointed the finger at republicans, saying they were not on board. the reality, there were many democrats that wondered whether this moratorium was needed. you mentioned representative cori bush, she was joined by boccaccio cortez and ayanna -- alexandria cost the cortez -- alexandria ocasio-cortez and ayana. it is unlikely that the house will return from recess.

she pointed out that democrats have control of the house. she also said hey, the white house -- until it was too late. the biden administration supports the extension of the moratorium but it will have to be a couple of weeks for that to happen. it will have to be when congress reconvenes. host: joey garrison, who covers the white house for usa today, you can see his work at usa today.com. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you for having me. host: we return to your calls about the infrastructure package. we will see if you support it or oppose it, maybe you are unsure. rafael on our support line, thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro.

we need this infrastructure bill in the western part of louisiana. it is like a third world country. we don't have the money to clean up. we have trash piled up. we had two floods due to hurricanes. people are leaving. fema is not doing too much. we need some help in louisiana. we had two floods in the last six months. people have water in their homes. we need help in louisiana. thank you for accepting my call. host: this is from jeff in toledo. he says this bill should not be passed unless they find a way to pay for it. larry from west caldwell, new jersey, saying the national grid and water and wastewater treatment is due for an upgrade and repairs. that will take years to accomplish. michael from portland, oregon

says he supports it, if only because any bipartisan measure deserves support in our dysfunctional and gridlocked government. it was the senate majority leader, chuck schumer, on the floor yesterday, after the bipartisan group spoke. he talked about what his next steps were when it comes to this proposal. here is senate majority leader schumer, from yesterday. >> i will offer the text as a substitute commitment, making it the base of the bill. then, the senate will work to consider additional amendments to the bipartisan framework. given how bipartisan the bill is and how much work has already been put in to get the details right, i believe the senate can quickly process amendments and pass this bill in a matter of days.

i will move the senate along the second track of our infrastructure effort, and take up the budget resolution. a bipartisan infrastructure bill is definitely necessary. but to many of us, it is not sufficient. that is why soon after this bill passes the senate, democrats will press forward with the budget resolution, to allow the senate to make further historic, vitally important investments in american jobs, american families and efforts to reverse climate change. look, i set out two very ambitious goals for the senate this summer and we are on our way to achieving both. both tracks, this one and the other, are very much needed by the american people and we must accomplish both. host: we are asking you if you support or oppose the bill.

this is lisa from california. good morning. caller: i don't know if i really opposed it but i don't think they have anything about how they are going to dispose the batteries. these electric charging stations, there is probably not enough electricity with that. how are they going to dispose of the waste, they have already found toxic things in baby food like lead and any other toxic metals. they had to recall some baby food. a lot of people are going to buy that if they don't know. host: back to the bill itself, it is only the aspects of the electric grid and the electric charging stations, that's what concerns you most? caller: no, no, it is the

disposing of the batteries that can spurns -- concerns me the most. they won't have enough charging stations for the electric vehicles. but, it is the exposing of the waste. where will they put it? washington state? they have tons of nuclear waste. new mexico or alaska? host: let's hear from conrad in philadelphia. you are next up. caller: how are you doing? i want to make a few comments. the united states will support another country for 20 years. the last 20 years, we have been taking care of everybody else. if we can go overseas and build their roads and help them out every time they are in crisis, we are in crisis now. host: you are calling because

you oppose this bipartisan effort. why is that? caller: i opposed some of it. we have to do something. those same guys can vote to take care of every other foreign country for anything. if they have an uprising over there, they have a pandemic over there, anything we do in washington, we need this year. i oppose some of it, but i don't oppose all of it. host: what specifically do you oppose? caller: i oppose the fact that we have a millionaire that can fly to the moon but we have people in rural areas that can't get the internet. host: out of everything, it is the broadband access expansion, that concerns you most? caller: not only that, this country shouldn't say no to nothing. we support everybody worldwide. listen, if they have a flood in india, we send trucks and

everything over there. host: i will stop you there, only because you have made that point several times. several of you are making points when it comes to this infrastructure bill, many of you are calling for your support or opposition to it. some of you are unsure. you can tell us what you think on our support line, (202) 748-8000. our oppose line, (202) 748-8001. the unsure line, (202) 748-8002. when it comes to high-speed internet, the white house is telling us and it gives us background, saying part of the commerce department published an online map last month. the document shows how poor rural and schreiber -- tribal and areas don't have internet access.

broadband is defined as a download speed of 25 megabit per second and an upload speed of three mikovits. while 25 is sufficient for much uses, when it is transmitted to multiple people using different devices, real-world speeds, particularly when it comes to those devices when videoconferencing is involved, are often slower and insufficient. that is more of that aspect when it comes to the broadband, which some of you have highlighted the fact -- that fact today. that is part of the package being proposed by senators. with his future still in question as far as -- with its future still in passage -- in question as far as passage. in iowa, we will hear from tim. caller: hello. i think that here in iowa, we passed a gas tax about four or

five years ago. we raised it a dime. the interstate in southern iowa what was rebuilt -- iowa was rebuilt. they put new pavement in. so it is pretty nice. host: when it comes to this legislative effort, you are unsure? caller: i just wonder how much is really needed. everybody is brainwashed that the roads are so bad but i don't see them being real bad here. [laughter] like i said, the roads were completely rebuilt for the interstate here in southern iowa.

it's all brand-new. host: ok. caller: what i was going to say is have you ever seen them doing two different deals at the same time, this bipartisan bill and then we will go ahead and do this other deal for everything else we couldn't ever get, we will have it in. host: you mean the reconciliation bill? caller: yeah, it seems strange. host: that both have to be existing before the bipartisan bill can be voted on? caller: yeah. everything shouldn't be thrown in this other deal. why would the republicans go along with the bipartisan deal if they are going to throw everything else in the reconciliation bill?

host: tim in iowa, that is the back and forth in the new york times when they take a look at the bipartisan effort and what exists when it comes to larger issues. it says many democrats fear republicans are playing them, in hopes of watering down the package to kill democratic efforts to pass the $3.25 trillion measure. their view is from experiences in 2009 and 2010 when republicans engaged on extended talks in health care. he writes republicans on the other hand worry that mr. schumer and most tim accredits don't want a bipartisan -- democrats don't want a bipartisan deal. they believe that mr. schumer is going through the motions to set of -- satisfy the bipartisan desires of president biden and a

handful of democrat senators to keep them on board for a bigger bill. that -- but that he would not be unhappy if the bill collapsed so he could move on and say he tried but failed to report -- work with republicans. ugh sandra oh costo cortez was on sunday -- alexandria ocasio-cortez was on sunday shows. >> it is alarming. language around privatizing infrastructure, we have seen public infrastructure for private entities and it is concerning and should be concerning to every american. we need to see that language and see what is put in there so that when it reaches the house, bipartisan doesn't always mean it is in the interest of the public good. sometimes there are lobbyist giveaways in some of these bills. >> when it comes to the

infrastructure package, you disagree with a fellow democrat from michigan who said don't let it sit. it does not age well. >> we have a deal. the deal is reconciliation for the bipartisan infrastructure. >> you called out kyrsten sinema for saying she does not support the $3.25 trillion infrastructure package. you wrote good luck tanking , while presuming you will survive a three bauhaus margin. -- three vote house margin. >> we have a tight margin in the senate. i respect that we have to get kyrsten sinema and joe manchin's vote. they should respect that there is a tight house margin and we have to uphold our end as well. house republicans are part of that majority. >> how many are with you on

this? >> i believe a large amount of the progressive caucus. i am not the whip of the progressive caucus but it is more than three and it is in the double digits. absolutely. >> enough to prevent it from passing. >> more than enough. host: here is the wall street editorial page, saying the infrastructure bill is being written by a handful of senators. you can be sure lobbyists -- union wage rules -- bipartisan bills often contain some of the worst special interest excesses. al in ohio on our oppose line. go ahead. caller: i am against the bill

because, are they going to list what is in the bill? host: there is a working list. we have highlighted some of the figure aspect. caller: do you have a complete list? that is why i am against it. we need to know what is in these bills. you can't start adding stuff in there after we already agreed to it. i'm opposed to it for the simple fact -- i am writing down what is in there but i don't know what is in there. host: the text is available online if you go to our website and other places. if you go to our website, it is 2700 pages if you want to read the text there. caller: this is what i am talking about. this is a joke. the infrastructure bill should not be 2700 pages. to that last caller, we had donald trump in their for

america -- in there for america. host: ok. that is al in ohio. this is jean in maine on our unsure line. caller: yes, i am unsure about this bill because of the way that the bipartisan bill is connected to the partisan bill. i don't think we should be earning that way. i don't understand why it is being done. and i think a lot of the things that are being covered, one good example is the electric set up for electric cars, that the government is going to pay for cars to fuel up. why does the government have to pay for that? i think the way the combustible

engine started out, it was done privately. i am worried about the amount of money the government is spending. we have taken trillions of dollars for granted, like it is nothing. what is going to happen to our country, spending this kind of money? host: one of your senators was at the forefront of this effort, senator susan collins. what do you think of her involvement in hit? -- in it? caller: she is wise in some things but she has to walk the line to keep her job. we are very left-leaning in the lower part of maine. i don't always agree with -- i don't agree with a lot of what she does. they vote for her because she is better than the alternative. host: you may want to keep watching because it was your

senator, susan collins on the floor yesterday. she was talking about how the passage of this bill could impact those like yourself, who live in maine. here she is, from yesterday. >> i want to quickly give an example, from my own state of maine. maine has 315 bridges and nearly 1500 miles of roads that are rated as being in poor condition. now, the state of maine will have the funding that will enable it to make major investments in the repair and replacement of this critical infrastructure. i am particularly pleased that the legislation includes $65 billion to expand access to broadband. and i want to thank my colleague, senator jeanne shaheen, who worked so closely

with me. we were partners in this endeavor and this will make such a difference to students who are doing online courses. to seniors who want access to telemedicine. to individuals who are able to work from home. but, none of that is possible without access to high-speed internet services. host: again, if you want to see this group of senators that came to the floor after the release of the text, go to our website at c-span.org. it will be front and center there. the senate will come in at noon today to continue work on it. you can follow along on that activity at c-span2. carol in panama city, florida, texted us saying infrastructure could and should have been done years ago. she adds that the republicans

always put a start -- stop to getting it done. they couldn't give a flying fig about huge unnecessary tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. she is not sure. is it prudent to have electric vehicle charging stations while electric vehicles are not affordable to the majority of americans? what are big corporations doing to fight global warming? also, is there anything in the bill that specifies training and hiring of displaced american workers due to the pandemic? from ohio, sue does not agree. they are owned by local and state governments. too much federal government control. that is texting us. if you want to take your thoughts that route, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. tom in vermont, on our support

line. you are next up. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i love c-span. good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: i support. one thing i would like to know is why aren't we fixing bridgewaters? we should bring home the army corps of engineers and bring them home and fix our roads. bring the troops home too. have everybody put in some hours. host: but for the specific text that was put in yesterday, why do you support it? caller: it sounds like a good deal. we are trying. they really are trying. host: tom in vermont.

