u.s. senate returns from its summer rate today for a debate on president biden's nominations as well as on voting rights and election reform legislation. the senate gavels and at 3 p.m. eastern. the house remains in work per and willi be backod, dez vote on infrastructure and government funding. live coverage of the house on c-span and the house on -- and the senate on c-span2. >> here's what's coming up on today's "washington journal." bipartisan poly economic policy director will discuss key physical deadlines later this month including raising the debt limit and government funding. then later, american public health association's george benjamin will talk about the biden administration's new

covid-19 response plan. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is the washington journal for september 13 -- in the days president biden has unveiled his vaccine plans, some unions have come out in support, while some republican governors have sharply criticized it. we will get your thoughts on the plan to increase vaccinations in the united states, and if you think the mandate is the right approach, the wrong approach, or perhaps you are not sure. if you think it is the right

approach, 202-748-8000. if you think it is the wrong approach, 202-748-8001. if you are not sure, 202-748-8002. you can also post on twitter. usa today takes a look at what president biden unveiled and reaction from the business community. they write it was on thursday the president ordered firms with more than 100 employees require the vaccine or

that is "usa today." if you go to the front page of the new york times more reaction from some republican governors for what was unveiled. like other republican governors, tate reeves of mississippi reacted angrily to the coronavirus maxing mandate -- vaccine mandate. "this is terrifying, he wrote on friday."

again, that is "new york times." when it comes to the plans, we will ask you for this hour if you think it is the right approach, the wrong approach, perhaps you are not sure. if you get is the right approach, 202-748-8000. if you think it is the wrong approach, 202-748-8001. perhaps you are not sure. 202-748-8002. it was on the sunday shows that vac murphy, the u.s. surgeon general spoke about what the u.s. was ready for these minutes to be put in place. surgeon general murphy: the announcement the president made included a number of measures will help us address the delta

variant. the requirements are one part of it. it also includes measures to increase testing capacity. with the president and all of us have said as public health leaders from the earliest part of this pandemic is we have to use every lover of government, and -- lever of government, and we the private sector have to do everything we can to tackle the virus. the requirements the president announced are an example of that. earlier this summer the president announced a requirement for federal workers, to have tests or a vaccination, not only will federal workers be required to vaccinate with the exemption for health or business reasons. 80 million business workers that have 100 employees or more will also be required under the osha rules, which is either getting tested regularly or get

vaccinated. the data tells us these requirements work to increase vaccinations. number two, a lot of businesses are relieved these are going into place. . host: that is from yesterday we will show you more from the sunday shows on what was said about mandates. we will get your thoughts on if you think it is the wrong approach, the right approach, perhaps you think -- you are not sure. duke in maine starts us off by saying he is not sure about the approach. caller: yes, good morning. i am not sure if this mandate thing is really the thing to do. i understand what biden has in mind, but, really, i have had my shot, in when i headed, i was led to believe that once i had the shot i was good to go, so i had my two series of shots, and now i find out we can still catch this covid even though we

have had the shot, and that from what i am being told, we can be carriers even though we have had the shot. we have been told so many things. i feel like we have been lied to in so many ways. i don't know what to think about that. host: but as far as the latest approach from the president, fundamentally, why are you not sure about it? caller: well, i don't know if these shots are going to be all that effective. i don't know because i'm hearing stories of people that have had their shots who are in the hospital and some people have died because of the shots. this is what i am being told. i don't know what to believe. it is an awful, confusing mess. it is hard to know who is telling the truth. it is just hard to know. host: make sure, duke, join us

later get our 8:45 a.m. segment, dr. georges benjamin joined us to talk about the mandate and i will ask questions like yours. ben in grenada, mississippi, the right approach. i hope i pronounced where you live. go ahead. guest: i think it is a right approach because i don't want to go to work and be around people that don't have their mascot, have not taken the vaccine, because -- mask on, have not taken the vexing, because they will not tell you they have not taken it and i don't want to be around a person that does not wear a mask. i have a suggestion for the ones that think it is not the right approach -- try not to be around people that wear their masks and have taken the vexing -- vaccine. that is those people's rights

not to be subjected to people like you that -- i'm not talking about you -- the persons who don't want to wear the mask, where the ones who do want to wear it, they have a right to be around people that wear them, and have taken the vexing. they don't want to get the variant or covid-19. it is the workplace. host: brian from mississippi says it is the wrong approach. caller: good morning. i think it is the wrong approach because it should not come from a presidential dictate. if congress decides it is a mandate, that is how our government works. it should come from congress as opposed to a presidential dictate, which is what it is. host: because the mandate falls

on federal workers and in one instance on private workers, you think the federal workers argument is there from the president approach or even congress approach? what you think about that? caller: i don't think it matters whether it is federal or state employees. i think the dictate has to come from a were right -- represented of the people, and that is congress, the house on the senate, because that is who we vote into office. those are our representatives, and those folks would determine whether a vexing mandate is oriented. host: why do you think the president doesn't get that privilege as a representative of all people? caller: because i think under the constitution he does not have that power. it is more representative of congress and the senate making the decision as opposed to a president.

if i am wrong, the courts will decide. i think it will get challenged in the courts, and i think that is where it will be determined whether or not he is appropriately making the mandate for vaccines. host: brian, fort wayne indiana, says it is the right approach. that is how you can call us -- right approach, wrong approach, you're not sure -- pick a line that best represents you. you can for the -- post on facebook and twitter. the legal arguments -- it is something addressed by former new jersey governor chris christie, who was on the sunday shows, questioned about the strategy or the with the biden admission was going about this. here is governor christie from yesterday. [video clip] governor christie: there are three things that concern me, and i have been advocating everyone should get vaccinated, but i think there are shaky ground to appear when you look at the osha statutes, they are on shaky grounds whether they can really force this or not, so

it is subject to legal challenge. second, let's river, the politicization of the vaccines started back in the presidential campaign and it was started by vice president harris who said i will not take a vaccine that is approved by trump or trump's regulators. that puts us in a totally different areas -- area. and that politicization is continuing now. third, i think your question to the surgeon general was on point -- this is going to harden opposition. sometimes your leader goes in and uses a sledgehammer. i have been known to do that when i was a governor. sometimes it is appropriate, but this time was not the time to do it. we have to be persuasive. we have to continue to persuade. host: that was governor christie from yesterday. "the hill" has a look at the legal challenges. some experts believe the

president is on strong legal footing, but they expect the new will for businesses that will be spearheaded by the labor department's safety and occupational administration to trigger those lawsuits. tori and facebook posting this morning, "it is excellent, a job is a privilege, and not a right pickle -- right."

shelley in eden, utah, says that is the right approach. my husband had -- passed away. we both had our shots. i think if we had not had our shots, i would've lost my love, go. people have the opportunity to live and enjoy life. this is something that we cannot get a hold of if we don't do something like this. host: go ahead, finish. caller: i am just pleading with everybody, please, if you don't

want to get vaccinated, then just stay home. they are the ones spreading it and making it hard on everyone else. host: coy in columbus, ohio. it saying it is the wrong approach. good morning. caller: i believe if you are vaccinated you should not have to worry about other people not being vaccinated. that is their choice. if you are the president and you mandate it, and somebody dies from the vaccine, there will be lawsuits about that because you are forcing them to get the vaccine. do you understand what i mean? host: you are saying that is why it is the wrong approach. caller: yes, because there will be lawsuits because he is forcing people to get it -- they get the shot, they guy, there will be lawsuits against the president himself. host: coy, from columbus, ohio, telling us in his mind, when it

comes from dish to the mandate, it is the wrong approach. keep on calling we will take those calls in just a moment. we wanted to update you with activities of the white house this weekend joining us from the conversation is for the conversation, axios's political report appeared to i-4 joining us. part of the agenda this week is to head west to address the issue of wildfires. can you give us a sense of where he will travel, what he plans to do? guest: sure. as the senate and the house are in the scrambling to compile these infrastructure packages, president biden heads out west this morning to sell the bipartisan and reconciliation infrastructure bills. he first heads to boise, idaho. he will be meeting with federal fire agency workers that will reef him on protocols,

especially as the west has faced so many wildfires in recent weeks, then after that briefing, he will head to the sacramento california area, where he will do an aerial tour to survey the damage done by those wildfires, and in that same, climate-related vein, he will head to denver colorado -- denver, colorado, tomorrow, where he will participate in build back better event. infrastructure is a enormous part of his plan that he ran a, and in between all of those infrastructure and climate-related items, he will be in long beach, california, campaigning with gavin newsom, that california governor. this is, of course, the day before the california recall, so he will be with him in long beach for that as well. host: you mentioned the efforts

in congress people are watching for with the text for the reconciliation bill due this week as far as self-imposed deadlines are concerned. what is the white house's approach at this time, with texas coming together, especially as you hear from joe manchin again thing he plans to vote against the measure? guest: what we have seen from the white house, and something they will double down on, they have in having conversations with members of the senate and the house throughout this entire come extremely long and tenuous process of building that infrastructure bill. september 15, just two days from now, speaker pelosi has created this self-imposed deadline of asking all of the committees to compile and write the text of the infrastructure bill, and that september 27 is when the speaker promised moderate and the entire house, but

specifically the promise made with moderates in mind to vote the bipartisan infrastructure bill by september 27. this is tricky because they promise to bring about the reconciliation package and the bipartisan infrastructure bill by the same day and vote on it at the same time, but right now it is looking a little sticky. we will see if they finish writing the reconciliation bill by that time. host: also concerns that the $3.5 trillion figure will not be that figure at the end of the day. guest: you have joe manchin saying that is much too high, and you have senator bernie sanders saying we already compromise from $6 trillion, which no one was going to vote for, with no chance with moderate democrats coming out

against that figure early on. that is something we will watch, we will see in the next couple of weeks what number democrats are able to land on where they can come to an agreement, but it is likely this will be stretched out much longer than we anticipated. host: sarah mucha, as we head into the fall months, as far as other agenda items from the white house or democrats in congress, what are we expecting to see action on? guest: there is a lot going on. it is an extremely busy next two weeks -- particularly the government is set to run out of funding by september 30, so democrats and republicans have to vote on continuing government funding, which could or could not include a debt ceiling raise -- that is something that democrats and republicans are currently sparring on how to go about doing that. there is going to be potential funding for hurricane ida relief

efforts that might be up to a vote. nancy pelosi, the speaker of the house, of course, said that she may bring up a vote regarding health restrictions for women in light of the texas abortion ruling --, while it could pass the house, it would have a much harder time passing in titer, democratic-majority senate, and a top of all of that you have all of this going on against the backdrop of afghanistan. of course while these are not rulings, there are public hearings that could stretch out for weeks and months to come. host: sarah mucha, who reports for axios, and you can find work at axios.com. thank you for your time and let know what to expect this week. guest: thanks so much. host: we are back to your calls on this vaccine mandate, whether you think it is the right approach, the wrong approach, or perhaps you are not sure.

