with the naacp and ken cuccinelli. later, mark greenberg of the human service initiative at the migration policy institute on afghan refugees and resettlement programs in the u.s. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning from washington. we are going to begin with vaccine mandates. president biden earlier this week called on companies to mandate vaccines for employees. in support or oppose the idea. if you support, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. text us with your thoughts, first name, city, and state to (202) 748-8003. you can join the conversation on

facebook.com/cspan or send us a tweet with @cspanwj. you can also follow us on instagram. we want to get your thoughts on vaccine mandates, whether you support or oppose them. take a look at this headline. this is from the washington times. get the shot or else. corporate america helps companies put teeth behind vaccine mandates. delta airlines will impose a fee and united is saying get vaccinated or get out. listen to the white house covid-19 response director discussing the fda decision to give full approval to the pfizer vaccine and what it means for mandates. >> yesterday after a thorough, independent, and rigorous review process the fda gave full and final approval to the pfizer vaccine, reaffirming its

findings that the vaccine is safe and effective. this is a key milestone that will help get more shots in arms . we know there are americans who have been waiting for the fda process to be completed before getting the shot. for those americans, the wait is over. now is the time to join the more than 200 million americans who have already rolled up their sleeves and gotten vaccinated. it is free, easy, and it has never been more important to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your community. it is not just individuals. institutions must step up, and many are. in the past 24 hours, cvs, chevron, texas instruments, one

of the largest employers in louisiana, all of them have stepped up to cover workers. new jersey and new york city have stepped up to cover teachers and school staff. the university of minnesota and state university of new york have stepped up to cover students. we expect more and more to follow. if you are a business, a nonprofit, a state or local leader who has been waiting for a full and final fda approval before you put vaccination requirements in place, now is the time. you have the power to protect your communities and help end the pandemic through vaccination requirements. host: vaccine mandates, support or oppose. derek in philadelphia, why do you oppose? caller: i oppose because they are not covering any people that have complications due to severe

reactions. i also oppose because they should be concentrating more on testing. there is nothing about testing anymore. host: what more testing would you want? caller: ems workers, firefighters, police should be tested once a week whether they get vaccinated or not. the vaccine keeps you from getting sicker. it does not keep you from getting covid and passing covid. so they are not testing every week. you do not even hear about testing anymore like you did before. host: the washington post talked to 16 americans who are still unvaccinated and found that even the fda approval for pfizer is not swaying some holdouts. they say according to interviews

with the 16 individuals, including six who said earlier this year they would be more likely to get vaccinated if the fda approved the shot, the fda's approval increase the likelihood of getting vaccinated said a 27-year-old who just left active duty military service. he said at this time i still am not planning to get it. should there be mandates on employees? should your employer mandate that you get the vaccine to come back to work? john and washington, d.c., you oppose as well -- in washington, d.c., you oppose as well. caller: they talk about a saliva test similar to a pregnancy test . instead having that thing in your brain.

they never came up with that easy test. why did they drop the ball on that? that would be easy, to lick a strip and know if you have covid are not as opposed to having them break a membrane into your head. everybody says it is terrible. i never had it done. i am not going to get it done. also, the natural immunity. if it is 98% survivable by our natural immunities -- but the pharmaceutical companies do not make money off of your natural immunity. this is all about money and big pharma. host: are you vaccinated? caller: absolutely not. i think i have had covid maybe a couple times. i do not know. i know i am a strong one. i have not gone to a doctor in 20 years. they tried to give me antibiotics because my baby had whooping cough and i said i am

not sick. they said take it anyway. at that point, i said i do not trust doctors. i never have trusted them because they are motivated by profit. host: are you working or retired? caller: i am self employed. host: joe in tampa, florida. you support the idea of mandates. are you vaccinated? caller: i am. host: why do you support this idea? caller: because i want to live. people are out there dying. i do not want my child bringing it home to me. i do not understand why people do not want -- what they need to do is show people the hospital beds that do not want it but now that they are in the hospital wanted it. if they do not want to get it

and go to the emergency room, they have to foot the bill. you have people who are sick you cannot get in the hospital because of people who refuse to get the covid shot. host: that is what delta airlines is saying from this article. they are saying that delta airlines will impose a $200 per month fee on unvaccinated employees enrolled in the company health care plan as of november 1. from the delta ceo, the average hospital stay for covid-19 has cost the company $50,000 per person, necessitating the fee. go ahead, joe. caller: would i would do for the ones that are not vaccinated and come up with covid, have them foot the bill themselves. put them outside so the people who are actually sick and need

surgery can be covered. host: full fda approval for the pfizer vaccine. your reaction to that. here is republican governor ron desantis of florida in a statement to the orlando sentinel, saying some people looked at the pfizer and said it has not been approved the thought is maybe now that it is finally approved that will cause some people to say, ok, and went through a longer evaluation period. maybe then we will go ahead and look at that that from the conservative governor in florida. in north carolina, a text to say i oppose vehemently. government at any level has no authority to impose mandates. check our laws. michelle in new york, you oppose. caller: yes. i oppose.

there was a drug people my age, which is 75, they remember how babies were born without arms or legs because of a drug that was approved. many medical doctors disapproved of it. i would not take it because of the terrible side effects. supposedly safe prescription drugs. i learned from a caller on c-span that it is not a vaccine. it is an experimental serum. host: cindy in connecticut says, let's all get the vaccine, but it will never end because now

they are talking a booster every six months. that is unheard of. willie in louisiana, you support mandates. caller: i sure do. i am 80-year-old man. i did 20 in the military. i remember they came out in the jungle and gave us a shot. i do not remember what it is about -- i do not know what it is about. if they get sick, they should not have priority on these icu beds. my brother cracked his skull and could not get a bed in louisiana because these people would not take the shot. they should not have priority. host: washington times says there is an alabama doctor who said he will no longer see unvaccinated patients as of october. there is that. caller: ridiculous.

i do not blame him. masks or caskets. one of the two. host: jerry opposes mandates. caller: i oppose this because i do not trust our government as far as i can throw them. but i do not take no vaccines. i don't take no flu shots. i don't take nothing like that. i have never been sick from the flu in my life, i do not think. i find it funny and weird that they are pushing this drug so hard on the american people that it is unreal. as far as the fda, the fda is a joke in this country. every time they pass something, 5, 10 years from them -- then

people are dying from what they passed. i would not believe the fda if there was the biggest thing on the planet. i do not understand why they are pushing this so much. at first it was one shot. then they find out it is two shots. now it is three. before long it is going to be for or five. host: if you ran a company and it was costing you $50,000 per employee when they end up in the hospital, what would you do? 's's i would not step on that guy's rights -- caller: i would not step on that guy's rights. i would have to pay it if i wanted that person to work for me. i would. i am sorry, but when i see people talking of people who do not take it, they do not understand what they are going through their selves, i do not

think, to tell you the truth. host: let me get dairy in atlanta with a text. if you work at a hospital, you should be mandated to get to the vaccine. if you do not believe in medicine, you should not be working in that field. gary mentioned the fda, his criticism of the agency. speaker pelosi was praising the fda in a news conference yesterday and the full approval of the pfizer vaccine. [video clip] >> i salute the fda. it did a wonderful job bringing this full approval forward in a timely fashion respecting all the scientific requirements. now that we have the full approval for those who were reluctant because it did not have full approval and organizations who did not feel they could require the vaccine until there was full approval,

hopefully that will give us more momentum. as children go back to school, this is important that people 12 and older will be vaccinated so they do not put younger children at risk until there can be approval for vaccine for them. in the meantime, let's crush this virus. people have to know that, as it spreads, that is a way for it to mutate. we do not need another variant but we have to be prepared. host: the speaker of the house yesterday. whether it is mandates or the fear of what could happen if you do not get the vaccine, forbes.com headline a day ago reads, americans getting covid vaccine doses spiked to 70% in one month. you support mandates.

caller: i do not understand what is going on with people. this is a thing between good and people and they do not understand that. how dumb some of these people are. you took polio shots. it is the same thing. it is nothing different. take some time to find out what is going on. how dumb can you be to believe in that? our motto is in god we trust. what is wrong with these videos -- idiots? host: how do you respond to laureate in chicago, who text to say -- texts to say, what happened to my body, my choice?

caller: i agree with her. that is her choice. if she wants to die come at she wants to not have a baby, to kill a baby, that is her choice. covid is spreading when you have these rallies. all these people got together. they went out like idiots and spread it all over again. satan wants you to spread it. host: david, north carolina. you oppose. caller: yes, ma'am. i do not agree with this thing. my wife had the covid and had the shot, but the thing about this is i do not like the fact is it is a government thing.

i do not like that one bit. when we look at this -- host: who would you trust? would you trust a company? caller: i do not trust a company nothing. host: who would you trust? to test the vaccine? caller: none of them. they do not tell the people that people have been crippled up. people now that the shot, when they took it, all they had was 8 -- there were people that died from it. they do not tell that. i think they need to be talking about getting our people home from that crazy country and saving our lives and babies' lives. do not talk about saving lives.

host: if you are planning to go to college or in college right now, many universities are requiring that you get the vaccine. several schools are charging unvaccinated students thousands of dollars in coronavirus testing fees to remain on campus this fall during the pandemic. some schools are imposing extra punishments. quinnipiac university in connecticut announce along with finding -- fining unvaccinated students it would cut off their campus wi-fi. caller: good morning. you are terrific. your station is great. you know that old expression no ticket, no laundry? no shot, no insurance. you pay every cent. you also get fined. delta airlines is fining their people $200 a month. i do not want to hear this religious thing.

i have a question about masks. now there is another caveat that religious reasons you cannot wear a mask? give me a break. this is trump 100%. he is behind all this. i do not trust that -- i would not even say what i call him. host: are you there? do you work? do you go into an office? caller: i am retired. host: if your employer had mandated it -- caller: it would not have been a question. i would have taken it. i do not have to be told to take it. these people do not give a damn about if they kill other people or children. have their grandchildren come to their house because they do not take the shot. the grandchildren die. is that what they want? i hate to sound so terrible. host: terry in north carolina, opposing.

caller: good morning. two reasons. the polio shot i have had twice. are you there? host: we are listening. caller: the second reason is why would i want to take a shot from somebody telling me i am and people, deplorable, white supremacist and they want me to die? 75 million americans like you guys right there and that lady just called and their hatred for half the country because they disagree with them, so i would not take it even if i was not unable to take it. host: do you see this as political? caller: extremely.

when you see the president of the united states, the so-called president of the united states, up there now and his rhetoric, it is political. nancy pelosi just had her little get together in a napa valley with all those people, no masks whatsoever. everyone of them was white except for the help. you tell me who the real racist is in this country. the ruling elite in that building behind you are the problem that is going on in this country today. host: this is alfredo in michigan. i do support vaccine mandates. i also think insurance companies should not cover people who get covid-19 at are not vaccinated. so many idiots think they know more than the scientists. dan in new york, go ahead. caller: good morning. i completely oppose this.

