>> that's -- charter has invested billions fielding infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunities in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> here is what's coming up on washington journal. a preview of the week ahead at the white house with catherine doyle. afterward christina marcos previews the week ahead in congress including action on president biden's build back better agenda and the potential government shutdown at the end of the week. international crisis group's discusses the u.s. involvement in the ran nuclear deal. then johns hopkins university assistant professor dr. brian

miller on covert burnout -- covid burnout. be sure to join our discussion with phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. washington journal is next. ♪ host: for many years through many congresses and presidents, the last week of september has always been crunch time. fraught with uncertainties, the fiscal year ends september 30 and the federal government faces the possibility of a shutdown if new spending is not in -- not approved. this year brings added democratic deadlines to pass a package on infrastructure and a three point $5 trillion further social program spending bill. top priorities of president biden. the morning and welcome to washington journal. it is sick, or 27th, 2020 one.

we will spend this first hour talking about your priorities for congress, spending priorities that is. 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. for independents, 202-748-8002. for text you can send it to 202-748-8003. we will look for your post sought -- posts on facebook and you can send those at c-span wj on instagram and twitter. just to reset the scene would congresses facing and where the house has been, last week the house was in session and they passed a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded pass to the end of the fiscal year. it's a short-term measure. it passed in the house and now it has to make its way in the

u.s. senate. it would fund the government through december 3 of this year. a nine week stretch and it would also suspend the debt limit until summer 16th of 2022. in that package in addition to keeping the federal government open and the other agencies open, they've added nearly $29 million for natural disaster relief, hurricane ida and wildfires. $6.3 billion for the resettlement of afghan refugees. that is just one of a number of items on the plate for the house and senate this week. our live coverage of the house all week on c-span and of the senate over on c-span two. this is from the new york times. for schumer and pelosi, the challenge of a career with no margin for error. as all outward appearances suggested gridlock on capitol hill, senator chuck schumer and the majority leader were in

perpetual motion grasping to salvage their three point $5 trillion social policy and climate change bill. on tuesday mr. schumer convened a breakfast for 20 democratic senators, sit down with key democratic moderates and then on to the weekly lunch with the full democratic caucus. last wednesday he writes ms. pelosi sandwiched a confab with the ways and means chairman between meetings with leaders of britain and australia, a greeting house democrats as they picked up lunches in her office and rushed to the white house to meet with president biden in mr. schumer. they rallied with the league of conservation voters and met up with the leaders of the house's caucuses and then headed to the home of representative dunn by a -- representative don beyer. the multiple tasks piling up,

resent -- represented a particular set of daunting challenges. at $3.5 trillion, social policy and just an update on where the house democrats are. democrats will hold a late afternoon caucus meeting on the way forward on the infrastructure bill social spending plan. what are your spending priorities for congress? the lines, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. for independents 202-748-8002.

will >> -- >> overwhelmingly, i've never seen actually over 95% of caucus for anything. there are some who disagree and i respect that about the size of the package and some in the senate as well. we have to find our common ground respectful of each other's view. this isn't about moderates versus progressives, overwhelmingly the entirety of our caucus except for a few whose judgment i respect support the vision of joe biden and we

will make progress on it this week. >> you said you have support of 95% of democrats. the problem is you need 98% or 99% to pass the bills. i know you said the indestructibility. but the leader of the progressive caucus is bulking. she said voting on this bill tomorrow is an arbitrary data. and that more than 50 members will vote no if we don't have agreement on the broader social investment bill. so you confident these embers will vote yes even though she says no. >> we will pass the bill this week. i promise would bring the bill to the floor. we will bring the bill tomorrow for consideration. i would never bring a bill to the floor the doesn't have the

votes. host: your spending produce for congress. brandon says health care, infrastructure and climate change and things that must be invested in. robert glass said they had three days to raise the debt ceiling or governmental shutdown. all congressional play should be suspended immediately. if you'd run a business this way you would be fired and lose all financial compensation from your employment. then smith says refund social security in 34 -- 734 years i can collect what i paid for the last 25 and counting. scott says just stop, it's not your money. legislation in particular beyond the continuing resolution of the senate now has to pass. the indestructibility you heard the speaker talking about. what's in that bill? there's $100 billion for roads and bridges, 66 billion dollars

for freight and passenger rail. $65 billion to expand broadband internet in the u.s.. $46 billion for severe weather resilient operations. $39 million for transport and 25 -- 35 -- $39 billion for transport. the new york times asked congressional offices, governor offices and state agencies what their top state projects would be if they were able to get some federal funding for that. we will look at some of that this morning as well. let's go to your calls and hear from eastpointe, michigan first briton go ahead. -- first. go ahead. guest: -- caller: when was the last time we as americans heard this bill will pay for itself. the last time waita bill pay for itself was clinton democrats and republicans got together and created a program with budget

surpluses. today we have a $29 trillion debt so obviously this bill will not pay for itself. this country is facing danger 20 years from now for our children and grandchildren. i think the only solution that there is is for more and more people to become independents and when it comes time for the election vote out all the incumbents. what we have to do is our children and grandchildren is that the u.s. flips the script. host: this is from the usa today. moderate democrats are hesitant about bidens agenda. they sent doormats to vulnerable democrat supporting legislation. we are sending doormats to

remind that they let nancy pelosi walk all over them said represented tom, of minnesota who leads the group. nobody wants to take the legislation integrated tax on energy based on british thermal units. house numbers devoted -- house members who voted on it call it getting btued. in alabama, here is michael on the democrats line, good morning. caller: i would like everybody to remember what they are voting to fund is what donald trump has

already spent, nearly $8 trillion, much of which went to the military, money they did not even ask for. i know there will be republican saying they are spending way too much, trump has spent more than anybody has and unfortunately the democrats went along with it. but now that of course the democrats are in office, the republicans ought to balk at the -- what they wish to spend, which is basically to help the general public. that's all i have to say, thank you. host: a busy week on capitol hill and also at the white house , joined next by the white house reporter for the washington examiner who is here with us to talk about the week ahead, the president busy over the weekend.