in north carolina, this is louise, says it is the right approach. things for waiting period go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am fine. how about yourself? caller: fine. the caller that said it is a dictatorship, it is ridiculous pin we have mandates for shots to go to school, and this is all a safety issue. if the president doesn't protect the health of the people, what is he therefore -- there for? also, this should have never been politicized anyway, but the former, he politicized it appeared he took the shot. he had covid, and took the shot, and a lot of people don't realize that. they need to stop. this variant can even change --

they don't realize that. it could change from the delta to something else where nothing won't work if it keeps getting out of hand, and every holiday we see where the increases are. thank you for letting me call. host: doug. wilmington, delaware. says it is the wrong approach. caller: thanks for taking my call. a couple of points, if the administration is so hardened about getting mandated vaccines, how come they allowed 200,000 people a month to come into the southern border, not get vaccinated, then being a super-spreader, sending them around the country and buses and planes? also, people have natural antibodies who have covid before, and they don't need a vaccine because the antibodies they have are actually stronger than the vaccine. just a third point, the reason i

think a lot of people are not taking the vaccine also is before president biden got elected, vice president harris was campaigning, stating she would never take the vaccine if it was a trump. . vaccine all of these -- vaccine. all of these combinations of things are causing a lot of problems. i still don't understand -- also host: let me leave you there. donald and south bend, atlanta, says when it comes to the approach the administration is taken, he is not sure. caller: ok. [laughter] those callers just cracked me up. i only say not sure because i would love to see this come to the supreme court because i would love to hear the oral arguments, but i want to hit on one point. host: let's start with why you are not sure it is the right approach? caller: me, personally, because i am not a lawyer -- i am not school. the legal situation behind it and everything.

so, i am not sure -- and the role of osha -- i am not sure about that. that is just me, personally. i'm just saying i don't know all of this stuff. it would be interesting to listen to the oral arguments on something like this if it ever came to the courts. just real quickly, i just want to say, people understand this is the new variant -- delta is the new variant, and the main concern is protecting the kids five to 12 were not able to get vaccinated yet. so, maybe, we should concentrate on that, and that is why we want to make sure everybody gets vaccinated to protect the kids. host: that is donald and south bend, indiana. when it comes to some of the reaction from the medical community, there has been some reporting over the last few days on this.

this is from axios saying a hospital in upstate new york saying it will pause maternity services after several employees chose to resign rather than in mandatory vaccine. at least six and vaccinated maternity staffers quit and all -- and all, wondered 65 staffers. about 27% of the hospital's workforce is unvaccinated. the pause will take place before the deadline for health-care workers to get the shot. when you go to schengen, -- michigan, a television station in detroit reporting that a protest against amended assembled in front of a hospital.

that is some reaction. what you think of the approach is how we are framing this hour -- or the rest of this hour. scott. los angeles. says it is the wrong approach. caller: good morning. i think it is the wrong approach because we paid for, as americans, all of these vaccines, so i think those that wanted to have them, got them, and now that he has made a made it, which i believe he should have, those in the private sector could move to jobs that don't require that to meet the mandate.

those in the public sector, through union protections can also leave their jobs because there are plenty people coming from the southern border and afghanistan to take those jobs, and i am sure they will be happy to get vaccinated. so, if you charge for the vaccine and say that the people who get the vaccine later will pay for all the vaccines given before, at least we are not in some kind of deficit over this. i think as they make the vaccine approved for children, make it free for them, but after a certain amount of time, then you could let the free market decide the price of the vaccines for the people who chose to wait. let the free market go with it. host: ok. ray.

homestead, pennsylvania. says it is the right approach. caller: is that me, pedro? host: go ahead. caller: first, i never saw any epidemiologists it we would not get covid if we got shots. they said we would get sick, but we would not go to the hospital or die if we got the shots. anybody who says we were told we would not get covid is wrong. second, there is a good in bed to this delta variant -- first off, i feel sorry for anyone that gets the covid that did not need to, like children and people that were in you, -- immunocompromised, and the good side, the anti-vectors, trumpers , and the conspiracy people that won't get the vaccine, they will get -- host: excuse me, when it comes then to the approach the administration is taking, what

you think of the approach? caller: i don't think it is strong enough. i think they should make it a mandate. host: it is a mandate on some fronts. wise and it not strong enough? caller: without the testing. you get the vaccine or you don't work. host: why go that far? caller: because these people, like i said, they don't have the brains to get a vaccine, and they are doing it for political reasons, and it is not the right way to do -- to go. we mandate every child to get a vaccine. if they don't get a vaccine, they go to another school. host: these are children. what about private employers? caller: because we don't have the luxury of getting ahead -- having children get these. we give it to the children so we don't have to give it to the adults. now it is backwards. host: that is ray in pennsylvania.

just to remind you, some of the elements put forth by the biden administration, it would require vaccine requirements, booster shots, also come into play when it comes into the availability and distribution there. a plan to keep schools open, and that would increase testing and mask requirements. the plan also including elements of economic recovery and in proving -- improving patient care. if you want to see more of the speech go to our website at c-span.org. you can find it there from the 20-minute plus speech he did on thursday. still available on our website. we are talking about the plan by the administration, what you think of the approaches, if you think it is the right one, the wrong one, or you're not sure. in mckenzie, alabama, roger says he is not sure about the approach to tell us why. caller: down here in the south, he is just making it worse.

i have had my shot, and i try to talk to everyone that will listen and say why don't you get it, and they all have really odd reasons -- i don't understand it, but the guy that just called, he is saying it is trump supporters that don't get it, 60% of black men and black women have not gotten it. if they are truly secret trump supporters, maybe he did get the election stolen. host: when you're not sure about the mandate, you say you are not sure. why? caller: it is just making people more hardheaded. there was a poor girl at the store, i was telling her i got mine and she said you could take a magnet where you got the injection and it would stick. i did not even know what to say. i just walked out. host: to ray.

he says it is the wrong approach. caller: a question in comment -- do you have a breakdown of ethnic groups that have not gotten the shot? do you have anything like that to show who has not gotten the shot? host: i don't. caller: because like the other gentleman said, a few weeks ago mayor de blasio of new york had a passport to go to restaurants, clubs, movie theaters, it was 70% of african-americans in new york and 60% of hispanics have not received the vaccine. like the previous caller says, they must be secret trump supporters. this is where the news media makes it sound like dumb, white trump supporters have not gotten the vaccine. host: how does it apply to the administration's approach? caller: even the president made it sound like it was dumb, white, trump supporters, as opposed to it is everyone.

it is across racial lines, liberal, democrats, conservative republicans have not received the shots, and like the other gentleman said, there is a lot of misinformation out there. why haven't minorities gotten the shot? what are they afraid of, or what information have they received that makes them not want to get the shot? host: let's hear from tammy in cleveland, tennessee, says it is the right approach. caller: good morning. sorry for my voice. i have had the shot -- the moderna. i have four oh -- i have been wearing a mask for over a year, and the statistics in the hospitals, how many people are vaccinated, how many are unvaccinated. a chosen improvement with the

ones in the vaccine. i might come in contact because my neighbor is stubborn. there is no one that has been over there except the nurses aides. the ems do not wear a mask. . host: when it comes to the plan by the binder administration to improve vaccination rates. you act saying it is the right approach. tell us why. caller: i will tell you why because president biden says anybody that takes government money, he is doing that to keep people like my neighbor, who is a manic -- immunocompromised safe, but the people they don't want to take the right approach, they need to go, i'm sorry, democrat or republican. i admire president biden because he is doing what he thinks is right. host: a variety of opinions when

it comes to this idea of the president's date and the approach he is taking and whether you think it is the right one, the wrong one, or not sure. you can call on the lines, post on facebook or twitter, and when it comes to the cdc's latest information, it says when it comes to total population, 63% of the total population have received one dose of the vaccine. those that are fully vaccinated stand at 53.8%. when it comes to those 18 years and older, 75% getting at least one shot. 64% of those over 18 with total vaccination, and that goes up as far as those over 65 years. you can take that as your basis if you wish why you think about the approach is the right one or the wrong one, or perhaps you are not sure. a couple of things to watch out

for this week in congress. secretary of state antony blinken talking about the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan two times this week. 2:00 this afternoon he will be before the house foreign affairs committee talking about that in answering questions. also he will appear in front of the senate foreign relations committee later this week. the senate returns today at 3:00 p.m.. voting rights and election reform on its agenda. the house also expected to return the 20th, issues of government funding, text when it comes to the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. look out for that. always stay close to c-span, c-span.org and our radio app. galveston, texas. kevin says he is not sure. caller: i am not sure that the covid virus is really out there.

i think it is the way everybody thinks of it, not like the coronavirus, but then you had the first one. none of them took effect, and now we have joe biden trying to tell us if you don't take the shot you cannot have a job -- it is like if i don't to the shot, well, i don't get the government money. host: it is either getting vaccine or regular testing when it comes to private employees. caller: i have been tested. my immune system takes to all of it paid i did not take the other virus shot. i am not taking the coronavirus shot. is just a thing where they want to raise taxes. host: when it comes to the approach and failed last week, why are you not sure about the approach? caller: the reason i am not sure about the approach is that probably puts a different immunity in me, probably weakening my ability of my

system. host: that is kevin galveston, texas. the cdc does compile information when it comes to various ethnic breakdowns when it comes to the vaccine. it says they report that demographic characteristics including race and ethnicity of people receiving covid-19 vaccine vaccinations, the cdc reported that race ethnicity was known for 59%. among this group, nearly two thirds were white, 10% were black, 6% were hispanic. 6% were asian. 1% were american indian or alaska native. five percent reporting multiple and other races. also, the cdc data showing recent vaccinations are reaching larger shares of hispanic and black populations. the cdc compiles all of that information. that story from kaiser family

foundation. linda says the president's approach is the right approach. she is in tampa. hello. caller: good morning. it is the right approach. we have to protect our children. it is based on our children. if we don't protect our children, then the children come home, give it to the parents, and the next thing you know everybody is sick. plus, our nurses and hospitals -- they are tired. we need to do our part. i don't think he is strong enough. if i had been president, i would've shot it all down, have state troops, nobody goes in, nobody goes out. we have to do our part -- we have to come together. we never did before. we will have to come together in order to get this thing right. host: lending in tampa, florida.

one of the people on the sunday shows talking about the president's mandate, critical of it was nebraska governor pete ricketts. he criticized amanda even though his own state has been done with high covid cases. governor ricketts -- [video clip] chris: i looked into hospital rights, and you announced hospital centers were allowing patients to be moved around in case there were not staff or beds in one place could you have also directed health measures to limit elective surgeries, and one of your top health officials say the fact is there is not enough room in your hospitals by the end of each day for high-level care. governor ricketts: actually what we have done is move people around if we needed to, and that is what the transfer center is

for, to get more acute care, to move that person in hospital. this happens when you have a more rural hospital setting that may not have all of the facilities that maybe some of our more urban facilities do, and it is something we are encouraging people to continue to get vaccinated as part of this, but we are managing our hospital capacity successfully with the tools we have provided what the staffing emergency. chris: i ask you a question at the top, why it was so objectionable -- you answer that, why -- he did not answer the other question what are you going to do about president biden's vaccine mandate? governor ricketts: i've been talking to my attorney general and he has been coordinate with other attorneys general across the country share similar views about the egregious overreach of federal authority, and as we see what the rules are, we will be able to know exactly how we will be able to challenge them in court. i am also talking with my

colleagues around the country as well -- the other governors who feel the way i do, and we will be working on other strategies, that i have to tell you, we have heard from so many workers, so many small businesses who say this is not going to be something they can handle. somebody told me they will be fired if they are forced to take the vaccine. this is going to create huge problems for our small businesses and american workers. again, you should not have to make the choice of keeping your job or getting the jab in the arm. host: from our facebook page this morning, michael francis posting --

host: some of those stories from private employers and how they are reacting. "washington examiner" reporting host: cnn has a story looking at the issue and how it will impact those in the fast food industry, setting most fast food

restaurants are independently -owned franchises, not company owned locations, and although some franchises own lots of employers, many host: are a lot of aspects but you can find them on the side. connie who says the biden administration's approach is the wrong approach. good morning. caller: good morning. i am glad i'm finally getting to talk to you. i think the american people are fed up because he mandates all of the american people to wear masks, all of this, and that, and he doesn't mention any of the people at the border that he

is distributing all over america. host: but what is it about these recent mandates that you say is the wrong approach? caller: because he mandates for the american people to get vaccine and mask, and everything, yet he does not discuss the issue that he is restricting all of these people that are coming in without -- checking to see if they are vaccinated or if they have the covid, and distributing all over the country, and they might have it. this covid will never go away with that approach. host: in pensacola, florida, ingrid says it is the right approach. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. you have a lot of sources there is to look at it, but i have heard several times that george washington mandated --can you hear me?