john in ohio, on our oppose line, hello. caller: yes. actually, i support the infrastructure bill but, i oppose the reconciliation bill. the infrastructure bill is just a supplement to the taxes that we pay anyhow for the roads that are repaired. that is why i support the infrastructure bill. the reconcile bill, that will kill this country. host: you are saying one should not be tied to the other. caller: exactly, it shouldn't. and that is why this thing is never going to go. the republicans will not support that reconcile bill, which is outrageous. this country can't afford that. host: as far as if it has to be

done as a package, you are saying don't do that. but, as far as the package itself, what do you like about it? caller: it is a supplement -- listen, we already pay taxes for our roads and all of this other. and so, the infrastructure package is just a supplement to what we pay for anyhow. that gets a lot more done. it should be separate. host: john in ohio on the oppose line. when it comes to the white house's efforts, you can read what the white house was doing behind the scenes on the washington post. the presidential counsel was on

virtual speed dial. on the republican negotiators phone, after he angered republicans by trashing conditions on the deal, it was president biden, phoning rob portman to ask how he can quell the uproar. it says the top white house aides held daily meetings to gauge progress. the secretary members of commerce, transportation, energy, labor, and housing and urban development would swap intel on what lawmakers were thinking and identify tumbling blocks. the congress secretary was the most closely involved in negotiating with republicans, striking an agreement with senator susan collins and jeanne shaheen on broadband provision at numerous meetings and after lengthy messaging.

again, we have been telling you about that. you can find it online at c-span.org. the text of the bill, you can read it in other places as well. if you support it, if you oppose it, or maybe you are unsure, one of the people talking about the bipartisan efforts was one of the people at the forefront of this effort. kyrsten sinema, on efforts from both sides of the aisle to get the bill completed. >> i know it has been difficult and i know it has been long. what i am proud to say is that is what our forefathers intended. when they crated a system of government, it required republicans and democrats to come together in a coequal branch of government and work with each other and the administration to find legislation and solutions that meet the need of our countries, individuals, families, companies

and communities. it is difficult and time-consuming and it is exactly what our country demands of us every single day. to find common ground, compromise and be willing to work with each other. to give a little, to get a little, in order to achieve what is right and best for the american people. i think the process we are embarking on this evening, as we soon will join together represent every state across the country is an important one. it sends the message across this country and to individuals across this world that the united states government can work. it is difficult, time-consuming, it can be hard. but, this very process of finding bipartisan compromise and working together to overcome obstacles to achieve the objectives the american people are depending upon us to do is

the core of why each of us serve in this government. host: this is from curtis off of facebook, saying that coming from a rural area, i hope this passes. there are a lot of benefits. also, eisenhower had a larger plan that was scaled back and would have been surviving on his infrastructure plan. we have roads and towns crumbling because we have not invested in infrastructure sense. one person says the money alone will not wave a magic wand, people do. kids are only in debt because when parents don't have jobs, some of this will be paid for in taxes. paid by these new jobs. it wasn't that long ago more pandemic money was rejected

because of what was appropriated and has not been spent. in alabama on our support line, go ahead. you are next up. caller: good morning to you. it is a pleasure to talk with you. host: good morning. caller: i do support it. if you come and drive on the roads down here, i think you would support it. our visitors that come in from out-of-state, they are hitting so many potholes. our roads are not even paved. and some of the bridges are just horrible.

i support it to protect our children. we have a period of ice and snow and rain and some of our bridges are just horrible. some of them i drove over when i was a child and they are actually still there. i wonder with the people ask for school buses to travel over those bridges right now? some of them in the winter, when we have our monsoon weather, they are impossible. host: a story from alabama when it comes to be roads and bridges situation.

this is roberta from pennsylvania on our oppose line. caller: hi. i'm calling about the infrastructure bill. it seems it is tied to the 3.2 trillion dollars reconciliation bill. i disagree with that. it will give amnesty to the illegal immigrants coming in. it will not help the american people. the infrastructure bill has some good to it and some bad to it. it needs to go. -- the money never gets to where it needs to go. host: when you say the last part, what convinces you of that? caller: our people don't get help.

[indiscernible] they will put more infrastructure taxes on. then they turn to federal help, which will not come. the money will never come to the other states. they will push under the rug somewhere. host: on our oppose line, this is a viewer off of our unsure line. larry. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host: good. caller: i am for the infrastructure part of the bill and against the reconciliation part. unfortunately, it seems as if

ms. pelosi and mr. schumer constantly want to pork up bills like this and parking up things like that is unpalatable. that's all i have to say. it's unfortunate that is the way things are nowadays. we are being hoodwinked, as opposed to being spoken to. host: you say if the bipartisan bill stood on its own, you would support it? caller: yes. host: it was on cnn, senator joe manchin of west virginia was asked about the $3.25 trillion reconciliation bill and where he was on it. here is his take from yesterday. >> speaker pelosi said she will not hold a vote on the bill, assuming it passes the senate,

until the much larger $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill passes. moderate house democrats say the house should vote on the infrastructure bill as soon they can read which strategy do you support? -- soon as they can. which strategy do you support? >> i believe every bill should go up on its own merit. >> senator warren describes the bill as one big package. is that how you view it? >> i never did view it that way. i respect senator warren and everyone else who has a ditz for -- different perspective. the last three decades, they have been trying to do a large infrastructure bill. when you talk about roads and bridges and internet services, it is something every state, every area needs. this is something that we should be getting 80 or 90 votes on. we will do great on that. i felt traditional infrastructure is traditional infrastructure.

a pothole does not have a republican or democrat name on it. it will bust your tire and tear up your car and we need to fix that. host: senator joe manchin yesterday. this is from steve, saying no legislature that has 27 hundred pages of fine print should be passed. not a single congressperson would receive a passing score if they were tested on its contents. they are stealing our money and follow milling -- funneling it to their billionaire donors. scott supports it, not the green new deal. that is absurd. inflation is killing our country. jeffrey is calling from woodbridge, virginia. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am not sure why there is so much opposition to the reconciliation bill. hopefully you guys can give a

more detailed summary of what is in it. definitely for the infrastructure bill, between the civil engineer who gave us a d-rating -- d- rating. that is a public-private partnership. more public investment is needed for our roads, waterways and broadband. the details of this bill are quite good for the country. getting rid of all of these pipes, which i believe is 55 billion to $60 billion. this is a game changer. hopefully more people realize that. that is why i think republicans are coming on board, they see how popular this bill is.

the other thing about the reconciliation bill, expanded benefits for medicare recipients. for hearing aids, two years of community college for people. expanded tax credits and paid family leave. what are american people against in that bill? that is something i don't understand. host: jeffrey in woodbridge, virginia, he mentions the report card done by the american society for civil engineers. we featured a guest, talking about the aspects of it. how they break the various infrastructure pieces down, when it comes to be roads section. they gave it an overall grade of b. the vital lifelines are frequently underfunded. motorists are forced to pay over $1000 per year and waste time and fuel.

while traffic fatalities have been on the decline, over 36,000 people are dying on the nations roads every year -- nation's roads every year. that is from infrastructure report card.org. if you want to read more, they look at a lot of categories. mike in laguna woods, california. this is the last call. on the oppose line. caller: america was founded on no taxation without representation. yet, we are piling onto future generations, you norms debt. host: when you heard senator portman saying that their proposal would not be done on new taxes, you don't believe that? caller: i think that when you have such enormous debt already, that is a suspicious -- is

basically a specious conversation. host: we continue on with the topic. as you have questions about the of the text has been released, the dog -- the dollar figures involved, following it very closely, eugene mulero of transport topics. break down what is in the text and what to expect going forward here. nader in the program, we will hear from insider health care reporter andrew dunn. the leaves on the covid vaccine, the delta variant cases, and part yearly how that particularly help biological companies are responding when it comes to the developer the vaccines. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." >> david stewart use practice

law in washington, d.c. he gave that up 15 years ago to write history. his first book was all about the constitutional convention in philadelphia. called "the summer of 1787." that was in 2008 full-time a year later he wrote about the trial of andrew johnson. then he focused on ehrenberg, james madison. now in 2021 he takes a look at george washington. and in david stewart's words, his mastery of politics. announcer: historian and attorney david stewart, on book notes plus. listen at c-span.org/podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

host: as promised, eugene mulero of transport topics joining us, the senior congressional reporter on this day, the day after the senators released the text of their bipartisan infrastructure proposal. mr. mulero, thank you for joining us. could you run through the topline figures as far as a dollar amounts are concerned? guest: yeah. the senate has a trillion dollar bill, about half of that, $550 billion, his new spending over baseline levels. that is washington speak.

the $550 billion that has been agreed upon by the bipartisan group of senators includes about $100 billion for new construction and maintenance projects for roads and bridges. somewhere about $66 billion for freight and rail, and then there is significant investment funding for transit, somewhere around almost $40 billion. there is money for electric vehicle charging stations, $7 billion dedicated for that. there is also somewhere around give or take $50 billion for what they call severe weather infrastructure resilience. that is just a fancy term for addressing climate change across infrastructure. and then several policy provisions -- we are looking at establishing a buy america office, i believe, under the office of management and budget. this is something president biden has been talking about,

especially last week, talking about buy america, and the white house was touting it. it has significant money dedicated for improving connectivity amongst historically disenfranchised neighborhoods. this is something called transportation equity, to address some of those concerns and transportation in decades past. neighborhoods of minority and african-american committed his. then significant investment for broadband internet, verbal broadband is something that got the support of -- rural broadband is something that got the support of the centers from republican states. host: weird senator portman earlier saying as far as the financing of this -- we heard senator portman earlier saying as far as the financing of this, where does the money come from for the new spending?

