>> see fantasy or unfiltered view of government funded by these -- c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these communities and more. >> broadband is a source of empowerment which is why charter is empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these television providers giving a front row seat democracy. >> coming up this morning on washington journal, carrie severino of the judicial crisis network reviews recent supreme court decisions and cases when the court convenes this fall. then, brookings institute housing expert jenny schuetz

talks about eviction and rental assistance programs during the covid pandemic. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. washington journal is next. ♪ host: from broadway shows to the sturgis motorcycle rally to school re-'s and the u.s. military. white house, businesses, state and local officials are weighing whether states will have to implement mask mandates as covid cases from the delta variant spike across the country. the experience of 2020 shutdowns and the covid case count in mind. how the public perceives those decisions is more important than ever. it is thursday, august 5, 2021. good morning and welcome to

washington journal. we will ask you about the decisions being made on things like masks and vaccine mandates. if you support a mask mandate the line is (202) 748-8000. if you support a vaccine mandate (202) 748-8001. if you support both, (202) 748-8002. if you support neither (202) 748-8003. that is the same line you can use if you want to send us a text, but include your name and where you are texting from. we welcome your comments on instagram and twitter. four different lines there to call in on for mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and both. tell us why and what is being proposed locally in your city or school system and in your state you are seeing things like that.

we will get to your calls momentarily. apiece early this week, americans might prefer vaccine mandates to mask mandates. it seems like ancient history but there was a time in which the vast majority of americans agreed on certain things before the park her own a virus pandemic and high on that list was mask. even as donald trump was assuring them the americans were on a different page. 75% of americans supported not just wearing masks, but requiring them in public. just 13% disagreed, even republicans agreed with mandates, 15 to 27 -- 58-27. as vaccines took hold health officials relaxed mandates and guidelines. as they attempt to ramp them up again in response to outbreaks it is looking much tougher. a new mohn mouth university poll

shows only a little more than half of americans support instituting or reinstituting face masks and social distancing guidelines. 52% in favor versus 46% opposed and a partisan divide about what you would expect while 85% of democrats support this one fourth of republicans agreed. this bears emphasizing, it is considerably lower than the mask mandate. is merely reinstituting mask and social distancing guidelines. it's logical you could leave to mandates in some areas and it coincides with mandates in places like washington dc, sacramento, kansas city, and new orleans. this earns the support of only half of americans, three supported full mandates as recently as december. that is from the washington post. a cnbc poll at the end of july

on the issue of mandates. 49% of the folks they surveyed favored vaccine mandates and 46 opposed those mandates. 63% of facts and american support vaccine mandates and 54% of those supported mask mandates on airplanes. 46% for concerts and large events and 40% mask mandates in the workplace. that's our opening question on what you would support, what level of support you have for mask mandates. if you support a vaccine mandate (202) 748-8001. if you support a mask mandate (202) 748-8000. if you support both you can use (202) 748-8001. if you support neither (202) 748-8002. the issue of vaccine verification came up in yesterday's white house briefing. here is jen psaki. >> should they encourage city

and states to follow your lead or does he feel it's more a private-sector sector matter where businesses should be able to take a look at this? >> both. there are steps that will be taken by localities and there will be steps taken by businesses. the president supports local efforts to keep the community safe. they will be different from community to community and our view is that any verification program should meet a few standards in flexibility and it needs to be free and available in paper and digital formats and it should be private and not discriminatory given equity is at the center of our agenda. we will see more local communities do more things in this space including verification and mandates. we are encouraged and supportive of innovative steps at the local level. >> a story this morning from abc seven in new york city about the vaccine mandate that has gone into effect in the city.

broadway reopens but auto show is canceled. it was opening night on the great white way as broadway celebrated the return of audiences, all those over age 16 in attendance had to be fully vaccinated. it was a packed house inside the august wilson theatre. the sold-out audience all wore masks and had to prove they were vaccinated on the way in. that's what we are talking about, your support for mask mandates and vaccine mandates. if you support a mask mandate (202) 748-8000. a vaccine mandate (202) 748-8001 . (202) 748-8002 if you support both. if you say neither (202) 748-8003. let's go first to sue in maine. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning.

i believe in a vaccine mandate especially in the health care system. i'm a retired nurse and i know i would not feel comfortable if i did not know for sure that employees in the hospital or the health care care system had a vaccine. until we mandate this we are not going to get this under control. i am the type of person that if i go into a health care system i want to feel safe. >> what has the governor said about mandates in your state? >> her hands are tied because the state legislature passed something where she cannot do anything at this point. she will not do anything. present company -- the private companies like ascension are requiring them for employees, requiring employees to have a vaccine which i think is great.

i wouldn't feel comfortable going into a health care system unless i know every person was vaccinated. >> thanks, sue. roger is next up on the line for supporting neither. from alabama, good morning, roger. caller: good morning. i've had the vaccine, but i would not have taken it if i'd have known that it used fetus cells. and i believe it ought to be a person's choice whether they use a mask or not. >> in ohio it is george who supports neither a mask or vaccine mandate. good morning, george. caller: thanks for all you do, i appreciate a place to hear public opinion. i had covid when it first came, a minor case. my doctor gave me the generic for the one that trump had.

when i was better, i took the whole prescription, but i was a lot better than i was in the hospital. what have we done with china since this all happened? it seems like they control us. we are supposed to be the superpower. we act like we can't do anything. the masks, dr. fauci said the masks were worthless at the beginning, remember that? >> here is the wall street journal this morning, covid vaccine mandates split corporate america business leaders, they need to get more workers vaccinated to keep the u.s. economy humming in the face of the fast spreading delta variant but they are split over how to do that. some are dangling bigger bonuses and other incentives to convince employees to get the vaccine. others have started requiring workers to get the saw ashley at the shot.

companies from walmart to corporations in seattle have imposed vaccine mandates on mostly white-collar workers returning to offices. tyson foods took a hard-line saying all of its workers must get the vaccine by november 1. saying they did not make the decision lightly. the chief executive wrote a memo to the company's roughly 420,000 u.s. employees. they spent months encouraging team members to get vaccinated and under half of team members are today. the governor of florida on sunday on fox news was asked about his view on vaccine mandates in the state. >> what do you plan on doing about these new mask guidance edicts from the cdc? is there potential that we could have these mandates banned in florida? is there a legislative solution in florida that you will ban the mandates, not masks but mandates?

governor desantis: i signed a law in june that terminates all the local governments ability to impose restrictions or mandates on individuals or businesses. that is not happening in florida and it certainly will not happen by me or at the state level. at the one area where we did not necessarily legislate was with the school districts. last school year some school districts had mask policies and others did not. many private schools had masks optional. the results were no different. there were no major outbreaks no matter what. this coming school year every district in florida had planned on doing optional masks and i think that's the right policy. the cdc says every person in a school has to be masked at all times, that is not consistent with the evidence, that is not data-driven. you start to see one or two school districts say they will follow that and impose masks.

i signed an executive order that says under the florida parents bill of rights the parent should be the one to decide whether they want their kid to wear a mask in school. if you believe in that and believe in science no one is stopping you but that should not be imposed by everybody and i want to give parents the choice. a lot of these kids suffered. i think we are empowering the parents to be able to recognize what is best for their kids and in most instances what is best for the kids from the parents perspective will be going to school. >> a story about the vaccine mandate coming into effect in new york city for indoor businesses. the headline in the new york post, a demand reversal of unfair indoor vaccine mask mandates. asking your level of support, if you (202) 748-8000 support a mask mandate (202) 748-8000.

a vaccine mandate (202) 748-8001 . other ways to call in and participate by social media. a tweet says, good morning, i would honor a mandate for wearing a mask. i mask up indoors, it is responsible and caring for my fellow americans. he complains his hands are tied and cannot mandate mask because of a bill he signed. steve says i've had covid-19 and i am vaccinated but i support a mask mandate. this is a public health crisis says sandy in deerfield beach. if we continue to value personal freedom over personal safety people will die and we may lose our protection because others fail to be responsible. your rights and where my nose begins. joel in illinois supporting both

the vaccine and mask mandates. go ahead, joel. caller: i'm in favor of vaccinations and masks. on the vaccination part, it's as simple as it as when it was made available i got it, no problems. as soon as they announced they were thinking about requiring masks again i took mine out and take it with me and if i see a crowd inside i put it on. if these people don't want to get vaccinated, fine. old reference, typhoid mary. you can't have something like that running around and contaminating people and i don't want to contaminate anyone. if you don't want to vaccine, fine, get tested. make them pay for the test. why should we have to pay for it? host: this is ed in columbia

station, ohio. caller: i have a question for every caller. how is this country not outraged? we have a wide open border and they changed every policy. [indiscernible]

if you are going to mandate masks -- [indiscernible] host: should we mandate vaccines for anybody coming across the border? caller: absolutely. everyone. if you did something like that, how about not allowing them in? we have 1.2 billion, we can't do nothing with when we keep them here. everyone has a record -- host: a story from reuters. u.s. developing a plan to require visitors to be vaccinated. the biden administration developing a plan to require nearly all foreign visitors to the u.s. to be forward -- vaccinated against covid-19 as part of eventually lifting travel restrictions. the white house official told

reuters on wednesday. in illinois let's hear from sue. caller: i think we need to do more in our country regarding covid vaccinations and wearing a masks. this is ridiculous. it is so politicized and it is putting so many people in danger of losing their lives. i have family members that think vaccinations are a joke and i pray they don't get covid because it's killing people. it's just very upsetting. for years i raised my kids and they had to have all the vaccinations for mumps and measles. they couldn't even get into school. i don't understand why everybody is making it so politicized. i really wish that donald trump would have went on air and got

his vaccination. he really made it politicized and making it worse than it really was. we are in this boat because of his involvement in it. please, everybody, take care of each other. let's get vaccinated and stop the spread. it's an embarrassment that i live in the u.s. and its getting this out of control again. host: angeline is next in philadelphia. go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe in the mask mandate, but not everyone can get the vaccination. not everyone has the same side effects to the vaccination and the vaccination -- new i heard on the news it's in experimental drug. until it's cleared by the cdc i don't think i will be getting the vaccination. i will still wear a mask but i

will not be getting a vaccination. bikes has philly reinstituted any guidelines, any mask mandates in businesses and schools and other places? >> i know in philadelphia a lot of people are still wearing their masks even when they said we didn't have to wear masks a lot of people are still wearing their masks. host: thanks for calling in. some political headlines, new york state with the investigation into the sexual abuse by andrew cuomo. crisis builds for cuomo is the new york times headline as new inquiries loom and his support dwindles. impeachment posts intensifies a day after the release of a devastating report concluding he had sexually harassed 11 women governor andrew cuomo found himself increasingly isolated wednesday with his most loyal supporters abandoning him and three prosecutors saying they would investigate his behavior.

several unions long aligned with him withdrew support wednesday. to past members of his administration including a former legal advisor who had been consulted in how to fight the allegations asked him to resign. late afternoon mr. cuomo had lost the backing of his closest political ally, the head of the state public democratic party who has been the governor's staunchest defender in recent months. in a statement mr. jacobs says the governor's removal from office was inevitable and that mr. cuomo's refusal to step down ran counter to mr. jacobs advice. the governor has lost his ability to govern practically and morally said mr. jacobs who was handpicked by mr. cuomo for the job in 2019. back to calls on our morning topic. it israel glendale, arizona. caller: good morning. i'm looking and everybody over a

certain age has it and because of that nobody under a certain age has to. i can't see what the problem is. go and get vaccinated, good layered. all last year we were hoping for a vaccine. now that we've got it people are hesitating. it's embarrassing some of the people on the right are just embarrassing. . took crofton, maryland. mike says he would support neither. caller: as the caller said before i believe it's experimental. they couldn't get it into human trials. i'm being conspiratorial but this might be the catalyst for the human trial. a lot of times emergency use authorization is instituted,

many of me and my brothers have gulf war syndrome that can't be explained. and finally i think what would make people more comfortable making it a personal choice to get the vaccine or wear a mask, but the vaccine specifically would be the reliability on these companies. these companies can make these vaccines and down the road have significant impacts and there is no recourse right now. we have small businesses where if somebody comes in and sues a small business because they say they got covid they are liable. it's a very uneven policy and i think it's made a lot of people hesitant to believe or understand any of this stuff. >> john is up next in plymouth, ohio. good morning, john. >>, good morning.