host: you are on. we can hear you. caller: ok. while i have been waiting i could have caught this disease, maybe you can look in your archives and help me here, sir, but george washington mandated people get vaccinated with a big disease at that time, and also, for a second point, please, pedro -- host: you mentioned of this -- you mentioned george washington. let's talk about president biden -- why do you think what he is doing is the right approach? caller: because if george washington did it and got away with it, why not biden? host: john is next in philadelphia, pennsylvania. he says that is the wrong approach. why? caller: it is a wrong approach because it could have been fixed along time ago without all of the political stuff involved.

actually, your lines have exploded this morning with this question that maybe this question should be asked more and more -- you have children going back to school now without vaccines. we see this going up instead of the opposite way. if our ex-president what have came out, taking the vaccine, maybe more people would have headed by now and we would not be in the situation we are in right now. host: you are saying the biden administration's approach is the wrong one. tell us why. caller: why? i tried calling every single line and could not get through. and this is the only way to try -- this is political -- host: is the approach the right or wrong approach in your mind? caller: i think it is the wrong

approach. i think it should have been taken care of in the beginning. once the vaccine came out, i could see the skeptics about it wasn't fda approved. i agreed with that. our ex-president came out and say i have done this, it is good for you, we did it coming we have half a family divided. i have a daughter that is worried about getting pregnant, and thinks this vaccine will hurt her. there are so many different things involved instead of just coming out and saying get the vaccine, you will be good, and the pandemic will go away. host: john and philadelphia, pennsylvania -- he mentioned george washington. i point you back to a story in "washington post," that started with a tweet from the ohio representative jim jordan tweeting about how vaccine mandates are un-american.

critics panned his labor day message by being way off by nearly 2.5 -- two in a half centuries. george washington made the bold decision in 1777 to require that his troops be immunized after a smallpox outbreak devastated the nation. the act would be repeated by presidents and military leaders throughout u.s. . again, "washington post" is where you can find the story to from susan, sarasota, florida. she says the approach is the right one. caller: hello. i think it is the only when he can take at this point. what else is he going to do? i am going to say some bad words if i am not careful. host: before you go forward, if he does a mandate and it does

not increase vaccination numbers? what you think? caller: he has to mended. host: if it does not increase vaccination rates, what happens next? caller: people are not listening to the evidence, the signs, the facts, the figures, coming up with all of these off-the-wall stories they picked up god knows whereby what kind of idiots that are spreading this misinformation that is killing people. 1100 a day are dying from this disease right now, or is it 1200? how many babies are going to die. host: in light of all of that, you said he has to mandate. why is that? caller: he has to because nobody is listening to the fact and the figures, and science, and information. they are substituting the voice of medicine and science.

maybe they should -- instead of watching off-the-wall programs and fox, and all of those things, maybe they should watch some main stream media, where you get the truth, and public television, where you get the truth. host: ok. let's hear from bob in barrington, illinois. says it is the wrong approach. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think it is the wrong approach to hold people's jobs above their head. i want to see when he will hold china for this disease and the whole world will hold china responsible. host: what is making you think he is holding people's jobs over the head. caller: he is saying getting -- get the vaccine or you will not hire them. host: he is saying get the

vaccine or get tested. when it comes to the mended why not have the power to do that over federal employees? caller: it does not become a country, it becomes a dictatorship, and he is dealing with a dictatorship in china. host: that is bob in illinois. let's hear one more time from the surgeon general of the united states, vivek murthy talking about the issues when it comes to the mandates and getting a reaction as to whether the mandates will harden opinions against getting demanded. [video clip] surgeon generalmurthty: it has been a long, difficult pandemic and it has generated anger, fatigue over time, and it is understandable, but what we cannot allow his for the pandemic to turn us on each other. the enemy is the virus. it is not one another. we have to approach the next phase of the pandemic response

recognizing we have to listen to each other before we rush to judgment. we have to support one another in our decision-making and during times of crisis. nine/11 reminded us we have the capacity to do that. it is difficult. after 9/11 i remember that day clearly -- i remember people reaching out to strangers to support them. i remember people traveling across the country to volunteer in new york city. that is the spirit of america that i know when love. we still have the capacity for that kind of approach. it is what we are called on to implement in a moment like this when we have to get through this very difficult pandemic. host: this is maryellen in virginia. she says it is the right approach. caller: hello. absolutely it is the right approach. biden has been pretty patient so far with people who refuse to get vaccinated. this is a virus that can be -- it doesn't have to be deadly with the vaccine, and as people

have gotten the vaccine so far, to show that it is safe, we mandate that children have the vaccines before they go to school, why not mandate this vaccine? host: what about mandating it to private employers versus federal employees? caller: i think it should be mandated to every -- everyone, the same as the flu vaccine for health-care workers. that is mandated. host: florida. that is where ned -- where ned is. he is saying it is the wrong approach. caller: good morning. the hypocrisy -- you ask for an id to get a -- two vote, but you cannot ask for 90 for a vaccine. every single year we abort more

babies than the baby -- then the vaccine has killed since it started. host: let's stick to the mandate. why is it the wrong approach? caller: because you cannot mandate to the american people what they must get like this -- it is totally un-american. when you take a look, a lot of people that don't have the shots are people that work in hospitals. why is that? there is uncertainty. just like in the black community, they don't want to get the shots, they don't trust the government. you are mandating the people to do that. you are mandating people to have to show the vaccine, but if you are going to vote for a president and a country, you don't have to have an id. host: that is ned in florida giving his thoughts. a story from a fox news website -- a local affiliate, sandy chief health officer for delta airlines saying carrier's decision to carry a surcharge

for unvaccinated employees has forced a huge portion of employees to change their minds about the jab. let's go to wanda in california. says it is the wrong approach. caller: absolutely. i just yesterday saw a video -- it was a man speaking, who used to work for pfizer, and he is a scientist and a biologist, and he said that the vaccine totally destroys your immune system, and

a lot of people that took the vaccine will be dead within five years. host: batman's opinion withstanding -- that man's opinion withstanding, why do you think the biden administration's approach is wrong. caller: because it is dictatorial. host: why is that? caller: you cannot tell people to do something that that on experimental vaccine. it is ridiculous. host: it has been given fda approval. caller: that is political, too. they told the fda to approve it and that is why the fda did. host: what makes you say this? what convinces you of that? caller: i don't trust this government. host: let's hear from sharon, palm city, florida, saying it is the right approach. caller: absolutely i think it is the right approach. i am the mother of a second

grade teacher in the state of florida, and needless to say there are not a lot of precautions being taken. unfortunate, yet her class that has 22 students, since the beginning of the year, she is lucky of 10 students show up each day. they are either out quarantined door with covid. so, yes, i believe there should be every mandate possible to keep the kids safe in school. host: those are kids. why extend the mended to private employers -- mandate to private employers of over 100 people? caller: because they are parents of these children that go to school. simple as that. if they are not vaccinated, their children, unfortunately, are catching the covid, and i don't comprehend why anyone would put their children at risk, even if it is only a 1% chance they would catch it.

unfortunately, the schools are not going to be able to stay open in the state of florida. i am really upset about it. yes, i do believe in biden, and i think he has been a terrific president, and if it wasn't for him, my daughter in the state of florida was never put mandatory to get the vaccine. host: one more story from "the hill," when it comes to republicans looking at the mandate issue, they see it as a campaign issue as the party looks to galvanize the base ahead of the 2022 midterms in the 2024 presidential election. it was on friday one more call on this topic. we will hear from roberta, decatur, georgia. says it is the right approach.

good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for the opportunity. i'm a registered nurse, and when it comes to when it comes to vaccines, one of the things i think about as a registered nurse, we are having to do checks before we take nursing positions, and if our antibodies are low, we have to get the vaccine, whether it is hepatitis, anything that has to do with rubella, we have to have tdap every so often. so when i hear nurses who refuse -- you know, one of our roles is to keep patients safe, to keep you safe. and if i am safe, i know you are going to be safe. host: do you think that by mandating it for health

facilities that accept medicare or medicaid, do you think there could be staffing issues as far as people leaving because i do not want to fall under that mandate? caller: if they do not want to fall under the mandate to keep patients safe, they should move on. two, when i think of this vaccine rollout that biden is discussing, people have to realize, you do have a choice. either you get the vaccine are you be tested weekly. it is not like you have to have the vaccine and that is it, you are fired. you have a choice here. host: but as far as staffing, do you think it will help -- do you think it will affect health staffing? caller: in may for a little bit. it may for a little bit. but here is the thing, it may for little while, but here is the thing, if we all look after each other and get the vaccine, it will help mitigate all the

hospitalizations that are taking place right now. i worked in a tuberculosis clinic at a health department, and there are people saying, well, it is my right, i should not have to have a vaccine, but look at what happens if you come down with active tb. just look it up and see what happens. host: ok, that is roberta in georgia, finishing off this hour. we appreciate all the calls and the input during this hour. two guests joining us throughout the morning, one to talk about fiscal and debt issues, shai akabas, talking about key fiscal deadlines, including the debt ceiling, things to look out for in congress. and later on, american public health association's georges benjamin to talk about the revived covid-19 response plan, mandates, and take your

questions on it. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." >> this week, watch c-span's january 6, views from the house, were 14 numbers of congress share stories of what they saw, heard, and experienced that day. >> representative gosar from arizona was objecting to the slate of electors, and at that moment i shouted out at the top of my lungs, this is because of you. i screamed it. >> they started coming into the chamber and were being very loud. there was a lot of commotion. and the doors to the chamber are typically open, and they started shutting all the doors per you could hear the doors like boom boom boom boom. >> is sounded like someone up in the chambers, in the gallery, a member, was yelling at the republicans to call trump and to

have trump call off this mob. >> there were freshmen there i had gotten to know during orientation and this was their first real experience as a member of congress. and we were kind of watching them and talking to my fellow colleagues about what we could do to try and stop this. >> watch, january 6, views from the house, this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. c-spanshop.org is the c-span online store with a collection of products. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations, and you still have time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: shai akabas, director of

economic policy at the bipartisan policy center, here to talk about fiscal deadlines you should be watching out for. good morning, mr. akabas. the key issue we have heard a lot from members of congress is the debt limit. what is it? and what should we be watching out for? guest: sure, let me start by saying it is understandable that the average american has difficulty wrapping their head around what the debt limit is. you would think that the u.s., one of the strongest economic powers, you would not think they would be threatening to default on debt annually or every two years. we have a situation where the federal government has a limit imposed by congress on the amount of money that it borrows. because we have annual deficits, we are not taking in the much money from taxes as we're spending, we have to increase our debt over time, and that means we have to borrow. but because we have the debt limit, limitation on how much we can borrow, we are reaching a point where the treasury department cannot borrow the

additional money it needs to pay all the bills and also service the outstanding debt that we have. that is a problem. so what the treasury department is doing right now is using extraordinary measures to buy a little time for congress to extend the debt limit. congress often takes this to the deadline come and right now we expect that what we call the time of the government will no longer be able to make all its obligations in full and on time, we expect that to come between mid-october and mid-november, so we could just be weeks away from a really catastrophic event. host: extraordinary measures being deployed, that debt limit reached on august 1. when it comes to that, how do you calculate it? what factors? guest: we have been doing work on the federal debt limit since