i will start with the fda and what they did a couple days ago by approving this. they approved this behind closed doors. normally they will have meetings on this. they will allow scientists to come in who support and oppose the drug, the drugs they want to approve. that was not done. you might want to get some of these scientists from around the world on c-span so they can tell their stories about what they are seeing with these so-called vaccines. right here a couple days ago, the commissioner came out and said, we have 40% of the cases coming out now are people who have been vaccinated with two doses of the stuff. 20% in icus have been vaccinated. i will leave you with this because you are going to cut me off soon. oxford just posted their study.

they found that health care workers who are in hospital environments have a 251 time higher viral load after they have been vaccinated. they are super-spreader's. get these people on c-span and let them tell the other side of the story. i am a person considered an essential worker last year in the new york state education system. the governor is telling me now either i take this stuff for i will be fired and i am not going to do it. there is no need for this. the virus has a 99 .8% survivability rate. think about that, america. there are people in hospitals, but are they using the drugs? are they using hydroxychloroquine or the rest of them? ask them these questions. this is what matters. host: pam and hennessey texts to

say please make those who think they have the right to spread a deadly virus take steps to stop it or at least keep them away from the rest of us. have they seen how many daily deaths are occurring? i have major knee pain but cannot get a replacement because the vaccinated -- unvaccinated our flooding the hospitals. their rights do not extend to restricting mine. in illinois, what do you say? caller: i agree with the mask mandates and the vaccination. my problem is why doctors feel i will have any allergic reaction to the vaccine. i am not allowed to have the vaccine. host: what precautions are you taking? caller: i wear a mask anytime i leave my home. host: are you limiting where you go? caller: i do. i live in a small town. we have had one case in this town last year.

so i think i have been lucky. host: chris in maryland, you oppose. caller: good morning. how are you? host: do you work? do you have to go into an office? caller: i am in medical device sales and we are required to take the shot to go into work. i am at a crossroads in my life. do i have to take this shot to continue to provide for my family? it is kind of an odd spot. if our country goes that way, i think we have lost a large portion of our freedom. we could not be considered a free country anymore. if you are an adult, you have

the option to get the vaccine. you have the option to wear a mask, to social distance cannot to not get the vaccine. this rhetoric about unvaccinated people if they go to the hospital they foot the bill, less extend that out. his obesity now going to fall under that category? that is a problem brought on by yourself. anything that is associated with obesity now, you have to foot that bill. let's walk that out further. that is not valid at all. doctors have an oath to help anyone. they have a -- an oath to not harm and to pick and choose their patients i think is going against their oath to help. i am opposed to it. it is an odd time. host: listen to republican

governor brian kemp on two local stations this week saying, as i stated in my letter to the fda, stated my hope more georgians will become comfortable getting vaccinated once the effective vaccines have full federal approval, today's move to grant full approval in the pfizer vaccine is a welcome step in that direction and i encourage them to take similar actions with the covid-19 vaccines under emergency use authorization. i continue to urge unvaccinated georgians to talk with a medical professional about getting their shots. darlene, oregon. you support. caller: i support the mandate. there are over 600,000 people dead in this country from this disease. contrary to what these internet people say, there are not 600,000 people -- all my life i

have been protected by vaccines. i have seen all over the world people who have been protected by vaccines, people who were dying from smallpox, children that are crippled from polio, children that are deformed from rubella. these vaccines work. these vaccines are developed over a long period of time, contrary to what folks believe, because the base of this vaccine was developed and millions of dollars were put into it to tweak it for covid-19. if you put trillions of dollars into any medicine problem, they will either cure it or find a treatment for it. money is what drives that. you do not have the right to make me sick. host: that brings up the legal question of this, addressed at the covid-19 response team briefing this week.

listen to what members of the team had to say about the full approval of the pfizer vaccine. [video clip] >> you have to be careful when you ask for projected timelines because the fact is the most prevailing issue involved here is if we can get as many people vaccinated as we possibly can as quickly and efficiently as we can, particularly in the context of the bla that has come out for pfizer and the availability of other vaccines on emergency use authorization, we can end this as a pandemic even sooner. rather than focus on the situation of getting a specific timeline, i would like to appeal to this country got to people in the country who are not vaccinated, to realize we have the capability among ourselves to essentially cut down the time frame to get the end of this pandemic very clearly by just listening to everything you have heard on this press conference.

get vaccinated and the timeframe will be truncated dramatically. >> on the second part of your question, in terms of vaccine requirements, we have a track record that shows we are willing to pull lever after lever and continue to look for additional measures we can take to require vaccines. we have imposed a series of new requirements. first, federal workers must show proof of vaccination or undergo rigorous testing and masking. second, the armed forces, who require covid-19 vaccination now for all 2.1 million troops and national guard. third, people who work in federal medical facilities including the v.a. and the public health service. last week, using the power of the federal government as the

pair of health-care costs, we are requiring nurse -- nursing home workers to be vaccinated. as your question of the private sector and public sector, not-for-profit leaders, we expect more and more vaccination requirements. they can help us end this pandemic. we have their backs and the justice department has said vaccine requirements are legal. host: from the covid-19 response to the white house this week, we are wondering your view on vaccine mandates. do you support or oppose them? the hill newspaper is reporting moderna has completed its submission for the full fda approval of its vaccine. pfizer getting full approval earlier this week and now moderna is on the path to do so. does that sway you to get a vaccine?

if your employer is saying you must get one to return to work about what will you do? darlene might you support. caller: -- darlene cannot you support it. caller: i absolutely support it. they do not want to wear masks and look what happened in florida and texas. very few people that go through the icu, they tell you please get the shot. that is from people who have this and know how serious it is. host: cj in california, you oppose the idea. caller: i believe you cannot -- if you take the shot and you do have something go wrong with you a few years down the line, you are still unable to sue. is that correct? host: i do not know. caller: follow the money.

that is what it is. they can fda approve anything that they want to force your trick you into taking. if something goes wrong, they are not responsible legally. i do not think so. host: washington post headline says republicans are struggling with what to do on employer vaccine mandates. the issue has played out in recent weeks and months in a number of states. some lawmakers pushing for bands -- been -- bans on mandates. there is little cohesion on the subject so far. only one state banned employer vaccine mandates, montana. ted, you support. caller: in warrenton, oregon, a

town of 5000 people, we are next to the columbia river. right now it is the salmon season that goes on every year. we have probably 15,000 fishermen towing boats from other states, coming here to catch a rotten salmon. also this weekend we have the hood to coast, or people run from mount hood to the oregon coast. they come to oregon. they cut it back a little but there are going to be 15,000 runners and support people in a county of 30,000. my wife works for the city of warrenton. she has to go to work today two hours early because to thirds of

her crew has come down with covid because the city manager in this town is unable to mandate mandatory vaccination for anybody that works for the municipality. you have cops that are on vaccinated. you have publix works -- public work people on vaccinated. you have fire people unvaccinated. it is going to be a super-spreader event. unfortunately for us in the town of 5000 people, we have a city manager that is unable to manage and a mayor i do not even think knows how to read. i want to say that kate brown is going to put the mask mandate into effect friday, so even if you're outside you have to have a mask. host: look at nbc's reporting at

what happened in south dakota. covid cases after the motorcycle rally happened there. a previous caller asked about the gala tea of reaction to the vaccine. here is from -- legality of reaction to the vaccine. here is from wusa 9. they say pharmaceutical companies are immune from legal challenges relating to side effects from the covid-19 vaccine. however, this is not total immunity. a company can be sued if they showed willful misconduct in production of the vaccine. brian and pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania, what do you think? caller: my comment goes to liability and risk of people who are not vaccinated and are contemplating getting the shot. i have a hereditary lead

clotting disorder. i am not sure any of these vaccines are completely safe for me. if i had an assurance, i would get the vaccine. here is what i would say to everyone who makes comments that unvaccinated people are stupid or unintelligent. it is not as easy as that. if you have the vaccine and think it is great to have that, other people have to go through their own medical history to determine whether it is safe. let's say i get the vaccine and get a clot and die. are these callers going to be there for me and my family when i am gone? is the government going to be there when they forced me to take the vaccine and i get sick and die and have a blood clot? it is not as simple as people think. host: andy in louisiana, you support. caller: i believe the vaccine has been proven to be safe.

there are some genetic disorders and things that may preclude some people from getting the vaccine. we do not have polio. when i was a child, they used to keep us at home. it worked. we do not have polio because of one reason, vaccine that was approved. then they went to the sugar cubes. take the shot. it is approved. moderna will be approved this week or next week. let's get this thing done. it is no big deal. they are making a big deal out of a virus that is not that deadly compared to some things we dealt with before. get the shot. no big deal. let's make america great again thank you. host: tammy in new mexico. mandates are ready -- necessary

when people do not do the right thing on their own. you do not have the right to endanger me or my loved ones so you can be pro-contrarian. mark in saint augustine, florida. you are opposed. caller: this is not a vaccine. go see a video from dr. dan stockton. the guy is an expert in these viruses. this vaccine does not kill the virus, does not stop the transmission of the virus, does not stop you from getting sick from the virus. a vaccine that does none of those has no business being mandated and forcing people to take. i have two of my neighbors that have gotten a blood clots from this vaccine. one of them passed away three

days after getting the vaccine. how can you possibly tell me you are going to mandate something that could kill you with no repercussions going back toward anybody. they have a shield of protection. the only ones who are protected are the manufacturers who make it themselves. this is an absolute sham. we should not be doing this. this is not america. you come to america to be free, make your own choice, do what you want. if i do not get the vaccine and someone else has it, why are they afraid? host: listen to the surgeon general talk about the implications of full approval for pfizer. [video clip] >> yesterday's fda approval of the pfizer vaccine is a new milestone for our vaccination efforts. we know some people have been waiting for this next step to become complete before they get vaccinated.