i still wear a mask and i got the shot. my concern is they have us fighting about masks and vaccinations. how come china doesn't give an explanation of this pandemic they let loose and how and when are they going to be held accountable for this? right now it's like a leaky bucket. the government tells us to do all these things like wear a mask or get vaccinated but they let people come in that may have covid. we have to protect ourselves but the government is letting people in that i think will kill me. host: this is a piece in the wall street journal, unmasked rules defying arizona law. when students return to these schools most of them were wearing masks all in the district rules which go against arizona's ban on mask mandates.

the superintendent said he would enforce the mask mandate as long as it is recommended by health agencies and as long as it is needed because of covid-19 case rates in the area. he said all of the districts are in what the cdc considers high or substantial transmission according to maricopa county data. an arizona law ban schools from mandating proof of vaccination or mask wearing. it's one of seven states that are outlawing the required use of masks in schools through bills or executive orders. the republican governor said what the school district is doing is not allowed under state law. the governor believes the decision to require masks has no teeth and his office said it is unenforceable. the president weighed in yesterday on decisions made by the governors about presenting

mask mandates. pres. biden: worst of all some states are signing borders that forbid people from doing the right thing. as of right now seven states not only banned mask mandates but banned them in the school districts. even for young children who cannot get vaccinated. some states have even banned businesses and university from requiring workers and students in the mask mandate -- state universities or community colleges could be fined if it allows a teacher to ask on vaccinated students to wear a mask. what are we doing? covid-19 is a national challenge and we must come together, all of us as a country to solve it. make no mistake the escalation

of cases is particularly concentrated in states with low vaccination rates, just two states, florida and texas account for one third of all the new covid-19 cases in the entire country. we need leadership from everyone. some governors aren't willing to do the right thing to end this pandemic. they should allow businesses and universities who want to do the right thing to be able to do it. i see these covenant -- i say to these governors, please help. if you aren't going to help at least get out of the way when people try to do the right thing. use your power to save lives. >> some comments on social media and texts as well. this one says they support a mask mandate and a vaccine mandate.

i still wear my mask, no mandates or vaccines but require passports to go in public places. mask mandates except for exceptions for certain health conditions. allen in huntington, west virginia. this one says, until we get the covid situation under control i support both mandates. individuals without either should not be admitted to venues. i was in a meeting with all vaccinated people and some wanted to take their masks off that i said no. i got my last shot back in february and i'm concerned the effects have worn off. if spoiled americans had done the right thing we would not be in this mess. we are asking your level of support for things like mask and vaccine mandates and here are the lines. if you support a mask mandate (202) 748-8000. a vaccine mandate (202) 748-8001

. if you support both, (202) 748-8002. if you would not support either (202) 748-8003. bakersfield, california is next and this is fred. hello there. caller: good morning. i would like to comment especially on the gentleman that called in and said he had a challenge for both sides of people that it's about the immigrants spreading the covid vaccine and i would just kind of enlighten him a little bit. it became the delta virus in india and it came from india. that is one that goes three times more spread faster than covid and that is where we are being hit with right now. these lies and these conspiracies, if you are not a

doctor you should not be spreading craft to people especially with people that are undecided about taking their vaccine or wearing a mask. it is bad enough for you to die, but why put it on your children? if that's all you can come up with its bowl prep lies --bullcra[p lies. a lot of people can die including children. your idiocy is one thing but leave it alone for the children. thank you. host: to durham, north carolina and sylvia, good morning. caller: yes. i called a few weeks back and i got cut off before i could explain why i'm not taking the shots. i am allergic to steroids. i was -- it was given to me in

1987 and it might have killed me on the third day of taking it and i now am allergic to about everything. i am now walking bone-on-bone because steroids takes your bones, it takes your muscles, i was having breathing problems, i swell up like a frog, kidney problems, and this is 2021 and i am still going through it. if i took a shot it would go ahead and kill me. >> how do you ask -- how do you protect yourself? >> i wear a mask when i go out. i cannot take anything for pain.

i have had to learn to deal with the pain to overcome it. i fell on my arm, it shattered my shoulder. now it is going to my legs, to my knees, i said i didn't trust joe biden or kamala harris, but the fact is i'm not a doctor and i'm not a scientist. for me to tell someone they don't need to get a shot when i don't know the person -- i wanted to call and explain that. host: thanks for calling in. the former health and human services secretary with an opinion piece in the new york times, i was the architect of operation warp speed and i have a message for all americans.

he writes that among the many debatable issues around covid-19 there is one unassailable fact, the coronavirus is nonpartisan and makes no judgment about one's political leanings. the vaccines developed to fight this virus have no political bias and there is a refusal of many americans including fellow conservatives to get a covid-19 vaccine is a frustrating irony for those of us who worked to expedite these vaccines. the vaccines have had doubts cast upon them by politicians throughout their production and rollout whether a person lives in a red or blue state has no bearing on the vaccines efficacy. they work incredibly well and many vaccinated americans are proof. whether such skepticism is rooted in political miss hearings, conspiracy theories, or lack of accurate and timely information there are millions of americans unwilling to take the simplest of steps to end the pandemic. that makes it incumbent upon all leaders and health experts to be

honest about how safe and effective the vaccines are and urge vaccinations. he writes that he know the vaccines features intimately because as secretary of health and human services i oversaw the development, testing and distribution from april of 2020 until january of this year. i watched with pride as vaccination rates rose in the early months of the year and with dismay as the daily number of vaccinations declined. joseph in pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: hello. yes. my opinion is, all the doctors that are in the congress and the senate do we have to go to these hospitals where people are dying on ventilators. they call themselves doctors, but they want to be a congressman or a senator. they were all against the vaccine.

they are against anybody's life i guess. they don't care what happens to them. >> the house is on its august recess, but last week the last week of legislative business before that recess they reinstated on the divides of the capital physician, the house physician. they reinstated a mask mandate for the house side of the u.s. capitol certainly on the floor of the u.s. house. a number of republicans objecting to the imposition of that mandate on the house floor including chip roy of texas. >> we have a crisis at our border and we are talking about mask mandates. it's absurd what this body is doing. it's a mockery and the american people are fed up. they want to go back to business and school.

to have mental health issues. the speaker comes down at 10:00 in the morning saying we have to wear masks in the people's house? while we have thousands pouring across our borders and democrats don't do a thing about it? we have the new york times and the cdc about to reverse on indoor masking for the vaccinated. this is serious nanny state stuff that will only breed resentment. consider resentment being magnified right here in the house of representatives. we are absolutely sick and tired of this and so are the american people. this institution doing nothing for the american people. >> you can send us a text.

>> i do not support a mask mandate. >> we are in our 70's and have received both vaccinations and will get a booster shot if available. i have grown children that won't get vaccinated. i have neighbors that keep repeating all the reasons not to vaccinate and a lot of our friends have been vaccinated. we will mask up if needed. mandatory masking may be needed again. >> i believe there should be no mandates. >> for god sakes leave the kids alone says james in troy, michigan. vaccine mandate now says this tweet. the fact is we all have different opinions on what is the proper approach to deal with this virus. we all want the best for

everyone. all of us want the best for ourselves and our families. this is not a one-size-fits-all decision. let's hear from robert in iowa who supports a mask mandate. go ahead. >> i live in iowa and walmart is telling their employees they have to wear a mask. the wears a mask. 99% of people aren't wearing masks. if they want people to wear masks i have a problem going shopping. the university of iowa hospital then came out and went to the restaurant and it was packed. no one wearing it and i said it felt like old times. one thing i want to know, if someone has the shot what are

they worried about me if i don't have it? they won't get sick from me being around if they have a shot. one thing i wish they would do, even after the six feet in the store i don't like people crowding me. i think it is courtesy. it's just like the people that work at the hospital. they're going to eat in these place with no mask. i think if you have the majority of people if they want to wear a mask -- >> i think your idea for the six foot separation, if we had a line for that probably everybody would be in support of that. i think you are onto something there. >> the only thing i have to do is fight and die. -- i shouldn't be forced to do nothing. if they need you to wear a mask and go into stores i have no

problem with that at all. they shouldn't be able to force me to do anything outside of that. >> let's hear from james in baltimore, go ahead. >> i'm for wearing a mask. i'm 68 years old and i'm fully vaccinated and i still wear a mask any place i go. i try to go on the fact that 98% of the people that are being hospitalized that are dying from the covid virus are republicans. but i can't feel good about that because they are fellow human beings. god said for us to help one another. 500-5000 people died from the covid virus during donald trump's term in office. nobody is talking about that.

that's a lot of people. if you don't want to get vaccinated for yourself, do it for your family, for your friends. do what god said. let's take care of one another and we have to take care of one another by putting on a mask and getting vaccinated. thank you. host: this is from the hill, their headline, arkansas governor regret signing a ban on mask mandates. talking about the governor, here is what he had to say. >> i signed it at the time because cases were at a low point and i knew it would be overridden by the legislature, i didn't sign it. i had already eliminated the statewide mask mandate.

i wish that had not become law. host: if you support the mask mandate it is 2027 -- if you support the mask mandate (202) 748-8000, if you support the vaccine and mask mandate (202) 748-8002, if you support neither (202) 748-8003. the new york times with a count on covid, covid cases around the world surpass a sobering figure. 200 million is an enormous number but as the world reported the 200 million detected cases of coronavirus infections that daunting figure more than the populations of germany, france, and spain combined. also fails to capture how the virus has embedded itself within humanity, the perfect measure of

a virus that causes no symptoms and many it infects with many infections going unreported. case counts provide a useful tool for much of the pandemic like flashing red lights in a cockpit warning you of imminent danger. the surgeon case numbers has too often been followed by a crush of people crowding emergency rooms. several weeks later for talent the counts typically spike and it took more than a year for the pandemic to reach its 100 million case a little more than six months to double that with the world surpassing the 200 million figure on wednesday according to the center for science and engineering or johns hopkins university. the number fueled by the virus is staggering. official tallies with more than 614 deaths in the u.s. and 558 thousand in brazil and 425,000 in india. mexico has reported more than 240,000 fatalities.

france and russia each over 100,000 deaths. the global total was about 4.2 5 million, serious underestimate experts say given the discrepancy in the way nations record covid deaths. the coronavirus continues to find new hosts across the planet and the emergence of the delta variant thought to be about twice as infectious as the original version first detected in wuhan, china adding fuel to a fire that has never stopped raging. in cocoa, florida we hear from doug. go ahead. he supports both mandates. caller: yes sir. i'd like to say good morning. i believe everybody should get vaccinated and wear a mask until this virus is eradicated. i have a friend, he doesn't get vaccinated. he doesn't believe it's real, that's fine.

people that walk around and take the chance, if they are not vaccinated and they don't wear a mask they shouldn't be complaining until the vaccine. there are 330 million people in this country. wake up. let's protect everybody. have a good day. host: marlene in titusville -- brooksville, florida. good morning. caller: yes. i can't make sense of this when we have the border wide open. i think of the possibility that some of these illegals could be carrying a variant because variants are being developed all the time, mutated. and maybe our vaccine won't take care of that variant. i think we should consider that. >> the issue of border security

made its way into the infrastructure debate in the u.s. senate. infrastructure bill amendment blocked. senate democrats on wednesday killed amendment to president biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that would have blocked the federal government from canceling contracts with the construction of a physical barrier on the u.s. mexico border. in the vote lawmakers rejected the proposal offered by senator ron johnson, wisconsin republican and former chairman of the senate homeland security committee. the senate back to continue debate on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. you can follow that debate over on our companion network, c-span2. next up, manassas, virginia. go ahead. >> i've had the shots and i've had the virus. i think anyone that is in america has the choice to make whether they want to take the shot or not.