he and his staff talking to lawmakers about the votes ahead. guest: thanks for having me. a big week for the president's agenda. the hard infrastructure bill is up for a vote on thursday and according to politico reporting, the democrats in the house confirmed the president hasn't been whipping votes hard enough and they need to focus more attention on -- that they can get, kratz aligned in order to proceed with the bill. host: the continuing resolution was passed in the house last week and has to be passed by the senate to avoid a government shutdown. what can you tell us about the administration's preparations for a potential shutdown. >> the administration has begun to reach out to staff at various agencies. they sent out a memo last week. alerting their employees the need to consider the government could be shutting down as soon

as the end of the week. preparations are underway but given we are in a pandemic there is concern that doing something at that time, of the shutting down at this time could pose real problems to the administration efforts to continue to hold the spread of coronavirus and manage that. >> debate on these measures brought up the issue of crisis of the southern border. with the haitian migrants crossing at del rio. the headline from your piece over the weekend, the del rio encampment cleared as thousands are expelled and returned to mexico or in line asylum. what is the administration -- what is the next step of the administration on this? >> the administration is confronting pressure from republicans to find a solution

to protesting these migrants inside the country and who are waiting asylum processing. we were told on friday by the secretary that a thousand people have turned across the border. there's also pressure from democrats over the deportation flights that have been continuing that say at least 2000 sent 2000 people back to haiti and last week we saw a senior administration official resign over this fact calling it inhumane and calling the biden administration's treatment of patients counterproductive. the administration is wrestling with their desire to get a handle on the crisis at the border, of the huge number of migrants arriving and at the same time being able to reconcile their practices with the kinds of policymaking that

members of their caucus are looking for. >> have you heard anything from the white house in terms of this issue hindering efforts on capitol hill to engage and bring republican members onto the side of the issues in the infrastructure bill, social spending measure, the climate change measure in the house and senate this week, is the border issue a problem in that regard? guest: it has been a political problem for biden with republicans for several months now. attempts to add immigration issues to legislation with the biden administration is putting up for -- putting forward on capitol hill, they would like to see the president appear to take things in a more serious way than i think many republicans believe he has. host: the president is staying in washington also the week but

staying to chicago -- heading to chicago on wednesday for an event dealing with vaccine mandates. what can you tell us about that and the administration's efforts on mandates. host: the administration has been -- guest: the administration has been working hard on vaccine uptake. they are going to allow certain demographics and communities to begin their boosters shots, but at the moment -- at the same time they are trying to raise uptake amongst the general population. at the moment the general population more than just the total vaccination population for people who received a full two shot regiment is about 55% according to the latest numbers that i've seen and in order to fully reopen the country as biden has been pressing to do and is republicans would like to do, think that there is urgency to stepping this up. you see biden going out to chicago this week, he is trying to encourage other companies,

his mandates urged large companies to impose vaccine requirements on their employees. some of them will be offering instead testing regimens for people who do not want to get the vaccine, but the push really is to encourage vaccine uptake to the maximum possible reach. host: you can read her reporting in the washington examiner. thank you for joining us this morning. are opening our here asking you about the week ahead and your top spending priorities for congress. 202-748-8000 free democrats, 202-748-8001 four republicans. as for independents and others, 202-748-8002. let's get back to calls and hear from stephanie in brooklyn. welcome. caller: -- you are on the air, go ahead. caller: good morning.

i think they should vote on all of the bills that should be voted on. the debt ceiling is because of donald trump in the republicans, they spent entirely too much money especially on a tax that went to the rich. nothing that he did benefit the people and it only benefited his friends, the corporations, it did not help the people and i think joe manchin and kyrsten sinema should vote for this package because we really need it, it is for the people, thank you. host: ajay is in tampa, florida. caller: yes p the only way this bill is going to be passed unless some of these lawmakers on capitol hill have their family members, these bridges collapse, they fall into the

bay, they fall into the river and then that's when the bill will pass. joe biden needs to get out there on the road and let the people see the infrastructure of these bridges and highways, they need to do more promoting, get out there on the roads, let folks see what's going on with the infrastructure of these bridges. that's when this bill will pass. if they do not do it, it's not going to pass. let people die before their bill passes for infrastructure. host: to deborah in buford, georgia. also on the independent line. caller: i'm confused. if the threading to close down the government because they only have enough money for existing debt, why do they want to go into trillions of debt. i don't understand it.

i don't know why they are threatening to close down the government for existing debt they can't afford and then go and do trillions of dollars for more data. host: republic and sender pat toomey was asked about whether he supported the continuing resolution funding the government and the debt ceiling. here's what he had to say. >> i will be voting know if the democrats insist on combining the debt ceiling increase in suspension with the continuing operations of the government there is no calamity that will happen. if that were even a serious risk, don't you think the equity markets from last week rather than fully recovering after the scare that came out of china rather than fully recovering as they did, maybe they would've traded off. that's because millions of investors no that no such

calamity will occur. what can happen is after a republicans vote no, chuck schumer will do what he could done months ago and weeks ago, what he could do tomorrow and that is he will amend the budget resolution so the democrats can pass the debt ceiling by themselves and that's what should happen. here's why. they are in the midst of an absolutely unprecedented very damaging spending spree on a scale we have never seen and they want us to come along and authorize the borrowing to help pay for it. when we are totally opposed to what they are doing. they don't need a single republican vote, republicans cannot stop it. it's not subject to a filibuster. if they want to do this, they can go ahead and bring the attention to the american people to the increase in debt we will need to pay for the spending spree. that's the reality, that's what's going to happen. >> you know as well as i do that raising the debt ceiling does not apply to the future expense

you are talking about paying for spending. >> i'm going to cut you off right there prayed that's totally factually false. absolutely. there's all kinds of spending that has yet to be approved including the huge $5 trillion bill you are discussing with several guests earlier on the show. >> but raising the debt ceiling -- it's about the spending congress has already approved, that's why we are hitting the ceiling. >> jake, i just walk you through spending that is not yet occurred but our democrat colleagues want to engage in. they will dramatically increase the amount of money that will need to be borrowed because they want to engage in all of this or they want the authority to borrow it now. >> so even if -- >> i don't agree with that spending. host: some comments about our question, your spending priorities. southwestern states could use some of the money to address border issues, dave on facebook

asks biden's infrastructure bill -- this one from kevin, pay off the debt. david, cut military spending. invest in infrastructure. green technologies, schools and expanding medicare paid there is a lot to keep track of this week for all of us really in terms of what the house and senate are facing. the houses already passed a continuing resolution keeping government funding through december. the senate has to pass that to avoid a government shutdown. we talked about the infrastructure plan, the $1 trillion package and what is called a budget reconciliation package includes climate change spending, social program spending, universal pre-k for three-year-old and four-year-olds. it extends the child income tax credit. paid family leave, it requires electric utility sector generate 80% of its power from clean energy by 2030.