2011, and the then fed chairman was visiting and we were working with him closely on the model he developed to help us project when the debt limit would hit. it is much more difficult than a lot of people forecasted, because we are trying to estimate hundreds of millions of payments that come in and out of the government each month. that is not easy, especially when response to covid is causing all sorts of variation, both in terms of spending going out on things like unemployment insurance benefits or small business loans and on the revenue side, the tax side of the equation, where the companies are in stages of recovery, and we do not know how strong revenues will be going forward. so we try to look over all the payments and figure out how big the hole is and when the federal government has run out of room to borrow. so there is no cash on hand, cash reserves to pay the bills. at that point, we would reach

that point with the government will have to find some way to find some obligations, but that would be unprecedented. host: walk us through a scenario where the x date is reached and there would not be by packs or results from congress. guest: the story is all about risk. we have never been any situation in modern history were the u.s. is not able to pay all its bills. i have to emphasize that. there is an incredible amount of uncertainty because we have never been there before. we posted a blog to try to walk through some of the implications, especially for the average american. the first is that out of the hundreds of millions of payments i mentioned earlier, many will not be made on time. so if you are expecting a check from the federal government, that could be in the form of a child tax credit payment, the monthly payments now going out, unemployment insurance benefits, could be some type of business loan, they could all be

interrupted if we go past the x date. the federal government would either be picking and choosing which payments go out the door or more likely delaying all payments except interest and principal on the federal debt, until congress resolves the issue. so there could be missed payments for people that are expecting them. the second is the effect on interest rates, because investors, seeing the u.s. is not paying its bills, might start insisting on higher interest rates, and that could have ramifications throughout the economy because interest rates on everything from mortgages to car loans, many other things, are based on u.s. treasury rates. that can mean higher interest rates over the coming months and years even if we got into a situation where the u.s. was not paying all of its bills. host: shai akabas here to talk about issues of economic matters and deadlines to watch out for. (202) 748-8000 from eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and

pacific time zones. you can text us to (202) 748-8002. mr. akabas, we saw a letter go from the treasury department, speaker pelosi, when it comes to the matter, and it reflects some of what you said about the debt being reinstated, those extraordinary measures, and also adding that the treasury department is not able to provide a specific estimate of how long it will last. then saying, the likely outcome of cash and extraordinary measures being exhausted in the month of october. that was a portion of the letter, and we saw a response from pete -- speaker pelosi last week. i want to play that for you and then get your response. [video clip] >> the constitution says full faith and credit at the u.s. is not to be in doubt, should not be. i do not know how we got this custom of having to deal with it each year, because it is controversial. donald trump, the administration, amassed over $7

trillion in debt, and that is what this debt ceiling lift is paying for. so we are paying the credit card, the trump credit card, with what we would do to lift the debt ceiling. and when president trump was president, we, democrats, supported the debt ceiling, because it is the responsible thing to do. i would hope that the republicans would act in a similarly responsible way. never go back when president obama was president and republicans were insisting on not lifting the debt ceiling, eventually we did, but they were saying we were not going to. even the threat of not lifting it lowered our credit rating. totally irresponsible. so hopefully we do not get in a situation like that. we will have several options. we will make them well known to you as we go forward. host: mr. akabas, what is the likelihood then republicans and

democrats will come to some type of resolve to this issue? guest: let me just say, there is a lot in there that is important. one point is that the speaker is right, the debt that we owe today is not the result of future spending we might do or spending that we're doing right now. it is debt we already incurred. we need to increase the debt limit tumor reflecting spending and tax decisions that have already been made. for example, the relief that was passed on a bipartisan basis to respond to the coronavirus, that has added a significant amount of data over the last 18 months, and that is the amount we should talk about whether we should be accommodating. so spending that has happened in the past, not spending that congress would approve right now or in the future. yount that -- beyond that, the concerning point at the moment is that the two parties are not talking to one another.

there are not any serious negotiations going on about how congress will extend the debt limit, even though we are merely weeks away from a possible x date. they are messaging how they think the debt limit should be extended, democrats calling for republicans to join them and achieve at least 60 votes in the u.s. senate, which is what it would take to extend the debt limit on a regular order basis. and then republicans are saying democrats should do this on their own, because they could, in theory, do it to the process of reconciliation, which is how they are pushing a major budget package simultaneously paired republicans are arguing that because democrats are doing the spending package themselves, they should also pass the federal debt limit in that package on a party line basis. so it is really not a matter at this point of what the two sides are asking for in exchange for getting at debt limit increase, it is just each side pointing a finger at the other and saying they should do with the way they want to do it. that is concerning, because that means negotiations have not even really started yet about how

this will materialize. host: there was a recent interview that the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, ordered with issues on the debt ceiling, saying america must never default and the debt ceiling needs to be raised. the issue is who should do it. under these circumstances, it is their obligation to do it and they have the votes to do it, and they will do it. guest: this is the first time we have seen in the recent history where one party was in control of the house, senate, and the presidency, and actually moving a reconciliation bill at the same time as the federal limit, with the real potential that they could increase it on their own. this sort of happened in 2017, but there was not this sort of discussion about one party potentially increasing it on their own. now that this has been pointed out, it really is a game of chicken with both sides staring each other down and calling for the other side to take their preferred action. we do not know what will happen in that situation, but it is

quite disconcerting. it harkens back to 2011 when we had a really serious run in with the federal debt limit, the first time in my era where it became such a political hot button issue. in that year, we came to the brink. the organization as a downgraded u.s. federal debt from its highest credit rating, aaa, and what could happen this time is other rating agencies could follow suit. that might not sound like a huge problem to the average person, but what it means is that it could materially affect how investors view our debt, and that could raise interest rates and could spread throughout the economy and into all types of consumer functions. so it is something the average american should be watching and concerned about. host: a viewer on twitter makes this statement, congress ties its own hands to limit its self-imposed, nothing to do with the ability of america, sovereign monetary nation, being able to pay its debt.

america cannot "run out" of money. guest: that is generally correct, especially in this moment. it is not a matter of when we can pay our debt, it is whether we choose to. when the s&p downgraded us in the 2011, they said just that, it is not that there is reduced economic or financial ability of the united states to make good on its debts, that is not why we're downgrading you, it is because of the political brinksmanship. if anything, that has only gotten worse over the last decade. the viewer is correct that it is not a matter of whether we can pay our debt, it is whether we will choose to. host: another viewer follows up on the same vein, saying the debt limit is a waste of time, adding should be abolished and that it never has prevented out-of-control spending. guest: another interesting point, which is that over the past 10 years, the debt limit agreements that have been reached have more often been used to increase the debt than they have reduced the debt.

what usually happens us both parties get more of the spending they prefer. historically, the debt limit has served as sort of a break were congress has looked at the issue of fiscal policy and made agreements to help control the size of the text over time. that really is not happening. so it is not serving the initial purpose it was set out for, and it is imposing lots and lots of risk. at the bipartisan policy center, we agree there needs to be reform here. we need to de-risk the debt limit and have a different process so we do not put full faith and credit of the u.s. on the line each time we come up against the debt limit. we have proposed reforming the process by which the debt limit is considered so it would basically go through an expedited basis where the president could request an extension of the debt limit from congress, and the only way it would not happen is if congress overwhelmingly opposed.

but with the president's request, he would need to submit a debt reduction proposal to congress, kickstarting a structure process to debate actual debt reduction proposal and rank spending cuts and tax increases, the real thing needed to get our fiscal house in order. because we do have a major fiscal problem and the years ahead. our debt right now it is over 100% of gdp, more than the size of our economy. that is a challenge we need to address. but the debt limit in its current form is not helping us address that challenge. host: (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones. many of you -- some of you have been tweeting us and posting and texting us. you can also do that. james in mission, texas, you are on with shai akabas. caller: yes, good morning. two quick points. one, i have always been taught if someone comes to you because

they have a debt problem and asks to borrow money, their problem is spending, so you want to address that first, which is what congress has done for many years so don't you think it is odd that the limit right now as far as the debt, needing to extend, but they also looking at a $3.5 trillion spending package. if we cannot pay what we already owe, why the heck are they spending more money? seems to be the best thing to do, don't do it, let us all suffer now so that our children and grand children in the future can actually have a good life. don't you think that is something we ought to consider? host: james in mission, texas. guest: james makes some interesting points, and i do agree that we need to be really careful about what we are committing to in the future because of this large debt problem we have. in my view, it is really important that any large package moving forward needs to be paid for. because we cannot afford to be

making this problem worse. there are reasonable arguments on both sides about what programs we need to be spending more on, what we do not need to be, but whatever we decide to do, it should be paid for so we are not putting our future on it. but it is really different from the current moment where we are debating whether or not the federal government should be extended. so we need to make sure that we make good on our debts and we do not start missing obligations as a united states government, which could impose significant pain on everybody. and then have these debates about what should be done with regards to spending our tax policy moving forward. tying the two together in general becomes very dangerous, because it puts at risk the -- or it calls into question the idea of whether we are going to make good on the payments that we already owe, while debating the payments we're going to spend in the future. i agree with the premise, which is we need to get our fiscal policy under control, and that

means not incurring new, unpaid for spending. but we need to understand that the debt limit in its current moment is very distinct from those decisions about what we're going to do with spending and tax. host: the announcement of the reconciliation bill, some criticized the debt limit was not put into that process. is that a good practice? you spoke about test practices as far as how to treat that. could that be a best practice? guest: it is an option congress has on the table. in order for a reconciliation bill to pass, you need the same party to have a majority in the senate, house, and the presidency. not absolutely, but that is the only rake reconciliation in the modern era really works. the process is used to move party line preferences or tax preferences. that is in theory a way it can be done, but it has never really been done like that. it has always been a bipartisan

vote to extend the debt limit. it does not mean one or the other is right. but we do not have time for the two parties to argue about who will do this, we just need to make sure it gets done. i am mostly here to be helping congress with the information we provide, not looking at political preferences for how it should be done. but it is important that they see that this is fast approaching and the risks are growing closer. host: can congress assist --decide to suspend the debt limit? guest: yeah, that is what has been happening recently. we need to pass it and have it signed by the president, but that is not really a question. instead of increasing the debt limit to a certain amount, we have been suspending it for a certain period of time. operationally, fairly similar, so instead of increasing it by let's say to truly dollars, which is what we would expect to be incurring, we would

just say would not be in effect over that time, then we'll come back into effect. those two are operationally very similar, but i would expect that when they address it this time, they most likely suspend it. but if they do it through the reconciliation process, it would allow democrats to do it on their own, legal scholars are pointing out that it is probably only possible for them to actually increase it. so we might see an increase in that $28.4 trillion limit. host: this is shai akabas of the bipartisan policy institute, talking about deadlines and the debt limit. there is much analysis at their website when it comes to that. bipartisanpolicy.org if you want to read the analysis there. mr. akabas, a question, a larger extent that when it comes to a scenario, if there is a default, what happens to the dollar status as the world reserve currency? guest: that is a huge question