until the border is closed i have asked everybody how we get the border closed and nobody can't do it they say accepted biden. people are dying. we are going to be dying more because of covid's -- because the border is open. those people walk across the border and are not vaccinated before they come into this country. the border needs to be closed to protect me. >> this is leo in illinois. good morning. >> yes. i'm one of these people that can't take the vaccine because i have autoimmune disease. i have been wearing a mask protecting people from the beginning and people have taken their masks off and they said they were vaccinated and now i'm not going to be protected if people don't wear a mask because

i have autoimmune disease. >> are you supportive of businesses saying you must have a mask to enter? >> i'm a person that believes that when you go in a building, the idea, i have to wear a mask anywhere i go because if i catch this virus -- i believe that people, and also nobody should be forced to take something if they don't have to do it. i was poisoned by a drug and it destroyed me and they gave me this drug without my permission in the hospital. now i'm dying like a chemo patient because of that. and i believe when this drug is experimental that if you get your health ruined by any drug

you should be able to be compensated for all the money you lost because you got poisoned by a drug. even by this covid virus. >> your view is that the vaccines are in your words experimental? >> yes. because even though they have received fda approval for emergency use? >> even if they were approved. if you get a side effect of this drug the government should take over and take care of you if you have any scientists where you can never work again. -- any side effects where you can never work again. when they gave me this drug without my permission they gave me neuropathy, fibromyalgia, insomnia. >> we are hearing more about the use of a booster for those who have been vaccinated. this is a headline from the new york times about the views of the world health organization, calling for a freeze on boosters

until october. jen psaki, the white house press secretary asked about that report yesterday. >> the who today called on countries to put a halt on booster shots for the covid vaccine. i know that's not the policy of the united states but it does appear we are moving in that direction with people who are immunocompromised. what is the reaction to this call? at least until the end of september so poorer countries can get more vaccines. >> that's a false choice. we announced just yesterday we had an important milestone of over 100 10 million vaccines donated to the world. that is more than any other country has shared combined. we made clear that is the beginning and we also started to donate the 500 million doses of pfizer we purchased. we will start to donate those later this month. we have taken action on the

global level far more than any country around the world. we are asking the global community to step up. more action needs to happen. we believe we can do both. in this country we have enough supply to ensure that every american has access to the vaccine and we will have enough supplies to ensure, if the fda decides boosters are recommended for a portion of the population, we believe we can do both and we don't need to make that choice. host: about 10 more minutes of your phone calls on our opening topic about mask mandates and vaccine mandates and whether you would support either or both. a report from usa today early this week. the covid culture war, at what point did personal freedom yield to the common good? in anaheim, california they write this disney hand -- disneyland worker says she will never get the covid-19 vaccine because it's experimental.

she wears a mask while working at disney but nowhere else. she thinks it affects her freedom. after 18 months of a pandemic, with one out of every 500 45 americans killed by covid-19, substantial chunk of the population continues to assert their own individual liberties over common good. the great divide spilling into workplaces, schools, supermarkets and voting booths has put the nation at a historic juncture where partisan factionalism and social media are already achieving similar ends. a phenomenon that sociologists and philosophers wonder about at what point should individual ranks yield to the public interest. you can read more of that report in usa today. a couple of comments on text.

this one from sam in bakersfield responding to a previous post saying a woman who gets an abortion is not going to infect anybody with a killer virus, it's not the same. your body, your virus, keep your virus to yourself. i do not think adults that choose not to be vaccinated should be forced to. let them live with the results of their actions. i'm concerned about family and friends being coerced into not getting it. this one says i tested positive yesterday for covid-19 and now have been quarantined for 10 days and i have moderate cold symptoms and feel awful. thank god i was fully vaccinated in march thanks to president trump. -- thanks to donald trump. health decision should be made personally with each citizens doctor. the government should not demand the same health procedures for everyone. i think i should receive the vaccine because it works.

in farewell, michigan this is sue, good morning. >> i'm against it and the reason i'm against it is there is a lawsuit in canada. the person in the lawsuit asked for proof of covid and the health advisor did not have that. host: what do you mean proof of the covid? caller: the person that was being sued wanted proof of the covid. that they have an actual that they can put it down. host: i don't understand. you they want proof that the virus actually exists? there are 200 million cases worldwide if we just read the story a few minutes ago that a test of the fact that it does exist. cindy is in euclid, ohio, good morning, go ahead. >> thank you.

i'm wondering why when it comes to our nation's health and something so important regardless of what position people take why the federal government is not playing a larger role and it seems to me we have 50 state constitutions and one federal. i understand there is always this fine line between the two that stands back and forth over states rights and federal rights. most countries around the world have united in their position and where they stand on this. here in the united states it's just a tragedy that if you travel from ohio to california to some other state the rules change, everything is different. here in ohio we have a state senator who compared covid shots to nazi-ism and he was shunned by our governor, but now he supports the bill that will make mandated masks illegal in all public schools. these are the lunatics we are dealing with.

there is not enough consistency in this country and i think this is what is frustrating people. no one should be forced to take a shot, live with the consequences. we need more uniformity in this government. it's too much of a cross quiz here. >> to julie and laurel, maryland, good morning. >> good morning, hi. >> you are on the air. caller: thank you. i called in about the mask mandate. i support mask wearing in general. it's one of these things people don't take into account. getting the vaccine is your best bet to prevent severe illness and potential death from covid. they say it all the time on the radio and people act like they don't understand. the greatest way to prevent the spread of covid is through mask wearing. the whole thing with the vaccination in and of itself and if it should be mandated, that

is a dicey issue so i'm not going to tell someone what they have to do, that is completely fine. if you choose not to get vaccinated you should definitely still wear masks because you could potentially have covid, you could be asymptomatic and you don't know who is around you or who you have come into contact with they might be immunocompromised. any of those variables that you don't have knowledge of at the moment that's one of the best things to do to protect other people around you. the analogy i try to make is, a few were to eat fast food all the time and not exercise you would become obese and develop type two diabetes and all these other health problems. those are your choices that affect you individually. it's not the same as covid. if you choose not to wear a mask in public you could spread covid to someone who you never meet. you could spread it to someone

who goes and meets their grandparents or their friend who has an autoimmune disorder. they -- that could end up becoming something fatal and you have no idea about it because you are never going to see them again. it's not just your choice, it's your choice but it -- you are not the only one affected by it. finish your thought -- >> finish your thought. caller: another analogy i have for mask wearing i kind of put it to children -- host: the cell phone dropped, sorry about that. thanks for your call. a lot of people asking about this with calls this morning about the situation at the u.s. border regarding covid. this is a story on the board and in general and the biden administration policy, bidens plan for the border has gone bust, what is plan b? president biden rode off a spike

in migrants at the u.s. mexico border as a result of winter months being the safest to make the trek. it happens every single year he said, six months into his term biden and his team are being proved wrong. the number of migrants apprehended at the border is not going down even as the heat makes the journey more dangerous. it has reached a 21 year high and there is a record number of unaccompanied children arriving. let's hear from jean and arcadia, louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i have three quick statements to make. first of all i support masking and vaccines which i think -- i got both of my shots. number two, will you please show the respond of the democrat congressman who is pro masking in response to the conservative congressman ship who is against masking for congress?

you keep showing the conservative congressman and you do not show the democrat response to him. number three, and louisiana in the lead for the covid-19 delta variant. yesterday we had a 15-year-old contracted covid. his mother said her family would never take the vaccine. now she has changed her mind as she watches her son in critical condition and probably he is hoping that he won't need a kidney transplant. i would just ask all of america, think of each other. this is not aboutif we don't ger control, we will be wearing masking and dying forever. host: thanks, jean. a headline here from secretary of defense austin to announce

mandatory vaccine policy for all active-duty military. let's hear one more call on this issue to dave in richmond, ohio. good morning, dave. dave in ohio, you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not believe in a mandate. i think i should be your -- that should be your individual right. these people are pro-vaccine yet they are worried about me wearing a mask if i don't want to get the shot. that's what the problem is with everybody. why would i want to get a shot if i still have to wear a mask? i don't believe the masks don't work -- unless you are wearing an n95 mask. host: appreciate all of your calls for that segment. morehead here on "washington journal." next, we turn to the supreme court and review the recent term and look ahead to the next term

with judicial crisis network's carrie severino. later, brookings institute's jenny schuetz talks about evictions and rental assistance programs during the pandemic. ♪ ♪ [fireworks exploding] ♪

[no audio] ♪ >> in june, robert gottlieb, a man who has been the final editor of all of robert's books wrote an essay in the new york times. the focus was on john gunther and the 900 page book he wrote 75 years ago called "inside usa." in his opinion, gunther was probably the "best reporter america had." we wanted to find more about

this publishing success story so we called canadian freelance writer can cut their soon to talk about his 1992 book called inside, the biography of john gunther. >> on this episode of book notes plus, listen at c-span.org/podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in this break between the end of the last supreme court term and fall beginning of the next term, a good time to check in with carrie severino with the judicial crisis network. she has chief counsel and policy director. good morning, carrie severino. guest: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. you had a piece in real clear politics that said when did the supreme court to better and in that you challenged the naysayers and those critical of some of the conservative naysayers of the opinions that

your overall opinion of the term is it is the best in recent memory in your mind. correct? what are the cases that make your case, that make your point? guest: i think something that is really notable is in this past term, there was no major issue in wish the supreme -- in which the supreme court diverted from a contextual us understanding of the constitution. on both sides now, litigants before the court recognize what the court should be looking at is not their own independent views of what is best for america or how to update laws but what the laws actually say. that is a win for our constitutional government. that gets to those editing the laws our representatives and not judge -- justices on the court. that looks at the original meaning of the constitution -- that means judges look at the original meaning of the constitution. it is not judges that say we should change that part.

that can be done and has been done dozens of times over our nations history, but that should be done by the people and by their elected representatives, not by the court. that is a huge win. i think it is issues like the first amendment we had cases in the free exercise clause defending that, in the context of covid, in the context of these catholic social services, foster care, the full kit, the property rights. there was a case that defended property rights from forced intrusion for about half of the year being forced to allow organizers onto their property without compensation. the separation of power, there was an sha having to do with the president having authority to dictate who are his executive officers. and it can be something he gets stuck with someone who cannot he

can -- we cannot fire if he believes he needs to. there was an interpretation of the case that rejected a very expensive interpretation of that act, wasn't based in the text. this is the kind of thing where congress can change the law but the courts cannot do so. so those are some of the cases that i saw that stood out as part of this trend really over the past few terms but it has really come to fruition in the last term. we are moving an direction of originalism. host: what was your take on the new bench strength, the trump supported pix during this last session? guest: they have been really significant members of the court. one of the things, and i said this in my op-ed, one of the things that shows the shift in the court is looking at last term, for example, the justice in the majority most of the time, more than any other

justice, was chief justice roberts, 97% of the time. that is maybe an historic high, and he that i've seen recently. last year, another 90 -- another 97% majority, brett kavanaugh. that represents a shift. chief justice roberts has developed a trend of in certain cases having decisions that seem to be affected a little more by fear of public reprisal than actual commitment to what the text of the law says or constitution says. there were several cases that exemplify that in the 2019 term if you -- 2019 term. if you look at the 2020 term, i think justice kavanaugh was in good company and frankly almost all these cases was with chief justice roberts with one exception of the covid religious freedom case having to do with the right of synagogues and churches in new york's to meet

and other similar -- when other similar businesses were allowed to do so. i think the court has shifted to a more originalist and contextual list stand. i think that's a great thing for our country on both sides of the aisle. if our elected representatives are the one in power to make laws, that gives us as americans the authority to do that. we don't have to wait for a justice to die, we don't have to try to force him out like some people are trying to do with justice breyer to have any impact on our laws. our laws should be impacted by the language passed by congress and signed by the president. host: former president trump not happy according to michael walton, an interview in his new book, the role of justice kavanaugh or lack of a role in the election. he voted the former president saying i'm very disappointed in kavanaugh. i told you something i haven't told a lot of people. he hasn't had the courage, you need to be a great justice. i'm basing this on more than one election. i saved his life.

he wouldn't even be in a law firm. who would have him? nobody. only i saved him. what is your view of justice kavanaugh? guest: president trump is right that his standing by the nominee was crucial to kavanaugh's success as a nominee and molly hemingway and i wrote a book about his confirmation process, justice on trial, that detailed that. i do think that was significant and a very important aspect. i think we now have an excellent justice in the supreme court as a result. so we have him to thank for that. however, i think his view of justice kavanaugh and jude jurists -- and jurisprudence is pessimistic. there cases where he haven't -- hasn't gone farther here. sometimes i come to a slightly different conclusion, and i can find that with every justice on the court. however, when you look at the core of his base is

contextualism. that is what president trump talked about in his campaign rallies, in his statements about who he wanted to appoint to the supreme court. i think that is what the mandate from the american people was, to put on supreme court justices who are not necessarily going to pull to the political and do like every time but who are going to be faithful to the text and original understanding of the constitution of the law. host: you touched on the case in the past term, fulton city versus -- fulton versus the city of philadelphia. a unanimous decision. in that, the judgment in 2021, the court ruled the city of philadelphia was wrong to end the catholic group's contract to provide foster care services. that was a unanimous decision. did that surprise you? guest: in the religious freedom area, that is an area we have seen some surprise but it should not be a surprise.