it makes community college free for two years and reduces prescription drug costs, some of the bullet points, highlights from that. $3.5 trillion measure although that figure certainly could change throughout the week. democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning. what they are talking about is money we've already borrowed and that we are old. and if we don't pay that, that's can ruin our credit and everything. plus, joe manchin and this woman , both of them are being furnished money from the oil companies. the lady had a most $9 million last year she received on her campaign for the oil people. the oil people don't want to put

it cap on oil because if they do, they won't make all the money. for everybody out there, this deal the president is putting is for us. you guys didn't say thing when president trump gave all the rich people who already don't pay any taxes tax breaks. $29 million he gave them. they don't pay taxes now. what he did was give them money like they were paying taxes. we, the poor people of america paying the taxes. host: how do you think your town or you individually stand to benefit from these measures, the infrastructure spending, the social spending. caller: they're going to let

people be able to go to two years free of community college and we need that because the jobs that are going to be coming up is going to be green and it's the other things people need to be trained for. people don't want to work for $7.50 an hour. if you think we can survive on that, give it to the congress and let them show you how you're supposed to do that. host: appreciate your input. 202-748-8000 the line for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans paid all others, 202-748-8002. are opening our question is your priorities, your spending priorities for congress. washington, d.c. in the nation's capital, this is leo. caller: good morning.

my name is leo. i'm concerned about the haitian situation, the united states has been in afghanistan for 20 years fighting an unwinnable war. it's been trillions of dollars trying to fix a country that wasn't going to be fixed and then in the final analysis, they are flying people out of afghanistan. they've got $6.8 billion waiting for the settlement of these people. what kind of justification does the united states seem to have for this? host: appreciate your call prayed leo is talking abut the money included in the continuing resolution that passed in the house last week.

it's $6.3 billion prayed let's hear from los angeles and fill is next up. caller: robert gates once said joe biden was wrong in every major policy issue about foreign affairs. there's no mandate for this dramatic change in the great society part three. if this passes the u.s. will be like france. fewer jobs for young people, more money to the government, higher taxes and lower gdp. this is a complete fiasco, thank you. host: the new york times asked congressional offices, governors , state agencies across the country about their infrastructure priorities from california, the report high-speed rail, one of their

priorities for more than a decade california sought to construct a high-speed rail line that would connect its largest cities to the central valley, a current priority is cleaning occupying route. also electric vehicles after governor gavin newsom last year issued an executive order intended to ramp up his states reliance on emission free cars. california began planning a network of electric charging stations and hydrogen fueling stations. the state budget dedicates $1 billion to expand infrastructures, but officials expect to believe further funding. steve, hello there. caller: good morning. people have opinions. the value of their opinions is what they know. as we look at the united states right now, we are suffering from

spending too much money and we are doing too much in all areas. nancy pelosi was saying there was an error in government that we can support anymore. we can finance this anymore. our -- the biggest question we need to know is how much money is it going to take to bankrupt the united states? what is that? i don't understand what we are going to do. host: we will hear from laurel on the independence line -- independent line. caller: hello, how are you. host: make sure you mute the

volume there and go ahead with your comments. caller: i just talked to the lady and i told her -- i have aramark, a statement. i just want to know, could you please tell me why you're not on more than every once in a while because you're the only host that really let's people make their comment. i appreciate that. anyway, i just had one question. i always hear the people say democrats being more forgiving and more cooperative, why is it i never hear anybody say it about a republican? do they have any moderate republicans? host: great to hear from you. let's go to andy in simpsonville, south carolina. caller: i would -- it would be

very helpful if you could explain to people that what the people -- democrats are trying to do is a suspension of the debt limit which would last until about this time next year which means they can raise -- put their bill through without having to raise the debt limit again. if it has to go through reconciliation, they have to actually specify an amount they want to raise the debt limit by. host: thanks for calling with that. on the debt limit its front page in the new york times, they are reporting on the issue, their headline political game increases odds for the u.s. default. for nearly two decades lawmakers in washington of wage and escalating display over the federal government's ability to borrow money and pay its bills. they are forced in administration's both parties to take evasive actions pushing the nation dangerously close to economic calamity. but they have never actually

tipped the united states into default. this time the dynamics are different. the threat of default is greater than ever prayed republicans in congress have refused to help raise the nations debt limit even though the need to borrows bends -- stems from the bipartisan package. on monday they are expected to block a measure in the senate that would enable the government to do so, democrats insisted republicans help pay for past decisions to boost spending and cut taxes. and so far have refused to use a special process to raise the limit on their own. observers inside and outside washington are worried neither side will budge in time to the financial markets. i do want to point out in the senate the procedural vote happening in the senate around

5:30 this afternoon and our coverage of the u.s. senate is over on c-span2 later today. roy send this tweet. my priority to redirect the money that goes down the rathole of the pentagon to be redirected to social programs that benefit the people of this country. the defense industry has been milking the american taxpayers for two decades and now it's time for them to take a haircut. this one says let's start with feeding our hungry, making sure are ill and afflicted get the help they need. all along with upgrading, repairing and building infrastructure. this one says repeal the trump tax cuts and properly fund the government by adding a wealth tax and increasing the social security ceiling. diane says cut spending, bring americans home from afghanistan and shut the border. from ohio, this is steve. caller: good morning.