mark. it is one of the big risks we have been discussing. nobody really knows. the economy in the u.s. has never been in a position where it is not paying its bills or it is defaulting on its debt. over time, that could lead to a migration away from the dollar as a reserve currency. it is the basis for a significant share of transactions throughout the global economy, and that could increase the demand for dollars. so if we were to give that up for really no good reason, it would be a self-inflicted wound on the united states. host: sylvia in alexandria, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i was just wondering here, with the politics going on in the u.s., we have, like in texas, restricting when you can have an abortion, yet the ideal that they want to give money to help

people raise their children, that is what president biden is trying to direct some of the funds to, don't you think that if we encourage people to give them money to help them survive with children, because i have raised three kids and i know you never have enough, it is always something, and you usually go into debt to raise her children. so i am thinking, why are we fighting one another so much? we have one side that, you know, raising our debt to help -- to kind of raise the standard of living in our country, not a bad thing, and it might help people in their philosophies as far as what they want, as far as they

are against abortion. well, if you can afford your child, you may not abort the child. host: ok, we will leave it there. mr. akabas? guest: i will pick up on the point that we do really need to increase the amount that we are working with one another in the country and the government, and certainly that is the philosophy behind the bipartisan policy center. we were to provide education, facilitate opportunities for bringing the two parties together around policy. one of the things that we do are these congressional trips where we take a member of congress, a democrat and republican, and we have them visit each other's district. it may sound quaint, but, frankly, those relationships have been deteriorating over time. not much camaraderie between members of congress, as there was many years ago. so we're trying to help facilitate that type of dialogue and hopefully lead to a better future where they are working with one another, by and large,

instead of at each other's throats. obviously, there will continue to be differences on substance. we recognize and appreciate that. but when it comes to the demeanor by which the two parties are interacting, we think there is a lot of room for improvement, and that is why we are working with both parties, not only on the policy but also on building those relationships. host: debt limit aside, another key date come in so to speak, is what happens when it comes to september 30 and the fiscal year , and if issues are not resolved . can you set up what could happen as far as the funding of the federal government, and what happens after september 30? guest: much of the federal government spending is discretionary, which means it is approved on an annual basis. about a third or a little bit more than that of the federal government's spending each year, things like the defense department, a significant portion of that, as well as many other programs throughout the federal government, including pay for all federal employees,

for example. that expires at the end of the fiscal year, september 30, unless congress acts to approve spending for the next year, which is how most budgets work. so we're only a few weeks away from that deadline, and we have not yet gotten close to an agreement about what the federal government is going to be spending and what it will be spending on in the next year. this is not unfamiliar. we often get to this point because congress is not good at meeting deadlines for approving spending, and we have had government shutdowns. we had a long one a couple years ago were many federal employees did not return to work and government services slowed down, national parks slowed down for a. of -- for a period of time. but there are a number of issues imposed with a partial government shutdown, inconveniences, and it can really hurt the person i can federal employee who may not be getting paid for that period of time. it is very different from reaching the -- breaching the

federal deficit, which could have global economic ramifications. both are serious, but one has much, much or distinct risk and potential consequences than the other, and one is much more familiar territory. we have been up against this funding deadline before with the potential government shutdown. i expect congress to pass a continuing resolution, which is to continue last year's spending for an additional period of time so congress can work out the coming year spending. that is not a best practice. as people who have run an organization no, spending on last years programs is not really the best way to do things for the coming year. you want new priorities and new programs. but we will likely see that for at least a few months. host: mr. akabas, there is anything you will know about regular order, about spending bills coming out of committee being passed on the floor.

what happened to that process? guest: it is really broken. any number of reasons for it. one is the political bickering we have seen over the past couple of decades that has made it even more difficult for average rank-and-file members of congress to work with one another. the other is discretionary spending has become so large and with so many programs that it is difficult to work that out on a relatively short timeline, only four to six months to figure out what everything the federal government and the discretionary category should be spending on. a challenge. so these have not been passed on time in many years. we almost always have these continuing resolutions. it is a broken budget process we have today, and we need to look at ways to fix that going forward so we do not have this routine situation where we are not able to look into the next year and agree on what we're are going to be able to fund. one option is biannual budgeting, and that would mean

congress only does this every two years. it could be two years ahead and adjustments could be made as we go along, but we would not have to go through this central process. it might help smooth eggs over and give a little additional time. not sure that is the entire answer, but it could be part of what we do to fix this process. host: dorothy, you are on with our guest. good morning. dorothy in north carolina. caller: yes, good morning. i want to give ron paul and donald trump some credit for one thing, but first i want to make this comment. we do not owe anything to anybody really. this money is being printed by a printing press. that is why they can print so much pizza who do we really owe? the printing press. we do not really owe anybody money. if congress got rid of student loans and other debt, nothing would happen. the money is printed.

rand paul was right when he said we should use the gold standard. we don't. that is why we do not owe anybody. donald trump should have called bankruptcy. nothing would have happened, because we don't owe nobody. we don't -- we owe china $1 trillion, that is it. host: ok, dorothy. thank you. guest: the vast majority of the money we owe people is actually owed to the public, whether that is china, another foreign country, domestic investors, or anybody else. i own some u.s. securities. a lot of average americans, in their retirement accounts are in their per folio's, own some type of u.s. trade. if it was not paid but, it would cause quite a bit of economic destruction. consequences for not only

individuals but obviously the macroeconomy if the u.s. were just to say we are not going to pay back the people we owe. the biggest consequence might be the people who are thinking about lending us money in the future are going to say, why would i do that, because you're not paying anybody back, so this would be an enormous threat to our well-being and the entire global economy. there are certainly questions about how the u.s. currency works and how much money we should be "printing" or how much money the federal reserve should be buying up in securities, sort of like the government owing itself money. but in terms of most of the debt we have outstanding, that is real money that is owed to real investors. if we were not to pay that back, there would be great consequence. host: candace in colorado springs. caller: i am calling in regards to the senate and the congress eating paid.

-- getting paid. why don't they take a pay cut? they do not work a full year. only 180 days. it is ridiculous. in all honesty, they get all these fringe benefits, and it is asinine when i think about it. it is not fair. host: ok. guest: most members of congress that i'm familiar with do work pretty hard, but i'm not really here to defend members of congress in terms of what they get paid. there an interesting proposal that would withhold pay from members of congress of congress cannot pass it's appropriations or its annual spending on time. it is called, no budget, no pay. it is interesting, but the criticism of that proposal is that it would unduly hurt lawmakers who can least afford it. so if you are a lawmaker that has lots of wealth and have no

need for that paycheck in the short term, you could withstand that and hold your position in the debate, whereas members of congress who really rely on that and do not have a lot of wealth would be put most at risk and need to accommodate the other side. that is not a position we want congress to be in, but it is an interesting proposal to think about how we can put the pressure on congress, apply pressure to make sure that they are doing the job and passing spending on time. and coming together to surmount the differences on these issues, so other ideas along the same lines have been to require that congress stay in session, to have a roll call each day or something, when they are not annual appropriations put into place for that year. that type of pressure is certainly appropriate to make sure numbers are not going to their home districts or come on occasion, even on vacation when they have not done their job for the year and pass appropriations.

host: you talk about pressure on congress. how much does the white house have an influence as far as putting pressures on members of congress to get this done? guest: the white house plays a big role, actively involved in the debates, both on the debt limit and not government spending. the treasury department is responsible for protecting the full faith and credit of the united states. secretary janet yellen has been the one sending these letters to congress, updating them on the status of the debt limit, and the potential consequences. they need to be playing an active role, and they are. i think that will continue on the debt limit and government spending. ultimately, this needs to be legislation from congress. it needs to originate in congress. it is not actions the executive branch can take on its own. host: steve in baltimore, maryland. your next. caller: yes, mr. akabas, i could not agree more that this is a legislative branch issue that we

continue to spend ourselves into oblivion, and it does not matter which party. there is a basic equation of the private sector versus the government, and when we have more people working in the government than we do in the private sector, that creates an imbalance, and that and balance you are seeing, because the revenues we're taking in just cannot cover these ballooning facets. in this has been going on since the day i have been born. i have never seen the deficit ever decrease. it always increases. let's get to the point. the point is the legislative branch. the legislative branch of the united states of america is going to turn the united states of america into the next great third world country. thank you. guest: so the caller makes some interesting points. we had the bipartisan policy center have worked on a federal

budget stimulator. it is called federal balancing act. you can type it into google. it tries to show everybody what the government is spending on and what it is taking in in texas. and it -- in taxes. it allows the user to decide what programs should be increased, decreased, tax issues, and they can help give the average person and idea of what our budget looks like moving forward. the goal is to try to make our budget sustainable. not so much looking at this year, but it does have a measure for what our current federal deficit is, which is quite large. more importantly, it is looking 10 to 30 years into the future and saying, what changes need to be made to create a sustainable situation over time? to do this as a country, we're going to need to make some really tough decisions, not only spending. and the caller's right, we need reductions in spending,

especially programs like social security and medicare, which represent a large share of what the federal government spends money on each year, and and less we change those programs, we will not change the trajectory we are on today. but also on the tax side, the fact we need to bring in more revenues to the federal government. the democrats are talking about this in the reconciliation package, but it is only to pay for the new spending that they want to take on. so we will need a broader conversation about how we fix the existing physical problem that we already have, and that will take both spending reductions and tax increases. host: tony from twitter says, why can't the speaker to get her caucus to enact a bill, saying any spending bill must havoc and mr. it -- must have a commiserate lift in the senate. guest: that has been proposed

and is a good idea but the issue is we would still need to increase the debt limit from time to time. it is not really address the underlying challenge and rings mentioned we have here come up because even if you increase it to reflect new inflation, he would not include the fact that the united states continues to increase debt, therefore we need to sometimes not extend the limit. one of the issues here is that lawmakers tend to get off the hook for the increasing debt that they are passing, whether that is the 2017 tax cuts bill, the law passed in congress, or the bill under debate now that would likely add to the deficit being debated by -- being advanced by democrats. so having a requirement that the debt limit the rick -- increased to reflect tax cuts, i do not think it is a bad idea, but it would not necessarily solve the underlying problem, which is we still run up against the debt limit from time to time and need a less risky way of addressing

that. host: wichita falls, texas, craig, hello. caller: hello, pedro. thank you. i have a, two for you and a question for mr. akabas. -- i have a comment for you and a question for mr. akabas. i think c-span would be doing a great service if they could provide some sort of outline or bullets on the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation bill. it looks like $100 million going to bridges and roads, but it also looks like $104 billion going to helping immigrants become legalized. and if you could just talk about the top -- if you could highlight the top 100 things

being spent on, that would be great for your viewers, for your guests. host: go ahead with the question, please. caller: who do we owe all this money to? who are our creditors? is it our bonds? or do we owe this money to china? and if we decided not to pay, what would happen? guest: we do owe this money to --sorry. host: ok, thanks, craig. guest: we owe this money to millions of different entities, many are foreign countries like china. i do not remember the exact percentage of debt held by foreign countries, but it is sizable. a lot of it is held by domestic investors or investing funds, so your retirement funds or your brokerage account, maybe investments in certain types of portfolios that include u.s. treasuries, either directly we

have just purchased a treasury bond or bill or as part of a balanced portfolio with investments in stocks and bonds. so this money is owed to actual people who do not pay that back, and there could be very severe consequences for the individuals expecting to receive that money. it could also really damage our ability in the future to borrow at rock-bottom interest rates today. we have that privilege of borrowing at next to nothing right now because, not only the current economic situation, which lends itself to low interest rates, but because we are viewed as the most trustworthy form of debt in the world. so nobody blinks an eye at purchasing a u.s. security and being confident it will be repaid. but even as we're getting close to the definite text date when the u.s. -- x date, some investors are getting concerned

that we might not pay the principal or interest on those treasury bills that are maturing right around the time of the debt limit. so if there is an unexpected political blow out congress cannot reach agreement and we cross the x date and something happens were the treasury department is not able to prioritize the interest and principal on the debt, investors are seeing that and shying away. so we are seeing interest rates pick up very slightly on those specific bills. that is concerning, because it means investors are getting worried, and they will get more and more worried until congress takes this off the table. host: sean is in new york. go ahead. caller: yes, the elephant in the room that no one is talking about is inflation. when jerry ford was president, he had a slogan, win, and it stood true, whip inflation now.