guest: the lead negotiators continue to say this is a fully paid for bill. federal transportation observers and congressional experts -- they are noting that the bill is proposing dedicating about $200 billion from unused covid-19 relief funds sent to the states. so the states that have yet to use that money transfer that money that has been unobligated over to this legislation. also there is money from other unused federal-aid programs, such as unemployment insurance, due to the covid pandemic. and then there is several other provisions. one of them is to establish robust tax enforcement policies against -- not against -- tax enforcement of crystal currencies such as bitcoin. then there is another realm of funding proposal here that is

called dynamic scoring, in that the revenue from investments -- so like a return on investment from this bill -- that funding has been calculated in the financing of this legislation to reach $1 trillion, and the negotiators in the white house really insist that we raise taxes on people only making over $400,000 a year. host: you can ask him questions that 202-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones, and 202-748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. if you want to text questions or comments, you can do so at 202-748-8003. from here, eugene mulero, we heard senator schumer say that when it comes to the bill itself, it is the amendment process that comes next. what could that possibly do to

the way the bill is packaged now? guest: what i'm hearing that that's what i'm hearing is that the amendments process is likely to kick off sometime tomorrow afternoon and head over to wednesday. we are expecting to see some amendments on some very hot button issues from several republicans. we are talking about amendments related to climate change, social themes such as defunding the police. this will be linking -- proposing that no money will go to affecting police departments. because you are going to expect to see some social messaging amendments. however, you know, whether or not those amendment are made and ordered by chuck schumer remains to be seen. senator schumer says he is expecting some of these amendments to go through. another when we can expect is to have amendments on transit, perhaps to decrease the amount

allocated toward transit. that could likely be made, to be debated, and if there is enough support from especially republicans, the money will go down in the bill. as well as amendments on amtrak. then we get from democrats, amendments to enhance electric vehicle charging station funding as well as the transportation equity programs that i mention. host: that last point, 7.5 billion dollars for vehicle chargers -- how would that work? would these be federally funded vehicle charges, tied to private industry? what is the prospectus of how that would work? guest: right now the way that the bill is crafted, that money will be dedicated to state agencies to create a line of funding for state agencies to build their electric vehicle

charging stations, primarily addressed stops. there could be -- primarily at rest stops. there could be negotiation as to the management of those charging stations. and then a state dot could partner with a private company to have that private company have a contract to operate those electrical vehicle charging stations. that is down the road. right now the money would go to state dot's so they could proceed with this, and then the federal government and federal facilities would own and manage electric vehicle charging stations. they are using grants and other financial tools to expand that. guest: 2.5 billion dollars, if it still exists, for transmission-zero buses. guest: that's right, president

biden wants to invest in transmission-zero buses. that would be at the federal and state level to create a fleet, establish a fleet of zero-emission vehicles, and this will fall under the umbrella over the white house, which aims to have in the coming decades zero emissions from the transportation industry. host: we welcome your calls. barbara in oklahoma, you're up for eugene mulero. transport topics. barbara, go ahead. caller: yes, i have a husband who is a train engineer. a wild back, one or two years ago, they needed train engineers in texas, so they recruited the people from oklahoma to come to san antonio, i think it was.

in texas. to come and work there. do you know how much a train engineer was making? he was making $14,000 a month. now, then, you're telling me that they don't have any money? forget it. i was just in san jose a wild back. had not been there in a while because i'm from california. they had built a whole new eight-lane freeway. where did they get the money from that? they were always saying we don't have any money. because we had all kinds of potholes on our freeways. come to find out, when matron went out of office, there were millions and millions of dollars in the coffers for the road. it was never used. host: that was barbara in oklahoma. let me start with mass transit. that seems to be a sticking point leading up to this text, particularly the money set aside

for amtrak. can you elaborate more on that? guest: for transit there was a dispute by the negotiators of the legislation. some of them argued that transit had already been dedicated, several billion dollars from covid aid to address their economic downfall. and individual senators from the urban settings who really relied on transit, they continued to argue that there was an additional need for about $40 billion to bring most of the transit systems around the country to a better state of repair. ultimately, the senators who were proponents of transit really were able to, you know, have a better, clear funding proposal. now, for amtrak, there is a

potential for anywhere between 80 to 100 -- i'm sorry, anywhere between 10 built -- 10 billion dollars of additional aid via grant and the federal -- and amtrak to repair between new york and new jersey. this has been a priority of the biden white house. again, some of those democrat leadership who represent new york and new jersey and connecticut. to the point that the caller raised about funding for transportation projects, there are two points worth mentioning in that some transportation projects are at the local level and the state level, and in order for them to proceed, sometimes they have to qualify for federal assistance, a federal loan, a federal grant, and that process can take several years, as well as, you know, if there was -- if a state

had a dedicated money for a certain transportation improvement projects, the environmental review process could take several years, sometimes perhaps a decade, in order to be finalized for that project to proceed. while the money has been dedicated for a specific state or local project, often the maturation of that investment will take several years to realize. host: let's hear from melody in ventura, california. hello. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. go ahead, please. caller: my question is, they are taking money from the covid refund, and i have not received two of my checks. i also know people who still need their unemployment. why are you taking the money from there and we are not receiving our money? i'm just curious how that works. host: melody in california, thank you. guest: my understanding is that

it will come from states where the state government has assured the federal government that they have fulfilled their needs, via covert related, and that pocket of funding has been certified as to be unused. a state that continues to show a need to continue to provide emergency aid for residents and facilities, that money will not be untouched. that money would not be touched. then the money that has been available has been calculated to be somewhere around $200 billion, and i know the white house issued some updates about covid emergency relief, and also housing relief, just pointing for residents to continue to reach out to state agencies and federal agencies for support. host: matthew is next, from new

york. caller: good morning, guys. guest: good morning. caller: i can remember when i installed the interstate -- when they installed the interstate highway system and everything. we were the golden, shining light, the beacon of all the world with our infrastructure and whatnot. then 70 years later, what? there is supposed to be no upkeep? the technology changes all the time, and then the republicans want to know, well, how do you plan on paying for it? well, isn't that what our taxes are supposed to be used for? if that means increasing taxes on the very rich, isn't that ok? if they can go joy riding in space, why can't they pay for infrastructure? know what i mean? by the way, when the republicans say you cannot do that, then democrats say then why don't we

take existing tax laws and use them. make all those deadbeats that have not pay taxes in 30 years finally pay them. and republicans are all, well, you can't do that either. host: what is your question for our guest, please? caller: what are our options here? you know? i mean, help me out. host: that is matthew in new york. mr. mulero, let's say the money set aside for roads and bridges is approved. out of the federal government determine which state get that money? guest: there is going to be a formula prescription being written into law, and it will be likely negotiated with house transportation lawmakers, to give you, the department of transportation, the authority to distribute that money via grants

and also direct assistance for, you know, the specific projects. now, there is already guidance at u.s. dot that would just mandate the secretary to use these pockets of new money for what they call projects of high-priority. these will be projects that will either produce a big economic benefit for a region or a state, or projects that are in need of emergency repairs. to there is already guidance in place at dot, and there will be at guidance in the legislation directing the secretary. but again, it will be a project of high-priority that will be determined by the federal government, in collaboration with state agencies. host: there will be a mandate as far as once the money is released to the state, they have to use it for this project.

if that's the case, what's the oversight? guest: there will be robust oversight. u.s. dot has several oversight divisions. they have a board, overseas to their grants. the other oversight will be traditional federal oversight -- gao, the government accountability office, and also government watchdogs. state officials will also have an oversight role in these projects. host: does the federal government require come if he grants money to states, can it go to a new project, or can it go to an existing project? guest: that would be something that would be part of the planning of the dedicated money process. for a project -- let's say that it is a massive modernization project, one that i can think of will be the gateway tunnel

between new york and new jersey for amtrak. that will be considered a repair project. but also a new project because there is just a comprehensive dynamic project. in that regard, one aspect would be maintenance to repair that tunnel, other instances, you are going to have the money dedicated exclusively for bridge repair. other instances, let's say the infrastructure is, you know, just really old, just too structurally deficient at that point. there will be a decision made most likely to build a new bridge right next to it. that will be something that takes several years to do, but again, this would be a very comprehensive dynamic system to determine which would be the project of high-priority. this is what the money will be devoted over to, the u.s. dot

authority. host: eugene mulero joining us, the reporter for transport topics, talking about the release of the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the senate. john is next in florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: you are on, go ahead, sir. caller: i had a couple comments. instead of figuring out how we are going to collect the funds needed or selectively distribute the funds, i think really we should cut the bill. so i'm hoping the bill doesn't pass and gets shot down. tax the rich extra -- they are already paying extra. if we had a flat 10% income tax or got rid of the irs altogether, i think we would all be better off. look at the funds they are trying to spend. safety $5 billion to build reliable high-speed internet -- we are already doing that. why do we need to government

subsidy to do that? spent 65 billion -- give 5 million two -- that man would probably not get out for another two or three years. host: explain how that deployment would work. guest: this again will be money that will be managed at the federal level, and dedicated to state agencies to proceed with, you know, building and installing broadband internet connections primarily in rural parts of the country, states such as montana, wyoming, the dakotas. this is something that has been on the federal government's radar for many years. to the caller's point, private industry has primarily billed their broadband infrastructure where there are states of population densities in order to

have customers, and states with less population density, private industries have built a robust network in those areas. so, you know, we have u.s. residents who live in those areas, and the government is coming in -- you know, they have over the years sought to provide aid for broadband connection, but with this legislation, they really want to take it to the next level to improve conductivity. so not only residents are able to rely on this connection, but also to promote commerce and business so this way businesses can move to wyoming and high conductivity broadband internet in the states i mentioned. host: say a state does give money, it is them -- it is deployed to a certain rural area, will there be a cost

incentive for those who cannot afford it to gain access to it? guest: you know, all those details will be determined, you know, once they go down the negotiation of this legislation. my understanding is that the federal government will partner with state agencies to provide the access to the state residents, and now the management of the conductivity could be outsourced to companies to manage or state indices will have the oversight of managing the broad infrastructure. the process will be negotiated or could go even to the federal rulemaking process to determine the best approach for managing that infrastructure. host: on the senate side, we saw many phases come in to the cameras yesterday, their names all throughout this process. mitt romney one of those

republicans working on that side, along with rob portman on the emma credit side, talk about the groups themselves, and particularly, how much background do they have on infrastructure issues? if they don't have a lot of back on, who are they helping to rely on help draft this? guest: senders such as mitt romney have extensive background on infrastructure. he was the governor of massachusetts, presidential candidate, and he has been involved in the state transportation policy matters. as well as having policy background when it comes to transportation and infrastructure. when you look at his record and his resume, the other senders involved -- mark warner of virginia, bill cassidy of louisiana, these are -- kyrsten sinema was the lead negotiator with senator portman. these are senators who are part of the congress committee that

handles freight and rail. the hew committee handles service transportation. a quick footnote, the highway authorization bill is part of this senate package. so they do have a staff that is very well, you know, fluent on these matters. as well as they are working with the leadership and the leadership of the committees that i mentioned. in crafting this, not only were they crafting this, but also they were relying on what the u.s. house did on their how a bill that on their highway bill to emulate certain provisions and also to enhance other provisions and determine a path forward on how they put together the legislation. when the bill was debated on the floor, during the amendment process and the full consideration, it would be the leadership, the chairman and the

ranking member of the ep w committee managing this bill, and again, there will be -- they will be sensitive with their staff as well. host: from larry in texas. your on with our guest. caller: it's all about -- it's all over facebook that people -- congress is coming out with another stimulus package. is that true? i don't know what to believe. i thought i would ask. thank you. host: to that end, i think we will keep it on the idea of transportation. you talked a little bit about the process and some of the amendments that could be added. on the house side, all of this depends on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package being passed. if that -- is there a way -- is there anyway that that that

could have been separately made from the 3.5 size packages that you have. guest: if the senate passes an amended infrastructure bill by thursday, it will be sent to the house, and there the top transportation policymaker, congressman peter defazio, has insisted that he wants a conference, meaning he wants to negotiate with senators on finalizing a package, an infrastructure package. he continues to say that his highway bill that the house passed the summer has other provisions that are very much-needed regarding climate change and environments adjusted and technology. so if there is a negotiation between house and senate, policymakers -- that will be something that would slow down "the legislative process."