if that is you, the time to get vaccinated is now. i want to talk about what approval will mean for three groups that have played a key role in getting people vaccinated. the approval will help doctors and nurses and still more confidence in the vaccine among patients. clinicians are talking to patients about vaccination, recognizing they are among the most powerful voices in helping understand the life-saving benefits of the vaccine. they are administering the vaccine and clinics and hospitals. according to one estimate, the number of primary care practices which had minister vaccinations in their offices has jumped from less than 40% in april to over 75% in mid july which means it is easier now for patients to get vaccinated during routine visits. four of the country's represent5 hospitals and more than 30 million annual patient

encounters have committed to making vaccination more convenient by vaccinating in primary care offices and emergency departments. an additional 29 health-care networks have committed to proactively reach out to unvaccinated patients to make vaccines available and more primary care offices and arrange transportation to vaccination sites. the approvable support employers and educators in efforts to vaccinate workers and students. as our kids and young people return to the classroom, we know many schools and universities and businesses can establish vaccination requirements to create safer places for people to work and learn. yesterday's approval will help nudge organizations who may have been on the fence about vaccine requirements to move forward with plans. it will give institutions one more reason for students and employees to get vaccinated. they will be able to tell them fda approval represents the gold

standard for safety and effectiveness and the fda did not cut any corners to approve the vaccine. what they did do is work around the clock reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of data and inspecting facilities. the pfizer vaccine passed the rigorous review, another reason to feel confident that getting vaccinated is the right thing to do. host: we are asking your view of vaccine mandates this morning. support or oppose? overnight the state department sent out a security alert saying due to threats outside the kabul airport u.s. citizens should avoid traveling to the airport and avoid airport gates unless you receive instructions to do so. those at the abbey gate, eastgate, or northgate should leave immediately. newspapers reports there are about 1500 u.s. citizens

remaining in afghanistan as the u.s. intensifies the rushed exit. let's go back to our conversation on -- the rush to exit. let's go back to our conversation on mandates. caller: i support. with all due respect to health risks, we need to make that clear. there should be enough of us who do not have significant health risks that take the vaccine to pad them. this vaccine resistance is senseless. the first time you get covid, you are going to run to the hospital for regeneron and a covid cocktail and the same medicine and science you rejected in the first place. that makes no sense. the reward for that should not be overwhelming our hospital system. if a person is unvaccinated, i

do not believe they should be prioritized over a person having a heart attack or who has broken a leg and cannot get medical attention. it is senseless and irresponsible. host: joe, georgia. you oppose. caller: thank you for taking my call. i oppose. we have to get a real definition of where this virus came from. there is no such thing as a virus that attacks only human beings. this attacks all animals. they are not going after the people that work at slaughter houses. we kill more animals in this country than any other country on earth. we consume more and export more.

there are millions of gallons of blood being poured into our environment every day from slaughtered animals and there is no way this environment can keep up with that. host: let me go to sue in flat rock, indiana. you support the vaccine mandates. caller: 100%. i have a question to the people who are calling in that oppose the shots. i would like for you to give me a logical, keyword is logical, explanation why over 600,000 people have died. i do not suffer fools, so i demand a logical explanation. thank you for your time. goodbye. host: earl in idaho, you oppose mandates. good morning. caller: good morning.

i wanted to mention the census -- since this covid virus has come out, which was around february of 2020, that vaccines are for preventing a virus. if there is a cure for it, then there does not have to be a vaccine. but it was pulled off the market in march of 2020. there is something that does not add up about this. the vaccine producers are making billions of dollars over this. that is my comment on it. there is something wrong in this

whole story. host: gil on twitter says if the vaccine is mandated and you elect not to take it you are not qualified to work there. dennis, why do you support a vaccine mandate? caller: i called on the wrong line. i oppose it. my daughter-in-law has her phd in nutrition. her background is in microbiology. we were talking about this. she made a comment that it is not a true vaccine. that is what seems to be the problem. a true vaccine prevents disease. she said you do not get mild cases of polio. you do not get a mild case of smallpox. this is not a true vaccine. the government ought to at least be honest about that.

also i feel even though this may be a true disaster and all this other stuff and the government wants to do the right thing, i am concerned that once the government gets this power they are never going to let it go. what are they going to mandate next? what are they going to demand next from citizens of this country? host: natalie says i oppose the vaccine mandate and will boycott all businesses who mandate it for employees and customers. it is everybody's individual choice. you can text us with your first name, city, and state. (202) 748-8003. ron in los angeles, good morning. caller: good morning. let me say i have listened intently to the show this morning. i am an insomniac, so on the

west coast it is 4:00. during late night television, all you see are these commercials about drugs. you have these class-action lawyers and drugs that were approved 4, 5, 10 years ago that have all these devastating consequences. a lot of callers have referred to people that oppose the mandates as 80 its -- idiots. i have a master's degree in legal administration. i am not a stupid person. most of those people calling people idiots probably cannot tell you what mrna technology is. one of your callers spoke on the legal aspects of this. that is when my antenna went up. most politicians in this country are lawyers. almost everything we do is

governed by the law. pfizer and moderna, literally in the dark of night in an unpublicized hearing, went and sought legal immunity from any lawsuits resulting from side effects from this drug. you are correct when you went back and said except for willful misconduct. we call that an ironclad vague ambiguity appearing willful misconduct is almost impossible to prove. if this vaccine is as effective as they say it is, why would you need such blanket immunity? lastly, in southern california, there are some hospitals not well-known ones, where half the staff at the hospitals will not take the vaccine. i know a number of firefighters and police officers that will not take the vaccine.

whether the vaccine is effective or not, let me say this. if donald trump had become president -- i am no fan of agent orange, but if he had won the election i guarantee you those same people calling people idiots now, kamala harris said the vaccine was suspect because donald trump had it developed with operation warp speed, i guarantee you the dynamics would be different. the politicized asia -- politicization of the vaccine has been a disservice to the american people. host: debby in flint, michigan. you support. caller: the best thing about this discussion are the people on the right that say my body, my choice. didn't they steal it from the abortion discussion?

is the same going to be except if i am a pregnant woman? these people have 10,000 doctors and scientists telling them it is safe and effective but the last guy, his daughter-in-law tells him and he is not going to take it because his daughter-in-law. i appreciate she is educated, but she is one person. host: stephanie in atlanta says, i agree with mask mandates but not covid-19 vaccine mandates. getting the vaccine does not stop the spread. masking and social distancing does. plus, if you have natural immunity why take the shot? nicole in texas, you oppose mandates as well. caller: i definitely oppose the mandate. i am in agreement with the attorney previously as it

relates to the vaccine and being vaccinated. i have two relatives who have come down with covid who have died, one vaccinated, the other unvaccinated. the vaccinated one, i saw what it did to his body where he had reaction to it. i think there should be more emphasis on early treatment. my missionary friends took i from acton -- ivermectin. having the mandate i think -- i am disappointed there is not more science coming out. if you have two people, one vaccinated, one unvaccinated, what is the science behind someone contracting the disease at a harsh level or not harsh level? what is the difference? no one will talk about it.

my doctor will not talk about it. host: did your cousins who got vaccinated and still passed away, did he or she have an underlying condition? caller: he did with his kidneys. the other underlying condition was diabetes. host: i am sorry for your loss, nicole. caller: thank you so much. let's take it a step further and think deeply about what it is. i do not have a problem with taking the vaccine. i just need more science than only so many people unvaccinated are at the hospital but then you have other people who had the mild version. i am confused on why have they not for sized -- emphasized lose

weight, do everything to mitigate for yourself. do everything to boost your immune system, your whole package. right now, -- thank you so much. host: jim got your supporting these mandates in clarksburg, west virginia -- jim, you are supporting these mandates in clarksburg, west virginia. caller: absolutely. i think c-span should track every person who opposes it and give their numbers to the government. host: no. caller: have the government take their driver's license and social security. for the bible thumper's, jesus wants people to get inoculated. host: sierra and washington,

d.c. supports. caller: i had a whole spiel planned out. nicole -- the fda uses it to tell everyone to not use horse medicine. it is for horses. do not use it. please. i do not want people who are against the vaccines -- please. i do not want you to get sick. everyone i love has taken it. they are fine. i have family who are christian scientists. they got vaccinated. they did not want to be part of the problem. i want you to be happy, healthy appearing take a leap of faith. take the vaccine. do not be stupid. host: ed in pleasantville, new york. caller: i do not think there has

been enough research. i do not think there has been enough proof in our government to tell us. last year, all the people that passed away, everything is covid. we are not hearing the right figures and i have a problem with my family got my mother-in-law who is 87. we spent 2.5 months with her this last summer. she left to come home and her son took her to get the covid shot. needless to say, hospice is sitting there and she has days to live. since she has had a shot, she has not been out of bed and we are on our final days. i am not going to run for it, that i do not think we have enough science. i do nothing we have enough proof in our government. our president and vice president told us they are not going to take it because donald trump ordered it. do we know that they are getting the shots? we do not know.

we do not know what is going on. i have no faith in our government. host:host: we are going to takea short break. when we come back, we are going to turn our attention to voting rights in this country. we will talk with the naacp legal defense fund's lisa cylar barrett, and with ken cuccinelli. and then, the -- mark greenberg will join us to discuss afghan refugees, the process of resettlement. we will be right back. announcer: weekends on c-span2 you the best in history and nonfiction books. saturday on american history tv, james baker on leadership in his

career, serving as secretary of state for george h.w. bush, and as ronald reagan's white house chief of staff and treasury secretary. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, joseph ellis, the wisdom of the founding fathers in today's world. and leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. we will future discussions from freedom fest, an annual libertarian gathering, including businessman gary cooper, associate professor anthony davies, education policy writer carrie mcdonald. and philip magnus and benjamin powell. robin d'angelo discusses her book, "how her -- how progressive white people perpetuate racial harm." watch american history and book tv every weekend on c-span2.

find is full schedule -- find a full schedule at c-span.org. c-spanshop.org -- there is a collection of c-span products. browse to see what's new. your purchase will see nonprofit operations, and congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. go to c-spanshop.org. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are back with a discussion on voting rights legislation. ken cuccinelli, who is the national chair of the election transparency initiative. welcome to you both. thank you for being here. i want to begin with what the house did earlier this week. it passed the john lewis voting rights advancement act of 2021.

here is what the registration says. it is captioners -- it establishes new criteria for preclearance before changes to putting practices may take effect, and outlines factors courts must consider when hearing challenges to voting practices such as the history of official voting discrimination. lisa cylar barrett, let me go to you first. what is the impact of this legislation? descendant has not passed it, but what do you think it would do? guest: first, thank you so much for having me this morning, for having this discussion. we are at a critical point in our country, so thank you. this is really important legislation. the voting rights act was designed to enforce voting rights guaranteed by the 14th and 15th amendments in the u.s. constitution and is really considered one of the most effective pieces of civil rights

, federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in this country. and what this piece of legislation does is restore the voting rights act of 1965, which was severely weakened by the supreme court in the 2013 decision, and further weakened last month by the -- by another case. it restores clearance provisions of the voting rights act, with states of locality that have recent records of the scrimmage and in voting, have their proposed voting changes approved before they are implemented. that is so critical, this idea that it is a prophylactic measure is really critical to address discriminatory voting laws. so if you think about what we have seen in this country in terms of state legislature, in

the last few months or in early 2021, enacting laws that restrict voting access, so what we have seen is january 1 of 2021 in july, you know, 18 states have enacted 30 laws that restrict access to voting. and also during the 2021 legislative session, more than 400 bills were proposed that would restrict access to voting. so what this bill would do is require those states again that have a history, a recent history of discriminatory voting to actually get those laws approved before they are and acted so that people are not disenfranchised. and again, that is an issue of a

prophylactic measure that is really critical to ensuring that folks are not disenfranchised. what happens in other situations is that people who are able to bring litigation after the fact, but that is, again, after they have already lost their opportunity to vote in an election. litigation is expensive. it is long. and so that is not an appropriate way to ensure that votes -- that folks have access to voting. host: ken cuccinelli, your take. guest: thank you, greta, and i appreciate both of you are disappearing. what you just heard described as denying access to voting in the state level are laws like matching voting identifying requirements for mail-in ballots

are the same as voting identifying requirements for in person balloting. for the last 6, 8 months, we have heard many on the left refer to requirements for voter id, or the desire for photo id as racist, as suppressive. i just heard in very generic terms some states' efforts to reform their own election laws as suppressing the vote, and yet in many of these states, in virtually all of them -- pennsylvania, texas, we can go around the country -- no one has been able to produce anyone who has not been able to vote because of these protective measures. we want it to be easy to vote and hard to cheat, and thankfully, it has never been easier to register to vote or to vote, no matter what color you are or what party you are or where in america you live. let's think back to the voting rights act. i was the attorney general of

virginia. one of the states that caused the need for the voting rights act that was implemented in 1965. either way, i would point out the voting rights act -- part of its success and its moral foundation was the massive bipartisan support that it had at implementation. what did it do? it stops things like literacy tests, whole taxes, hurdles to being registered and participating. all of those are gone. it also required preclearance, meaning federal bureaucrats had to review every change to the election laws of the covered states, mostly southern states but not exclusively. there were others -- arizona, alaska, and so forth. i was the last preclearance attorney general. for people who have never lived with this, to understand what it is, if we move the place from the local elementary school to the firehouse -- because we were doing construction on the

elementary school -- that require the permission of the federal government. that is what those advocating this law, hr4, want to return to. but not just for the seven states primarily covered by the voting rights act, but for the whole country. what the preclearance triggers will cover the entire country. so you need to understand, this law is not just putting back in place objective standards to measure how we are doing on voting. the supreme court in 1966 said measuring on voter registration, black-and-white citizens, measuring on the voter turnout, was a legitimate measure of whether discrimination was taking place. fast less than 50 years, and the supreme -- fast-forward less than 50 years, the supreme court said success, good news, we have succeeded.

their have been plenty of times in many states were african-american registration internet has exceeded that of white citizens in those states -- african-american registration and voting has exceeded that of white citizens in those states. the voting rights act as originally conceived had a lot to do with that, including in my home state of virginia. this proposed law is a federal takeover to give one side of the aisle more power and control over elections run from washington. and it takes away, after 230 years, the states' primacy in running elections, which is how the founders conceived it. host: i want to invite our viewers to join in on this conversation. republicans, dial in at 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000, and independents

,0000000000000000000002 -- text us -- independent,00000000000000000002 -- under the bill, americans would automatically be registered to vote when they apply for state services. states would also be required to allow voters to register online. the legislation would implement the universal voting by mail, provide at least 15 days of early voting for federal elections in every state. and wherever possible, make polling places located adjacent to public transportation. it includes new campaign-finance measures such as improved disclosures and small dollar matching that would give voice to lower and middle income people and help ensure that income inequality does not translate as readily into political inequality and vice versa. ken cuccinelli, back to you. do you support or oppose hr1? guest: hr4 was about a 65 page bill.

hrnumber one is over 800 pages, and it is a -- hr 1 is over 800 pages. unfortunately, it has so many terrible provisions. we saw a lot of -- no election is run perfectly, and no one expect them to be run perfectly. but there are so many bad provisions put into that legislation and practices that then become mandated. greta, you just said it automatically registers americans to vote. that is not correct. the word used in the bill is "individuals," and that means that noncitizens who get a drivers license, for instance, as is available in virtually all states, including illegal aliens getting those driver's licenses, which is available in many states -- they get automatically registered to vote. and of course, it is illegal for them to vote in a federal election, so how does hr1 solve

that problem? it eliminates the penalty for them voting in elections. we are literally talking about a system that automatically registers to vote millions of noncitizens, then takes away any penalty for them voting. so the point obviously is that they do vote in our elections, and it gives you a little insight into what the authors apparently have in mind, and that is a system where you have got noncitizens voting and participating. you have got public financing of elections with a six dollars for every dollar match of the to hunt -- up to $200. describing the public financing parts. we did not get to the speech suppression parts of hr1 that even the aclu says is unconstitutional. early voting is interesting. it is convenience voting. that is what the experts call it. when i say experts, i mean

people that, like the ending -- like the naacp is hired. if you can walk into a location days before an election, that is more convenient than having to do it on election day. but the studies show very clearly that the primary argument made for early voting is not accurate, and that is that it increases turnout. that more people will come out to vote and participate. the pew foundation -- again, experts used by the naacp in the north carolina case in the last few years -- have found in their studies, outside of litigation, that early voting actually lowers participation rates, or it stays the same, which would be ok, of course. but the majority of studies find it reduces turnout. so that bill is a true federal takeover, and there is a reason that it didn't get any

republican votes. nor did hr4 in the house this week. you mentioned that earlier. in 1965 there was a higher proportion of republicans in the senate voting for it than democrats. the key there is that it was bipartisan, overwhelmingly adopted by the american people. this is a partisan fight. that is not the way our elections should be changed. host: lisa cylar barrett, same time to you. what is your take? guest: i want to agree that voting rights should not be a partisan issue. i hope that we are all working towards an effort where we are making it -- voting acceptable to everyone. that should really be the goal, and that is what these pieces of legislation are focused on. hr1 really focuses on access

to voting and sets an acceptable standard to access so that people in each state have at least the same -- the things like you mentioned like instituting automatic and same-day registration, protecting against voter purchasing, which is discriminatory. restoring voting rights to individuals with criminal convictions, all focused on ensuring that folks have access to voting and their right to vote. i want to go back to a few things that mr. cuccinelli raised. one is that you have likely heard the mantra, we keep hearing this easy to vote, hard to cheat. there is no evidence that anyone

is cheating in these elections, and in fact there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. there were many, many lawsuits regarding the last election, and those lawsuits were sort of summarily dismissed in each instance, with federal judges, often judges, conservative judges, indicating that the allegations were in fact fantastical. there is no evidence that there is any cheating, yet we are seeing states and claws to address a problem that does not exist, and laws again would restrict access to voting, when i would hope again that we are ensuring that folks exercise their vote. we keep hearing this is a federal takeover, in an effort to -- to get folks riled up, but

really this is congress exercising its authority, the 15th amendment, to not have their vote denied or abridged. the constitution actually gives congress the express authority to ensure that folks have that right. the 14th amendment clearly states, in section 1, that no state shall enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the united states. and again, grant congress the express authority to enforce by appropriate legislation. this is congress exercising the authority that the constitution has granted to it, and upholding

the law as set forth in these amendments. i also just want to go back to this issue of voter id, because when we talk about voter id, there are a lot of myths out there, and there is -- what we are talking about is provisions that are very restrictive, and that disenfranchise eligible voters. there are many different types of voter id, and what we are seeing is laws enacted, requiring id that is difficult for many people to obtain. so this idea that most people have photo id, drivers license, is not accurate. and there often is an inability or a difficulty in obtaining that type of id. many of these places would

prohibit the use of a student id but allow other types of id, such as a gun license id. what we know is that those types of situations are discriminatory against people of color, so they are allowing id for folks, but then discarding id or disallowing id that many people of color have. in texas, we went to trial after a decision, and the trial showed that more than half a million eligible voters in texas lacked the photo id that was required, or that would be required by the separate statute that was being proposed. so we are talking about voter id. we need to make sure what type of footer id that we are talking about, and that it is not a requirement that would be discriminatory against certain people.

host: a lot good information. guest: greta, can i address that? host: can i have you address that with a call? i am sure it is going to come up with a caller. thank you for addressing -- thank you for this. i request respectfully, shorter answers. michael, from ohio, democratic caller. good morning, michael. caller: good morning. i want to shout out to the state of ohio, where i'm from. my mom never drove, and after 2001 attacks, you had to have a photo id, so she went and got a photo id. she took her birth certificate, her social security card, went back up to the dmv and waited in line, and they sent her away, saying that her birth

certificate name doesn't match her social security. that was an inconvenience. nor did it match her marriage certificate. went back to see that she changed from her maiden name to her married name on her social security card. i don't know too many divorced people, first or second time, that keep their divorce papers, as records. getting the information needed to get a photo id. host: mr. cuccinelli he echo guest: sure. thank you, michael. i appreciate that. every state that requires photo id, photo id is best. also offers them a -- offers

them for free who need them, don't have a driver's license, for instance. all the states i know of, including my own of virginia when this was a requirement in virginia, actually set up units to go out to individuals who could not work mobile. michael describes his mother going to dmv, so she would not be in that category. and then there is the getting your documents straight. that is all true and it does take some level of effort, i grant you. but americans overwhelmingly, by three to one polling, want to see secure elections. security is part of our confidence in the outcome. it is part of our confidence, as is transparency in the whole process. thankfully, for something like voter id, americans have literally, every stripe, whatever color or partisan stripe you are, all support requiring voter id.

i appreciate michael helping his mother. good son, to pull that off. but at the same time, as we all know, far over 90, typically over 95% of people who are voter eligible already have a driver's license. just to name one id. and lisa cylar barrett was trying to suggest that that type of id is important. i will send -- i will accept that argument. government issued, typically state issued, or federal issued id are pretty standard, fair in these state laws. again overwhelmingly supported by the american people. honestly this was not thought to be controversial until people on the left wanted to turn it into a proxy for being racist, which i find a little peculiar, given

that most minority citizens in america think you should have to show footer id to vote. that has not changed after eight months of attacks from the left side. i include the media in that. that has been part of the mantra in the last eight months, since hr1 in particular was first talked about by this congress. no we are talking about hr4 after the installing of hr1 in the senate. voter id is not going away because it is such a basic, commonsense element of an election. i appreciate miss cylar barrett 's point that the stuff should not be partisan. when you take the r's and the d's out and ask the americans what it takes to run a good election, there is overwhelming agreement by americans on the basic elements. among them is the requirement for photo id. host: kevin in michigan,

independent. caller: yes, i was just wondering about the drivers license thing and why they cannot put a mark on your driver's license saying that you are a legal citizen. my other question is, as far as the most transparent election we had, lisa, i would like you to address this. why are the people who are holding the elections so -- don't want to give up the information? why don't you tell the people that you will join arizona's lawsuit trying to get the rotors to the state officials so we can see what's going on? i mean, the more we see that you guys are hiding stuff and won't turn over information that should be public anyway, you know, how are we supposed to believe anything? it's my question. host: lisa cylar barrett?