in 2010, the hosanna case was a case that started a trend that recognized we have a k that is very pro-religious freedom and that is totally appropriate because we have a constitution that is pro-religious freedom. it is represented in the bill of rights and protected by the bill of rights. i think as in any case, in order to get unanimity, the case ended up having a narrower result. there were some justices who wanted to go further. i think that is also a common theme you see in many supreme court cases, but it did send a very powerful message that justices across -- not just spectrum of the political appointees but how they interpret law all agreed that in this case, philadelphia could not simply exclude catholic social services from foster care contracts because they were not willing to abandon their religious belief.

i think it is also noticeable that all the justices, on the right and left, found it significant there were no families that were denied access to foster care services because of catholic social services religious position. so this illustrates maybe a path forward for this country. we are in such a time of turmoil and political polarization yet here is an example of where you can have people with strongly held religious beliefs who are able to participate in this program according to their belief and then you have a gay/lesbian couple that want to adopt that also have access to other state licensed organizations, so there's an ability to live and let live. it doesn't always have to be either/or. in terms of these clashes that we see on hot social issues. host: we are talking about the

supreme court and our guest is carrie severino with the judicial crisis network. we welcome your comments at (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats is (202) 748-8000. and for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. carrie severino, remind us what your organization does and how are you funded? guest: i work for the judicial crisis network, we are a 501(c) four organization, a public interest organization, and we work for encouraging courts and justices faithful to the constitution and rule of law. most prominently at the federal level, supreme court level, but also interested in ensuring the state have courts that are accountable the people of the states and will also be faithful to the law in that state as well. host: look at the washington post and their review of the past term and how frequently

each justice was in the majority. the chart tells the tale, the conservative bloc. not surprisingly with justice kavanaugh, 97% of the time in the majority. justice roberts, the chief justice, 92% of the time. also in the 90's was amy coney barrett in the liberal block in terms of the majority. breyer at 77%, kagan at -- from what you can tell for the new justice on board for the full-time this time, did the role of the chief justice change at all over the course of this term? guest: yeah, well i think it is a significant difference from the last term where the chief justice was in many cases the swing vote, kind of the kingmaker deciding how it held -- how the court would shift. in some cases, it fell into the category of is this something based on what is going -- what

the law is directing him to do or is this something that maybe the public opinion polls are leading the way in his reasoning process? in this way, the chief justice is no longer the swing vote in most cases. i'm trying to think of a case where he play that role. so it does change that position, and in some ways, this might free chief justice roberts to return to his role that he talked about in his own confirmation hearing, simply being an umpire and trying to call balls and strikes as he put it. i think it was a lot of pressure for someone who really feels the weight of the institutional interests of the court on his shoulders, and i think is very concerned about how the court is viewed publicly. i think there is maybe some correctness to that approach.

we do want the court to have a positive respect from the american people, but i think his way of going about it, unfortunately, was wrongheaded. i think the thing that gain the most respect from the american people from the court is not the idea of a court going to come up with a result i like or dodge important questions which is sometimes the way his decision seems to look like, i don't want to decide an issue is a hot button issue. the courts decide the issue, which is why we have a supreme court. i think the thing that will bring the most legitimacy to the court and the most respect is maybe a grudging respect from the american people when we know we have a court that on good times and bad, day in and day out, wilson call the law as they see it -- will simply call the law as they see it. this is not a result i would vote for if i was a legislator, this might not give the results giving great headlines in the next weeks or months for the

course, but this ultimately is the court that is in keeping with the constitution, and that i think ultimately would make people respect the court. i think this gives the opportunity of the chief justice to not feel like that is on his shoulders. he can sibley be the justice he was confirmed to be. host: termite our viewers and radio listeners that c-span covered many of the oral arguments. we have for years and those are all findable at c-span.org. the oral arguments this year happening virtually in teleconferences. carrie severino, more notably is decisions from justice claire thomas. howdy think this change -- and this was the first term done virtually -- how do you think or has it changed the court proceedings at all? guest: i was fortunate to get to listen to the arguments on c-span from the comfort of my home rather than have to wake up

early, stand in line, go to the supreme court like one would normally do. the tickets are free but you have to stand in line. so there a convenience but at the same time it does feel like something is a little lost in terms of the opportunity to see the justices, to kind of gauge their interaction in that way. however, there were a lot of silver linings to this process. justice thomas's comments are a real example. i clerked for the justice into thousand 7-2008. he didn't ask questions in that term and there was probably a decade or more where he did not ask questions. he talked about how frustrated he had become with the way the process gotten. this year, we are celebrating 30 years of the justice on the court. when they first came to the court, they heard almost twice as many cases but they had less than half as many questions. you could go a whole morning of arguments without hearing justices interrupt a litigant to

ask questions. there was much more expectation that these lawyers had prepared and understand these cases and we want to hear what they have to say. there is obviously a role for questioning attorneys, but it is really ramped up in -- up and dramatically so in the last 30 years. whereas now, a recent change to the process, before covid, was the idea of the attorneys just have two minutes uninterrupted. that was something the supreme court try to institute. they would have that uninterrupted two minutes and then into this legendary back-and-forth, sometimes justices interrupting each other, the litigant would get one -- half of a sentence out and someone would interrupt that never got to answer that one question. that is not productive. you can't actually hear an argument to completion effectively in that way and the justices might have been using it more as a sounding board with each other and playing to the

crowd there themselves, talking and looking for laughs or looking for moments in their questions rather than listening to the answers. justice thomas in his new format really has been a great window, i think, because the litigators can hear his questions and perspective, which is important. you only have nine votes that you are trying to win and there is one that you actually -- that you actually now have a perspective that's interesting to him because they were asking questions so he had a turn and it was very orderly. i'm not sure how well that could translate to the courtroom scene. the success of the wait two minutes ask questions did not last long before there were justices interrupting before the two minutes were done. it is hard when you have a bunch of people with life tenure, you don't have a lot of power as a chief. i think it would be valuable if we could continue some of that systematic and more calm and reasoned approach to the arguments rather than jumping

back in. host: has the court indicated they are going back virtual sessions in the upcoming -- going back to virtual sessions in the upcoming terms? guest: i'm not sure. i think the justices for long time have already been vaccinated or had the virus so there is not much concern there. right now, it is a question of what would be permitted by washington, d.c., because we are looking for what the regulations are on that. i'm not sure how they will move going forward. host: we will definitely get to cases for you to preview in the upcoming term, including the mississippi abortion case. let's first catcalls and go to george, a republican line in auburn, new york. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, we can. go ahead. caller: i think clarence thomas would have a much more conservative record.

i was quite shocked by that. i recall in the 1990's in school watching these hearings, and i think i want to see more from the latest judge, justice barrett, because i have not seen much of her. i will be looking forward to that. host: did we hear, carrie severino, and these oral arguments a lot from justice barrett? guest: one of the interesting features of the current system is you heard almost equally from every single justice. so it will be interesting. she has only had this virtual type of arguments so far because she obviously took over in 2020, so now it will be interesting to see if eventually they can get back this year to the in person or oral -- in-person oral arguments in terms of how she is

jumping into the makes there. she does have experience in the court of appeals judge and she had very good insights and questions in that context i heard. she is used to being able to jump in in a more free-flowing thing. most justices have to learn that on the first down the job. she had an easier time where you waited for your turn, which with her as a junior justice, she got to be the last one to ask questions. i hope you have a list of questions in case someone didn't ask them one you are interested in. host: about the justices, dan johnson says this on twitter, sound like justices have become lawyers themselves, arguing a case. we go to michael in oregon. michael, wrong one. there you are. go ahead. caller: hello. i take it you clerked for justice thomas? guest: yes.

caller: would you consider yourself a conservative? guest: i would consider myself certainly -- probably a political conservative and legal conservative, but i would distinguish between those two. i think there is politics and policy side of things but on the legal side, it is about how you interpret the law. that is something i really admire about justice thomas' jurisprudence and i share his approach. caller: i've been watching c-span for many years, and i agree with justice thomas. thank you. host: ok. to felix in north carolina on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. c-span, america, how are you doing on this wonderful day? host: doing good, thank you. guest: great. caller: i have three quick points i hope you can touch on. you indicated conservatives read it the way it is written. does that mean dred scott was an

original intent question? second of all, and it has to do with you had mentioned about the adoptions in the catholic organization, which i understand that, but how many of the justices are catholic, and you think that might prejudice their feelings? thirdly, most people talk about packing the cord. we know republicans did that, they have done it, but they still packet. i think they should reduce it because they only entertained about 75 cases per year. i'm going to law school now at 69 and i have to read a lot more than per month average on that. finally, to all those who protect and serve this great country, godspeed on all of your adventures. host: thanks, felix. several things there, carrie severino. guest: i will see if i can keep track of them. on dred scott, i don't think anyone considers that a contextual listed decision, so i

don't think -- frankly i don't think you would find any judges that would agree with that. it's true the majority of the justices are catholic, but it is also interesting they have fallen on both sides of the political spectrum. justice thomas, arguably the most conservative justice in the court and also catholic. i think if you are doing your job correctly as a judge, your personal views about what would be the right policy answer, for example to a specific case, should not affect your legal conclusion in that case. justice scalia spoke eloquently about this and justice barrett wrote about it as well as one of his clerk in her early years, and it was one of her first papers, pointing out if eyes i catholic for example, she disagreed. i think she was a law student,

but if the judge disagreed with a decision, in this case talking about the death penalty, saying and -- saying i could not impose the death penalty. they should simply refuse. a justice should not say on the contrary to my religious beliefs but they also mustn't impose their beliefs instead of the law that they are tasked with for an oath of upholding. i think that is the best conclusion. finally, to packing the court questions and the number of cases, and terms of packing the court, republicans have certainly filled the spot available to them, and i think that is what every president has a right to do. however, there's a difference, when we talk about packing the courts, we are invoking the language used by fdr in 1937, talking about a politicized changing of the number of justices to change the outcome in cases. that is something i don't think we can ever stand for from

either party. i think joe biden was right when he called it a bonehead idea in 1982 and thought it was an overreach of executive power. i think that is something the american people agree would be inappropriate. there's nothing written in stone about the number of justices we have but the one thing that is clear is we should not have that number chosen and changed simply for political benefit. i think that would open the door to a huge problem with quid pro quo. in terms of the number of cases, i am with you. we certainly ought to be able to have the court to hearing more cases. i got the impression when chief justice roberts took over he was frustrated on that and would lean on the courses -- on the courts to take more cases. we have only seen the numbers go down. 20/20 was an unusual year but maybe if they had more cases on their plate. it's important for the court not to wait for an issue that has percolated through every circuit in the country before they lay down the authoritative interpretation of the statute or constitutional provision.