i just wanted to talk about increasing congressional spending on taiwan's defense against an invasion against china and also, taiwan i believe is important because they produce about 80% of the worlds microchips including this phone i'm using or the electronics your projection -- your production team is using and we can't let china get that. also the taiwanese people are a free people. i hope we come through to defending taiwan if or when china invades. thank you. host: east hampton, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the

fact we have a situation where the top 10% of this country are not paying their fair share in taxes and the corporations aren't paying anything, there are tax loopholes the republicans avoid talking about all the time and they actually create the loopholes and the democrats, the corporate ones go by that. if there could be a fair way of talking about this budget and we need money from the rich and they need to share it. the way of sharing it is through the tax system they are not doing it on their own. when they create these private foundations to supposedly help people, they just feed money back into the political chain. they let it seep in and basically took all of the money that he said was for helping the

people that went through the war and he took all of the money from that and put it into his own pocket. so you can trust these guys. >> appreciate your call. representative jayapal, one of the key members of the progressive caucus in the u.s. house was on state of the union yesterday talking about the necessity of passing the $3.5 trillion package. [video clip] >> working very hard to get agreement on the reconciliation package and that has to be in agreement across the senate and the house because we are not going to leave anyone behind. we will not leave behind women who need childcare, we won't leave behind taking on climate change and taking urgent action. we won't leave behind public housing, immigrants who are essential workers and need to be acknowledged as such. fundamentally we won't leave behind health care in the midst

of a crisis. so that is all the stuff in the build back better act. our point is we are ready to vote for both. we are excited to vote for both and we will vote for both but we need to get the reconciliation bill done. that's what we said 3.5 months ago. our belief is we will get there, we are very close, but we have to get to that reconciliation bill first. host: some of the early reporting on the vote counting and the votes ahead and the debate in the u.s. house, the early 202, pelosi punts infrastructure bill as progressives claim 60 votes against it, they report today the day nancy pelosi vowed to bring the bipartisan infrastructure package to the floor. the speaker announced sunday night the actual vote would slip until thursday.

in case you are counting the stress inducing deadlines, that's one day before the government will shut down if congress doesn't pass a separate bill to fund it. they say the head of the congressional aggressive caucus said she was not bluffing when warning progresses were willing to tank the infra structure plan until the house and senate also passed a three point $5 trillion reconciliation bill that is still far from finished. it seems she meant business pretty thoughts on spending priorities for congress. 202-748-8000 free democrats, -- free democrats -- for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. for independents, 202-748-8002. thanks for waiting. caller: i'm wondering about the new walmart complex. wondering if they have money how they can do that.

host: you are feeding back a bit, make sure you mute your volume when you call in so you won't feedback. this is the washington times this morning. her headline about the debate ahead on capitol hill, there headline about the speaker. policy twist arms tighter in backroom spending talks. no room for error. they say the thin margins in congress, high-stakes muscling through $5.7 trillion of new spending with house speaker nancy pelosi in one of the tightest bonds of her political career. mrs. pelosi has no room for error in bringing together far left and moderate democrats to score a desperately needed win for president biden. the speaker herself or tell you don't bet against nancy pelosi. "i don't consider anything uphill battle she told the washington times.

she has mastered an extensive repertoire negotiating tactics to force affiant members inner caucus back in line. she dangles carrots, twist arms and pulls political levers to exert pressure on lawmakers in washington in their districts that those with first-hand experience of her strong-arming. some comments on social media. this one from katie on facebook who says simply term limits peered robert says defense in southern border law -- southern border wall with armed guards. border security and build the wall from raymond. yvette says stop spending. hear from charlene in california. go ahead. democrats line. caller: what i want to do is comment about senator manchin.

west virginia is one of the poorest, dirtiest, contaminated sickest states in the united states. their ancestors worked in the coal mines and died in those coal mines and couldn't provide any -- and leave anything for their offspring and the majority of the people there, that's who's there that he is not fairly representing. if you know he's doing that to his own people, what do the democrats across the united states think mr. manchin is going to do for them. he is not a democrat. he is a flunky for the republicans. he thinks we are flunkies and we are not. we know what he's doing just like mr. clinton funding that nafta trade, hurting americans also. democrats -- republicans stick together in their goal and that's controlling the wealth

and the people of this country and only a very few. we need to stick together. the poor republicans in the real democrats, we need to stick together against these wealthy controlling, evil, devilish, greedy representatives. host: linda on the independent line. caller: previous caller, you go girl prayed i'm right there with you. this all started with nafta. i was born in 1960 and it seems to me like things were going along great and then we had nafta that took so many jobs. a lot of the cities, we need to eliminate a lot of things right now. we need to eliminate citizens united, we need to get term limits online, put caps on campaign funds. and no lobbying.

if any of us tried that, it's like legal lot -- legal bribery. these people can also invest in stock prices and stuff. i don't think that should be legal either. host: this is from a headline from politico this morning. no backup plan for democrats reject deb -- debt limit offramp. they say democrats are running out of time to prepare unpalatable debt limit contingency plan is republicans keep stonewalling in the nation years a devastating default. gop leaders insisted democrats lift the cap on government borrowing without republican votes by using the same budgetary move that's helping them take up a spending plan as soon as this week. that could put the whole package, which is already wobbling amid interparty disputes at risk.

as it currently stands, the debt limit increase, the suspension of the debt limit was included. democrats included in their continuing resolution, which passed in the house last week. it fund the government for nine more weeks. it would suspend the debt limit. let's hear from mark in pittsburgh, democrats line. caller: thanks for listening. the problem is not just republicans, but democrats in control. i do think the progressives have the upper hand and they need to hold everybody responsible. but democrats do not like that. the republicans do not like that. i'm not so sure they shouldn't just run it out as long as they

can and force a vote. i also have a question that has to do with reconciliation. could democrats vote for reconciliation on the 60 vote limit and could they then reinstate it before the election of 2022? thank you. host: we will ask that of our next guest, christina of the hill. one of the key moderate members in the u.s. house is josh of new jersey per he was on state of the union yesterday and talked about the infrastructure legislation. [video clip] >> what is important in the speaker communicated this is that we vote on it early this week and that will happen. was really important is everyone understands we are working around the clock on getting reconciliation done as well and i'm optimistic we will get both done. there's too much on the line,

you think about infrastructure, what happened, that tragedy last night onto amtrak and of course here in new jersey. in the infra structure bill is climate resiliency to help fight climate change, fix amtrak and invest there. you have a tunnel between new york and new jersey that's crumbling. there's so much in this once in a century package and it's been sitting there waiting for us to vote on it since early august. i can't explain to anybody why there's a separate bill sitting here and you have all these hard-working men and women ready to go to work and get this done and we haven't voted. that's how i know we have to get it done and we will and we have to get reconciliation done. >> the reason it's not going to be voted on. how's progressives are worried.