parallel to that, you have speaker pelosi insisting that she wants to consider after a budget resolution what is called a budget reconciliation bill that could likely be anywhere between $3.5 trillion in that ballpark, that would have money for environmental policy, health care, child care, and other social programs -- the environment. and she continues to link that reconciliation that would require a simple majority in the senate. they must pass within -- with an infrastructure bill. you have two separate bills at this point, and that is something that you heard from republicans, saying that it would be a nonstarter for them within negotiations. and then so far, very key democrats have not totally endorsed the notion of making both of them together. that is a long way toward

anterior question. it remains to be seen whether this infrastructure bill can pass by itself without this budget centric reconciliation bill. host: dug in key largo, florida. thanks for joining us. go ahead. caller: i was curious about the last bill that was passed for health care and all that. the covid think. there is hardly any oversight, and there was a lot of broad and everything else. and it seems we rely on the same senate and house to oversee the spending on this bill. thank you. host: any parallels that can be done as far as cashless say for this package, and then what we sow with the obama administration when they passed an infrastructure pack? guest: on the issue of oversight, the house put up a

committee to provide oversight specific to covid-19 aid and oversee that. now it will -- you have the biden administration dedicating access to his administration to oversee the distribution of covid aid and how that aid will be distributed and managed not only for social programs but also for transportation programs . and then when you compare what we are seeing with this infrastructure bill in the senate, the savvy what we saw with some recovery act, early into the first year of the obama administration, we are noticing more under bidens standpoint, more money that has been opposed to very specific policies, and transportation modes. federal railroad administration,

federal transit administration, the federal order of carrier safety administration's, to name a few. that money will be there to mannish and dedicate to those safety programs, whereas during the obama years there was the importance that a grant program be established at d.o.t. so there will be a better system to give money to state department of transportation so they can proceed with a very specific state project. there is some of that in the biden bill, but that was a big pillar of the biden -- the obama bill, the obama rescue package. those are the differences on that front. host: rodney in manassas, virginia. hi there. caller: thank you for taking my call. got a couple questions. first one is, you know, the infrastructure bill shows $500

billion for transportation, but there is an additional $500 billion which nobody has explained where that money is going to go to. the other question is, the epa plays a lot into the issues with the roads being built. if you could respond on that, i would appreciate it. you two gentlemen have a fantastic day. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you, sir. guest: i think the caller was referring to the $550 billion that is being new funding for the transportation infrastructure programs. the other half of the bill is money that has been already authorized for existing programs , for the transportation system nationwide, as well for, you know, technology programs, under the umbrella of these technology

programs will be electric vehicles, infrastructure to help set up and build momentum for the buildout of the electric charging stations. so when you step back and look at the numbers, in a very -- in inside washington lingo, it is above baseline what we consider $550 billion of new funding for these programs. host: then he talked about the role that the epa plays in all of this. guest: the epa is an agency that i did not mention, but that's another oversight agency that did not in the past play a participatory role in climate change, in severe weather resilience, infrastructure programs, and would also have a privacy -- a policy prescribing role in how some of the money would be allocated and managed.

host: eugene mulero joining us for this discussion. we did not talk too much about it, but you can highlight it. airports and ports -- i know that's getting a lot of attention, but where does that money go for as far as what happens to airports and ports of call, ports where ships come in? guest: airports are important to president biden. he was critical of the status of several airports, prominently laguardia airport. and $25 billion will be dedicated for major improvement projects for airports around the country, not only the major ones but also regional airports. airports have already received funding during the covid pandemic. emergency funding really. this will be money on top of that. again, to improve conductivity, to improve the management of

cargo at these airports and to facilitate conductivity and access and enhance their psychology. so basically all of the above improvement projects for airports. for ports, there is money to improve what is termed the last mile conductivity. this will be a multimodal aspect of ports, where a truck comes to the port, so that money will be primarily to enhance -- to reduce congestion. it has the flow of freight as the last mile quarter of ports. as well as enhance the capacity of ports, so they are not only able to maintain current levels, but they also enhance to bring in an additional ships, even larger ships. and both airports and ports, the

money will go for projects of high priority. primarily at an economic level. saying it will benefit to regional economies in best there is. host: one more call for frank in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. if you are a reporter -- i know everyone is going to think badly of me on this -- the money spent on covid, we see on tv how everyone is homeless. we spent how much, $5 trillion? every homeless person, every person in the united states could have had a house built. every military person -- this tunnel for towers -- everyone is trying to spend money to get them a house. host: let me step in because we are talking about the bipartisan bill introduced yesterday. do you have a question specifically about that?

caller: that's what i'm getting at with this bipartisan deal. all this money is wasted. it's going to go into nancy pelosi's pocket. we know it's going to happen. none of this money is going to trickle down to the americans like us. in february, covid was almost gone. host: that is way beyond our topic. at the caller's intent as far as the court of public opinion, eugene bolero, how much is it that eugene mulero, how is it -- how much his public opinion playing into this? guest: public opinion was very important during these negotiations. there were several surveys and polls that found the majority of americans supported having robust, major investments in infrastructure. one poll showed that 80% of respondents wanted governments at the federal, state, and local levels to repair not only their

potholes but also to improve conductivity for rural broadband . last night when you saw the negotiators in the senate come to the floor, they incited feedback from constituents, and not only were residents but also in the business community, who have been telling them -- they said that for years, they have needed improvements, reducing traffic congestion and their highways. so improving conductivity in the transits -- conductivity connectivity in the transit system. to enhance the contingency of our supply chain. so -- and president biden even last week when he was promoting the made in america campaign, he did cite feedback from the american people that the majority were calling on his administration to dedicate

additional aid and also response to climate change. host: eugene mulero covers this topic closely. as whether this -- as well as other jasper topics. thanks for coming along today to explain the events of yesterday. guest: thank you. host: we will take 20 minute or so and do open forum up till 9:00. if there is an interest in politics or maybe matters of interest structure -- of infrastructure, or other things as well. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. and 202-748-8002 for independents. announcer: tonight on the committee caters, technology reporters discuss the future of the tech industry and congress' tech agenda. >> you look at the priorities dominating congress and now, you see the pandemic taking over,

infrastructure takeover now. there are a lot of big tech topics that have historically in the last year or so -- start front and center. that includes the section 230 debate. data privacy is something that was hugely front and center in the tech space. 2019 2020 initially. those things are kind of off to the side a little bit right now. i think they are very important. there is not any consensus proposal out there in either chamber that is really going to move in any eminent way. announcer: the future of the tech industry tonight at 8:00 eastern, on the communicators on c-span2. c-span shop.org is c-span's online store for there is a collection of products. browse to see what is new. the purchase will go to support nonprofit out for -- nonprofit operations.

go to c-spanshop.org. announcer: washington journal continues. host: you can reach out via text if you wish. 202-748-8003. you can call on the lines. you can also post on our social media site. you can also post on facebook and facebook.com/c-span full tub when it comes to the state of the if action moratorium from the cdc that passed as of saturday -- or at least expired as of saturday, after more efforts by democrats in the house, to get it reinstated. the hill reporting this morning, top house democrats sunday called on the biden administration to extend that eviction oratory and amid the pandemic. "action is needed and it must come from the administration. white house leadership is calling on the administration to extend the mature and yes on the

moratorium." katherine clark also posting in an adjoining statement there. particular with the highly infectious delta variant, "as the ct -- the cdc doubles down, they must accept a moratorium in light of the delta variant. doing so is a moral imperative to keep people from being put out on the street come which also contributes to the public health emergency." again, that is from "the hill." when it comes to the issue of voting, "the washington post" reports that more than 100 state legislators from across the country will converge in washington to join their texas counterparts and pushing the senate and president biden to take action on voting reform legislation. lawmakers represent within 20 states including some in which republican-led legislatures have passed or consider new voting

registrations, urging senators to pass the for the people act to show progress on the federal voting law before their summer recess. they are scheduled to rally outside the capitol on tuesday and press their case during other public events and private meetings. the story adding that setting voting standards and overall campaign finance and ethics rules have stalled in the senate because it cannot get the support of 60 members needed to pass legislation there. joe manchin of west virginia and senator sinema of arizona have resisted, calling for the elimination of the filibuster rule. at least on the senate side, the senate is expected's comment at noon. that is expected to comment at noon. you can see those actions taking place on our channel c-span2. on the house side, the house is adjourned for their break, their august recess, and planning on

coming back in september to resume work there. it was on the topic of the eviction moratorium, taking to the sunday shows to talk and call on the administration to reinstate what you heard from the leaders in the senate, one of those was alexandria ocasio-cortez on cnn yesterday. >> this if action deadline was coming for weeks. democrats control the house, the senate, the white house. nothing was drafted by leadership until just a couple of days ago. who is to blame here? >> i think there are a couple of issues here. first of all, are absolutely correct in that the house and house leadership had the opportunity to vote to extend the moratorium, and there were a handful of conservative democrats in the house that threatens to get on planes rather than hold this vote, and we have to really just call a spade a spade. we cannot in good faith blame the republican party when house democrats have the majority.

now there is something to be said for the fact that this court order came down on the white house months ago, and white house waited until a day before the house adjourned to release a statement asking on congress to extend the moratorium. the financial services committee had restriction over housing. the housing secretary asked about the administration's stance. we ask the biden administration about this, and they were not being forthright about that advocacy and that request before the house adjourned. so the house put into a needlessly difficult situation, and it is not just me saying that. the financial services chairwoman maxine waters has made that very clear as well. there is a couple of contributing factors. we have governors not getting this rental assistance out in time. what we would like is an extension on the moratorium. the fact of the matter is that the problem is here. how should reconvene and call

this vote and extend the moratorium. there is about 11 million people behind on their rent, at risk as eviction. that is one out of every six renters in the united states. host: cbs news highlights a study done by -- of people who are behind on rent. 11 million people in that category, the left-leaning think tank estimate 16% of households are behind the delinquency rate before the pandemic. but more than a quarter are behind on payments. the southeast is the hardest hit region. 28% in south carolina were behind for the first week of july, according to the cbc -- to the cdc. this is one of the senior research scientists quoted there. the more strain it can put on the community. you can bring the topics up as you wish on open forum. we talk to karen, alabaster,

alabama, republican line. caller: good morning. good morning. i was trying to get on with your last guest. one thing i wanted to say about this infrastructure bill is that the democrats always tout, you know, if you're making under $400,000 a year, your taxes will not be raised, which is probably true. but they're all kinds of hidden fees in this bill. there is a guaranteed fee added on to mortgage payments, mortgages, for fannie mae and freddie mac. host: is this from the 2700-page text that was released yesterday, that you're reading from? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: there is a superfund excise tax that is going to be reinstated from the 1990's. guest: all i know is one of the

senators said yesterday when it comes to the new spending portion that no new taxes will come into play, but that was on the floor yesterday and you can see it there for yourself. but go ahead and finish her thoughts. caller: that's true, but there are hidden fees that will affect everybody. they either lie or they just don't say that this is what's going to happen. host: what do you think of the bill overall on its face? caller: the bill overall is going to be wasteful, spending too much money. one thing that the governor in alabama did a year or so ago was, she added a penny -- and extra penny that when you purchase gas everyone would pay an extra penny per gallon, and that is fine. that went for infrastructure. we just expanded going from birmingham, two to four lanes.