it is important for our country to have a consistent understanding across the nation and not simply leave the appellate courts to do their job. i worry that it is the court not wanting to open itself up to criticism from either side for coming up with decisions that -- decisions, but you know what, we give them life tenure so you can come up with hard answers. host: on expanding the car, from a viewer, they say i'm in favor of 13 or more justice so balance and diversity can be achieved. as it stands now, they say this a preen court is too conservative and not mainstream enough and does not reflect the majority of our country. guest: i think the challenge is, again, i don't think there's a magic in the number of nine. we could have five justices, 10 justices, but if you are changing the number of justices because you want to political end, then the next time the other party guess the

reins of power, i don't see how they wouldn't do the same thing. i don't think we want to see that in our country. even bernie sanders said if you keep going like that you will get 86 justices. he was opposed to that. justice ginsburg was opposed to it, justice breyer on the court has had similar things, it would only politicize things. i think that is the concern, it would turn into a political football more than it is. host: let's hear from john on the independent line from wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. some of the previous guests [indiscernible] but i agree with you as far as the supreme court is concerned, just becoming a political football. when it comes to some state supreme court's with the election of 2020, i understand a lot of things got changed for that election and now they are trying to put it back to where they were at before. what is your take on state

supreme court's? possibly changing election rules and things like that? guest: thanks. that is one of the reasons i think it is important to focus not just on the federal court. even though they are the most prominent, they get the most national news, but the state court is incredibly significant. 90% of cases and laws decided have to do with the state court. it is something we often forget about. we saw the courts in the middle of the pandemic that the courts to get a lot more prominence because they were making important decisions and they were the ones tasked with that. i have the same concern with state courts as federal courts. our elected representatives are the ones supposed to be making the laws. in some cases, you had the state version, state legislature making laws and it wasn't a situation necessarily where they made along not realizing it would be a pandemic and suddenly it hit and the court had to say how would they have changed

things if they had known? in some cases, you had state legislatures that already passed laws in the wake of covid-19, recognizing what was going on and said this is how our state will respond to it. there are different things you could have done to allow for the election or in the wake of that. when you had state courts stepping in to change laws, that strikes me as a real concern. it is not respecting our elected legislatures who are the ones that are supposed to write the laws. you can come to a range of policy conclusions about what the best response is but the people making those key policy issues, especially on the most important issues today, should be the elected representatives and not the court. host: was the california religious assembly case the only covid related case that made it to the court and the past term? guest: no. there were a whole host of them. i think the last caller alluded to, there were election related cases but particularly religious freedom related cases. because of the timing of things

and because of the length of time it takes to bring a court to -- a case to court, none of them coming to mind offhand came up in the process of regular, all the way to or arguments into a decision. they came up to what is coughed -- what is often called the shadow docket. it would be a case decided by a lower court, either a state or federal court, and there was not time to appeal it up. maybe there would be a stay of the law in the certain case or request for an emergency stay in the court would have to deal with it that way. in the wake of the election, you would not have time to litigate a case. it takes months and months. all the way to the supreme court at that point, the case would be moved. there was a disagreement among some of the justices, now it has moved and we can at least give an authoritative interpretation of what courts should be doing next time. maybe it will be better if it is not super relevant because we

are not deciding the outcome of an election. we are setting ground rules so everyone plays by the same rules in the next election. the court did not take the case, so maybe if we have this kind of thing, hopefully by 2022, we will not be dealing with some of the emergency measures from covid-19. if so, i thing that opens the door for more frustrating last-minute appeals to the supreme court. host: let's hear from rick in virginia on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, terry. -- carrie. does chief roberts have more pull as to what cases get heard from the supreme court or do they all decide what cases to take? when it comes to the election, do you have any insight as to why some of the cases did not get taken up by the supreme court, especially the one in pennsylvania where five democrat

pennsylvania supreme court justices ruled in favor of the rule changes that happened in that state against the state's own constitution. thank you. host: thanks, rick. carrie severino. guest: so that is interesting about the chief justice. in one sense, the chief justice is the first among equals affectively. he has the same vote in deciding a case as every other justice and you need the majority to win. he is the same vote in terms of taking a case for -- when the case decides to take a case, you need for cases to take the case. he has an equal vote in that sense. he has other ways he can exert pull. i think his colleagues respect him as a leader so he does try to, i assume, i haven't worked in the courts for over a decade, but he is able to talk to them and negotiate and maybe try to suggest a direction he would

think the court would go. ultimately at the end, it is not a matter of him having more votes. he does have some ability to choose who writes an opinion, for example, to direct the direction the court will go in those ways. he may have plans on timing of when cases get heard, but i think other than that, it is really just the power of his own convincing them and power of his arguments to say i really don't want to take this case, let's wait for another case or group of cases in the same topic, maybe this is the best one. in terms of the pennsylvania case, i think that is the one i was alluding to wear i believe the supreme court should have taken that case, even though the 2020 election was behind us by the time he got all the way to the supreme court. i think that may have made it a perfect vehicle. the court does at times take cases that are technically moved but are what hours called capable of repetition, cases by their nature that tend to be this exploding timeline that you

would never hear a supreme court case in. in situations like that, it is helpful for the court to lay down a law before you get into this exploding timeline of the same set of facts arising again. and unfortunately, i know it seems to be possible that kind of playing around with the rules after they have already been laid down in legislature could recur again. host: next is our caller in georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: high for one have no respect for mr. thomas. with that said, how do you feel about a judge going to a party and scott a case before him and got to rule on it, running around the country making $1 million listening to people so

she can sell his vote. thank you, ma'am. guest: rights, so the justices, if they were at and -- i think the laws on recusal are not as strict as people imagine. i think there are justices -- the justices have to make this decision themselves in terms of what is recused. if there were a justice that had interest in a case, justices regularly recuse themselves if they have interest in the case or stock in the company before the courts. even if they own one share, they would recuse themselves. if they were involved in the facts of the case or ruled on it below, or even commented specifically on a publicly -- justice scalia recused himself from a pledge of allegiance case. all of the justices are familiar

with and attend events for people who might be related to cases. justice ginsburg accepted awards from planned parenthood foundation while they were filing a breese and cases. that is not normally something that would trigger role -- trigger recusal. attending an event where the coat brothers were in attendance, i don't think there was a case where they were personally involved in a case before the court. perhaps an organization affiliated with them took a position on it but that has never been something that would trigger recusal. that is something very common in justices on both sides of the aisle, so that is something that normally the justice would say hey i am able to step back. they all have personally held beliefs, obviously, that run much deeper than something --

someone that they may know at event -- at an event they attend. and they have to set those aside whenever that comes into conflict with an actual law in the case. i think we have to trust them to do that. host: one of the cases they hear in the upcoming turn, the announce the mississippi abortion case, dobbs v jackson women's health organization, a taste that will test the constitutionality of a mississippi law prohibiting abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies and fetal abnormalities. it will challenge the court's decision in roe v. wade. carrie severino, what is at stake? obviously challenging those important supreme court decisions but how does this argument shape up in the court this fall? guest: it will be an interesting one to watch. the states brief was strong -- state's brief was strong on this issue. they were clear when you look at typically with the factors that

a court looks at to determine am i going to follow a supreme court case that i think is incorrectly decided or the reasoning of which is incorrect, even if the result you might agree with, do you follow that reasoning or go a different direction? the supreme court from time to time always does overturn cases and every justice in the case has done so at times. the factors they way, the brief went to do them and said this is a case people on all sides of the aisle view does not actually -- isn't very legally rigorous, even if it comes to rid the -- comes to the result many people would agree with and has undermined historically over the years and has caused distortion in our jurisprudence. it is also part of the problem with the politicization of the court, by taking such a significant issue that was kind of a third rail issue in american psyd -- american society, you now may the supreme

court the focal point of the issue rather than leaving it in the legislature of the states. it will be interesting to watch that play out. i do not know whether we will be listening to it on c-span or whether we will be able to -- at least some people will be able to see it in the courtrooms but it will be a significant case for how the court looks at this issue -- these issues. we know the court will sometimes on major issues even where ultimately there's a real concern about the president and the president ends up being overruled eventually. there's also a step by, wait, how did that happen? i don't think this would necessarily have the supreme court overstepped the -- overturn the steps of roe v. wade. if that happens, you have many states, and i think what we would see is across the political spectrum of the country, a different regime in many different states. you have the georgia's, the

mississippi is in the middle, maybe where they would prohibit some abortions, really getting closer and lined with most european countries who prohibit abortion generally speaking after the first trimester. so even earlier than mississippi does. you have states like new york and california that offer unrestricted abortion along the lines of what places like china and north korea do. you have something that reflects a spectrum i think, if i did happen. host: i want to get one more call here but a quick question on voting rights. the court upheld the arizona voting law. is there anticipation there are voting cases coming up in the 21-2022 term? guest: i'm not familiar with any taken so far, but we are seeing so much rhetoric about voter id laws interestingly where there was a case that came up in the 2007 term when i clerked and the supreme court already said that

is clearly constitutional. i don't know if that will come up. we are seeing so much talk about it, maybe something like that would be brought before the court again. host: let's hear from kelly in kentucky. caller: hi. the things going on in america these days is minute and small compared to what is coming, the coming judgment from god for the over 50 million unborn babies that have been murdered and killed, but aside from that, there is a book that i highly suggest people get called vatican assassins. host: we will let you go there. carrie severino, we look forward to hearing from you as a new term gets underway. thank you for being with us this morning. guest: have a great day. host: still ahead on "washington journal," we will be joined by jenny schuetz with workings institution to talk about all of the movement going on -- with

brookings institute talking about all of the movement on eviction moratorium and what that means for renters. that is straight ahead on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ >> weekends on c-span to bring you the best in american history and nonfiction books. saturday on american history tv, at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, we feature two programs on gerald ford, the only white house occupant who was never elected vice president or president. he took office 47 years ago this month after president nixon's resignation. first into the ford presidential museum, and looking back on the 30th president. then first lady betty ford, honored for her life's work with a special focus on the white house grounds and gardens. featured speakers include author of a garden for the president,

and former first daughter susan ford barrels -- fails. at 6:30 pm, hereabouts barbizon hotel, afforded young women the opportunity for independent lives. among the notable residents, novelist sylvia platt and grace kelly, liza minnelli, and the future nancy reagan. the author talks with the new york historical society about the host tell -- about the hotel's unique role. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on sunday, at 4:00 p.m. eastern, atlantic magazine staff writer adam so were reflect on the past and future of what he calls trumps america in his latest book. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, conservative podcaster and journalist ben shapiro discusses his book "the authoritarian moment" in which he argues the authoritarian

leftist pushing an authoritarian agenda. watch american history and book tv every weekend on c-span two. and find your full schedule on the program guide or visit c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: next with us is jenny schuetz, senior fellow at the brookings institute. . -- institution, on with us this morning to talk about evictions, covid-19 research and's, and limitations on evictions. guest: good to be here. host: what areas have been hardest hit by evictions in the country during the pandemic? and since some of those evictions -- those eviction restrictions have been eased up in some states. guest: this is a nationwide problem. renters all over the u.s. have been harder hit by job losses during the pandemic.

we know low-wage workers stand most child losses and income losses, those tend to be renter households. that tends to be true all over the country. some of the areas particularly hardest hit and slowest to reopen are the ones that depend on services, particularly tourism, like las vegas, south florida, new york. housing instability all over the country and whether or not you are protected by eviction protections depends on where you live. the federal moratorium that expired extended this week we covered -- would have covered everyone. host: the biden administration this week is issuing a new guideline. the cdc eviction order in areas that are substantial and high transmission. what did the cdc say exactly, jenny schuetz? guest: the cdc is still relying on public health as the primary

reason to have a moratorium. otherwise this is outside of their usual territory. the rationale here is when an eviction happens and a family is forced to move out of their current home to someplace else, that creates more interactions between people and increases the likelihood of contagion. what they have done now is say that the moratorium covers counties that have a higher risk and higher exposure of the delta variant, where we see more levels of transmission. so this is tying the eviction moratorium directly to the public health crisis and saying we need this in place until people get vaccinated, until the public health threat has died down. host: i want to ask you about the other piece of this, rental assistance. this is an opinion piece from usa today this morning. the eviction crisis need not be a disaster, they writes. they say congress allocated $25 million in rental assistance in december and an additional 25 --

20.5 billion in march. only 3 billion has gone out to renters and states receive the first-round of funds in february. there is more than enough blame to go around, leaving $43.55 billion unspent. the biden administration writes state governments could have done better and made aware ken's aware of the relief. more than half of renters and landlords did not even know the program existed. among those aware of the program, there was confusion about how it work. what was your observation and the governments options in the pandemic to provide this rental assistance? >> that's a great point. we can think of the eviction moratorium and rent relief intended to work together. to use a public health metaphor, the eviction moratorium is like a mask mandate and the rent relief is like the vaccination. the moratorium provide legal protection to keep renters in their homes to prevent illegal

evictions going forward and that is to be temporary until people can get the cash to pay their rent. that is what the second half of this program -- and both of these are emergency measures to hold things off until the health emergency subsides, the economy reopens, and people can go back to working their job and paying rent in a regular way. we have seen problems out the door. states and cities have had over $40 billion and have not had the ability to get that into the hands of renters and landlords. it is a complicated program, something that is new for most state and local governments, they have never done it before, so they have to stand up new programs in the middle of the pandemic with lots of other things going on. they just not have been able to get this done. we have been learning over the past year some of the things holding things up. for instance, requiring people to document they have lost income, that they are not receiving any other benefits

like on employment insurance. families going through a stressful economic time anyway often time have difficulty coming up with the right documentation paperwork, so people have applied for rent relief but have not heard back or been rejected because they do not have the right documentation. making this a simpler process would help get money out the door more quickly and help get it to people who are otherwise struggling and having a hard time meeting the requirements. host: i want to ask about the other part of the rental equation on the landlord side of it. this is a headline from the national apartment association. they are suing the federal government to recover the industries losses under the nationwide eviction moratorium. they say in their lawsuit that has a low-margin industry, where just $.10 of each rental dollar is considered profit, the debt is unsustainable and could devastate callous small businesses all simultaneously damaging housing affordability. so an aa is proud of the adaptability and flexibility -- so naa is proud of the