should we not be looking at inflation and how it could impact the spending ability of the average american? thank you. guest: that is a great point. inflation is a really important topic at this moment. we posted a blog on our site to try and help people understand the basics of inflation, why some inflation is good and necessary for government, but the types of inflation we have been seeing recently can be unhealthy if it goes on for an extended period of time. inflation is about demand exceeding supply, so there is more money chasing services. because we are in such a unique moment, with the reopening and the shutdowns from last year and the effects of the pandemic, we will have to see whether this inflation will be transitory, meaning it will go away once those effects have lifted, or whether it will be persistent and is more of a trend that we

are seeing demand now outpace supply. that will rise prices well into the future at an unhealthy rate. we will have to watch it, but it is certainly something policymakers will have to keep in mind as we think about additional spending that might be adding fuel to the fire, so to say. that does not mean it is wrong to do any spending, but we need to be cognizant of the fact that if we had lots of additional spending, it could further fuel that inflation. it could become a drag on growth and a problem for consumers across the economy in terms of their spending ability. host: bipartisanpolicy.org is the website. shai akabas's director of economic policy. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you for having me. host: next, georges benjamin will discuss the administration's efforts on

covid-19, including the recent plan and build last week. that is coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> you can be part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's student cam video competition. students, we are asking you to create a five to six minute documentary that answers, how does the federal government impact your life? there must be supporting and opposing points of view on a federal policy or program that affects you or your community, using c-span video clips, which are easy to find at c-span.org. the student cam competition rewards $100,000 in total cash prizes, and you have a shot at the grand prize of $5,000. must enter before january 20, 2022. for rules, tips, visit our

website at studentcam.org. ♪ >> " washington journal" continues. host: dr. george bridgeman is executive director of the american public health association, joining us to talk about the biden administration and their fight against covid. dr. benjamin, good morning. guest: how are you? host: well, thank you.

representing public health officials, what is the perception of the latest mandate from last week from the biden administration on covid-19? caller: i think most public health folks are pleased with it. it is the kind of national guidance that i think will make it easier as we go along. the administration has been slowly trying to kind of ramp up, first with the bully pulpit then with incentives, and now getting that last mile done, we have to add the sting, and that is what they have done. host: i saw in your reporting that when it comes to the approach, it might be too little, too late. can you expand? guest: it was not so much of the president had not put out a bold plan. he absolutely did. but there is enormous pushback, and my concern was that the naysayers have got the momentum here. and i wish we had been able to get ahead of them so that the

people that have been pushing against vaccination and, frankly, doing all kinds of crazy things for political reasons, we were able to really push back on that and really get the facts out there. so that is why i was quoted as saying that. host: i say that because, as it currently stands, the cdc says about 53.8% of all americans fully vaccinated. realistically, from the measures introduced last week, how could that number change? can we figure that out? guest: first of all, we should recognize that almost 75 percent of the population has had at least one shot of the eligible population. one of the things that often gets lost here is sometimes we're talking about the whole population, including kids who are not yet eligible, and sometimes we're talking about people who are in the eligible category. if you include the people in the eligible category, we are at the

75% mark. we basically need to push and push to get that other 25%, get as close to 100%. and then when kids are eligible, hopefully soon, we can begin working on getting our children vaccinated. host: as far as the change of the number, when it comes to the specifics of the administration's plan, what will be most effective in that number? guest: i tell you, it will be the work requirement. for a lot of the employers, they still have a large workforce not vaccinated. they say it is a mandate, but it really is a choice, get vaccinated or get tested frequently. they have the legal authority to do that, so you can be sure that people are going to get tired -- usually tired of getting tested every week or they will get tired of paying for it, depending on who is paying for the tests, and a lot of it will come out of individual pockets,

so they will go ahead and get vaccinated. a lot of people just have not gotten around to doing it, not necessarily opposed to it but just have not gotten around to it. this will fully capture them. host: dr. benjamin will be with us until 9:30. you can ask questions by calling. eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. you can text just at (202) 748-8003. dr. benjamin, one of the areas pension by the president last week was health care workers. -- one of the areas the president mention was health care workers. [video clip] pres. biden: my plan was taking the vaccination requirements previously issued in the health care field, already i have announced requirements for vaccinations for all nursing home workers who treat patients on medicare and medicaid, because i have that federal

authority. tonight i am using that same authority to expand that and cover those who work in hospitals, home health care facilities, or other medical facilities. a total of 17 million health care workers. if you are seeking care at a health facility, you should be able to know that the people treating you are vaccinated. simple, straightforward, period. host: for those health-care workers, what do you think about the mandate being targeted towards them? guest: i agree with that 100%. i practiced clinical medicine and emergency medicine, and look, i had to be vaccinated. the reason was not only to protect myself, because i needed to go to work and they needed me at work, and i cannot do that if i am sick, and a second reason is i was around very sick patients, and i did not have the right to expose my patients to a life-threatening disease.

so health care workers have a unique responsibility to not only protect themselves but also to protect the public and their patients. host: is there a sense of where the health care community is as far as their full vaccinations? are they getting it as much as those who are not in the field, are they lower? guest: we talk about health care workers, and it is a broad range of people, from physicians and nurses, the text, health aides -- the techs, health aides, and there seems to be a higher degree of vaccinations in some places, particularly around physicians and a lot of the nursing and administrators. but we are not 100%. early on, the people most at risk were in nursing homes. they died at a much more higher rate than anybody else. and a lot of those workers simply have not yet come around to be vaccinated, and a lot of

it is because of misinformation. so we have to make sure that we're able to answer the questions, because it is ok to have questions about the vaccine. but once those questions are answered, you need to get the shot. host: some response from the american hospital association on what happened last week. they said, we look forward to reviewing the details related to the announcement of the policies in regard to implementation, timing, and need for appropriate exception to accommodate medical and religious concerns, adding come as a practical matter, this may result in the exacerbating a severe workforce shortage problem that persists with the critical challenges we are facing, dealing with severe shortages. are you concerned about possible shortages within the community itself because of these mandates? guest: we have seen that recently. there is a hospital in our country that will not be able to do deliveries because they have lost so many other staff that

are involved in the delivery process. having said that, that is true, you may lose some people because they may not want to be vaccinated, but on the other hand, if they get sick, we're going to lose them anyway. much rather lose them because they chose not to be vaccinated, and then we can give them the information and answer the questions. and it is in their interest and the interest of their patients to get vaccinated versus losing them because they got sick. host: what do you think about the religious concerns over getting a vaccine? guest: the exemptions do occur, and it depends on the situation. we do allow those in our country. i have not found any reason that no one should be vaccinated, and i have historically not been real supportive of these kinds of exemptions except in very

narrow circumstances. host: dr. benjamin, executive director of american public health association. this is from julie in delaware, ohio. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yes, my question is, why isn't the united states postal service not included in these vaccinations, along with the white house and the congress? thank you. guest: i suspect that all the employees of the white house will probably be included. they are federal employees, so i suspect they will be. the postal service is interesting. it is a quasi-government agency, and it is not clear whether or not they are going to be brought into this or not. i do know they will probably have to negotiate some of the postal union, very much like other big is this is, as they begin to implement this, they will have to work through some of their union relationships to make sure it can happen. host: as far as employers, if

they fall under this mandate with 100 plus on the private side, what medical questions do they need to address and who do they work with when it comes to coming up with policy? guest: i think the biggest thing is, how do you manage the paid sick leave, time off? going to get the shot is one thing, but if you do not feel well for a day or two afterwards, some people when they get vaccinated, they feel great afterwards, and how do you manage that and time that? i think the biggest issue for me will be, how do you document for those people who choose to take the test -- how do you do that? particularly if it is a self test, how do you manage that process? businesses are beginning to do that right now. some are testing anyone that comes into their establishment or into the office. but they will have to put in the

procedures and policies and figure out how to do that in a fair way. just the logistics. host: how do self tests come into the picture as far as the overall plan? guest: it will reduce the cost. some companies have agreed -- i know amazon, kroger, and one other company agreed to reduce the costs of the self-test. so that means you can get it at a very low cost. the question is then, how do you validate that test and then bring it into your employer to show them that you actually are disease-free? host: as far as the accuracy of the test, would you compare it to if you go to a hospital or clinic? guest: yeah, every test has some false positives and false negatives, so it is not as accurate as the pcr test, the one they stick in your nose and it takes two or three days to test. but this is all about all that ia

layer a protections that will reduce the risk. is there zero risk? no. if we do this right, we will be able to extinguish the pandemic we are having. host: frank in pennsylvania. hello. you are on. caller: my argument, i'm vaccinated. i don't think american should be forced to be vaccinated. mandating vaccines -- vaccinations would be enforcing a penalty to gather information. they are forcing them to be an agent of the state. that would mean it's unconstitutional. states would have the ability.

states are required vaccinations. it gets into that. doesn't give the federal government that power. they would need to create a lot law to do this. the federal government has not been able to do this. host: what would you like our call it -- guest to address? caller: the constitutionality of the mandate. is this going to be something that is constitutional? guest: the answer is all the lawyers i've talked to says it is. they are giving employees a choice. he is doing it under the things he controls. he's the boss of the federal government. he is the employer. he is managing his employees. he is encouraging big business to do this under the osha law. we protect employees under workers comp, workers

protections all the time. that's why when you work on a construction site there are rules around the safety of that site. that's why when you go into a business, we have rules around how to protect those employees of the business. we do that under the osha rules all the time. that's how they are planning to do this. it is clearly legal and it has been constitutional. let me add one other thing. first of all, thank you for being vaccinated and protecting those around you. i also want point out public health is often practiced at the federal, state, local level. i would encourage our states to step up the plate. when i was a health commissioner, i was the commissioner in maryland, we did

exercise those authorities around vaccinations. we also did it under a federal framework. we were very happy to do that under biden. i think it's going to work. host: you heard the comparisons with george washington mandated a vaccine for his troops. how do you compare this with how we are treating it covid? guest: smallpox under george washington threatened to destroy the continental army. having had smallpox when he was younger, he understood the disease. he required his troops to be vaccinated. it did save the day. i was in the military pray i had to take a lot of shots. i couldn't document i had a vaccination. i was required to do it.