the build back better act if they don't make sure it's a. as long as you don't vote or reconciliation. >> i just want to be clear about that. i support reconciliation and so do my colleagues. we all agree we need a reconciliation package and i think that's important everyone understands. these are two separate bills. you got infrastructure, a historic once in the century. it is no reason we shouldn't pass that right away and get the shovels in the ground and make sure we do what we can, invest in our infrastructure and climate and then also we should keep working on this separate bill, which i'm committed to passing. we are talking all the time to make sure we can get that done as well. host: german election news.

this is from cnbc. all be darned. german election results. after a reporter told him the social democratic party was ahead in germany's historic federal election pretty spent the weekend in camp david, he did not know who was projected to win until he got back to washington, d.c.. he said they are solid of the results with the spd, expect into beat angela merkel's conservative alliance paid comments on social media about congressional spending. stephen texted us this, my priority on spending is passing the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed by the senate. they need to rewrite the tax code and eliminate most of the exemptions so everyone pays the same percentage. we need to pay down the debt or our country will fall.

let's hear from john in madison, alabama. the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i say we don't need particularly the reconciliation bill or most of the infrastructure bill and the reason is we will destroy the dollar. if you understand what the money supply out there, if we keep printing money, we will have inflation that's going to kill and tax all of us. the rest of the world is tired of this and are dollar is no longer the reserve currency of the world, it will be a catastrophe. all of this spending is doing that. anybody who understands that knows this. host: rob in stockton, california on the republican line. caller: i wish you could pull up

the united states debt clock and show the numbers there because i get a kick out of the democrats calling in saying we need this infrastructure, just another 3 trillion and then another 5.5 trillion. right now in 2008 it was 10,688,000,000,000 dollars in debt when obama went into office. it -- when it went over to trump it was 19,968,000,000,000, today it is 28 billion 868 trillion -- 28 trillion, eight hundred 68 billion. right now that's 125 percent of the gross national product. every american owes $470,000. there is no way we can catch it. 125%, that's the gross national

product. what it's going to cost to fix that. we can't even pay that off. how will we pay for another $3.5 trillion? host: to david in franklin, west virginia. caller: i'm calling in about that lady from california. on one of those so-called west virginia and she was talking about. she talks about how west virginians are so dumb and we are such a bad state. if were such a bad state, how come the people from d.c. are moving to west virginia, getting on transit and going to d.c. to work. the biggest probably have in washington is nancy pelosi. she is ruining our country because she's the one controlling the whole government. we need to straighten up this thing in d.c. first. we cannot afford all of this debt. i'm 63 years old and i know what's going on. it doesn't take a sign -- rocket scientist to figure out. host: here's some of the

reporting on west virginia in particular what potential federal and state projects could be aided by federal money. corridor h as part of the development system meant to stretch across much of the state has gone unfinished for more than half a century. in last september, construction on certain pieces was not expected to begin for least another decade. now it is set to get a crucial -- crucial infusion of money for the infrastructure bill. senators helped draft the legislation and ultimately supported it, it created a $2 billion rural grant program expected to direct funding for the broader appalachian highway system and expect to provide an additional $195 billion to projects like corridor h. craig kaplan tweeting about some of the debate and action ahead in the u.s. senate with three

days to go before the government could shut down september 30 at midnight. the senate votes on whether to end the filibuster preceding the house passed party line bill to extend government funding. the so-called cr with debt limit increases will be needed for this this afternoon. watch that over on c-span2. claudia is in north carolina. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was just thinking that all of this spending that will support free college and free things for pretty much everybody, including people coming in to our country, i do not think any of this will end up being free. i think what looks like free

college, you will graduating get a job and then you'll pay more for groceries and gas and really you are going to have a smaller paycheck then you assumed because when i was growing up, my dad said there is no such thing as a free lunch and i worked for 30 years and was privileged to have a college education, but i do not know how we will do all of this free stuff and the last thing i wanted to say is that if there were truth in government and in spending and we did not think that these bills, if they wouldn't sneak things in and not tell the american public the truth about what these bills are supporting we would have a lot more intelligent conversation about this spending if we could just get some folks to tell the

truth out there. thank you. host: greenville, texas, the independent line. robert in texas. caller: thank you. host: robert i hate to say this, i know you tried to hard to get through. we are having a difficult time hearing you. it is breaking up. we will continue the conversation in the next half hour. sorry about that, it was just all breaking up. this is mike in maryland. democrats line. caller: i think it's ironic that whenever the republicans are in charge, the debt is no problem. what is the problem with this? now all of a sudden republican -- democrats are in charge and

all of a sudden the debt is the problem. it was no problem with trumps tax cuts, nothing for bush's credit card wars. when democrats are in charge, big problem. back in 2012, john boehner said we have to get jobs. as soon as barack obama was elected it all became the data. republicans are very disingenuous is a nice term. as far as nafta goes, that was a republican -- prayed i do not blame progressives one bit for holding off on this. we see what happens when we hold off to find equity across the board. we get labor and environmental enforcement in mexico as opposed to what we have here, it never happened. so thankfully we have that. host: comments on facebook here

for this one from casey who says cut the military and the drug war, invest in health care for everyone, but especially the mentally ill. upgrade the necessary infrastructures deal with flooding and wildfires. i have a much longer list, but those would be my priorities. government spending is out of control, we haven't had a balanced budget since clinton. it wouldn't be bad of the benefits weren't exclusive to the wealthy. they took over congress 40 years ago and wrecked everything for us. , crestline is next, this is jason. good morning. caller: i just want to make a comment when we were spending $40 million a day. we were fighting two wars parallel to each other.