adaptability and flexibility. it is time to make residence hall again. where is your view on the landlords, particularly the small landlords, and where they stand in this country? guest: it has been a concern in -- since the beginning that we have big landlords that are sort of high profit organizations but there a lot of properties owned by individuals or families who are running on margins. if we think about where the money of rent goes to, landlords use some of that to pay the mortgage on the property, pay taxes, insurance, operating expenses, and those expenses have still lasted. landlords who have a federally backed mortgage have been able to get mortgage relief the way homeowners have, but not all of the properties that have renters who cannot make rent have this backed mortgage or are able to

get relief. it is clear there are smaller landlords likely feeling financial pressure. if a small indoor cannot afford to pay the mortgage in property taxes, they may be forced to sell the property. we wind up seeing some of the smaller, older properties that tend to be lower rent and more affordable, they may not get sold to investors or to owner occupants, and they wind up disappearing from the affordable housing stock, which would be a shame because we are already losing units. host: our guest is jenny schuetz . we are talking about evictions, rental assistance, and the covid-19 pandemic. we have renters for -- we have a line for renters and landlords. if you are renter, it is (202) 748-8000. if you are a landlord, it is (202) 748-8001. for all others, it is (202) 748-8002. you have used the term affordability a couple times. when you look at affordability, how do you define affordability in terms of the rental arena and in housing and buying a

single-family house, for example? guest: the department of housing and urban development has a standard definition of affordability, which says households should spend about a third of their monthly income on housing costs. that's rent or the mortgage, utilities, all the housing cost inclusive. those that spend more than that our cost burdened and will likely not have enough money to pay for food and transportation and other necessities. we know even before the pandemic, the poorest 20% of households spent more than half of their income on rent, which meant they were living on very thin financial margins and that is why so many of them have run into problems with the pandemic. any loss of income, cuts back in hours, loss of job means they essentially cannot cover the cost of housing and fall into debt. what we have seen is a financially fragile population to start with that has absorbed a lot of the job losses in the pandemic and have not been able to keep up. host: the housing market across

the country in the past year certainly this year has skyrocketed in terms of single-family homes in particular. how has that affected the rental market? guest: there is some overlap but there are not really direct comparables. the owner occupied market dearly -- deals with higher income households. low income households tend to rent and higher income households tend to buy. those among higher income renters that kept their jobs and particularly were living in larger cities may have decided this was the time to become a first-time homebuyer. rather than paying $3000 a month for a two-bedroom apartment, it is time to buy a house with a little more space and shift to the owner occupied market. what that has done is free up space at the high end of the market but that does not apply directly to low-end renters that bind large were barely making by and they tend to live in

different neighborhoods, owned by different types of landlords. the segregation in the housing market comes into play. host: do we have an idea of how many people in this country right now are facing eviction? guest: it's a really tough question to answer because traditionally we have not kept good data on this. movies has estimated about 6 million households are behind on their rent and could be vulnerable to eviction. it is important to remember many of those are households with children, so the total number of families may between 12 million and 15 million. it is not a trivial number of people. the temporary eviction moratorium is one of the things holding them in place. host: back to the homeownership arena, any idea how many people are both late or 90 days or more late in their mortgage payments? guest: we have seen a lot less distress in the owner occupied

market than the rental market. much less than during the foreclosure crisis, in part because homeowners tended to be in white-collar jobs, they tended to be likely to work from home and keep their job. the assistance that came to homeowners is very different than renters. the federal government has a much bigger role in the owner occupied market because it backs a lot of award edges. at the beginning of the crisis, the federal government directed fannie mae and federal -- freddie mac to extend to their borrowers and that not only allows them to defer payments on their mortgage for a year but what they did not pay out added to the balance of the mortgage and you can pay it over the next 20 to 30 years. so that was a nice technique that allowed homeowners to defer their payments if they lost income and have a longer time to make up the debt. on the rental side, even if you are able to stop paying your vent -- your rent while the moratorium was in place, at the

end of that period of time, all of the back rent would be due any lump sum and renters do not have that kind of money unless they get rental assistance. phone host: host: lines for renters and landlords and all others. we will get to your comments momentarily. we touched on evictions, we touched on rental assistance. jen psaki was asked about the speed at which the government was giving that money to people. [video clip] >> this is about money and funding. all states and localities have the money to extended by a month or two months. there have been challenges understandable, including the fact there is no federal infrastructure for distributing this money. states are doing it on their own. there are challenges where even while meeting landlords and others are trying to figure out how to accept applications. that is a solution for the short-term. jenny schuetz, the press

secretary saying those states have the money. i think you pointed out part of the problem is setting up the systems to get the money distributive. is there concern some of the states may not use the federal money for the purpose in which it is intended? guest:it is not that they will e using the money for something else, but they will not be able to get it out effectively. states have set up programs were either the renter or the landlord to apply for the money have to provide for various kinds of documentation. all of that gets reviewed by public sector staff, find someone that is eligible, then provide the check. these programs have been set up in slightly different ways by states and cities. one of the downsides of devolving authority to local government, there are a lot of ways to construct the programs that leads to confusion -- renters, landlords in particular may not know if they are

eligible, how to apply -- getting the word out to people has been hard. it is not like we have a centralized email distribution list that treasury can hit a button on their computer and suddenly finds out this exists. you have to find local channels to get in touch with people. low-income renters are a hard population to reach. these are often vulnerable households who might not have a high level of trust in government and may not have worked with government agencies before. it is establishing a new relationship and new program in the middle of a pandemic -- these were high bars and conditions to meet. host: the wall street journal has an opinion piece. they say there are 48 million rental housing units in the u.s.. 42% of them, day to day management was performed either by the owner or an unpaid agents. we have lines for renters and

landlords. grantors, 202-748-8000. landlords, 202-748-8001. all others, 202-748-8002. eric in virginia is a landlord. caller: i want to talk about the housing issues and what people are not allowed to pay their rent. as a -- able to pay the rent. as a homeowner, of several home -- small homes, people were getting their stimulus packages no one was suffering during the pandemic. people gained weight, and now that it was about to expire, the biden administration extended it again. at some point people have to pay their rent and pay what they are supposed to be paying because other people are getting hurt at the same time.

just because you own a property coming really doesn't mean you are making money. if you really look at it, i am sure your guest can tell you the average homeowner renting out to someone is really not profiting. you have your mortgage, your principal interest, your taxes, insurance, incidentals, capital expenses, and then liabilities. host: how many properties do you rent out, eric? caller: two. -- host: thank you for the call. guest: that is a typical situation of a small landlord that owns one or two properties and it is true for most landlords, the expenses -- that covers a lot of the rent. we do in fact see a lot of landlords who are just barely covering, and to have taken on, in some cases, more debt over the past year. there is a fair amount of variation whether those landlords have a separately-back gauge. if so, they can provide for

forbearance so they don't have to pay their mortgage, giving them more time until the rental assistance comes through, but it is absolutely right that the rental assistance is the solution to the problem. that means to get into people's hands much faster. host: on the renter's line, this is frank in winston-salem, north carolina. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead? caller: i would like to know if you respect howard stern's p enis? host: i'm sorry? good morning. caller: i have come on to a situation where i have not been able to pay the rent due to covid and various restrictions. i heard your guest before talk about the landlord -- like people are intentionally not paying rent. i have paid my rent and avoided

paying, like, car insurance my registration. there are a lot of government fees with the government is trying to helping one aspect, and in a lot of other aspects, the government is your eagle -- people. they are dim -- people. they are demanding taxes, fees -- all of that continues on because it is government business. i feel bad for my landlord could i know i am not his only tenant. at the same time, these government programs have to be able to be accessible. now, i found with trying to access programs that they have here in california, you are jumping through a lot of hurdles and getting nowhere. no offices are open because most of the government employees are still working remotely you cannot go -- you cannot address the federal debt, the irs, the

franchised debt board. if they are in the office, they are not allowing society to coming into get answers to the questions were to get assistance with their banks, so now you are stuck trying to deal with things on your own. at the same time, you have other people that are exploiting the situation. host: what kind of rental situation arguing -- an apartment? caller: i am in a a home. host: thank you for the call. jenny schuetz. guest: that brings up one of the challenging issues -- local governments and state governments shifted to working from home at the same time the private sector did. they tried to construct rental assistance programs for people could online, you would upload documents of your income statement, your pay stubs,

evidence you had been laid off from your job. they try to create a way to do all of this via the web, to do online portals, but it turns out a lot of low income renters do not have good internet service. that is one of the first things that got cut off. people would access the internet at schools and libraries -- those were closed, too. if you think about creating an online application process for people that do not have good internet access, it will make it hard to apply for things, even nonprofit service providers who work with low income renters may have shut offices due to the public health threat. it has taken a while to realize you have to have a place for people to drop off documents in person, make it easier for people to apply, create an application process designed to work with mobile phones instead of traditional computers, but that is all a learning process local governments have gone through. host: cindy on our renter's line in dover, ohio.

good morning. caller: yes. i am new to this as a renter, and being a senior now, ok, they make you jump through hoops, all right? also, they judge you, ok? they say that everybody is playing the system. this is what they do with low-income people anyway. here i had a medical condition and i was asking for help so my funds would not run out. here, where i am at, the entity, they work on how should i say a prophet? i am in place where your electricity is guided, ok? it is not regulated. that is what i am trying to say. we are running into hurdles here because now when you cannot get

a hold of them, when you have the day off or whatever because they are, like you said, with the federal, they have certain days they can only work, and now when you try to go apply, i am already behind the eight ball because they are trying to keep things going. then i get kicked to the teeth -- in the teeth because this was not my idea to have cancer. this is what i ended up doing. they penalize you because it think you have been low income the whole time. you are paying, had a nice job, everything, and now you are using your income, just trying to survive. that is not fair because they tell you we have people playing the system. you have people with that mentality trying to do this. the landlords here in this county are all realtors. they have control of everything, even the housing market. if you wanted to get something

low income to try to buy, you cannot do it. here they want 2000 dollars for a rent? that hundred $50, and the income is not what the area is. host: what will the $2300 -- what kind of place will that rent? caller: that is what is on the market right now, 2800 dollars, and it is a realtor that owns it, and she even has for low income, for housing, you see what i mean? you are just behind all the way around. we will let you -- host: we will let you go there. jenny schuetz, any thoughts? guest: the caller brings up an interesting point -- we have been focusing on rent owed to landlords, and often there is a package of things involve

particular renters in single-family home. they might also be responsible for utilities, paying electric bills and we have seen problems people getting cut off from utilities. do they want to use assistance to pay rent or utilities? people cannot cut off utilities if it prevents peoples healthy living and the unit, but everyone is taking a hit, and the question is how do we get money out to get services going, keep renters in the homes and keep them habitable in the long run. host: in terms of affordable housing, this is from the greater greater washington website -- an anti-nimby bill will be law in virginia.

the opinion piece says in less than six weeks virginia will become the third state in the nation is officially going into the book saying no to nimby, pro housing advocates increasingly tag the not in my back yard naysayers as the main culprit behind americans historic low of housing construction over the past decade. this is the third state to do this. do you see that as a trend? jenny schuetz there is definite