there are a lot of federal authorities. you are the employer and you get to do this stuff. the other thing the president is doing where he can't mandate it, he is using the bully pulpit. i hope more elected leaders would use the bully pulpit in a much more assertive way to correct misinformation as well as encouraging citizens to get vaccinated. host: keyport, new jersey. caller: over 100 million americans of already had and recovered from covid. they are in a better position than people who are getting the vaccine today. why aren't they be given freedom not to get a vaccine given their state of immunity. guest: there are some questions about that. one of the reasons we are vaccinating people who had the disease is there was early data that suggested they were not as

protected. we may find out different things. one of the things we have had over this very disease is every day we learn something new. i've got to tell you, what we do know is people who are vaccinated are significantly protected from getting sick and dying. people who have had covid and then have been able to recover seem to have from -- some protection. we don't know how long it will last. we are recommending they get vaccinated. host: dr., children have to get vaccinated before they start school. isn't that a mandate? guest: it's an absolute mandate. i will tell you a quick story. in the early 90's when i was a

health commissioner in d.c., we had a low vaccination rate. the bush administration, bush senior, worked across the nation in a very aggressive drive to get our vaccination rates up. the reason you see such high rates now for childhood vaccines was because we had an administration working with the federal and state and local level to make it happen. the president calls the commissioners into the rose garden. he gave us a speech, go out and get people vaccinated. they provided funding and support. we got it done. most of this increased our mandates to make that happen. host: there is a story in the new york times, the fda is warning people not to get children under 12 vaccinated yet. guest: we need to wait until

it's approved for children. you want to make sure you are giving kids the right dose. in doing that, we need to wait until it is approved by the fda. host: back to schools, do you foresee a situation where schools have a change in instruction because of covid cases? guest: there's no question about it. as we reopen, we will have cases. we will have outbreaks. the challenge is when we have the vaccine it, we can rush out and vaccinate everybody in a very aggressive manner. we could bring this to a screeching halt. it does take time. we have a lot of people who had questions about taking the vaccine. it is here and it's going to be here for a while. we are going to have many

outbreaks. we are going to have quarantining, closing things in selective ways for some time. we will be vaccinating people who are and vaccinated around. this is what we do and we have measles outbreaks. host: do you see what we saw in the early stages of covid? guest: we are seeing classrooms individually closing because of outbreaks in those schools. hopefully we can clear those kids quickly and get them back. that's going to be our life going forward. host: good morning. caller: good morning.

i support the mandate and the vaccine. this is a general illness. everyone needs to be vaccinated. we -- it doesn't matter what your reason this is just politics people are making. you should get vaccinated. that's it. guest: thank you for that. i agree. we should all get vaccinated. there's a website the ad council has. you can go if you have some questions answered. your health care provider should be able to give you good answers. host: this is linda from texas

on twitter. the flu shot interfered with the covid vaccine. guest: it does not interfere with the covid vaccine. you can at them at the same time. you've still got time if you want to separate them. i have gotten my flu shot. i got vaccinated in march. this pam from michigan. caller: my question is the testing. we've been doing testing for almost two years. there are quite a few people that tested positive for covid who now have antibodies. is there something different about this virus that we are not

being told? there is no cure for the virus. all they can do is prime your body. the flu shot doesn't care the few. -- flu, all it does is help your body handle it at her. shouldn't we be looking at herd immunity? if it's so prevalent, why aren't they vaccinating the people coming across the border as they come in? guest: it looks like she knows about the science. they are vaccinating people that come across the border. if you are an american citizen and you leave the country, you

have to be tested before you come back. we are definitely giving people vaccine if they get infected, one of the early collars asked about that. we are encouraging you to be vaccinated because we are not sure about how protected you are simply by the infection. having said that, we will learn things over time. what we do know is as the caller said, when you get exposed to the disease, your body does create antibodies. they wane over time. they're having a conversation around boosters.

some people may need a third shot when they don't have the immune problems other people have. host: this is the president from last week talking about boosters. >> last month, our top doctors announced an initial plan for booster shots for vaccinated americans. it will likely provide the highest level of protection. the question of which booster shots and went to start them will be left completely to the scientists at the f -- fda and cdc. while we wait, we've done our part. we hope that enough booster shots and a distribution system is ready to administer them.

those eligible will be able to get a booster right away. tens of thousands of sites across the country for most americans at your nearby drugstore and for free. host: i'm sure you had people say they've had two shots. guest: if everyone goes back to last fall, what we saw was when you got your first shot, your body got a boost. when you got the second, you got a bigger boost. the question is when you get a third shot, are you going to get a bigger boost? those are the questions they are asking. they have immune diseases or on chemotherapy.

it's not as high and not as long. they are authorizing those people to get a third shot. the question is, what is necessary for the rest of us? that's the debate going on. israel and britain have already made the decision looking at their data that their citizens, either older or all their citizens, will get a third booster. a third shot that will be considered a booster shot. in the united states, we are having that debate. host: is it a different formulation of what people have previously gotten? guest: that's a great question. right now, it's the same. do you really need to get the same for everybody else? you need to get the same shot if

you are immunocompromised. how much of a shot do you need to get? it will be the same basic vaccine. in most cases, it will be dose dependent. do we give kids a full dose or a half dose? host: georges benjamin is with the american health association. tina is in alabama. good morning. caller: thanks for being here. what's the difference with natural immunity addressing the different virus? guest: remember that what happens when your body gets exposed to a disease like this, your body makes antibodies and they try to destroy or protect you from that virus.

for those of us who may have been exposed to the disease early on last year, earlier this year, we were exposed to a different variant of the virus then the delta. your body makes slightly different protections based on that. these are on the virus. they often recognize multiple places on the virus. it changes over time. that's why we get a flu shot every year because the virus changes every year. they construct a vaccine to deal with the virus they think will most likely be exposed to. it's an evolving process. the virus changes and your

antibody system recognition of the virus changes over time. the tests show the vaccines we've gotten do for the most part protect us substantially against even the delta variant. most of the other common variants. the concern is at some point we are going to get a mutation in that virus that none of these vaccines work and our bodies have not seen it before. the cycle will start all over again with another sars coronavirus that is a variant that may be more lethal because our bodies have not seen it. host: derek in maryland. hello. caller: good morning. this is a good conversation. i wanted to chime in on the natural immunity piece. what's happened now, the

efficacy numbers have dropped within the current vaccine. we saw a double digit drop in july. it has continued to wayne everson's. what's happening is if you look at israel, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world at 83%, they had over 600 patients hospitalized and 59% were vaccinated. they've done studies on the natural immunity piece. it's not really a part of the conversation. we talk about the chasing of the numbers. they have proven to show an improvement against severe illness. it's looking more and more with the israeli data there is much

more broad based protection with natural immunity. we are being forced to get the vaccine because we don't have the data yet. that's not the right approach. i think more study needs to be done. there is eight months minimum natural immunity protecting people against the newer strains. i think it's disingenuous that is not front and center. guest: his point, let's understand that natural immunity can provide some traction. of course. over 600,000 people have died. it would be much worse, we would have had millions more. let's go back to 1918 when we

didn't have a vaccine for the influenza that had our country. 50 million people died worldwide. we have about 4.5 million. vaccines have prevented us from hitting the 50 million death mark. that's the difference. we could have a debate about which protects more, we note the vaccines prevent you from getting to the 50 million death mark. natural immunity does not. host: carol in tennessee. good morning. caller: i have a question about the person on the ventilator. when it -- is it going to be turned off? guest: that's individualized

based on patients. a ventilator is a tool to help you breathe or yourself. people don't turn off ventilators without there being brain death or for some other reason. the individual decided they don't want to live on a ventilator forever. it's a very complicated decision. in most cases, if the ventilator goes off after someone is at cardiac arrest, they are either brain dead or they have had a cardiac arrest and died. it's a very complicated decision. it was one of the toughest things i've ever had to do when i was practicing clinical medicine. host: new york, hello. caller: i'm upset about the

politics on both sides. that's why i'm leaving the democratic party. i am vaccinated. my problem with this is there shouldn't be politics on either side. i think it's just a control issue. pbs ran a special about the spanish flu. we did all the singing -- same things. it turned out it was a virus instead of a bacteria. i think people are looking. we didn't do it right. it wasn't done right in the spanish flu. i also get the flu vaccine. i didn't use too. recently i got sick and i got 10 times sicker than i did. i am vaccinated.

i'm very offended by the way this is being handled. i understand why people are saying no to the vaccine. guest: i hate the politics on this. let me ask you some quick questions. around flu vaccines, we encourage it every year. sometimes the flu vaccine efficacy is 60% or lower. people get the flu shot and then get the flu. overall, people do better and we have less morbidity when we get the flu shot every year. i have never -- when i've taken the flu shot. i know some people with breakthrough infections even though they've had the flu shot.

the difference was we didn't know viruses existed. the reason it's called influenza is because we thought it was a bacteria. it was a bacteria called influenza. it might've been an -- they thought it was a bacteria. later did people understand there was something called a virus. the antibiotics didn't work. you see lots of stories around vaccination. just for the callers interest, last night i pulled the minutes from our meeting in 1918. we delayed our meeting from october to december in chicago in order to get outside the peak

of the infection. i read the minutes of those meetings. the scientists of the day had a debate around bacteria. what they considered vaccinations weren't working. the social distancing, mask wearing was. host: a couple of questions about boosters. if someone got a pfizer shot, do they have to get the same brand? guest: i don't know the answer to that. that's when the questions the fda will need to answer when they approve the moderna vaccine. they need to clarify that for people getting the current one.

host: what options are therefore people got the johnson & johnson. guest: it's not approved yet. unless they say you can mix and match, i would wait. having said that, we did have time when people inadvertently got the wrong shot. there were some studies where they did some mixing and matching. it's my understanding there were no effects of the mixing and matching. host: terry is in washington state. caller: i am preparing to get vaccinated. i know people who have had covid. even the new strain. their doctors feel very strongly the antibodies are much stronger than the current vaccines.

the bottom line is the vaccines that are currently out there, they have not improved them. why isn't the biden administration having these companies create a better vaccine instead of what is out there. i think they are not as good. guest: thank you for the question. they are doing studies. they are working with the company's and looking at different kinds of vaccines in adults. the companies are looking at what happens as they change. they're looking to see if the need to change those vaccines to be more targeted to a new variant that might come up. the good news is the is occurring. it has been funded.

obviously, like the flu shot, i can't project what the update will do. you may get an updated vaccine when we go to boosters. you very well may get a slightly different version like we do with influenza. host: one more call. this is from jacksonville, florida. mary in jacksonville? caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes we can. caller: my question is about the vaccine dosages. my biggest concern and i have gotten both vaccines. my concern is i'm not a big

individual. my dosage was the same one as a person who is a bigger size. this the same concern as kids. is there any discussion of checking your antibody based on that? is there such a thing as too much antibody in your system? guest: with most adult vaccines, they give you the standard dose for all adults. they do scale it down for kids for a variety of reasons. the amount of liquid in the vaccine and the amount of material in their is very small.

it doesn't take a lot to stimulate your body. the vaccine dosage tends to be the same for most vaccines. having said that as we go forward, for people with immune disease, they are going to give them the full dose as a third booster. we may find out that we don't need as much. there are some dosage studies going on right now. does it need to be the same amount of material to activate your antibody system? obviously, there are concerns around making sure we don't over vaccinate people. for a variety of reasons, most

of the rest of the world hasn't been vaccinated. if we are serious about this, we have to make sure everybody gets vaccinated. host: dr. georges benjamin is the executive director. thank you for your time. we will finish off the program with open form. you can comment on the segments we've seen. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independent voters, (202) 748-8002. we will take those as washington journal continues. >> 20 years ago, two large commercial airliners flew into the world trade buildings in new york city.