guest: first i want to address the issue of using voter id and photo id. that is misleading, and points to what i was alluding to earlier, this idea of requiring certain types of id and not having, you know, provision where folks are able to demonstrate that there is a reasonable impediment to being able to present that id, for example. it prevents people from voting. i do want to push back against those firms interchangeably. listen to what is being proposed when we talk about voter id specifically. on this question of transparency, we certainly believe that elections should be transparent.

in terms of what is happening and, you know, what you will should be turning over, i just want to say that the naacp is a nonpartisan organization, and we are not involved in the administration of elections. but what we are proposing or supporting in these laws is that voters have access and are able to exercise their right to vote without barriers or impediments, and that their votes are counted, and that we agree that that process should be transparent to everyone. does that mean that there should be things in place where folks can change the ballot?

absolutely not. once a person writes a vote, that vote is as stated in the constitution. that should not be altered by a process or law. host: ok, let's go to mary in fort washington, maryland. democratic caller. caller: good morning, everybody. i am a 68-year-old black woman, and i'm having the same feeling that i had back in the 1970's when i started voting, that my voting rights are being messed with again. that's a long, long time to have that feeling in you. ms. barrett, i am very glad that you are counteract the carefully constructed lies that ken cuccinelli is putting out, from virginia, taking women's rights away. they are actually lies. there are no people that are not

citizens that get to vote. that is an absolute lie. guest: read the bill. caller: i'm not finished, sir. my turn. you are a tea party person. you are in place to tell lies. you're just a liar. host: let's get a response. ken cuccinelli, what evidence is there that you are talking about? guest: she wandered a little bit other than just telling me i'm a liar, but, you know, when you don't have the transparency, as the last caller identified, it absolutely guts confidence. this works both ways. so rasmussen polling after the 2016 election found 26% of americans thought that we were swearing in the wrong person as president. fast-forward four years, and after the 2020 election, 31% of americans thought we were swearing in the wrong person as president.

i have a feeling -- and i think we can all probably agree on this call -- it is unlikely those two batches of americans overlap. they total more than 50%. that is a lot of lack of confidence in the outcome of elections. not winning or losing, but believing that the outcome is accurately reflective of the will of the voters. that is critically important here. greta, there is not a lot of point for me trying to convince someone who believes everything i say is a lie, saying it is true. it is not my place to address an ad hominem attack. it doesn't do any good here. i would say that she reflected concerns since the 1970's. you can go back year after year, 2003, new york times saying election integrity is a new code phrase for voter suppression. 2004, the democrats' colorado

election manual says -- and i memorized the quote -- it says literally to preemptively accuse the other side of voter intimidation before there is any evidence of anything occurring. in 2006, ken mehlman, then the chairman of the republican national committee, sent a letter to howard dean, then the chairman of the democrat committee, and said, look, there are concerns on both sides about voter fraud in voter suppression. let's identify the locations, either of us have any concerns, and we will both send lawyers to watch it. that sounds like a real team effort, a good all-bipartisan approach. howard dean told them to pound sand. because they are more interested in the narrative and scaring people like your last caller -- and this has been going on for years. 2010, martha coakley, my colleague as attorney general, running for senate, the seat after senator kennedy

passed away, put out a release making accusations about voting irregularities, and they made the mistake of dating at the day before the election, giving a way that they had just written up this accusation before there was any evidence. this goes on year after year. this narrative is a political stunt by the left to scare the base of the democratic party into believing the voter suppression narrative. but the numbers don't show that. the numbers in 1965 showed that, but they don't show that today. they don't show that today. voter registration and voter turnout among minority communities in 18 and 20 are as high as they have ever been, as you would expect. guest: can i jump in on this? it is really important. host: let me just say really quickly come to our callers, let's not call our guests names or each other names. you can make your argument

without calling people names. go ahead. guest: you know, i do want to underscore one thing that the caller raised, and that is that it is unacceptable that in 2021, you know, 56 years after the passage of the voting rights act, that the right to vote remains under threat. that is unacceptable. what we are experiencing does bring up old memories and issues of what folks said that have experienced discrimination in voting over their lifetime. i also want to push back on this idea that turnout is a proper measure to determine whether restrictive voter access -- or whether laws restrict access to voting. that is not a proper measure to determine whether a law disenfranchises eligible voters.

there are many things that contribute to voter turnout, driven by a number of factors. in fact, what we saw in this last election is that despite voter suppression measures, we did see folks turnout. that was the result of activists working deceptively hard to turn out the votes. people stood in line for 3, 4, five hours or longer in heat or rain, during the pandemic. honoring the history of folks who have fought for the right to vote. it tells us nothing about who didn't make it. who was not able to participate because of the barriers that have been put in place. we are not saying that because a certain number of voters participated, then we don't have to be concerned about voter suppression.

our goal should be that all eligible voters are able to participate, and what we are saying is that these laws, the hr4 and the hr1, actually provide the mechanisms that are needed to ensure that all eligible voters are able to participate. i also want to push back again on this issue of what we said, and i think we agree that we verbally -- it should not be a bipartisan it should not be a partisan issue. yet mr. cuccinelli ran through a litany of arguments putting through partisan arguments and accusations. what i really want to talk about is the legal obligation to make sure that folks are able to vote . the 14th and 15 amendments --

15th amendments provide that everyone should have free access to the right to vote, and that congress has the authority to enact legislation to ensure that happens, and that is indeed what is happening with this legislation. host: i'm going to bob in tennessee, a republican, and i will let you both respond to bob. caller: well, we know what happened -- this brings the suitcases from underneath the table, the illegal ballots. that is why we think trump was cheated. so we have the man in there that is ruining our country. he didn't secure the border and make sure there is nobody coming through. so is he doing that? host: let's stick to voting rights. ken cuccinelli, i will ask, based on what that call is said, do you think that the 2020

election was fair and that president biden is the president? guest: he is certainly the president. the caller referenced atlanta, and there are obviously a lot of problems in georgia, and they were sort of shown before the whole country. and the lack of transparency makes the explanations for appropriate outcomes harder for people to believe, because of the attempt and the success in blocking access to basic information. it is very clear -- you have a state here where the margin was around 12,000 votes in the presidential race, and that there were more than 12,000 votes that came from a combination of people who are either dead or ineligible to vote. that doesn't mean the outcome was wrong, but it does call into question the ability to have

confidence that the outcome is accurate. so i am not going to sit here and say that, you know, the final tally, meaning that joe biden is president, is incorrect. but when you have more mistakes, more ineligible voters participating -- and i'm not even sure ineligible is the right word to use there -- we want to get to a system that is as good as we can make it, and that includes transparency, critically from start to finish, security element's that are very basic. and miss cylar barrett mentioned different levels of voter id. i don't disagree with that. she's talking about it like it is a sneaky thing.

a utility bill shows some level of security. you can show a government issued id. or you can show a photo id which you can match up to the person in front of you, which is the basic standard. it is what a drivers license would do or other government issued id, for free for those who can afford it. and are available. those kinds of security measures are critical, and i would also note before that miss cylar barrett was attacking cleaning the voter rolls, saying that was suppressive. but unclean voter rolls are how cheating can happen easily. connecticut mailed out over 3 million unsolicited ballot application requests. they got hundreds of thousands of them back from the post office, meaning the people they thought they were mailing to were not there anymore. hundreds of thousands of them. they didn't clean them off the

rolls. that is connecticut. it is not a swing state, but the same problem exists in every state. to lesser or greater degrees. we need to put in process, cleaning those roles up. hr4 and hr1 stop that from happening. you have to ask yourself, why would you want to leave such a huge hole in who is eligible to vote? guest: i think a couple things. we have now heard many times mr. cuccinelli talk about the confidence and the outcome -- confidence in the outcome of the election. part of having confidence in the outcome of elections is ensuring that every eligible voter is able to exercise their right to vote. and so, you know, if that is the goal, we need to be recording this legislation making sure that everyone has access to

vote. hr4 mandates greater nationwide transparency of voting law and policy changes. that, again, goes to the issue of confidence in the outcome of the election. transparency about voting changes and public notice to all voters of certain voting changes. and, again, this issue around voter purges is really about how that plays out. it is very easy -- while we should be able to name change voter rolls. what does that look like? so that we know in many places what is proposed, if you don't vote in an election, then you are purged from a voter roll. that should not be.

your right to vote is inhibited because you do not vote in a particular election. and issues around, you know, names and, you know, there being similarity in names and how to ensure that you are actually extracting from a voter role, actually should be extracted. so we are talking about a constitutional right, but we need to be very careful about measures that would restrict or prohibit from exercising that constitutional right. again, i want to go back to this issue of alleged fraud in the election. there have been multiple attempts to demonstrate that fraud in court. and in each instance, it has been thrown out. in many instances, it is

described as fantastical. just yesterday, a federal judge actually sanctioned lawyers involved in many of those cases, for bringing those fantastical allegations, with no evidence and no proof. so again, we have folks out here talking about fraud, using that as a basis to justify restricting constitutional rights to vote with absolutely no evidence that that fraud has occurred, and that simply is unacceptable. host: we will have to leave it there. lisa cylar barrett with the nc -- with the naacp. ken cuccinelli with the election transparency initiative. thank you. we are going to take a break. we will come back and turn our attention to migration and those afghan refugees coming to this country, with mark greenberg of the migration policy institute. we will be right back.