i don't know why the state cannot pay their infrastructure, and why do we have to pay for fiscally responsible hunters in california and new york for their infrastructure? they can pay for their own. host: democrats like, hi. guest: first of all, the state of connecticut gets $.76 for every tax dollar that contributes to the federal coffers. this did vallow bam a gets over two dollars. for every dollar put in. so i think by the collar -- what i called into say was people in the rural areas don't want to pay for amtrak. people who need amtrak don't want to pay for rural wifi. we have got to stop it. it all comes from the same till. we are in this together.

we will all sink or swim together. if we don't stop the one about me and what about him and what about them, we are missing the big picture. we all have to pay. those who earn more pay more. that is the way it is set up. if the people in connecticut decide not to fund the people in out bamako the people in alabama are going to be in trouble. we have to stop. there is -- not to mention the fact that something is being built now, the raw materials may come from connecticut and vice versa. that is the way it is set up. until we stop with this what about them, what about them come and start saying we have got to do it for us, we are going to be just on an endless grind and go nowhere fast. host: ok. that was lender there in connecticut. this is walter but -- walter,

butler indiana, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call, pedro. two quick things -- anyone who believes there should be a passport or to show proof that they have been vaccinated, they must also be pro-id for voting. if you need to show proof that you have been vaccinated, which killed less than 1% of the population, then you definitely need to show proof of who you are voting. the second thing is, plato didn't believe the average citizen should vote unless well-versed on how to run a republic. this quick analogy -- if i have a captain of a ship taking on a perilous voyage, i don't want just anybody steering the ship. i want somebody well-versed in seamanship. how much more important is it to get someone who is well-versed to run a republic? we have to turn off the news and realize we are americans.

everyone has to stop being in a box -- black america, white america, hispanic america, gay america, latino -- can't we just be americans and put all of those little boxes? i turn on sports, and it is the first black and the first white. we are the luckiest people in the world to be america. let's put america patriotism and being a proud american first. and your race come your creed coming your sexual line tatian, your color is just not that important. host: walter in indiana. the wall street journal reporting this morning, the united states is expanding eligibility for afghanistan, afghans who worked as employees of the u.s. government contractors for u.s. funded programs or u.s.-based media or nongovernmental organizations will be eligible for a priority designation to apply to a u.s. representing program for the opportunity to permanently resettle in the u.s..

their spouses and children are also eligible. the u.s. objective remains a peaceful -- according to the state department -- the new depart -- the new designation will allow afghan to present lee did not meet the deck presently did not meet the criteria. the visa program established in 2009, fully considered afghans that worked directly for the u.s. government. more about that in the wall street journal. up next from saint david, arizona, independent line. caller: i want to talk about this rent moratorium. all these people who want to get rid of the rent moratorium ought to have the rent we have in las vegas. we are trying to get rid of it. my 89-year-old husband is up there right now. this man has three storage sheds, he has stolen everything on the property. he is just horrible. we are having an awful time

getting rid of him. my husband is up there right now trying to get rid of him. he wants him out, cannot get outside. he does all kinds of things. we have two acres. we -- i hope my husband will sell. my husband is awfully stubborn. host: how does that individual situation relate to the rent moratorium? caller: well, he can't get rid of him. he keeps going to the courthouse to try to get rid of him. he tried to get rid of him last year, but they froze what tory them, would not let him get rid of him. so he's still there. he's horrible. host: if the moratorium now is expired, will he go ahead with the conviction? caller: yeah, he's up there right now. this is the second time he has gone to the courthouse, and the man is 89 years old. he is a young 89, but, you know,

these people who think these renters are so wonderful ought to have our renter. he is horrible. host: ok, that is ellen in arizona. let's hear from steven in illinois, democrats line. caller: good morning. when i was a child, i grew up in monmouth, illinois. on a sunday afternoon, i remember my parents telling came me -- taking me to school to get my polio shot. it was important for them. in order to get to the fourth through seventh grades, you had to get a shot for measles, mumps, etc.. the president was eisenhower, a republican. the governor was republican. everyone in monmouth county were republicans. there were no protests, no lawsuit over getting vaccinated. there was no marching against the school board or the city council. what exactly has happened to the

republican party in regard to people now saying that the requirement to get masks or wear a mask or do this or that, which is very minimal, it is tyranny, and it is against their rights and all this or that. i think it is outrageous and i can't figure it out. host: ed is next. that was stephen in illinois. this is ed in atlanta, atlanta, georgia, independent line. caller: i want to quickly mention that since there is so little time every day, i would like her -- there is never any mention of jamarcus oggi anymore. i want a moment of silence every morning on c-span in honor that man. freedom of the press -- you people have people murdered like that? what about that correspondent in malta that was blown up? we need to focus more heavily on freedom of the press before we

get the rug yanked out from under us. people who call in, if you want to thank c-span send them a thank you note in the mail, don't take up time on the air talking about how wonderful c-span is. we all know how wonderful c-span is. thank you, i love c-span. host: in georgia on freedom of oppression issues -- in freedom of the press issues, he'll reporting on their website that vice president harris's root causes initiative for stemming northern triangle migration to the u.s. facing serious headwinds. she released an 18 page plan for slowing the tide of migrants that promises long-term investment in the region's development. one key component is a product to reduce migration from guatemala, el salvador, and honduras by investing

nearly $4 billion over four years to improve living conditions in those countries. the root causes of migration run deep and migration from the region has a direct impact on the united states. as far as the reaction according to the hill the plan is running into a disk -- resistance with mexico and guatemala saying that mexico is a key player in regional migration and the mexican president has openly at and antagonized the biden administration focusing on the u.s. agency for international development for funding coups against them. adding that the rhetoric has been -- signaling a cooling of relations between mexico and the united states. more of that story from the hill. that will conclude our open forum for this morning. coming up we will take a look at vaccines in the pandemic and where we are now as the development and distribution of those vaccines, andrew from insider joins us and covers that

industry. here to talk about the next steps and also all of this in light of the delta variant. we will have that conversation when washington journal continues. ♪ >> david stewart use to practice law in washington, d.c.. he gave that up over 15 years ago to write history. his first book was all about the constitutional convention in philadelphia, called the summer of 1787. that was in 2008. i year later he wrote about the trial of andrew johnson then focused on ehrenberg. next, james madison and now in 2020 one he takes a look at george washington, and in david

stewart's words, his mastery of politics. >> historian and attorney david stewart on this episodes of poke took -- on this episode of book notes live. listen at c-span.org or wherever you get your podcast. ♪ ♪ >> washington journal continues.

host: our guest is andrew, he is with insider and covers the health care industry and the world of pharmaceutical and biologic companies in here to talk about the role of vaccines with the delta variant. thank you for joining us. andrew: thank you, pedro, for having me. host: our vaccine manufacturers looking at developments with the delta variant? andrew: it's an interesting picture, we see the vaccines holding up here, they are safe and effective and the main concern i've been tracking closely is around this question of durability protection which we know from the clinical trial last year just how long with protect -- what protection from these vaccines last and do the mutations we have seen in the delta variant that partially degrades the vaccines protection. none of this full degradation of protection but the nomination of having several months out plus the rise in the delta

variant does have vaccine manufacturers thinking about booster doses, re-formulations, and so on. host: as far as various companies involved in developing the vaccine what is the line saying and what is -- when it comes of possibility of what the vaccine could do against the delta variant. andrew: pfizer has been the most vocal or out front. we believe there is a need for booster doses six to 12 months after the second dose, that is going back for a third dose of the pfizer biontech vaccine after completing the first two doses. their partner has presented data where there is a slight drop in antibodies which is the main element of the immune response that protects us from this virus. when you take into consideration all the other factors there is some lab testing -- there is some lab testing that shows a drop in antibodies. the main thing to watch for is data from the real world, people living in the real world and

seeing how these vaccines are holding up. these vaccines are still largely protective and there might be a drop from something like 95% effective to 90% effective and over several more months of vaccine manufacturers expect that to continue to gradually decline without a booster shot. 90% to 89%. the key thing to watch is around severe disease and protecting against hospitalization and death and that is where the most interesting data has come out of israel. there booster dose for people 60 years and older who are five months removed from the second dose, israel has data showing protection against severe disease, hospitalization, deaths peaked at 97% then went down in the last few months to 84%. that is a decent decline, still highly effective. if the booster dose is available perhaps that could literally boost protection against the

delta variant. host: is pfizer making a case or an argument for a booster shot? what data do they base that on? andrew: kind of a confluence of data, there is israel data that is showing a modest decline in protections against severe disease. there is data from their own clinical trial has been ongoing and that enrolled 40,000 people randomized in getting the pfizer vaccine or a placebo. they have been following those people and shown month over month the most recent data that presented a week ago showed six months out effectiveness against symptomatic disease, with any severity of covid that declined from 95% at a peak to 90 or 85%. that shows a modest decline and finally there is research being done which might be the most --

the lease definitive because of the nature of the testing done on test tubes. that research, testing against the delta variant shows the delta variant does partially evade the vaccines respond since the vaccines were formulated around the original strain that came out of the wuhan due to the mutation seen in the delta variant the vaccines seem to be less effective against this new strain. host: andrew dunn of the insider talking about variants and vaccines when it comes to the delta variant. (202) 748-8000 for eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. this coming across from cnn, more than 99.9% of people fully vaccinated against covid-19 have not had a breakthrough case resulting in hospitalization or death according to the latest cdc data. andrew: this has been fascinating to watch as far as

so many elements of the pandemic it comes down to public health messaging and these are complex and nuanced discussions and finding the right tone and messaging has been a challenge when it comes to the cdc response around mask guidance i think there was trying to find the right doubt -- the right balance between when they said you are in a high transmission area put a mask back on even if you are indoors and vaccinated simply because they have seen data that shows at the initial level vaccinated people can still get covid and have high viral loads. when you look at the whole of the data this is predominantly still a pandemic of the unvaccinated. when you look at is who in--is in hospital or icu wards it is 95% unvaccinated people. the interesting thing to watch is there is some research showing that for vaccinated people that get these exceedingly rare breakthrough cases, cnn reporting showed the

viral load in their body which should suggest how symptomatic or contagious they might be that rapidly declines after a few days. taken altogether, it should be reassuring that these vaccines are holding up and having immense benefits even against the delta variant. host: when it comes to the idea of boosters it was the cdc and the fda putting out a joint statement "americans who have been fully vaccinated don't need a booster shot at the time, fda, cdc, and nih are engaged in a science-based rigorous process to consider whether a booster might be necessary. the process takes into account laboratory data, clinical trial data and cohort data from specific pharmaceutical companies. we continue to review new data that becomes available and we will keep the public informed. we are prepared for booster doses and when the science demonstrates they are needed.