2700 63 people lost their lives. a few minutes later, flight 77 crashed into the pentagon, killing 189 people. a fourth plane, united 93, crashed near shanksville, pennsylvania. 44 perished. these events were a great shock to our nation. as a small way to commemorate this moment, here are some of the callers to the c-span network the morning after. >> the entire united states that shut down. you are talking to people around the country who are shaken to their roots i this. >> a look back on book notes plus. listen at c-span.org or wherever

you get your podcasts. >> weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. discover, explore, the weekend on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: this is open form until 10:00. if you want to have us a call, you can call on the lines or text us at (202) 748-8003. the washington times talks about efforts to craft a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill and an

interview done with joe manchin on his thoughts on the built process. here's what he had to say yesterday. >> you could support this? now we are getting to brass tacks. it's a cost issue. >> it's going to be a lot more than 3.5. they aren't scored out that far. i'm just saying we should be looking at everything and we are not. we don't have the need to wash -- rush into this. we've got child nutrition, i want to make sure that children are taken care of, that people have an opportunity to go back to work with that being said,

people are talking that we can't find help or there is a reason for that. >> what would this bill look like if you were writing it? >> i would be looking at adjusting the tax code. the 2017 tax code was weighted unfairly to the wealthy. we need to change it. i'm not going to shoot myself in the foot. host: that is from the sunday shows. the senate gavels and at 3:00 this afternoon. the house returns september 20. you can follow along on our website. they are working on voting rights when the house returns on the 20th. that was senator joe manchin from yesterday. one of the people responded to that was senator bernie sanders, a key driver of the

reconciliation package responding to senator manchin. >> how do you get to a place where there is something that can be done. >> i tell you how we get it. the american people are going to speak out on this. every poll i have seen whether you are a democrat or working-class republican or independent, overwhelming support for this. the president wants it. this is not like a 50-50 split in the caucus. i'm chairman of the buddy -- budget committee. nine democrats want to support a $6 trillion ill. we need at least this. there has been a significant compromise. if you think about the house as well, these two bills, the bipartisan infrastructure bill

are down the path together. senator manchin worked very hard on the bipartisan will. it would be a terrible thing for the american people if they failed. they are linked together. host: the hill reports that house democrats are looking to raise the corporate tax rate as a way to pay for the social spending plan according to a source. that rate will be higher than the current rate of 21% lower than the proposed rate of 28% rated their eyeing an increase on capital gains. joe in georgia starts us off. go ahead. caller: i've been calling c-span for 30 years. we've got to stop this plan. we need to be cutting spending. i've got the best news.

marjorie taylor green have joined together to elect small business champions will put the taxpayers first instead of the special interests and big spending. i think they are super american heroes. i love your network. host: from birmingham, michigan. this is our independent line. caller: good morning. a couple of things. i am disappointed that in the discussion of the pandemic, we have had a year to risk -- discussed the risk of our nation. we have data showing from a 50% risk reduction. just adding a few feuds and

vesicles, this is not eating twigs and berries. we know how much cardio metabolic health has to do with the risk of covid-19. in terms of the mandating of vaccines for people who have had previous infection, there are more proteins that the person who survived is exposed to and there is no rush to waste vaccine on people unless they are immunocompromised. people have been previously infected can back off on that and spread the supply throughout the world. one last point. we have 400 sudden infant deaths from secondhand smoke.

we don't and smoking. based on the logic, that's what we should be doing based on 400 infants. host: the democrat mind. caller: i'm calling with a program suggestion. there is a bill in the house now to create a federal infrastructure bank. there is a website for this subject. this would not be taking from the budget or raising taxes and not the private problems. this method was used several times in the past, once under fdr. it would be great if you would get somebody on to speak about the natural infrastructure bank. host: what interests you about it? caller: we do need

infrastructure. the congress is not doing very well in funding it. host: what would a bank do to change the situation? caller: they would make money available specifically for infrastructure. host: doris is in mississippi. good morning. caller: hello? good morning. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i would say no 1000 times against this bill. i am 81 years old. we cannot afford any more taxes. we are still getting over covid. i have a degree in economics. i am understanding economics. the american people i've talked to are all against this bill. host: you are talking about the

reconciliation bill? caller: i'm talking about this 3.5 alien dollar bill. -- billion dollar bill. host: yes. caller: we don't need to do all of this spending. we need to be more careful with our money. we've blown billions of dollars and we need to become more responsible. host: ok. a couple of matters of international news, there is a profile in politico on the secretary of state. the afghanistan situation has led him to face criticism.

two hearings are set if you are interested. for affairs committee will talk to him live at 2:00 this afternoon. you can see that on c-span or c-span.org. you can follow along the foreign relations committee which will be tuesday at 10:00 in the morning. those are the platforms you can follow. when it comes to north korea, the ap reporting that north korea says it has tested newly developed long-range cruise missiles over the weekend. they continue to expand their military capability. the state run korean central

news agency reported they hit targets 1500 kilometers saturday and sunday. when it comes to issues of military and global security, you may want to be interested in the brookings institution. he talks with the institution about global security challenges , including the state of american defense. you can follow that on c-span 2. you can download and listen to the free c-span radio at. the wall street journal is reporting about iran allowing some nuclear inspectors in the country. it came after the agency director made a last-minute trip to end the bid and persuade iran to step up its cooperation ahead

of the meeting of the top members starting on monday. you can read more on that in the wall street journal. thanks for waiting in illinois. caller: good morning. i think dr. jill biden, speaker pelosi, senator feinstein, maxine waters, they should all be sent to afghanistan without any security and see what happens to them. host: what are you suggesting by that? caller: they should find out what he did to the women that are in afghanistan. they should know and feel it. host: meaning what? it sounds like you are suggesting violence toward these

women? let's clarify. is that the case? caller: they need to find out what life is like under taliban. host: that is teresa. let's go to texas. caller: it's not then reported, but it was in the times. biden got on television and took a victory lap. what he didn't tell americans was he killed civilians that were unloading water. why isn't that being reported? what kind of man do we have in the white house? host: let's go to anthony in kentucky. good morning. anthony in cash land, kentucky. caller: can you hear me?

in my lifetime, we've been for wars we never should've been into. we've built up all these other countries and wasted lives and money. it hasn't built one school in the united states. why don't we concern ourselves with fixing our own country and quit worrying about everybody else? host: the washington post reports that when it comes to january 6 that officers may face discipline, reporting that violations were sustained and action was recommended in connection with three complaints. the agency said the other three complaints involved failing to comply with directives. no details were given.

the officers were not named and the discipline recommended was not specified. capitol police did not respond to questions on sunday. if you go to the wall street journal, information concerning the events of september 11, the headline says it was part of a probe into the events on that day. fbi agent described the phone records. the memo showed a flurry of phone contact around the arrival in los angeles. some witnesses contradicted the claims. it denied knowledge of the plot. some names were redacted. the wall street journal is where you can find that story.

kenny is in north carolina. caller: hello. the thing about afghanistan, at least biden did something for the country and not for his own political gain. i don't think he will gain short-term out of this. i think he will in the long term. we did not show everybody we abandoned the kurds. we abandoned people in central america. host: why do you think the president will gain in the long run? caller: because we will finally be out of the war we should have never been in. i was for this and was for george bush when they went in. there were over 100 countries that would help us out. he and dick cheney said we will

do it all on her own. just like vietnam, this was to make money for the military industrial complex. host: you have heard some comparisons between saigon and afghanistan. caller: when you lose a war, it's bad, if trump pulls out, when you lose a war. it's bad no matter who pulls out. host: this is pierre. hello. caller: i think it's unfair what biden is being accused of. there was no way for him to realize the afghani's were not going to be able to keep their army together. it's not fair. host: you don't think they had a sense this was happening? caller: i really think that the

other countries who continue to say they are supportive of us, the g7 or nato, they should all work together and should have gotten people out. everybody wants to give him lame for what he did. it makes no difference who the president would have been. if they weren't going to protect their own country, there was going to be a headache getting people out. host: would you say the events of the pullout managed by the of ministration were done the best way possible. caller: i believe he did what he could do with the situation that was presented him. i believe that no matter what have been in the administration, they would've had chaos. host: pierre in ohio.

a couple of other stories from the washington post about the taliban. they are allowing restricted access to study. that is the washington post. when it comes to afghans coming to the united states at certain bases, the washington times highlights an associated press story about a facility in el paso. they allowed the press to be

granted access to one of the installations housing afghans. there were not allowed to talk with any evacuees or spend more than a few minutes where they were gathered. this story is accompanied right several photographs that give you a sense of what's going on in the facilities there. we let you take a look at them while we take our next call. andrew is in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. you have to understand the middle eastern mind, which a lot of people don't know. they have been warring for centuries. we can't begin to understand what they are all about. what i'm saying is we have problems in this country. we have an infrastructure falling apart.

we have people without health care. it is time to stop being the policeman of the world. it is draining the capital of this country and killing our young men and women who go off in harm's way. thank you. host: john is next up in wyoming. caller: good morning. i'm upset by the drone strike episode. seven children, noncombatants. everybody can look at the video. he was not a combatant. this is why a lot of the hatred to america exists. they did this for political reasons. we can't continue this way. seven kids.

if they were your kids, what would you do? you would want to retaliate. host: that is john in wyoming. the associated press reporting amy coney barrett expressed concerns about the public supporting partisan institutions. they must not let personal bias creep into their decisions. stephen breyer was asked about democrats on capitol hill suggesting he might retire from the bench. here is what he had to say. >> i think they are entitled to their opinion. here we are. what else do you want me to say? >> they would say you ignore

those calls and increase the chances that a republican senate will be there to confirm your successor. >> there are many factors. quite a few. the role of the court is one of them. the situation, the institutional considerations, i believe in my own mind i think about those things. host: why did you retire? wax on balance, i decided i wouldn't retire. host: you can see more on the fox news network. this is sue in ohio. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. on the afghanistan withdrawal, no one feels worse than i do about those 13 we lost.

i don't think the withdrawal whether it was 50 years ago in another war or today, you could fly a cargo plane and have thousands of people lined up and no one would notice. host: one more call this morning. this is martin in colorado. go ahead. caller: i am a retired desert storm veteran. i think 20 years of afghanistan was a waste of time and money. host: go ahead and finish your thought. caller: i think it was a waste of time that the u.s. army was over there for 20 years and we've got people in this country that are homeless. we should have taken care of this country first before we

went over there and wasted all of that money. host: that is martin from colorado finishing off this half-hour open form. if you want to see the secretary of state, the first session will be at 2:00 today. you can go to the website for more information. that is it for our program. another addition comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. see you then. >> coming up, congressional leaders hold a ceremony on the steps of the u.s. capitol to mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, watch it

live here on c-span at noon eastern. later antony blinken starts testimony regarding u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan, appearing before the house foreign affairs committee live today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. on tuesday he faces questions from the senate hearing committee. both sessions on c-span. the u.s. senate returns from the summer break today for a debate on the president biden's nominations come and the senate dabbles in at 3:00 p.m. eastern. the house remains on a district work break. later in the month members are expected to vote on infrastructure. live coverage of the house on c-span in the senate on c-span two and online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. this week our series january 6

views from the house, c-span sat down with lawmakers to recount their first-hand experiences on january 6 during the attack on the u.s. capitol. or team members of congress shared stories of what they saw, heard and experienced that day. january 6, views from the house come up weeknights at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these companies and more including charter communications. >> rod band is a force for empowerment and that is why charter has invested building infrastructure and technology and empowering opportunity in

communities. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers having you a front row seat to democracy. >>, reflections from former secretary of state condoleezza rice and former defense secretary james mattis joined others on the 20th anniversary of the september 11 attacks on america. this is one hour. >> that they the president awoke in sarasota, florida, where he would attend -- americans went to work under cloudless skies on a flawless, early autumn day. at 8:46 in the morning, a commercial aircraft