that, republicans came out with the bush tax cuts. why are we having tax cuts we have to pay for a war? it is insane. i just don't edit. -- i just don't get it. there was something with the mandate and obamacare and he had the insider scoop on that. i don't know why they went after him. manchin made money on the epipen. when democrats come in, they want to talk about the debt ceiling and stuff like that. it is a shame. host: let's get one more call. we will go to courtney. we didn't see you there. republican line, from winterhaven, florida. caller: yes, i am calling in about where we should be in our spending. i don't think any of the things

that is in the new bill should be concerning anything to do with afghanistan or refugees. we need to focus on the workforce in this country. i don't understand why certain states have pipelines being closed, yet we have an $80 billion contract for certain jobs. host: all right. we appreciate your call. it has been an hour of talking about crunch time in the nation's capital with the impending end of the fiscal year and other major legislation coming up for a vote. more ahead with cristina marcos, who covers capitol hill for the hill. we will get a preview of this busy week and later we are joined by ali vaez from the international crisis group. we will talk about the resumption of the iran nuclear talks, set to begin in a matter of weeks.

>> this week, on the c-span networks. secretary of defense lloyd austin, joints -- joint chiefs of staff and the head of u.s. central command, testifying on the u.s. withdraw from afghanistan in two hearings. c-span3 will have live coverage of the senate armed services committee, tuesday and the house armed services committee wednesday. the senate banking committee holds an oversight hearing on tuesday at 10:00 with treasury secretary janet yellen and federal reserve chair jerome powell on the federal economic stimulus measures taken in response to the pandemic. we will have live coverage on cspan.org. thursday at 10:00 eastern, health and human services secretary hobby or becerra and miguel cardona are before a senate committee to discuss

school re-openings during the coronavirus pandemic. watch this week on the c-span networks or listen on the c-span radio app. also head over to cspan.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> weekends on c-span2 our intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore our nation's past. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: cristina marcos joins us on "washington journal."

she covers congress for the hill, obviously here to talk to us about the week ahead in congress. good morning. guest: good morning, thanks for having me. host: let's start with the moving of this infrastructure vote, the headline of your peace published overnight, this headline says pelosi sets thursday vote on bipartisan infrastructure bill. that boat had been planned originally for today. why was it moved? guest: right now, democrats don't have the votes to pass it. for months, house members were holding that they would not vote to pass the bipartisan protector bill unless the larger -- bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the larger spending package was ready to go. as of this morning, that larger package is still far from ready, so late lesson, leader pelosi announced the vote would be by

today, she last night said the house will start debate on the floor today, but they won't actually vote until thursday which incidentally is when a number of key programs expire. host: that is unusual, starting debate several days before you have the vote on a measure. guest: exactly, but leadership is trying to cut it oath ways, where they will start the house floor debate and say they started the floor process on the day they originally committed to the moderates but if the votes are simply not there right now while this larger social spending package is still being worked out, that is an acknowledgment that they need a little more time to get the votes rounded up. host: that infrastructure package, remind our viewers, it passed in the senate with some bipartisan support. guest: that's night -- that's

right, 19 republican senators were on board for this infrastructure bill last night. of course that is the minority but it includes the senate, mitch mcconnell. on the other hand, over in the house, house republicans leadership is actively whipping against this bill, they are rallying to vote against this. there are at least half a dozen house republicans who have indicated they plan to vote for this bill but it indicates how there is a division among republicans whether they can support this bill policy wise, many of them find palatable but at the same time, do they want to give president biden a legislative victory, when they are eyeing taking control of congress next year? host: you mentioned a moment ago, what had been a $3.5 trillion social spending package, the budget reconciliation package which includes climate change measures, and you said that is far from being done. where are they? is there any talk about -- is

there a new dollar figure in that measure? guest: not yet. one issue is that senators like joe manchin said they would not support the $3.5 trillion but the challenge for democrats in the senate is trying to figure out what would be a more palatable number and how exactly they could trim down the package. it is not clear exactly what provisions would be cut to make up for some of these -- to make it a little smaller in a way that the centrists would still vote for it. host: you probably know this, our capital producer is tweeting that house are planning to meet today at 5:30 this afternoon to discuss the week ahead, government funding, reconciliation legislation. what is that meeting for? guest: this is a way to get them all on the same page before this

jampacked week in the house. normally when the house is in session, they don't have votes until 6:30 and then they meet the following morning at 9:00. because we have such a packed week ahead of us, government funding runs out thursday night, democrats have a lot to do and they are trying hard to get on the same page here. host: our guest is cristina marcos, who covers congressional issues in congress for the hill at thehill.com. (202)-748-8000 is the line for your comments and questions if you are a democrat. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8002 for independents and all others. let's move to the continued resolution that passed the house last week. this measure would keep government funding through december, and it will continue the debt ceiling through next year. it has passed in the house and now it is the senate's turn. what are the challenges ahead in

getting it passed? guest: the house passed this bill last week, combining avoiding a government shutdown with -- there was not a single republican in the house who voted for it and we are not expecting many senate republicans to vote for it either. democrats seen at least 10 republicans to join with them to get past the filibuster. right now, it is looking like that vote is going to fail in the senate, as long as we publicans insist they won't take any -- as long as republicans insist they won't take any action because republicans are insisting that democrats include eight measure to address the debt limit in their -- include a measure to address the debt limit in their spending package because that is a bill that can use the process where they can evade a republican filibuster. it appears there could be another week or two for congress

to address this but time is running out and they are going to have to figure out how to avoid a debt fall. host: the info sector package, $1.2 trillion passed in the senate as we mentioned, 19 republican senators on that. will debris any republican support on the reconciliation -- will there be any republican support on the reconciliation package? guest: no, democrats are not engaging with that measure because they know they don't need republican votes in the senate. it is not expected that republicans will back that bill. we may see some republican support for the bipartisan bill, but democrats are choosing to go with the social spending package because the budget reconciliation project is one of the only things where they can pass something in the senate with a simple majority. as long as the filibuster is