-- guest: there is that only a trend at the state level and the local level to make it easier to the apartment, we have essentially made it illegal to build a single-family detached home on the vast majority of the country, and that doesn't act how much housing is available, where it is available, and the virginia bill starts to nibble around the edges of that without dealing with the and local governments cannot single out housing, but any step in the direction is a good step forward. host: the housing department is also proposing the -- the administration is proposing that

hud be allowed to incentivize states and localities to change their zoning to get rid of single-family housing zoning in states across the country. how prevalent -- how much is that happening across the country? guest: this is just a proposal at this point the federal stage. oregon and california have taken some steps forward, making it easy to do things like build an accessory dwelling unit, a flat on a single-family property. oregon has legalized building duplexes and much of the state. those are very small steps, but an indication that we are recognizing that a land-use properties that does not allow homes to be built, it does not work for the population. the lack of lower-cost rental

properties all goes back to the supply. as long as we have local rules that make it impossible to build apartments, and you have too many people competing over too few housing units, and the rents will continue to go up. host: david from edmond, oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to start by quoting sir walter scott -- "many a shaft at random spent fines archer." these programs have unintended consequences. a four week consider the enhanced unemployment benefits -- if we consider the enhanced unemployment benefits coupled with the monthly distribution of childcare credit and eviction moratorium, we have placed millions of americans in a position where they cannot afford to go back to work. it would be an economically and

financially unsound decision for them to take a job. we are seeing that in the job market where there are significantly more available jobs than there are people who can afford to accept them. host: thanks, david. jenny schuetz, any thought on that? guest: we are seeing an awful lot of complicated trends in the economy, both in the labor market and the housing market. and we know in the job market they are working from home, so some of the jobs, coffee shops, laundry method depend on office workers have not reopened and the downtowns of a lot of cities are still much less active than they used to in jobs have not come back there. we also know that schools have not reopened. we are in the summer, waiting to see what schools do in the fall,

so parents of young kids have to make a decision about whether they can go back to work before they have stable childcare and school set up. there are a lot of reasons why people are not back in the workforce decides the fact that some people might you getting unemployment insurance. i would say one of the conditions of most of the rental assistance programs is that people are not receiving other health, so this is intended to help out people that have not been able to get cash assistance from the federal government and need some other form of support. host: our guest has a phd. her phd from harvard. she is a former crystal economist with the federal reserve board of governors. a question from patricia again oregon -- -- from oregon. she says i thought i was a more realistic being swamped, pressing misplacing renters at the prerogative. guest: it is a tough question to

answer because in part rental properties investors by are often not the same wanton competition for owner occupants pick they might be looking for different neighborhoods, different structures. we are concerned that some of the more affordable rental properties may either go to an owner occupant, which takes it out of the rental supply, or maybe blocked by an investor who decides to do a rehab, and after that they are likely to raise the rent. this is a real concern that some of the rental properties may exit the affordable rental stock and we are just not replacing those stock properties when they go out. host: a comment from david in new york and in landlord on the line from new york. first david says here in new york if you take money for back rent, you are not allowed to evict the tenant for one year -- what good does that do when you are just prolonging this? david, new york, presumably a landlord. jan, dover plains, new york, you

are on the landlords line what is your experience? good morning. caller: thank you. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am in small, five-apartment house, converted from a victorian, and i have a person, i cannot call them a renter, but he moved into years ago -- -- in two years ago, he was there to take care of the tenant's dog because she was busy taking care of her mother in westchester county, and i have not seen her since last summer. she did pay in may of 2020, but not a penny since then, and he is still here, and we are trying to get into leave, but he won't leave. host: what actions have you taken? is this a matter you have

brought to housing officials or the police? caller: we have tried a lot of different ways to go about it, but because of moratorium, he has been able to fly through. he sneaks in and out of the house. he takes electricity from a socket in the hallway, and he has just avoided us all together. host: sorry to hear that. it sounds like a fairly untenable situation. jenny schuetz, any thoughts on that? guest: we are running up into the problem that some landlords do not want to keep the tenant in the property anymore. they are frustrated, as this caller was, they have not been receiving rent. in some cases these are tenants who might be disturbing other people in the building, and the landlord to are at the end of their patients and just want the tenant out. the programs that require the landlord to say they want evict the tenant for some time have

been a problem for getting money out the door because the rental assistance won't go out unless there is landlord cooperation. in some cases, we need to accept is the current situation will not last, provide the renter with security deposits, first month's rent, to move into a new place and let people sort things out into new places to live. we will not salvage all these relationships and hold up rental assistance money to get perfect cooperation sometimes is just not going to happen. host: we go to the renters line next and hear from maia and pendergrass, florida. caller: thanks for having me on. i just wanted to say that my situation is kind of different. during the pandemic i did lose my job, but me and my husband were still able to pay rent, and at the same time, paying rent, money started getting low. expenses started getting higher by everyone being home, and

there were things where utilities cannot get cut off. my utilities were cut off during the pandemic. i applied for assistance, they had me fill out paperwork. everything they asked, no help. host: you apply to state officials, the federal government? how did you apply? caller: i feel that an application, they said they would reach back out to you, but i never heard from -- anything, and that was six months after the pandemic started. we were behind on our rent three months, and we were evicted during the pandemic, when the state had in place you cannot be evicted. we are in hotels now. all the programs the government

claims they have available they really don't have available because to apply you cannot get any assistance. now me and my family are going from hotel to hotel because we cannot get any assistance. host: any suggestions for her? guest: this is not an uncommon story that people apply for assistance, or takes a long time to apply and they don't hear back. although it was intended to cover most tenants for the past year, it gets administered through the court system, and some judges have interpreted it differently, have chosen to allow emissions to move forward. the problem is that now if you have been evicted from your current place, you also will not be eligible for rental assistance because they are trying to get it to landlords. it would be great for more of these programs to think about forward-looking -- provide people who lost their homes with

first month's rent, take about people. there is an argument that extends in the state. so that it does not harm their chances of moving into a new apartment. host: the associated press reporting california is spending billions. how important is the callers -- prevalent is the situation -- do we have numbers on those that have been displaced? guest: we really don't pin the census bureau has been doing

numbers on what people are living, and we have a sense that a lot of people that are vulnerable have had to move. they may not have gone through a formal eviction. they may have told lender they cannot pay it out, and we won't know probably for quite a while how many people have been displaced, because not all of that will show up in the eviction records. guest: let's hear from kathy -- host: let's hear from kathy in delaware. caller: i will speak to the situation in delaware -- is 1% the fault of kearney and kunz not informing the public that there are funds available to them. they could do a public service announcement. the only way you can find out about the agency for assistance is if you physically go to court, or via zoom. some people do not have the ability to go online.

they realize they don't have the ability to go to court at that time. they may find out from the judge there is money available. when the court papers are filed, there could be an announcement in that packet that says there is an agency available to the public. it is 100% their fault, and the landlords are being held hostage , and what i have sent to them -- i have been fighting this for a year and a half, of course, and the landlords are saying i don't want to deal with this anymore. i just sell -- they are selling my crazing. that reduces the availability of rentals. the democrats in delaware are shooting themselves in the foot because the poor people and you just assistance are not given the opportunity to know about it. and when you do go to this

online agency, it is not interactive. you don't get to talk to a human being. it is so oppressive as to how they are holding onto this money. it is unconscionable. guest: -- host: thanks for sharing your experience. jenny schuetz. guest: that is a good sense of what is happening a lot of places. word has gone out that it is available. i will say that philadelphia is one of the places that has tried better to integrate places they go to eviction court and leonard assistance. when landlords apply for eviction they are also required to apply for rental assistance on behalf of the tenant. it is a way to capture people generally at the end of the

process. it is not ideal. you cannot go through without finding out there is money available. there is potential mediation. local governments have until october 3. they should to go about integrating this, doing all court press to get information out to landlords and tenants and encourage them to have a conversation before this comes to court. host: a comment on twitter about rental assistance. this went has a big problem with housing assistance during covid leading to housing assistance in foreclosures is that payback once it ends. landlords all want months to be paid immediately in a huge lump sum -- almost impossible for people already struggling to be able to do.

guest: four landlords, that is true. the eviction moratorium assumes all rent is due. that is not true for federally backed mortgages. they were able to defer payments for up to a year. then the intent was the unpaid balance would get rolled into the remaining balance of the loan and be paid back like regular mortgage. the payment will increase, but there should not be a balloon payment. that does not apply to mortgages outside of the federal system. most should be able to roll this into the balance of the mortgage. host: one more call, but a previous, to the delaware color -- the application would be a challenge for an attorney to complain. only landlord can answer. next up, laverne, tennessee, on the renters line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.

caller: an an i was -- i was an ex-president in new york city could i flew to tennessee on saturday because i was having such a hard, difficult time. i had been in new york for two years trying to find an apartment. i was also a home health aide, essential health care worker, so i worked a majority of the pandemic. the hard thing about this is new york has no rent control. what that means is landlords can charge whatever they want. for me, my experience, i did not have any good credit. at the time, my credit score was lucky 490. even when i tried to get a cosigner, i still got denied, and i am a black woman. this is something that happens a lot to us, and i feel like it is an agenda to make credit scores and rent requirements so high to

wear black people cannot afford the rent. host: ok. we will let you go. the role of credit rating. we have not talked about that yet this morning. guest: that is going to be an issue -- in markets that are tight where landlords have multiple applicants for an apartment, they can be picky. they can chew somebody that has better income, better credit scores, who may be willing to pay a couple of months upfront. that is clearly a problem in places like new york where there are two new people competing for too few apartment. we are concerned that people coming out of the pandemic with lower credit ratings because they were not to make payments, that will make it much more difficult to rent an apartment going forward. you have to figure out some way people will be able to get a new place to live to potentially have some amnesty. host: jenny schuetz is with the brookings institute. senior fellow. we appreciate you answering

questions on rental assistance throughout the country. host: in our final half-hour we will ask about the state of the pandemic in your view on how things are going. are they getting better, getting worse, staying the same? it is kind of on a pole that came out by harris. we will show that to you and ask you to call these lines. a few things -- things are getting better, you can call these numbers -- we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a, helen andrews talks about her book "boomers, men and women who promised freedom and delivered disaster." >> the one-liner i did not come up with that i think is brilliant is they are the

generation that sold out but would never admit that they sold out. it is the combination of on the one a great deal of idealism and a sense of themselves as morally noble, liberating humanity, but on the other hand a great deal of selfishness and narcissism, and a blindness to the way there liberationist agenda knocks down a lot of functioning institutions and left a lot of people worse off. host: helen andrews and her book "boomers" sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. you can also listen as a podcast wherever you get your podcast. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast -- every saturday find event and events that explore our nation's past on american history tv. sunday, but tv brings you the

latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, explore, weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in this last half-hour we will ask about the state of the pandemic -- in your view, are things getting worse, better, staying the same -- if you think it is getting better, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 is the line to call a few things -- things are getting -- if you think things are getting worse. if things are about the same, 202-748-8002. the graph shows do you believe the worst is behind or ahead of us. for a long time the behind us was growing and the -- the ahead of us was going to 54% now say

the worse is ahead of us and 40% decline, the worst is behind us. another poll i wanted to show you, this kaiser family health regarding the vaccine -- most un-vaccinated adults think the shots are riskier than the virus. they write that three quarters of u.s. adults who say they will ethnically not get a covid-19 vaccine believe getting the shots is a bigger risk to their health than becoming infected with the coronavirus according to a poll released wednesday that underscores the challenges of getting the most resistant to come forward. the kaiser family foundation also found the majority of unvaccinated people believe the pandemic has been exaggerated in the news and are for -- pharma's likely been vaccinated people to think the emergence of new variants will worsen the

pandemic. your view on things getting worse, getting better -- getting worse, getting better, or staying the same. let's go to calls. we will hear from latonya in joplin, missouri, who thinks things are getting worse. caller: good morning. i would say things are getting worse for me in my situation. i am a 35-year-old african-american woman, and i take care of a disabled veteran, and we have lived in our home for five years, we have never missed a payment, kept the property up and everything, and we were under the impression that the landlords were going to let us by the house -- the house came up for sale about a year ago you're going back and forth and we decided we were going to buy the house, and that landlord said they would allow us to work on the things we needed to work on for our credit score, so i don't know where they come with

an eviction telling us they we are evicted and they found a buyer that is going to buy the house, and they told us that we can buy it, and we felt like since we have been in the house five years we invested in their investment, so we should be the ones to buy the property, but there was a lot of marketing and stuff going on. a bunch of crazy stuff going on, but i don't want to get into that. recently we had a house fire. and now the owner is trying to take us to court to try to sue us. we were supposed to be buying the house. then we have been blackballed, like right now me, i five-year-old son and a disabled

veteran, we are living in motel rooms, getting treated very poorly around here. host: how long have you been in the hotel? caller: about two weeks now. we have been blackballed. we have money to rent a house and nobody will rent to us. host: i appreciate you calling in. i hope the situation improves for you and your family. jorge is next in truth or consequences, new mexico. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am accident prone and i heard myself a lot. the good thing about that is i know how to get better, and it kind of takes therapy, and it is almost like stages of grief, and unfortunately some of us have not come into acceptance that we are sick, but you go through therapy, it takes time.

sometimes you need to use kids gloves and love, and at least we have good leadership now. i don't know about biden, but look at his cabinet. it is beautiful, diverse, and i think we have strong people there. but we still have to go through it. host: did you say you have covid or you have it now? caller: no, i don't have it. we didn't have it here for a long time, and then i don't know if people were listening. i think that it has just been politicized, and that is sad because people are fighting for power instead of for the people. host: paul who thinks things are getting worse you to, kentucky. good morning, paul. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.