♪ >> we are at an important tipping point in this nation. what we do matters, and i believe the 1776 project, that this project is an important historical moment, and we need people to get behind us. we need to make sure that our message reaches white, lack, asian, hispanic, everyone. america is a great country. we need to fight for it. i two carol swain is our guest on in-depth. her most recent book is "black eye for america." other titles include "we the people," and "debating immigration." carol swain, live sunday, september 5, on in-depth, on

book tv. announcer: middle and high school students, your opinion matters. with the c-span videocam competition. be part of the conversation while creating a documentary that asks -- that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? c-span studentcam competition has 100,000 dollars in total cash prizes, and you have a shot at the grand prize of $5,000. applicants for the conversation will -- for the competition will be received wednesday. for more information on how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. announcer: washington journal continues. host: mark greenberg is with the

migration policy institute. he is also the former hhs acting assistant secretary for the administration for children and families, certainly from 2013 2017. mr. greenberg what about these afghan refugees in re-steadily -- resettling the united states? first of all, what is the vetting process like? guest: first, let me just begin by saying a little more broadly, it is a devastating situation which has been very difficult. it is encouraging how many people have been able to get out over the last couple of weeks, but there are so many who are still there, and there is urgent need both for those who have gotten out and for those who have been -- as to the vetting process, and normal vetting

process for the refugee program and for special immigrant visas, which we will talk about more, which is very, very extensive, like the multiple government agencies checking biographical information, checking multiple databases, biometric information . the reason why the process normally takes a long time is because it is such a cumbersome process. for the afghans who have left the country, the administration has indicated that that vetting would always continue and will be continuing. it appears in third countries, to take afghans leaving from the airport. so the vetting will go on.

the lobbyists will make every possible effort to expedite it, but it is a process that has to be done in order to be careful. host: so if you have a special immigrant visa, that is the process we are talking about. what if you don't have that? guest: there are two main groups to be aware of, and then a third one that will also be part of the situation. there are essential immigrant visas, and those are for people who worked with the united states government for at least a year. either directly with the government or a government contractor. valuable service. and they are now at risk of danger, potentially death, based upon the work of the government.

so that is the sid program. there have been -- the regular refugee programs, which have been the programs under which the government normally brings in refugees, and the administration has announced that they will have a category in the refugee program. the pejorative term is p2, for people who worked with the u.s. government but for less than a year, or worked with government funded programs, or u.s.-based nongovernmental organizations, or media organizations. so, for both the refugee programs and special immigrant visas, both of those involved a very strong verification process . the additional layer of verification or sid's, of

course, is -- siv's, of course, is that they need to get a letter of recommendation, but already vetting that they were allowed to work with the government, and then there is the evaluation of how they did, and for those who risk their lives seeking to help. those are sid's and refugees. the third piece of this that has been in the news recently is what is called parole. parole is a process by which people can be more quickly let into the country for humanitarian reasons, and it is being used here according to the reporting, it is being used for people who are in the pipeline

who had an application, it is pending, it has not been completed, but to bring them in within the sid pipeline, and then it appears it is going to be used for additional rules, but the details are not clear on that. host: how long could this process take, for each afghan? guest: that's a good question, and honestly i think we don't know at this point. normally both the siv process and the refugee resettlement process, the process of admitting a refugee, are processes that take several years or more. for the siv program, congress actually passed legislation to say, except in high-risk cases, make the determination within -- what the government has not been able to meet that standard, and

is based upon failure to meet those standards. but there are lengthy processes already, and the balance that i think the administration must be facing now is wanting to move as quickly as possible, doing so in a way, putting vetting in place. and safety and security concerns while also trying to get people here and get settled as quickly as is reasonable. it is easier for those who are further along in the process, but that is probably a pretty small share of the entire group that the administration would hope to bring in. host: we will take your questions and comments about resettling afghan refugees in the united states. the numbers are on your screen. if you are an afghan refugee, a

recent refugee of any country, dial in at 202-748-8003 and let us know your story. we would like to hear from you. mr. greenberg, where do these people go while they are waiting? what third countries, and where do they live? how do they have money? guest: the united states has developed a multiple of arrangements with third countries, and that information keeps changing every day. it is being updated every day. so we know there are agreements with half a dozen countries or more, and the process has involved getting afghans from the airport to their country when they are ready and able to come to the united states.

the administration has indicated that it is initially making views for military bases. and arriving afghans will first go to military bases, and then after they have completed needed health screening and services, that they will then be able to -- they will be able to go to agencies that will help them getting in communities across the country. host: does it cost them money? do these resettlement agencies charge them a fee? guest: they do not. the resettlement agency receives funding from the federal government, for each refugee or

siv that they serve. so it is a per capita amount that is based upon the number served. so they will receive something for that. however, it is pretty limited funding, and the funding they get is only intended to provide services through the first 30 to 90 days. it is a multistep process where initially arriving refugees will get help from the resettlement agency. then almost all states have a state refugee -- here who is either someone in government or a nongovernmental organization, and they organize benefits and services after that 30 to 90 days, on -- often contracting with the resettlement agency. host: you are talking about once

they get to the united states. in the meantime, they are at a third country military base until they are allowed to come here? guest: they are in third-party countries, and frankly, i have been trying to follow this. the precise arrangement as to services and how people are advantaging during this period of time, and particularly if it will be a longer. of time. host: once they go to the united states, they go to a resettlement agency 30 to 90 days and the state helps to take care of them. how long typically does it take for a refugee to get on their own seats?

guest: the reception and placement stage, the refugee arrives, and the normal way the system works, every settlement agency would meet them at the airport, has made arrangements for housing, for furniture, for having a stuffed refrigerator, would then help them in getting settled into the community, help them if they have children, children getting involved in schools, getting social security card. if there is a bus system, learn how the bus system works. the basic community orientation. this is done by the resettlement agency, very frequently in partnership with local churches, synagogues, other religious groups, community groups, the business community, and there are also efforts made to help

people get english language learning classes. that is all in this initial period of time. after the state coordinator takes on their responsibilities, those kinds of services will continue, the coordinators receiving social services from the federal government that can be used for the english language, employment services, a pretty wrong -- broad range of other services. there is limited cash and medical assistance. they initially make an effort to determine if the arriving refugee qualifies for federal programs, and if they don't, they can provide up dates of very modest cash assistance and

up to eight months of medical assistance for those who do not apply for medicaid. i should emphasize that the whole orientation, the program is around rapid deployment, -- as quickly as possible. it is actually sometimes criticized for that because in some instances, arriving refugees have significant skills, experience, qualifications from their prior life. the focus is on getting a job as quickly as possible. it is very frequently the focus of the refugee also because they want to be working. the amount of help they get really is not enough to support a family. a really strong emphasis on getting a job as quickly as possible. host: let's get to calls.

barry. caller: really, a comment i would like to make. it has been reported over the course of 20 years that our military was very super careful in vetting many of these people and still, throughout the course of 20 years, we had many green on blue attacks. i don't know what type of vetting you are talking about, but i don't think you can do better than our military does in the country. we saw many attacks on our soldiers. i think that we can expect the same thing here when people come here, that we are going to have to tolerate the attacks on americans. host: more details, if you could about vetting. guest: the vetting process focuses on basically everything

that can be known about this individual and their life up to this time. as with any process, circumstances can change over time but it is as careful as it can be. the overall u.s. experience with arriving refugees over the past 20 years, there is no example of people being killed by refugees who have entered this country in terror attacks. it is a process that began as careful as it can and is in

contact here of seeking to bring in people who have helped the united states and at their own lives at risk in doing so. host: mike, houston, texas. caller: good morning. we assume that the people coming over here have put their lives at risk in helping americans overseas. i disagree and think there are many refugees coming in who have not done that but are here. my first question and suspicion is, how many of these refugees will be settled in martha's vineyard? do you think there will be any of them settled in martha's vineyard where the comforts, the greatest comforts in america exist? where the elite from washington, d.c. go to retire? there is no mixture.

do you think a fourth-grade stanford bound kid is going to have an afghan refugee sitting next to them? but fourth-grade stanford bound kid might be the son or grandson of a politician. there is never a connection. it is amazing how politicians have so much good heart and all these good intentions to help all of these people around the world who live on two dollars a day, two dollars a day for their entire lives, they bring them here and then the peasants around america have to support them. what else can we do with a $28 trillion debt? where are we printing this money. host: heard your point. mark greenberg, where do these refugees go and how is that decided? guest: the way the process works, there are nine national resettlement agencies.

the national resettlement agencies, they are nonprofit organizations. most of them are faith-based organizations. they go through a process of determining for people who are arriving, where their initial settlement should be. this is in part based upon looking at where they already have friends and family, looking at the capacity of the agencies, where they have offices. community capacity. over the last 10 years, the largest refugees receiving states have been texas and california and new york and michigan and arizona and washington. but refugees do live across the

country. one of the important considerations that agencies are often facing here is that one of the greatest problems for arriving refugees will be the cost of housing. because they are at least starting out in jobs that typically don't pay a lot, it is important to settle in communities where there is a better chance of being able to afford the cost of housing. i should emphasize that the research makes clear that when refugees gradually do enter employment, that over time, their circumstances improve and

they are net contributors and often very strong net contributors to local economies. host: michael in d.c. caller: i'm listening i think this is an excellent discussion, thank you, c-span for allowing average voices to speak on this because respectfully, i do not know if he is an american, but as an american citizen, i, for one, put americans above and by far first in our priority. i cannot for the life of me understand how we are talking about bringing in refugees when we have a pandemic. supposedly, there is a national crisis. hospitals are filling up. we don't how bad this is going to get.

on top of bringing refugees and from the southern border, from our failed wars and foreign policy mistakes, we are going to do the same on the biggest mistake of all, the afghan war and occupation. a 20 year horrible mistake that can only end one way for everyone involved, badly. host: mark greenberg, if you could explain how many refugees the united states takes in compared to other countries. guest: sure. historically, the united states has been a leader in refugee resettlement for the world. that really changed during the last administration. the number of refugees declined very sharply during the trump administration. the last year of president

obama's administration, 85,000 refugees were admitted to the united states. last year, the figure wound up being about 12,000. it has been a very sharp decline over this period. i should note that one of the challenges that communities now face is that when those refugee numbers fell so sharply, that also led to significant reductions in funding for the settlement agencies. that meant the number every settlement agencies had to close offices or lose staff. part of what they are facing this year is the effort to rebuild which now becomes increasingly urgent.