blocking almost all other bills that address legislative priorities that otherwise can pass in the house, they are going this route, and a way that they know they can pass in both chambers. host: we have heard a lot from callers and reporters about the role of joe manchin, not only in this but other situations in the senate. the wall street journal this morning, democrats find sinema to be an enigma. saying the package is too high and has not made her priorities public. what is your take on senator sinema's role in the debate this week? guest: she is just as influential as joe manchin. manchin tends to be more -- he is more like the to speak with the crowd on the capital. that is the culture of the capital where it is very unique for reporters to just approach

members of congress in the hallway. joe manchin is more likely to engage with that. sinema tends not to go that route. she prefers to keep things in private negotiations with leadership or when she wants to issue a statement. that is why she can see more behind the scenes then joe manchin she is also coming from a place where she doesn't want the filibuster to be eliminated. she wants the social spending package to be somewhat smaller. her demands are also going to be a huge factor, where because democrats have such a razor thin majority, the thinnest possible, it can come down to just one person that could make or break legislation. host: kind of ping-ponging

between the house and senate, there was reporting this morning about the votes again, the progressive side back in the house, against the infrastructure package, being at about 60. where -- what are you seeing in terms of progressives who would vote against the infrastructure package? guest: right now, we do have our whip list and in the senate, democrats cannot lose a single vote. in the house, democrat leadership can only afford three defections and still pass a bill on their own without support from republicans. right now we have half a dozen republicans who have said publicly that they will vote for this bipartisan bill, and we have at least nine or 10 house progressives who said they will vote against it. clearly that is not enough to make up for any progressive

defections. the progressive caucus has warned that there are at least 50 progressives willing to vote against this bill and there is no way that republicans voting for the bipartisan bill can make up for that. it is clear that progressives could easily tank this bill if they wanted to. host: we talked about that meeting later this afternoon, speaker pelosi running out of options in terms of being able to swing votes? guest: not necessarily. speaker pelosi is known for coming up with all kinds of creative ideas. in some ways this is a really unique set of circumstances going on here. all within the same week, macarthur hoping to address this bipartisan infrastructure bill, the social spending package, as well as avoid a government shutdown and a debt default, all in this week. it is a lot of pressure going on

all at once. there is a lot of competing interests happening. this is going to be one of the challenging problems that she has faced. host: let's go to calls and hear first from david in charleston, west virginia, democrats line. caller: thank you. i think that the bills they are passing that are thousands of pages long should be outlawed. you should not have a bill to come before congress or the house or the senate that is over 50 pages long because the rest of it is just throwing in everybody's fork and we don't need the fork. we need term limits on all of these idiots up there, just get rid of them. thank you. host: the particular length of bills in the amount of time members in their staff have to absorb them and read them. guest: but is often a challenging congress, where

there is often very little time for lawmakers or their staff to observe what is in a bill. last week for example, because democrats were faced with a problem having to pass the government spending bill which includes measures to extend the debt limit, because her publicans were vowing to oppose it, democrats didn't have any votes to spare on their time -- on their side because of the $1 billion allocated for the israel iron dome, there were a lot of tensions when it came to israel -- when he came to the israel/palestine conflict. democratic leaders removed that iron dome funding and took it up as a standalone bill days later. even though it was a couple of days afterward, some of the progressives were complaining that there was not much time to

view the standalone bill and it was very rushed. especially when there are bills where democrats are trying very hard or either party -- this is bipartisan -- we congressional sleep -- when congressional leaders need to get something done, they strike while the iron is hot. host: by doing that, did the democrats hand republicans and issue in terms of republicans being able to accuse democrats of not supporting israel when that funding was removed? guest: that is something republicans absolutely jumped on last week. that is something that republicans have been trying to highlight over the last couple of years. during the floor debate last week, you could see tensions on

display when she did to leave, currently the only palestinian-american member of congress -- when rashida tlaib, currently the only palestinian-american number of congress, spoke about why she opposed this iron dome. moments later, a jewish democrat from florida immediately abandon his prepared remarks and would at lengths to respond to those remarks -- went at length to respond to those remarks and was clearly very upset about this. when you can see those tensions on display, that is always another challenge for democrats, especially when they are trying to present a united front. host: i'll remind our viewers, that debate and all house debate is available on our website, cspan.org. let's go to dominic in new york. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: hello? host: you are on the air, go

ahead. caller: my name is dominic. host: go ahead. caller: my question is, [inaudible] i don't like to see on the television, the republican party . host: we will go to liz in new jersey on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: i'm calling as a democrat. i think both parts of this

agenda can get past this week. i am a little disturbed as a democrat with the so-called moderates who are painting the second part of the agenda as progressive. i consider myself liberal but i don't think this is really a liberal bill. it is more or less in the mainstream, and i think that both bills should go to the floor at the same time, and be voted together. for 40 years, basically since ronald reagan, we have not paid for anything. these bills are being paid for and we have not done anything with infrastructure. there is no need to rush it by a

week or two. they can go down and have a vote on the same day. that is what i would like to see happen. thank you. host: ok. cristina marcos. guest: in many ways, the caller is correct that the larger social spending package is largely what democrats ran on just to name a few of the provisions in a wide-ranging bill, guaranteeing universal access to paid family leave, universal pre-k programs, all kinds of things to address the childcare gap. it expands on a lot of things many democrats have campaigned on. also lower prescription drug prices by allowing medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies. these are a lot of things that

many democrats ran campaigns on but the issue is because of the filibuster in the senate, it prevents all bills from passing a less there is more widespread bipartisan support for something. democrats are essentially trying to cram their entire legislative agenda, or at least as much as they can, that can comply with the budget reconciliation rules. they are trying to cram their entire agenda into one bill and because of that, there are so many moving parts in this bill, it makes it harder to keep all of their ducks in a row, when they are trying to pass this, just because -- and especially while they have the majority. if you have even a couple members raising objections about something, that immediately complicates the calculus for being able to pass a bill. when you have these razor thin majorities and some any moving parts, it makes it more difficult to get it all done. host: how many members would be