was that an expected response or an unusual response? andrew: it felt like there was a bit of daylight between what pfizer has to say forcefully about wanting to see a booster dose six to 12 months after the initial vaccination. this joint statement from the fda and cdc is extraordinarily rare, you don't see many joint statements between the two agencies that operate on their own for the most part. i think they want to assert their independence, that they will review data on their own terms and look for their own signals of waiving community and the benefit of a booster shot area they've been clear about this and they want to weigh the benefits against the risk and they want clinical data showing a third dose is safe and not just effective but safe to give to people. there is some daylight between what pfizer is saying and what u.s. health authorities are saying and it will be interesting to watch as we go into the fall how this evolves because pfizer is presenting

quite a lot of data coming out of their labs and research they are sponsoring suggesting a booster dose would be helpful. there is a financial incentive with pharmaceutical companies behind selling their products here and what u.s. health authorities specifically the cdc is running their own tests monitoring how the vaccine is holding up ineffectiveness. host: andrew joining us for this conversation, you can call and if we have a question or, you can post on our social media sites and text us at (202) 748-8003. all of that comes in light of reporting in the wall street journal about the fda fully approving these vaccines that have been put out out of the emergency use permit and this says only pfizer has submitted all the necessary information to the fda and analysts expect they will be the first to get the green light, modernity says it is completing rolling data submissions and johnson &

johnson saying and stuff i'll approval this year. expand on that. andrew: these are different regulatory pathways. these vaccines have been rolled out through emergency use authorization which is a regulatory pathway the fda can use in times of emergency. they have been granted for the moderna vaccine, pfizer biontech, and the johnson and johnson vaccine in the u.s.. pfizer as you said has submitted the paperwork and that is going through the process. fda has said the deadline for making a decision of january 4 and fda officials have said publicly in the past few weeks they expect to make a decision on the pfizer vaccine well before january and that deadline. it's a fair question as far as the moderna data. if you look at the timeline they trail pfizer by a couple of weeks. we see mentored up publicly

stating that they have finished -- we see my dharna publicly state -- my dharna -- moderna publicly state that dude -- there is a small fraction of the vaccine -- of the population that will see full approval as a full endorsement of the agency. there are some bioethicists who have tied for approval to vaccine mandates, which has been interesting to see. a lot of movement around vaccine mandates. if there is a bla they can give some employers more comfort in issuing a mandate or saying if you are going to work in our offices you need to be vaccinated. host: will discuss those topics and more with andrew from the insider. ron from new hampshire is up first. go ahead please. caller: andrew, they are trying

to blame this recent uptick in cases on the delta variant, but the reason that we had a rise in cases is because they got rid of the masks in may. way back in december of last year we identified the delta variant. we had our first cases of the delta variant in february. in march the cdc announced the delta variant was more aggressive and would become the dominant variant in the u.s.. in may while we had a death rate of 600 people per day, the cdc said, no more masks. that was an insane decision. i don't know why they did that. they realize they made a mistake and are trying to correct it. they are trying to cover by saying it was the delta variant. the recently had it -- the reason we had an uptick is because they got rid of masks in may. the real story is to investigate

how that decision was made and who screwed up in the cdc and made the decision to tell people to stop wearing masks. host: that's ron in new hampshire. andrew: the cdc has been in a hard spot as far as they have to react to all the data coming out and foreign policy decisions across the entire nation. one interesting dynamic to keep in mind is we've had these pockets of unvaccinated communities. the variance as far as vaccine uptake rate varies immensely from state to state. if you look at states like mississippi or alabama there is a huge delta between their vaccination rates and some of the highest uptake's in the u.s.. keeping that in mind as far as the cdc crafting guidance that can be applied across the nation -- when you talk to public health experts there was a lot of questions around the cdc guidance of saying no more

masks. the american public read that as a return back to normal. i've heard public health experts compare this current moment as far as seeing the cdc guidance now about wearing masks indoors, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it is out and it is going to be a real challenge to communicate what the cdc is trying to accomplish with this newest guidance. it is trying to slow the spread of the virus and stop what we are seeing as far as the uptick not just in cases but in hospitalizations and increasing deaths. one thing i'm watching for is can the cdc explain the endgame here? there is a general thinking among public health experts that this virus is going to be and do make and will not be eradicated. zero covid is not a feasible goal for the u.s. given how widely this virus has spread around the world. what is the endgame? is there a certain level of

hospitalization and deaths that as a society we will find acceptable? is there a way to say that and how do we get to that point and what does life look like as far as are the vaccines alone enough to bring us there or will we have other non-fard -- other nonpharmaceutical interventions like masking and social distancing. it's a really tough situation and it some of the hardest challenges in public health messaging i've had to cover. host: the cdc reporting when it comes to those fully backslid in the u.s. that is still under 50%. what the likelihood of that number rising from there? andrew: there is some modest reason for optimism as far as we have seen in the last couple of weeks. a slight uptick in the number of daily first dose is being given in the u.s.. that number was declining pretty rapidly over the past few months and plateauing around a pretty low number. if this modest uptick can

continue given the urgency we have heard around the need to get vaccinated as the delta variant spreads and a lot of stories coming out about unvaccinated people who ended up in the hospital and regretted not getting the vaccine, hopefully that can encourage more people to get the vaccine because the data shows this is a safe and widely effective rodda that will help bring an end to this pandemic in the u.s.. host: mark in silver spring, maryland, go ahead. caller: there is a whole literature out there where the government had its anti-smoking campaign that was quite effective. for example, they showed a long ravaged by smoking compared to a healthy lung. has anyone out there seen a long ravaged by covid compared to a healthy lung as part of the messaging? dr. fauci, god bless him, when

he asked 99% of those who are dying without the vaccine, what else could we do the answer is there are people who are convinced not by numbers but by pictures. when you show these pictures you prevent self-efficacy behaviors like take a vaccine, where, etc. , and point out their motivators. the good to yourself, your family, and your community. host: that is mark from silver spring, maryland. andrew: off of that point i would say on almost a personal note it has been really impactful to read some of the stories recently around unvaccinated people in the hospital expressing regret they did not get the vaccine. there was a great story down in alabama about a doctor having to

tell patients who are in the icu that it is too late to get the vaccine, the vaccine won't do them any good at this point. which brings that emotional element of these are people and this is still a pandemic that is affecting tens of thousands every day who are getting infected for the first time and thousands of people in the hospital. i think it's a good point as far as her membrane the human element and emotional aspect. host: this is dr. fauci from yesterday about the covid surge and the impact it is having. >> are we headed towards a period once again where we are going to see lockdowns, businesses shutting down, masks routine for everybody, or is this potentially just a temporary setback? dr. fauci: i don't think we will see lockdowns, i think we have enough of the percentage of people in the country, not

enough to crush the outbreak but i think enough to not allow us to get into the situation we were in last winter. things are going to get worse if you look at the acceleration of the number of cases, the seven day average has gone up substantially. what we need to do, we say it over and over, we have 100 million people in this country who are eligible to be vaccinated who are not getting vaccinated. we have seen an outbreak of the unvaccinated, there are some breakthrough infections among the unvaccinated. no vaccine is 100% effective. in the breakthrough infections they are mostly mild and without symptoms whereas the unvaccinated who have a much greater chance of getting infected in the first place are the ones that are vulnerable to getting severe illness that might lead to hospitalization and in some cases death.

we are looking not to lockdowns but to some pain and suffering in the future because we are seeing cases go up which is the reason we keep saying the solution to this is get vaccinated and this would not be happening. host: if that's the case, the various companies involved whether producing vaccines or tests or the like, how prepared are they for this long haul dr. fauci talks about? andrew: they are prepared, they are doing proactive studies against different variants. the ramp-up in manufacturing has been extraordinary as far as pfizer beyond tech and maternal have produced billions of doses in the next years and will continue to ramp up production for the world. the significance and the severity of the pandemic is not lost on them, which has been reassuring to see around some of

the variance being able to use the new vaccine technology around messenger rna and that has allowed for more rapid development of new constructs of the vaccine. we have seen this from moderna and pfizer, it neutralizes a strain close to the delta virus and pfizer i believe sometime this month will enter human testing for essentially a booster shot of its current vaccine that is tailored against the delta variant. when you look at that work as far as proactive research being done to tractor ability protection and develop potential weapons if needed to further combat the spread of the pandemic it is reassuring on that front. >> there was a viewer on our twitter feed asking if someone got a pfizer vaccine and if they decided to go to the booster route does it have to be a pfizer booster? andrew: it's a great question and we are watching for more

definitive data to answer that. this is something the cdc's independent advisory committee will weigh on when this conversation does come up in the next few months. there is research that will answer that question definitively. i look specifically to the u.k. who is running a mix and match study mixing different covid vaccines with different combinations for boosters. you have the astrazeneca shot or the johnson & johnson shot, would it be safe and effective to get a pfizer or moderna or novavax whenever that comes online as a booster shot. stay tuned, there will be more data there. there is preliminary data that suggests it is safe and likely effective but there should be a more definitive answer. host: we have a viewer on twitter asking, what happened to the inexpensive rapid tests that were promised. i can't be vaccinated and rapid test should be one of the tools we are using.