i do to us want to emphasize that -- there are overall issues about the importance of the refugee program, but what is particularly important here is appreciating that the people we are talking about our people who risked their lives for the united states or in the efforts to build a new afghanistan. the war and the way in which it was conducted, these are people that we are indebted to because they risk their lives for us. host: are we taking the most afghan refugees? or is other countries, nato allies, taking as many as the united states is? guest: i think that is a fluid situation and we will need to

see where the numbers settle. the accounts recently have been that the united states is bringing in 50,000. some number of them are people who were at various stages of the special immigrant visa process. the total figure being used so far is 50,000. i think we don't know if that is where it is going to wind up. host: look at the numbers according to the u.n. refugee agency. these are the 2020 countries accepting the most refugees. pakistan led the list followed by iran, germany, austria and france. the united states ranked 22nd. what do you make of these countries, pakistan, iran,

germany, austria, france taking more refugees? what does that say? guest: i think it reflects broadly the crucial importance for countries of recognizing humanitarian obligations in helping those in need. this was something where the united states role was much more prominent, defined and that has an impact on other countries when they united states will decline. this is going to be an issue and the needs are going to be greater then just what the united states alone can do, but the united states does have a unique responsibility here based upon the twenty-year war and

those people who have put their lives at risk for us. host: lisa in tennessee wants to know, if a refugee commits a violent crime, can they be deported? guest: yes. the situation -- when refugees are committed, after a year, they can become lawful permanent residence. after five years, they can become citizens. before they become a citizen, they can be deported for having committed a range of crimes just like other persons who are noncitizens. host: jeff in nebraska. republican. caller: i really do think that if any of these men and women helped any of our veterans, if

they help them at all, they deserve to come over here. however, i would like to know how this is all going to work out when we just allowed 2 million people to come across the border in the south and we have the afghans we are bringing over here now. how is not going to mix in? host: what is your concern, chief concern for these afghans on top of the illegal immigration? what do you think could happen in the united states? caller: we are getting overrun. our systems cannot even handle the stuff we have on the border in the south. it is crazy the amount of people. the sad part of this, we have no mainstream media telling the people of the united states what is going on. nobody is covering the southern border. host: we talked about a lot here, let me take this question

from jim in texas who says this is one aspect of what the color was talking about. what jobs are here for afghan refugees given their low rate of literacy? guest: for those who are coming in now, it is likely to be a pretty big mix. particularly for those coming in with special immigrant visas. they will typically have considerably higher degrees of education. they are frequently persons who were interpreters, translators or were otherwise using english in their jobs. there is a government study from a few years ago around special immigrant visas that noted then

higher education and literacy levels. as i was talking about a little bit ago, for many, there will be an issue of getting a job quickly. and then, figuring out if it is possible to get a better job over time. i should point out that in the information in the program in the past, one of the things that has been found, and i overheard this and talking to people directly involved in resettlement, is that it would be not uncommon that the father was employed because they were working for the u.s. or a u.s. contractor. the mother may have left formal education and literacy and left

work experience. one of the challenges and things coordinators will likely be doing is seeking to work with both fathers and mothers and helping mothers who may not speak english and may not have significant paid work experience. i should also note that about half of refugee arrivals typically are under age 20. there are a whole set of additional issues and needs for rising children. -- arriving children. school enrollment hopefully, connecting to early childhood programs, for younger children,

and as people are thinking about needs in their communities, one big one really is employment and housing, and then seeking to help all of the members of the family as they seek to become fully integrated into the united states. host: david, grand rapids, michigan. independent. caller: good morning. somebody was saying -- sentenced yesterday for six years for six years before plotting an attack on her govern -- our governor and she said she still has a problem people protesting. we have middle-age white men running through the woods trying to take over and burn down democracy. my comment is that i would trust and afghan refugee more than a

middle-aged white man running around me in the stand age. this idea that we cannot treat everybody equally, that understanding that because i am white i believe a different something or other? guess what, we all deserve to be healthy and cared for. again, i would trust a refugee more so than i would trust any white man at this point in time. host: got it. dane in wisconsin. who is coming here from afghanistan? is it the interpreter and immediate family, wife and kids or chain migration such as mom, dad, uncle, aunt, etc.? guest: first thing, it is a fluid situation. we are going to keep learning more over time. in the first instance, it is clear there is a strong emphasis on those who were very close to

getting special immigrant visas or in the pipeline for that program. when someone comes through with a special immigrant visa, they can bring their immediate family with them. as we talked about from earlier, there will then be this bigger group of refugees, which will include more than just those that worked directly with the u.s. government, but so far, everyone that the ministration has identified is someone who was affiliated with the u.s. in some way and has helped the u.s. in some way. those will be who is coming right now. again, in the coverage, they

have indicated it will be in the range of 50,000. clearly, the numbers in need are much greater than that and they are going out to make decisions about that. host: aaron in alexandria. caller: good morning. i just have a comment maybe you can clarify if this is true or not and then a question. it seems as though our money, taxpayer dollars have been used to support the war and our taxpayer dollars are now being used to support those who gave a benefit to the united states war machine to benefit their objectives. can you clarify if that is true or not because it sounds like our tax dollars are paying twice. when we talk about we are indebted to people who helped the united states, this country has yet to repay or give payment

to the people but actually founded and established the country and done right by native americans, african-americans, chinese-americans. i know there is a moral obligation. i believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need around the world, but if we are just looking at faith-based organization helping these people and don't necessarily share the same faith, how do we manage that and what is your role in that? guest: sure. i think the first thing i would emphasize is there are certainly people and groups in need in many situations of which this is just one. this is absolutely a situation of tremendous urgency right now.

in terms of cost to taxpayers, i have talked about what the refugee resettlement structure is. i think it does good work. i have visited communities, talked with refugees and others. i think it is a structure we can be proud of, but it is really not a richly funded structure. as you have probably been seeing over these past few weeks, resettlement agencies reaching out and highlighting ways to get involved, there are some ways to get involved directly, and then there are also -- they are also asking for donations. that really reflects the facts

that there are significant needs that just don't get met with the level of funding provided by government support. host: if viewer wants to know, are there organizations that you can recommend to make donations to to help these afghan refugees? they risked everything, says ed, to help us and our government should not have abandoned them. guest: i think it is probably best of them not recommend a specific organization. what i can say is that if possible, in addition to just googling in your local community, you can go to the website or federal office of refugee resettlement or for the state department where they have lists of local resettlement organizations and communities in the office of refugee resettlement also has names and

contact information for state coordinators. if you want to get connected about the situation in your state. there are a lot of groups who are doing good work. i do just want to underscore that the resettlement agencies played this key role when people come in, but it is with lots of committee partnerships, with significant roles for faith-based groups and business communities and others part of what has been heartening over the last couple of weeks, particularly, is the extent of public outpouring of people asking how they can help. host: donna in wisconsin. caller: i want to know why they are sending all of these refugees to camp mccoy without being embedded.

-- without being vetted. they should be vetted before they land on our soil. second, i would like to know how long the freebies last and how much exactly do each of these people get from us taxpayers and for how long? host: mr. greenberg? guest: for those who are coming to this country, the ministration indicates that the vetting has already happened before they get here. they are not doing the vetting at the military base when they get here. the vetting has been done in certain countries before they get here. the administration indicates that when people are getting to the military bases, they are getting a medical screening, a variety of health care services

getting help in applying for things like the work authorization that will allow them to legally work in this country. and then, getting a connected through the resettlement agencies with the communities they will ultimately go to. in terms of the questions of how much is paid, one thing that is notable is the trump administration actually commissioned a study to look at plus and benefit -- flaws and benefits for arriving refugees and cost per benefit in relation to taxes paid. the study wound up concluding that over time, what is paid in

taxes substantially exceeds what is provided in benefits. but then, the study was not released. host: here is gigi from north carolina. is it possible the united states is taking less refugees because they would prefer to go to place closer to home? do they have a choice as to where they are relocated? guest: no one will be coming to the united states who does not want to come to the united states. again, because this is such an evolving situation that people will need to figure out what choices they have over time, these are people who have applied to come to the united

states because the program has operated taking so much time. there was a significant backlog of people who wanted to come to the united states and were waiting for approval. there has been a strong priority on helping. host: jason in ohio. it is your turn. caller: thank you. my question is, of these immigrants coming how many were part of the 300,000 standing army that we outfitted and funded? or the government that we propped up that cut iran? and, most of those military members, i'm sure can read and write. so what happens to them from their. guest: the program itself was

for those who were translators, interpreters, otherwise helping the u.s. military effort. and then, the group will be able to come in as refugees will be a broader group. i do think that one of the questions administration is going to have to figure out is what to do about the very large number of people who were not working for the united states or u.s. affiliated groups but are now at risk with the new afghan government based on what they have done in recent years. that is a much bigger group and

administration is going to need to figure out what to do about it. host: mark greenberg, senior fellow in human services initiative director for the migration policy institute. thank you very much for the conversation this running. guest: thanks very much. host: we are going to take a break. when we come back, we will go back to our question to all of you. this morning, the president is calling on companies demanded vaccines for their employees. do you support or oppose? we will be right back. ♪ + sunday on "q&a," asa to -- a conversation with karen. >> nancy reagan had one agenda which was ronald reagan's well-being and success. she had better instincts about

people than he did and sort of a better nose for trouble than he did. the people in the administration who understood all of this, he recognized her power, people like secretary of state george schultz, or white house chief of staff, later treasury secretary, really understood she was a very important, a crucial ally to have if you are trying to get ronald reagan on board. >> karen's biography "the triumphs of nancy reagan," sunday on "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: do you support vaccine mandates? that is our question for you this morning.

if you do, we have a line for you, if you oppose another line. take a look at a recent poll done in this question from the associated press. they found that half of u.s. workers, remote workers, especially, are likely to favor requiring vaccines at the office. 50% of all working adults say they favored arid 26 percent opposed. when they asked the remote workers, 59% say they were opposed. in person say 40% support. what do you think? james in clayton, indiana. let's go to you. >> i support it. i think my so -- philosophy is, united we stand, divided we fall. think about if we did not have the vaccine and the government

did not do anything to supply the vaccine, then what? i'm thinking we have it, it works, everybody should take it. host: john in san antonio says covid vaccines have created six new billionaires. that is all i need to know about the motive behind mandates. just say no, i say. greg says your employer has a right to approve a mandate. jim in north carolina. this is now settled. jeff talking about the fda's decision to give full approval for the pfizer vaccine and what it means for mandates. [video clip] >> yesterday after a rigorous scientific review process, the fda gave full and final approval

to the pfizer vaccine reaffirming its findings that the vaccine is safe and effective. this is a key milestone that will help get more shots in arms. we know that there are americans who have been waiting for the fda process to be completed before getting a shot. for those americans, the wait is over. now is the time to join the more than 200 million americans who have already rolled up their sleeve and got vaccinated. it's free, easy and it has never been more important to protect yourself, your loved ones in your community. it is not just individuals. institutions must step up and many are. in just the past 24 hours, cvs, chevron, texas instruments, one of the largest health system

employers in louisiana, all of them have stepped up to cover their workers. new jersey and new york city have stepped up to cover teachers and school staff. the university of minnesota, center college and state university of new york have stepped up to cover students. we expect more and more to follow. if you are a business, a nonprofit, a state or local leader who has been waiting for a full and final fda approval, before you put vaccination requirements in place, now is the time. you have the power to protect your communities and help into the pandemic through vaccination requirements. host: "washington times" headlines this morning says companies are doing just that. get the shot or else. corporate america put teeth behind the vaccine mandates. delta airlines is imposing a