i hate it, but i think things are worse because i thought we had the leadership and the momentum to carry us over, yet there is so much reluctance -- now, i understand there are some religious is used and some health issues. 95% of our population could be vaccinated, and the choice is risk, hospitalization, or death, and not get vaccinated -- it does not -- that is why it is worse. we, kind of ran into a brick wall, and it breaks my heart that people can't see forward. host: thanks for your call this

morning. reuters this morning -- headline -- biden to aim for 50% ev's, electric vehicles. they will send executive order making have a vehicles sold by 2030 zero emission vehicles. biden's goal, he writes, which is not legally binding, won the support of major u.s. and foreign automakers that warned it would require billions of dollars in government funding. "we have to act," u.s. secretary price petition pete buttigieg said -- the goal of getting half of our new vehicles to be electric will be urgently needed for us to meet the imperative of climate in our time. william hit houston, texas, on

covid-19, things getting better, worse, staying the same -- tell us what. caller: yes, i think they are staying the same. by now, we know all of the death in the early part of the pandemic, especially when we did not have any guidance of ways to treat covid patients. in my opinion commit it is a harsh opinion, but i would say 60% and upwards are medical mail -- malpractice. we are putting people on ventilator so early, not giving them a shot of breathing on their own and you see a lot of cdcs stop saying pneumonia is a comorbidity, and when you put sewing on a ventilator they are at risk for contracting ammonia. we need to take a hard look at what we did at the beginning of the pandemic. if you have a loved one going to the hospital, i would question if they are being put on a ventilator super early. given a shot, the body can do amazing things.

host: news on the vaccine front, "the hill" reporting moderna saying booster will likely be needed before winter, saying the covid vaccine maintain 93% efficacy six months after the second dose let's as a booster shot would likely be needed for the winter. the 96% efficacy announced by moderna is a positive sign and compares to 84% efficacy after that time for the pfizer vaccine. that is from "the hill." seattle, washington. mike says things are getting worse. caller: good morning at i am from seattle and i am a usps letter carrier. i work in the metropolitan area, and just in my normal daily life, and seeing on the job delivering mail to some wonderful families, i have noticed people are not wearing masks, people are going out,

there is not much local government coordination. obviously there is a problem at the federal level with disinformation and the lack of combating disinformation, and also, frank lee has a worker for the federal government, -- frankly, as a worker for the federal government, there is not much hr coordination in terms of health and safety. that is very worrisome. also, seattle, we are a port city. we are receiving a lot of traffic for cruise lines. we paid our dues. we locked down in march and february. a lot of us were furloughed. we did our thing. now you have people coming from our -- other states, where it was business as usual. they are coming to a lot of these people are not vaccinated. there is no way to know. they are bringing their virus and infection through the tourism industry. i think should have the right to travel and do what they want to die get it, but it is very difficult to see that people who

didn't sacrifice for the health and safety of other people to come in and make things worse from a public health perspective. host: mike, you mentioned a lack of coordination, you are a federal worker -- in an ideal situation, what would the ordination look like -- what is missing in information you are not getting? caller: to i-4 asking. i would say it is mandatory mask wearing in the building. we have coastal -- postal governor -- postal customers that come in not wearing a mask. i would look to see masking mandates for all people. they are not training us to deal effectively from a customer service level with individuals who may or may not be wearing masks and to approach us. then another thing -- there is a big political election here -- a mayoral election here in seattle, and you have a lot of

candidates who are wishy-washy when it comes to enacting safe and salient policy making. thank you for taking my call and i wish everyone in america stays healthy and safe. host: here is bob in memphis. caller: i think it is getting better because it is getting worse. what i mean by that is, people who are contracting this new strain -- once they get sick, they will let their families know what is probably a good idea to get the shot. then, on the other hand, because of a lot of people's reluctance, it is because they don't know what it yet the shot. i was looking at a gentleman yesterday who was trying to get some answers i one of the press conferences about what is in the shot. if they could get out more

information about what is in the shot people would not be so afraid to take the shot. host: appreciate the call. shelley, charleston, west virginia, thinks things are getting worse. good morning, shelley. caller: yes, hello. if people would just think that this vaccine was developed under the trump administration, and it was not politicized -- i shouldn't say politicized, but rushed with him. if those people would think, ok, the man i love, his administration did this. so, we should take it because it

won't -- we won't die, but if this virus keeps continuing to go around the world and the country, and producing more variants, what if the vaccines we have now will not work anymore? what are we supposed to do, and when people see their family members, they need to look them in the face and think my gosh, what if it was someone i loved that got that disease and died? i would feel so bad, and wish and pray that i had gotten that.

host: the question for you is are things getting better, worse, or staying the same with covid and we are asking the question on twitter as well. 12% saying it is getting better. 76% saying it is getting worse. 12% saying it is staying the same. a couple of the comments on social media -- you can text us as well -- 202748 8003 -- lynn in gresham, oregon, says this -- i feel things are getting worse here with mask mandates coming back, especially with kids going to school and mandating vaccines, or taking employment away is affecting portions of my family for some age is there a risk factor is lower and i don't believe they should have to take it. the elevated shot i call it -- elevated flu shot i call it because that -- is a vaccine

that would prevent disease and this does not. then how can anyone think this is getting better when americans are still dying of covid? florida needs help. desantis banding masks, and now oxygen tanks? resigned sir, talking about florida governor ron desantis. bob in independence thinks things are not getting better. good morning. --are getting better. caller: the reason i think things are getting better is because the ant i've asked, anti-mass movement is getting -- is losing steam. younger people are getting sick appeared in a five-year-old boy who was in the hospital from covid right now. of course things seem worse right now in the moment, but i think people like asa hutchinson jen arkansas, who passed an

anti-mask lost saying we cannot have mask -- mandates is now apologizing for what he did. by the way, any governor of any state, including florida, arkansas, tennessee -- if they have any aspirations of being a president in the future they can forget about it because when history looks back and they say what did you do to help your people, you went against the vaccine and against the mask -- i don't think you will ever be president so they can forget about it. things are looking bad right now. i think biden is doing a good job. it is not his fault people are not getting vaccinated. the figure needs to be pointed at republicans and the right-wing media. host: we will hear from ana. caller: i think it is worse in

the first part that it is worse is people are losing trust in the medical profession and they should. my brother-in-law went to princeton and johns hopkins -- he said the original hippocratic owner has not been required since the 1970's -- many doctors take no old or take one that allows abortion, euthanasia, and money considerations. look at that when you go to their appointments. also, we are talking about vaccines -- no, we are not, we are talking about therapeutics -- these are not true vaccines. we have a contest between the cheap ones, others that have been proven over the years, and the untried once, and the president elected to have the most expensive one sent to the least developed country so they cannot even keep it at the correct temperature. it is like something out of dr. shabbat go. people are going to come out of other peoples houses and refuse

to leave -- is communism, in other words. thank you very much. host: this is usa today, the headline "blocked -- trump tries to block access to track records -- tax records." the new legal filing comes less than a week after the justice department concluded the tax records can be handed over to a house committee as part of a year-long legal battle. the decision marked a reversal from an earlier position lacking that lawmakers lacked legitimate purpose when they requested the records two years ago. on wednesday, trump's lawyers claimed congressional democrats were searching for potentially embarrassing information on a political rival, not seeking information for legislative purposes. host: sarah is in alabama and says things are getting better. caller: well, i am not sure they are getting better as long as biden and his crew is in office.

i do not understand why biden is letting all of these people come in -- how do we know they are vaccinated? i don't think they are. and another thing, on the housing, all of the money that was given to them, they could pay their rent, but what they did was use that money for personal things, and now they don't want to work. they want to get that money. i feel sorry for the people that rent houses and can't get -- to me, the money should send the money to the people that own the rental houses. that way they can be paid, the people can stay there. but if you're getting the money and not paying your rent, they should be getting out. it is terrible. it is terrible that people don't

want to work. host: let's hear from valparaiso, indiana, next pick this is steve. good morning. caller: the federal government wants us to mask up and get vaccinated, but then they have the southern border wide open. people are coming from all over the world, not just central and south america. you know, who has more rights, us or the illegals? this administration is trying to ruin this country and they are doing a dam good job of it. host: washington, d.c., is next. this is kevin who thinks things are getting better. good morning. caller: i don't think things are getting better. i think the qanon people are still giving their propaganda, and i wanted to say -- there was reported the september 11

transparency act being announced this morning at a press conference at the senate swamp, and i would like to spend to cover it. host: you are breaking up their little bit, kevin. we would go -- will go to bradley in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i am one of the breakthrough cases that came up with covid variant virus, and i got it on june 13, and i have had two positive tests since then, and the florida health department called me and was telling me what i needed to do and stuff, and i asked if i was going to be part of the statistics of people with covid, and they told me no, i would not be, because i was not hospitalized or died. so i think what we are getting is false information on how when

people are actually having covid. host: you think there are many more or far fewer? caller: i think there are many more. host: thanks for the call this morning. this is the lead opinion piece in the new york times this morning and the headline " governor cuomo, you should reside." the opinion writer saying mr. cuomo continues to deny that he did anything wrong, suggesting all the women that came forward somehow misinterpreted his touching and physicality in the same way. "i'm 63 years old and i've lived my entire life in public view," he said in the video really shortly after the report came out. "that is just not who i am." he failed to note many of the allegations involved contact that happened not in the public, but it closed doors -- behind closed doors, get elevators, or at home, and concludes "if mr.

cuomo cares as much for the citizens as he says he has over the years, he needs to step down and do the right thing. come new york. joseph. our things getting worse, better, or staying the same? caller: i would say they are staying the same can but they are definitely better than a year ago when 600,000 people in the united states died. since then, they are basically staying the same. i just got covid. i went to a wedding. there were a bunch of retired teachers at the table with us, and i got we were all vaccinated up it i had pfizer. only one of the people did not get covid. they went on vacation, were not showing symptoms, and it got passed on. 90% of the people got covid even though they were all vaccinated.

so, obviously it was the delta variant. host: how are you feeling now, joseph? caller: well, i tested the second time -- it says i don't have covid anymore. i am negative, and i am feeling ok. so obviously, the vaccination helped me. i am 68. it helped me survive, and i didn't really get sick. two people did go to the hospital, and one of them is really old, and the other one has another condition. host: these are two people from the group you were with at that wedding. caller: right. and it just seems like now you can be vaccinated, and it will probably keep you alive, but it is not going to do anything from -- to keep it from spreading. host: let's hear from one more. jerry. you say things getting worse. tell us why. caller: i think they are getting

worse because of a previous caller just mentioned. it is going to spread coming to think eventually we will have to come to the realization that it is around forever, and we are probably not going to be able to stop the spread of it. thethe good news is very few pee in america are dying compared to before. i don't think the delta is as deadly looking at the numbers. minnesota has three or four a day, which is horrible for the three or four, but it is a small number. a lot of the times you find these people actually died in february and march. my point is i think vaccines for the right people are very good idea. kids, i would not have my grandchildren take this until they give it full approval. the risk of this covid vaccine i think is long-term. how do we know what the effect will be in the future?

just like ddt, a lot of chemicals, drugs we told were absolutely safe ended up not being so safe. you watch tv commercials for mass lawsuits all the time. you don't know. really long-term was not that much of a question. a 12-year-old kid in minnesota will pay $100 to take the vaccine. something hits me wrong about that. host: why would they charge you $100? caller: they pay $100. if your kid comes we will give you $100. who is that incentivizing, the poor to get their kids to take a risk? the federal government, until the federal government says that it is safe you would be out of your mind to give that to a kid who has 60 years of life ahead of them. host: we are back tomorrow at

7:00 eastern, and we hope you are too. have a great day. ♪ >> here is what is ahead on c-span. in a few minutes terrorism experts testify at a hearing on the threat of domestic terrorism and extremism. homeland security and other mental affairs committee is the host. you can watch that at 10:15 eastern. later we will show you a conversation on health care workforce development hosted by u.s. news & world report's live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. this afternoon, president biden signs an executive order setting

a goal to make half of all vehicles sold in 2030 zero emission vehicles, including electrics and hybrids. that is 3:00 p.m. eastern on the south lawn of the white house. watch on c-span, c-span.org, or the free c-span radio app. >> sunday, c-span's series january 6: views from the house continues. three more members of congress share stories of what they heard, saw, experienced, including new york democrat hakeem jeffries. >> we did not have the highest degree of information, particularly being on the house for. -- house floor. we didn't really get to see the images and real-time footage of the ongoing assault on the capitol, however once we arrived in a secure location we were able to get some understanding