andrew: that's a great question. the response to the pandemic should not just be vaccines, it should be billing diagnostic vaccines and therapeutics. it's been surprising to see the lack of uptake among that and at home quick, easy, and cheap come of the diagnostic tests to tell if you have covid can help identify and isolate cases on the mild side among the vaccinated who might not be as inclined to go to a mass testing site. if they are vaccinated it's not likely to be a severe illness at the end of the day. if there was a cheap at-home test that would be helpful and i'm not totally clear about why that has not been developed and scaled up and prioritized. my report focuses more on vaccines and therapeutics. therapeutics are incredibly important to pay attention to. there are a few treatments out there particularly for people

who are at -- in the hospital with a risk of serious disease. we should be data from merck and pfizer that have an oral antiviral. the tamiflu type option where if you get covid and the symptoms have not developed yet or are still mild or moderate you take this oral drug and pick it up at the pharmacy and that can prevent you from getting severe oral or critical disease down the line. watching for the development and the uptake of diagnostics and therapeutics is going to be critically important to see this pandemic out. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i'm not sure if this question has been answered, as a nurse i'm well aware of the critical process to get a drug approved. my question is the fda with much pushback approved the new alzheimer's drug that the

efficacy was poor and it was very costly. if they can ram that through quickly, how come we can't get the covid vaccine approved? the government can move forward and demand that the military kids get the vaccine. i don't understand why we can't. with all the statistics and the reporting they can't get this approved until january. andrew: that's an interesting question. you're talking about the bio gender drug approved may be about a month ago as one of the first treatments from alzheimer's disease. that was a controversial approval decision. the independent advisory committee that weighed in on that, several of those experts who sat on this committee and made the decision recommending

against the approval ended up resigning over the approval decision -- approval decision. there was a mixed bag of evidence supporting if the drug worked and it will help to benefit alzheimer's patients. that is interesting to keep in mind and they are having people who have raised the idea that the credibility of the agency is at risk when they make approval decisions without clear evidence of benefit like in that case. they did approve that under the accelerated approval pathway which is not full approval. that pathway is based upon if there is a saray get endpoint which is a different measure that suggests that there likely will be clinical benefits down the line, and this case that is a protein, removing that from blaine -- from brain plaques they think that is a decent predictor that could help alzheimer's patients.

they will have to run a confirmatory study to confirm the benefit of this drug. the fda has the option to pull it from market. one last point on the timeline of that, that took several months to go through that approval process. when you look at the timeline around the work for the applications they are aiming to shorten that quite dramatically and typically the agency takes 10 to 12 months to review full approval, and they are looking to do that quicker. host: you had a chance to go inside the lab at madura where they produce vaccines for covid-19. talk about what got you in there and what you were trying to find out. andrew: i was at the moderna main facility in norwood, massachusetts that is producing tremendous amounts of the raw material that goes into the covid vaccine. it's been an interesting business story for me to cover up.

i've been talking to modernity since the pandemic begun and it's a company that has transformed from a market capitalization of $7 billion and 100 30 billion or $140 billion which is a remarkable growth over the past year or so. seeing the expansion of the norwood facility to produce as much vaccine as they can has been incredible. month irna has a relatively new biotech -- it was never -- it has never produced a approved medicine. it was developing new technology with plans several dears -- several years down the line to bring the first medicine to market. this allowed them to accelerate that process and it's amazing to see them expand that site from when i visited last march and now they have it up and running in a second building there and are working on a third building to make this campus of research and manufacturing.

it's incredible to see and you talk to the scientists about how they hope to apply the research and the progress they have made on mrna vaccines on covid to other diseases. they are looking at making a high effectiveness flu vaccine. the epstein-barr virus which is responsible for mononucleosis, they are working on a vaccine for that disease. host: as far as in a generic sense how much profit have the pharmaceutical companies made because of the vaccine? and does that become a concern particularly for those here in washington, d.c., that oversee those kind of things? guest: drug pricing will i think always be a concern. in d.c. and for patients. rightly so. health care affordability has been such a pain point for both the industry and patients alike. the revenue estimates are quite extraordinary. pfizer just upped its guidance a

few weeks ago to expect about $33 billion in annual revenue in 2020. which would make the vaccine the best-selling pharmaceutical product in history. moderna, i think their last 12i789 was about $18 billion in sales in 2020. it will be interesting going forward as far as 2021 and beyond if their sales will plateau at a high level or see a bull this year of everyone getting vaccine and the next few years those numbers settling back down. this is a really significant market. these companies are making billions of dollars off their work. mass producing these vaccines. i'm sure it's going to catch lawmakers' attention increasingly so in the months and years. you see the patent waiver fight the biden administration has set with the world trade organization to waive patents around this technology to allow global manufacturers to start producing this without running into issues. that's been an issue the drug

industry has taken concern with. host: from becky in cambridge springs, pennsylvania, for our guest, andrew dunn. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i just have a simple comment. i think that the p.r. on the vaccine has been very poor from its conception. because it keeps showing people having needles rammed into their arms. there are a lot of folks out here that have an aversion to shots. i don't, but as i have watched these needles in the arms over an over, i'm developing one. and i think that there might be a better approach to getting people interested in having the vaccination other than showing them being stabbed with a needle. i guess that's it. host: thank you. mr. dunn, go ahead.

guest: it's a fair point. i think it gets into that public messaging campaign. you are exactly right. there is a chunk of the population that does have some level of fear around needles. and then i think there is a balancing act for when i think about coverage and choosing how to present the vaccine, being up front about that as far as it is given two injections. i think there is a similar contrast around what to do around the side effect profile around the shots. which are these expected, self-resolving side effects that a lot of people experience after the second dose of either the pfizer or moderna vaccine. you want to be up front with people about the numbers we were seeing there was more significant than the flu shot as far as the severity and frequency of some of the side effects. even though they are self-resolving and not a big deal. you want people to know what they are getting into and know the process of it is injections, and after the second dose you

might feel tired and fatigued and that will go away. it's worth leveling with people and being up front. guest: because of what she said, what is the likelihood that future vaccines might not be delivered by a needle but a pill? guest: that's something some pharmaceuticalhave been looking into. the preliminary human results this year have not been that encouraging on one company was developing an oral pill that could be a covid-19 vaccine. the immune responses they saw in the first chunk of a few dozen human volunteers in that study, they weren't great. it seemed safe, but the effectiveness is still to be determined. there is also some work being done on an intranasal vaccine. that could interestingly be perhaps closer to something like sterilizing immunity because it's given through the nose. that's where you see a lot of virus man fest and build up when you think of contagiousness and early stages of infections around the nose. some of the early data there has

not been encouraging on the intranasal front. there are different delivery mcnisms for vaccines beyond needles. companies are looking at that and working on it. it's still early. host: john in elwood, illinois, good morning. caller: how you doing. host: you're on, go ahead. caller: ok. i'll tell you something. 24 hours a day, seven days a week that's all i see on tv is about this covid testing, about how they are going to try to force these schools to give the tests and stuff. please explain to me very carefully how come none of these people aren't bringing up the solution for these migrants that come across and bring all this covid in here and they don't even care. biden says we are going to ship them off to all these different states. we don't care where the covid goes. and wonder why the covid is going up again because they don't care. shipping these people in our motels, hotels. they are just spreading it

around. i don't see any conversations at all whatsoever on tv for a long period of time of what they are going to do with these people. host: ok. john, you got your point out. mr. dunn to the idea of the vaccine availability. where are we in the united states and particularly can you trace that to the argument that some make as far as sharing vaccine with poor nations and if we have the ability to do that? guest: yeah. in the united states this has been up there. there's been inequities as far as the vaccine distribution and access to it. in the u.s. this is widely available. the white house has staff as far as i think most of the vast majority of americans within a few miles of their house they can get a free covid vaccine readily available. you look at other countries, canada is now i believe leading the world as far as vaccine uptake. they have procured quite a lot of doses in the future as well. so rich nations, they have been able to reach these purchasing

agreements well ahead of time and really plan out their vac -- vaccine bows doses and thinking about boosters now. it's starting to think about and disconcerting when you think rich nations are thinking about booster doses and giving third doses. while when you look at the continent of africa it's about 1% fully vaccinated. it's just stunning to think of just the disparities of where the vaccine is going. there are groups working on trying to remedy that. when you look at could he vax -- covax, a nonprofit working on health issues. those efforts have largely fallen short. in part they really were betting on the astrazeneca vaccine and that's had manufacturing issues. here and there where the deliveries have been a little more limited than they expected. when you put that all together it is a concerning picture to think about.

public health experts tell me around the world you want to see high vaccine uptick to quell this pandemic and bring it to an end. we are just not seeing that right now. host: jerry in chester, virginia, go ahead. caller: i got a question. these breakthrough infections that you hear about. recently in massachusetts. has the c.d.c. collected any data of what percentage of those breakthrough infections were immune compromised people? have any of those immune, what percentage of those breakthrough infections have the immune compromise people died from the delta variant. thanks. guest: that's a great question. because we have seen data, the c.d.c. committee really debated this vigorously a few weeks ago around immunocompromise not mounting a sufficient immune

response after two doses. and weighed the question should we give a third dose. to answer your question specifically around that massachusetts outbreak around provincetown, the c.d.c. did issue an mmwr report. i didn't see that detailed as far as the stratification of immunocompromised as far as other people. what drew headlines around that was the amount of breakthrough infections. i think that's an important point. if we do sedatea that shows immunocompromised are not mounting immune responses at the same rate as other people, is that a good population to target as far as getting another dose to and seeing if that helps. something to watch going forward. i think right there as far as -- you couple that with the severity of those cases is more intense and more are landing in the hospital, that only raises the urgency if something should be done on that front. host: our guest covers the pharmaceutical and biotechnology

industries. see the work at business insider dot-com. andrew covers the industry. thanks for joining us this week. guest: thank you, pedro. host: we'll finish off the program with another round of open forum. you can start calling us at 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for democrats. and independents 202-748-8002. we'll take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> dr. anthony fauci talks about the white house's efforts to develop new covid-19 treatments. watch the center for strategic and international studies event live today at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. online at c spann.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app.

>> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday you'll find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it's television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is open forum. you can talk to us about things that interest you in the world of politics. call us on the lines. you can send us a text at 202-748-8003. also post on social media as well. it was a bipartisan group of senators going to the senate floor yesterday releasing the text of their infrastructure deal. previous segment that we talked about took a look at t earlier on yesterday it was -- look at it. earlier on yesterday it was

senator majority chuck schumer talking about the future of this legislation. >> i will offer the text of the bipartisan sflass bill as a substitute amendment as i promised. making it the base of the bill. then the senate will work to consider additional amendments to the bipartisan framework. given how bipartisan the bill is, and how much work has already been put into -- in to get the details right, i believe the senate can quickly process relevant amendments and pass this bill in a matter of days. then i will move the senate along the second track for our infrastructure -- of our infrastructure effort and take up the budget resolution. a bipartisan infrastructure bill is definitely necessary. but to many of us it is not sufficient. that's why soon after this bill passes the senate democrats will press forward with a budget resolution to allow the senate to make further historic vitally important investments in

american jobs, american families, and efforts to reverse climate change. look, i have set out two very ambitious goals for the senate this summer, and we are now on the way to achieving both. as i said, both tracks, this one and the other, are very much needed by the american people and we must accomplish both. host: again that was from yesterday. you can see the debate -- the presentations by the various senators yesterday. the senate coming in at noon today to continue work. you can follow their activities on c-span2. that may be of interest to you. you want to comment on it in this open forum or other matters of politics. we'll start off with john. john in houston, texas. democrats line. john, go ahead. caller: yeah. couple things. there was a gentleman who called earlier talking about the people from mexico and the central american countries bringing this

stuff in. he needs to stop watching fake fox news and these websites with misinformation about this. getting vaccinated. 75% of the people in montgomery county, i live in montgomery county, texas, 75% of the people up here aren't vaccinated and makes me very angry. i'm fully vaccinated. one more thing, the woman called in about the military. 87% of the people in the military have already been vaccinated. fully vaccinated. i'm tired of the misinformation going around these websites. they need to stop these people from spreading false information . fox news and the right wing radio stations. host: ok. caller: false information about this. host: that's john in houston, texas. russell in coal city, west virginia. republican line. caller: hello. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: yes. i just wanted to let people know that i'm -- i look the johnson &

johnson and i don't know they were telling me i need another booster shot. i don't like having to take shots because people around my neighborhood they do drugs. they are used to doing needles. i'm not. i don't know what to do. democrats want us to get used to taking shots like the drug heads. host: consult your doctor as far as those questions. beverley in dwell delaware, republican line. -- beverley in delaware, republican line. you're on, go ahead. caller: ok. i would like to know when the insider fellow was on and the man called about questioning why people were being let into the country, why didn't you let him answer? you kind of diverted it.