$200 fee a month for those unvaccinated. united is saying get vaccinated or get out. clarence in charlotte, north carolina. you oppose the idea of mandates. caller: good morning. i have a cousin that was 76 years old and pressured by the family to get a shot two months ago. the day he took the shot, he got sick that might, fell on the floor and they had to rush into the hospital. he stayed in the hospital for two weeks and they said it was something that affected his body. he died two days ago because he should have never took it because he had some kind of kidney problem and there was something in his shot that really affected his body. you cannot mandate everybody to take a shot that they don't know nothing about that person's body. he died two days ago and it passes me out that everybody can

say something and they don't know anything about a person's body, their health and it killed him. it killed him dead. all these people say mandate it, you keep taking the shot and hopefully it won't kill you like it did him. it praises me off when all the people say take a shot. they don't know anything about your health, what condition your body is in, if it is going to affect you. he was in perfect health. no problems. all of a sudden, he took the shot and now he is dead. god bless you. host: sorry for your loss. otis in mississippi. you support the idea of mandates. caller: i do. my son is nine years old and being quarantined right now. what i want to say is probably

by december, you have plenty of time for christmas. the stimulus checks again, but that is all i've got to say. host: here's james in michigan. i'm done with many people losing their jobs over 20 years over the vaccine mandate. they feel this terminated against. a cord to the cdc, more people are sick that have been vaccinated. people should have a choice, is what james has to say. brad in international falls minnesota, you also pose a mandate. caller: i sure do. this is nothing more and short of biological warfare going on right now. and for people to think that we have a new strain of variant, they are completely wrong because any of these types of

strains, viruses that get stronger as they get longer, they become weaker. there's another virus that was spread through india and then it went throughout the world and now, it is coming to central america and in through our southern borders. host: do you work? caller: i was a caregiver for my father and mother-in-law for 12.5 years. that is why you always heard me on this station. that i did not have much to do other than watch tv and take care of people. but it passed and i do know people. i've had my brother and sister-in-law that both had it and they are fine. most people are not going to die from this. and they know it. i'm going to tell you something. it is worse that the media is trying to push a narrative for a party.

now, with where we are at, what is really happening is that this is really biological warfare coming onto the world and we are not doing anything about it. host: deborah says, of course to mandate. she says our vaccine mandates go back to around 1850. vaccines save lives. john in texas? caller: right now, i am on the road driving from austin texas and i'm driving to d.c. i have an aunt that is only 71 years old and suffers from an autoimmune disease where the proteins in the body attack your body organs. she has been suffering with that for over a year. she was taken to the hospital two weeks ago and tested positive for covid.

she has a disease where the proteins are eating her heart. and she was surviving. when she caught covid, she died. she died two days ago and i don't -- i'm literally on the road right now driving to d.c. to bury her. i'm not saying that going back and forth arguing with people whether it is where or not, the fact of the matter is that the scientists and epidemiologists know better than that means you're looking at on your social media accounts. people need to wise up and do the right thing and even if they are not interested in taking care of themselves, take care of those who host: host: come into contact with you. i'm sorry for your loss as well. listen to the speaker of the house after pfizer won full

approval from fda. she talks about the agency and praises their efforts but also makes the play that people should get vaccinated for children going back to school. [video clip] >> i salute the fda, they did a wonderful job bringing this full approval forward in a timely fashion, respecting all the scientific requirements that are there. now that we have the full approval for those who were reluctant because it did not have full approval and those organizations who did not feel that they could require the vaccine until it was full approval, hopefully that will give us more momentum. as children go back to school, this is really important that people 12 and older, that they will be vaccinated so that they don't put younger children at risk until there can be approval for vaccine for them.

in the meantime, let's just crush this virus. people have to know that as it spreads, that is a way for it to mutate. and that we don't need another variant, but we always have to be prepared. host: speaker pelosi advocating for getting vaccinated. caller: thank you very much. my condolences to the gentleman performing for the death of his aunt. on bbc, 3.5 weeks ago, a scientist was talking about the fact that there was so much virus in nasal passages that he referred to boosters probably not helping because you don't have enough antibodies in your nose. but dr. fauci two weeks ago addressed this and said this

vaccine is unlike other vaccines like whipping cough, measles. you know how we get a vaccine and you know we can't pass it. he talked about the high virus load in nasal passages of those that were vaccinated. last week at the white house, the coronavirus response team meeting, the last question that was posed, he answered and it was about boosters. he said they are not sure if a booster will reduce the viral load in the nasal passages. to keep advertising this as not being community spread is a big problem. i have been for 3.5 weeks trying to say you can send those messages. if vaccination is important, it does reduce the risk of serious infections, but we still have

the potential of spreading the virus and not even knowing we have a breakthrough infection. cdc was not recording it according to the woman on the washington post live interview two weeks ago. we need to wear a mask precautions. host: heard your point. we want to update you on the situation in afghanistan. the press secretary tweeting out moments ago, we can confirm an explosion outside kabul international airport. this comes after the state department sent out a warning last night to any americans around the kabul airport, asking them to leave immediately because of a threat from isis-k and other terrorist groups. there it is on your screen, the states -- state department without warning last night.

sarah, you support a vaccine mandate. >> yes, i do because my daughter is a nurse and she has been working 14, 15 hours a day. yes, i support this vaccine, but the way the news meetings and stuff are reporting this stuff is unreal. they are confusing people. another thing i would like to comment. there was a man on there that said he trusted al qaeda more than he did a white man in the united states. host: he said afghan caller: he said he would -- he said afghanistan refugees. caller: he said he would trust them more. that is racist. that is wrong for him to get on national tv and say that. host: anne in tennessee, please get the vaccine and save lives

and get back to work. if you don't want to get the shot, you must mandate the wearing of masks in public. college students are facing this question as well. covid-19 vaccine or college? several schools are charging unvaccinated students thousands of dollars in coronavirus testing fees to remain on campus this fall during the pandemic. some schools are imposing extra punishment. quinnipiac university announced that along with finding -- fining unvaccinated students, it will cut off campus wi-fi. caller: i am 55 years old, i've not had the covid virus, my wife has had it. it has been terrible on her. i don't wear a mask, i took care of my wife. i wash my hands constantly. as a reasonable distance away from everybody.

i practice good, normal hygiene, which every should practice. i think that is much more effective than these vaccines. my wife's physician advisor not to get the vaccine because it would make her condition worse. she still suffers complications from covid. i've been exposed to several people who have been told that they have covid but their symptoms were nowhere near what my wife has. i think they all had the flu. ever since covid came out, the flu has disappeared. host: lynn is a nurse who says she sees the everyday effects of covid and says she supports the mandate. let's go to lee in los angeles. caller: good morning. i really appreciate this forum for you giving us the opportunity to express our

opinions. i am favor of the vaccine. if not for yourself, do it for the children. there are so many children coming down with covid and they don't have a choice. especially the ones under 12 years old. we need to look at this as an opportunity to save lives. that is my final. host: jenny in north carolina? caller: i oppose. my question is all these people to have the virus are supposed to have their own antibodies. if they have their own antibodies, that is as good as having the vaccine. if they get the vaccine, does that not double the antibodies? host: apologies, i have to move on. you are breaking up. kathleen? caller: what we are seeing now is people who have not been

vaccinated are the ones who are literally filling up the hospitals a lot. i do support it. i need to tell you a story real quick. in the beginning of this covid, i would go to my daughter's, i would see my grandson. when covid came out, i was terrified i might get him sick. even not the beginning, those big scarves, i would wear and wrap around my face and my glasses and our member going out one day and this man started laughing and he said, your health faces covered. when the covid came out, i stopped going to my grandson. i started getting withdrawals and i was like oh my gosh, please come over.

everybody in the family, one might my son-in-law had got a phone call from his coworker, he tested positive. a few days later, someone else in the family calls, i tested positive. everybody had caught covid, but i was wearing a mask. i am the one who did not catch covid. you see what i'm saying? masks do protect. they do help. that is a true story. host: thanks. barbara opposing vaccine mandates. caller: good morning. i have a couple of points to make. first of all, i heard a gentleman, dr. harvey from the yale school of public health and he said this about giving

vaccines to children and what the long-term effects on their overall health from an unknown quantity might be. his words were, and i wrote these down because i have many grandchildren and a great-grandchild and another great-grandchild on the way. he said, it is too big and uncertainty for too little benefit. i have to agree because everything that i have read, there is just no evidence of what can happen for the next three years, five years, 10

years, on what the side effects from this vaccine will be. host: per year point, i'm going to get others in. tonya and richmond says she is opposed. i've taken the flu vaccine three times in my life any time have ended up in the hospital. i believe this will be the vaccine that kills me. caller: thank you for taking my call. years ago, when i was going to school, i am 69, we had to get all sorts of shots and nobody questioned it. it was not a political matter. if my mother wanted to put me in the public school as she did seven of my brothers and sisters, we had to have shots. we got them. nobody questioned anything. i never got sick that i can remember. my mother's brother died in 1917

pandemic so she was very concerned about children or adults getting sick. the idea of this constant vaccine divide is very upsetting. i live in a very red part of pennsylvania. people are brazen about questioning me when i wear my mask to walmart and i have altercations with people. they want me to take off my mask for them to feel better, and i just don't get it. leave me alone. you do what you do, i will do what i do. that is basically it. the previous answering about all of the vetting is fabulous and i don't understand why so many people are against afghans coming to our country who helped the united states military. i retired from foreign service, i served overseas.

they are willing to make that sacrifice to help us and we need to help them relocate. it is not easy. host: i'm going to stick to the topic. caller: i oppose. i think there is a lot of misinformation out there about the vaccine. my mother got the vaccine and within three days, she got shingles. i had numerous patients that have gotten shingles after the vaccine and i would like to know why this is not being reported. that is all i have to say. host: mansfield, ohio, supporting. we are listening to you. caller: i support the mandate. when you see this money amount of people that are dying that are not vaccinated, common sense would tell you to get

vaccinated. i don't understand it. when i was a little boy in school, we had to get vaccinated and there was no problem. i think it is a shame how they politicize this. we would not even be going through this or have to have this booster shot if everybody cooperated. that is all i have to say. thank you so much. host: diane in virginia, opposing mandatory vaccines. caller: i am. i have had both shots. i've had part one and part two. i'm not opposed to getting the vaccine, but when you are talking about mandating something, we have already sacrificed a great deal by volunteering to use our bodies to try and rectify and correct the toxins in the air. when i look at what is being done, what are we doing to try

other than using our bodies as a sacrifice? i don't really understand what is being done to eradicate the covid-19 or the pandemic or the toxins from the environment. i would like to hear more about environmental cleanup. that is all i have to say. host: birmingham, alabama. you support the mandates. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i am fine. why do you support them? caller: i support them because i have been talking with my husband. i am retired mother and grandmother. we have 15 grandchildren and one great grandchild. they are throughout the united states. i have a lot of reasons -- that

would cause me to get exposed. i support it because if we think back to when we were all children, our parents are grin choate -- grandparents had to take us to get our vaccines, booster shots in order to enter into kindergarten, middle school and high school. we have to be really realistic about this to realize this is not something people are saying you have to do it. it is a choice to say that i love myself, i love my neighbor, and i love every one of my relatives. if we just stop and think about a solution, love. love will make everything matter.

lives, no matter what creed, race, background you come from, every life matters. i want to get a 300% shout out to all frontline workers, no matter what capacity, from sanitation garbage, street cleaner to custodian. host: we have got to run on that note. thank you all for watching today. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