host: he's a health care industry reporter. covers on biotechnology and pharmaceutical. that seems more of a question on immigration. that's why i did that. caller: well, it was about why people are getting into the country when we are trying to stop the covid. host: ok. i made the point. republican line, beverley, thank you. in other political news, this is from chad and alex sfarms the former president, president trump about his political war chest as its known, $102 million to date. saying mr. trump's political action committee reported receiving $82 million during the first half of the year through june 30, with $62 million flowing to save the america p.a.c., the committee that issues mr. trump's press statements and candidate endorsements. it's an early in the midterm election cycle and committees often wait to give candidates until the start of voting. mr. trump's committees, which condone a $5,000 per election to campaign, reported no donations

to g.o.p. campaigns through june 30. that's in the "wall street journal." if you go to the pages of the "washington post," this is about money. political groups connected to former president trump spend at its properties. it mortgages make america great american p.a.c., the remurps campaign account spent about $200,000 in office and restaurant space in trump tower according to the first half of the year. trump victory, a joint fundraising campaign for the trump campaign anti-republican national committee separately spent $2,200 at trump properties this year according to filing by that committee. and a trump backed packed, overseen by his 2016 campaign manager, paid $21,800 to rent space at the trump ball club in new jersey. these are small sums with the spending the former president did with properties on the campaign trail. as president. they stand out because the relatively little spending the president has done from his

presidency war chest. those are stories you can look up in the "wall street journal" and "the washington post" respectively. hear from rebecca, in california. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. i just wanted to make a couple comments. i'm calling this mask thing, bait and switch biden. a lot of people got the vaccine because they didn't think they would have to wear a mask. this is the malt -- this is the ultimate example the bait and switch. not happy with that. the next comment is more food for thought. they do require we are going to wear these masks again. would they somehow connect that to a device, use technology and if you didn't have a mask on, your phone wouldn't work, or if you didn't have a mask on your device wouldn't work. we have these smart phones that have the all seeing eye. would they know if our mask was on or off? there is no way people are going to agree to a lockdown again.

i think in order to control a society, what they are going to probably do is interject technology. again, food for thought on the mask thing, but this is getting weirder by the month. have a good day, everyone. host: rebecca in california. rob in new york, democrats line. hi. caller: hey, thank you for c-span. that was a bunch of nonsense right there. with this technology creeping into it. people, just grow up. be an adult. get the vaccine. wear a mask. if it gets worse and you need to wear a mask, why are people being just babies about trying to protect themselves, their families, and others? it's so absurd. host: why do you call people who make that decision babies? caller: the conspiracy theory that i just heard from the

person before. if you listen to the science, the mask is just as valuable as the vaccine or close to it. and by masking up, if you don't believe in the vaccine, for religious reasons or what have you, at least wear a mask. listen to the science. the misinformation, the mind bending misinformation i don't want to talk about the previous president, but the way that he bent information in general on everything was excessive beyond limits. we just -- we have to be able to agree on facts. it's just a crazedyie -- host: let me ask you this. when you say listen to the science, what science do you point to? caller: look. pedro, i'm no scientific expert.

i'm just -- host: because you said a lot of people say that term and i'm curious. what do you look to personally when you make these decisions about whether you are going to get a vaccine or mask or anybody else? what do you look to definitively? caller: i don't even know what you mean by that question definitively. you get vaccine. you get vaccines your whole life from the time you are a kid. want to be one of these anti-vaxxers because you think it's -- you're a tough guy or tough gal by not getting a vaccine. get away from the conspiracy theories. take a vaccine. i took my johnson & johnson in march. i didn't feel any -- anything as a result of it. i took it. i was fine. i didn't have a sniffle. i didn't even have pain in the site where the injection was. you get a vaccine. you wear a mask. if we have to. go further, if it gets worse. take care of yourself.

take care of your family. host: you made those points. larry in columbus, ohio. republican line, hi. caller: hi. how are you? host: i'm fine, thank you. how about yourself? caller: i'm good. i have been trying to call you guys. you're very busy. but i have been calling everybody, i called the columbus health department, called the ohio state university, and some doctors down the state -- host: what are you calling these people about? caller: i know how to cure it. i told them i know how to cure it. but they seem to think that i'm some kind of kid or something, you know. i'm a fooling them because they

never call me back. and never give me a chance to -- never give me a chance to tell them about how to cure the virus. i don't care about curing myself. i can tell them how to do it. host: how is that? caller: i've already done that with aids. with the aids epidemic was around. they were talking about aids was a virus. it really wasn't a virus, it was a contamination of the white yells -- host: we'll go to patrick in naples, florida. democrats line, hi. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: again, we argue are we harming the planet. we argued assault weapons killing our children. we are arguing about getting

vaccinated. i don't understand about this war on the truth from the g.o.p. i just don't. where they are taking us, i don't know. can you tell me, pedro? host: i'll let people respond to that as they wish. if you looked on our website you would have noticed an event we were planning on taking from c.s.i. about 3:00 this afternoon. it would feature dr. fauci. want to let you know it will not happen today. that's a scheduling change. if you were looking for that, it will not happen today. but as the website also shows you on our video library, plenty of opportunity if you wanted to see the comments from dr. fauci you could type his name in the box then find out everything he said. particularly when it comes to the current pandemic and the covid responses. this is from conway, missouri, republican line.

hello. caller: yes. hello. i just have one question. your past reporter that was on, he made a comment, i'm 88 years old and i must have missed it. he said in africa only 1% of the people has taken the shots. host: that may have been the case. i don't remember text actly. go ahead. caller: well, 1%. that's hardly anything. i can't -- couldn't believe that. i'm 88 years old so i may have missed the answer. host: if you have the ability you can go back and watch the interview online. caller: 1% of the people in africa. that's all the ones that's taken the shot. i can't believe that. host: don in st. joseph's, missouri, independent line. next up. caller: i hope the american people now, democrats and i know

the republicans, cannot believe what's going on in america with the violence, with the immigrants flooding across, the democrats are not even following up on what they said they would do. the democratic party is just a party of the k.k.k. host: going to stop you there. let's go to john. john is -- john joins us from beaverton, oregon, democrats line. john, go ahead. caller: hey, pedro, this is john. i have a question. i have been following the eviction moratorium and stuff in oregon and the federal level. i keep hearing about $46 billion has been allocated, but only $3 billion or something in that

level has been distributed. what's the cause of the lack of distribution? is it what's happening at the states? or is it something at the federal level? host: i don't know about the ratios you talk about. but there have been several stories out there about the idea of the money that's been allocated versus what actually is making it to the people in the states. i'm trying to find a story for you. this is from nbc, can you find others online if you wish, john. it says this. the reason the aid hasn't reached and frustrated landlords and nervous tenets, from the stumble to setting up new programs, software woes, to hesitancey of states to sign off on payments without documentation of need. what's clear the fallout could be funnishing for generations. there is a lot to t you can probably find better stories that explain. the idea that has been reporting about is money at the federal

level that's still yet to be distributed on the state level. in fact our previous program on saturday we dealt with this topic in the first hour. i think there were a couple of stories there related to the idea of what's been set aside versus what's been put out there. if you want to go to our website and check out saturday's program in the first hour you can do that. maybe you'll get information there, too. meddy in manfield, texas, democrats line. caller: good morning. just a couple of thoughts. i'm just not sure why people have so much -- so many hangups on the mask. especially with it being temporary. and secondly, my other comment is, if mask is such a bad thing, why have health officials, why do they wear them in the hospitals and why have they done so? host: do you think people got upset because we got to pint where we didn't have to wear them and some people were annoyed or irritated by them,

and gone back, do you think that's the reason why because we got use to something else? caller: no. i think americans are just entitled. they act entitled. so the rules say for two weeks we need to wear masks because it can potentially save lives and get us past this issue, then maybe we should do that because again it's temporary. i don't think we saw anything from the former president trump or the current president biden saying masks, have to wear masks until you day you die. it's a temporary fix. i think people are being just a little shortsighted. and it's unfortunate. host: melody there in manfield, texas. larry. harry from broken arrow, oklahoma, republican line. caller: yes. i think what may encourage a lot of people to get shots is the insurance companies would maybe lower the insurance payments for those that's vaccinated and raise the premiums on those that refuse to get vaccinated.

i believe the money aspect of it would persuade a lot to get vaccinated. host: since the shots are free overall, do you think that's going to be an impact? caller: say thatbecause the shoo get overall do you think that will really make an impact? caller: yes. if they are free -- the shots are free that's fine but what i'm saying is as far as the insurance premium part of it, if you're not vaccinated, you are spreading a disease and that's what's happening now. so the people spreading the disease should have to pay more for their insurance premiums for spreading the disease. host: i understand what you trying to say. we appreciate all of you that called the program today. that's it for our program today. another edition comes away at seven -- comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> this is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers to create wi-fi enabled listings so students and low income families can get the tools to be ready for anything. >> comcast support c-span is a public service along with these television providers.

>> votes on amendments to the bipartisan infrastructure bill or expect in the senate. now that the text of the 2700 page measure was filed last night during a rare sunday session. majority leader schumer expects final passage within a number of days. watch live coverage when the senate returns on c-span two. online at c-span.org or visit on the free c-span radio app. >> a look at some of our live programming today. the secretary of state will brief reporters on the protective resettlement of certain afghan nationals to the u.s.. later, the white house covid task force briefing we are inspecting a lot of questions on masking and the delta variant coming up at 4:00 p.m. eastern we will have live coverage on c-span.

tonight, technology reporters discuss the future of the tech industry and congress's tech agenda. >> you look at the priorities right now. you see the pandemic takeover early in the year, infrastructure takeover now. i think there are a lot of topics that historically attracted interest. it includes the section 230 debate. data privacy will be something that was hugely front and center in the tech space in 2019 initially. those things are off to the side right now. i think they are very important and people are interested there is not any consensus proposal in either chamber that is going to move in any imminent way. >> the future of the tech industry tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> next, a look inxp