considered part of the moderate caucus, compared to the progressive caucus? guest: in terms of the groups that negotiated the date with leadership and part of the agreement last month to commit to a date to hold a vote on the bipartisan for structure bill, that was around nine or 10 moderate democrats. there are a number of other moderate democrats out there who agree there should be a vote as soon as possible on the bipartisan bill but don't agree with the logic that the bipartisan bill should be linked with the reconciliation bill, but they also agree -- they want to get the reconciliation bill done. a democrat from pennsylvania who represents a competitive district is -- a lot of things in the reconciliation bill are things she campaigned on. there is division among the

moderates about how progressive they should be in their tactics but meanwhile the progressives have 96 members and they intend to be more unified when it comes to this strategy. they want to have the reconciliation bill completed and ready to go before they allow the bipartisan bill to pass. host: why did democratic leaders insist they want to get the infrastructure package and the budget reconciliation package this week? why did they set a deadline for this week? guest: thursday is when funding for the federal government runs out at large but there are a number of transportation programs that also expire at the end of this school year. -- this fiscal year. parts of the bipartisan bill are dedicated to physical infrastructure. democrat leaders have made the

argument that because a lot of those transportation programs are expiring anyway on this date, they might as well get that bill done and passed by the -- by september 30. they adjusted that deadline to accommodate the moderates. host: let's hear from stephen on the republican line. caller: i just wanted to call and tell you that the democrats have lost their way in life. they are living a fairytale life if they think they can continue to keep spending. it is absolutely ridiculous what has happened to this country in the last 10 months of them taking over the reins. they have run this country down into the ground in 10 months. what's going to happen to the rest of the three years that biden is in office? host: cristina marcos, any thoughts? guest: well we still have a

little over a year before the midterm elections in 2022, so democrats still have at least another year while they have unified control of congress and the white house, albee it by the narrowest of majorities. if we public ends win the house next year, all they have to do is flip five seats to take back the majority, then president biden would have to -- would have a much bigger challenge in getting the rest of his agenda enacted while his party was in control of congress. as it is right now, even with democrats in control of the senate and the house, as long as the filibuster is in place, we are seeing a dynamic that is not all that different from two years ago when democrats controlled the house and republicans controlled the senate. back in 2019, you may recall that democrats were bemoaning that mitch mcconnell who at this time was the senate majority

leader was residing over a quote unquote, legislative graveyard with the house passing all of these bills to address their agenda that would just start to gather dust in the senate. because democrats -- because the filibuster still exists in the senate, there are very few issues where there are enough republicans to join with democrats to overcome the filibuster. we are seeing a similar dynamic warehouse democrats have passed dozens of bills that address the legislative agenda that are also just gaining dust in the senate right now. in many ways, they are in the same situation. there are more bills that they can get done. they got the coronavirus relief package earlier this year. in many ways, a lot of their bills are still having trouble getting through the senate and then to president biden's desk. host: this is not spending

related but it is about the negotiations. a piece the usa today has with the headline, lawmakers facing an eventful week. biden conceded that talks among democrats were at a stalemate. it will come on the heels of last week's breakdown of bipartisan talks on police reform which ended without agreement on a bill to hold police accountable for violence in the line of duty. biden had made a signing police reform legislation a priority of his and administration. what happened in that negotiation? guest: these negotiations over police reform talks, which were led by senator cory booker represented the democrats and 10 -- and rent -- and senator tim scott representing the republicans and this is something that they tried to negotiate last year when president trump was still in office and republicans controlled the senate.

with that being election year, that made it much more difficult to get anything done. this year they found thorny issues like qualified immunity which shields police officers from liability in lawsuits, that was something that they couldn't come to an agreement on. once again, police reform is at a standstill, and house democrats have passed legislation twice, this year and last year, to address police reform. they can't pass things by simple majority in the senate, they couldn't unilaterally pass that bill on their own and as long as there weren't also nine other republican senators in addition to tim scott who would agree to something, that is another thing that they couldn't get done. host: let's get one more call in, gary in maryland, independent line. caller: i think the $3.5

trillion bill is nothing but a democratic plan to turn this country socialist, possibly even communist which is the democrat dream. in the bill, they -- if you go to the bank, there is 85,000 irs agents waiting to find out why you cash a $600 check. it will give you a call and ask you why. the illegals that are coming across the border in the bill, also was them to be turned into citizens automatically, i don't know if that is in there. that is their dream to be able to stay in power for the next 150 years. host: we will let you go there. is the recent precedent on the size of a social spending -- is there any recent precedent on the size of a social spending package? guest: there is not. this is the largest expansion of

the social safety net since the great society reforms and some of the new deal reforms that we saw under fdr. this is a really historic expansion of social safety measures that we could potentially see under president biden. essentially all at once. host: stay on top of everything going on this week with cristina marcos on twitter and thehill.com. thank you so much for joining us this morning. we will continue next and turn to a conversation on the around nuclear deal that could resume the talks on that, in a matter of weeks. the conversation with ali vaez of the international crisis group is coming up next and the later, dr. brian miller from john hopkins university will speak to us about covid burnout

and the doctor shortage in the united states. ♪ >> josef stalin had been dead for three years when his successor stunned a closed gathering of communist officials with a litany of his process or's abuses, meant to clear the way for reform from above, khrushchev's secret speech of 1956. it shattered the myth of stalin's infallibility. this is the way the harvard press introduces the book, moscow 1956: the silent spring -- moscow 1956: the silent spring. >> listen at c-span.org/podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us next is ali vaez, with the international crisis group. he is a senior advisor and director of the iran project, here with us to talk about the talks ahead on the u.s.-iran nuclear deal. welcome to "washington journal." tell us about your group, the

international crisis group. what is your mission and how are you funded? guest: the crisis group is a conflict prevention organization. there are a lot of organizations, ngos and governmental organizations that deal with the aftermath of conflict, from refugees to health issues, reconciliation, reconstruction. like human diseases, wars are often better to prevent than to deal with. that is the mission of this organization, which is based in brussels and it was created 25 years ago. it is funded by philanthropists, foundations and also governments and it covers around 50 conflict around the world, including the iran nuclear issue. host: what role does your organization have in the discussions on the iran nuclear deal during the obama administration? guest: the organization has been

involved for almost 18 years now , but during the obama administration, we were one of the outside groups in the u.s. or europe who were helping the negotiators bridge the gap, with coming up with ideas, providing creative solutions for both sides to be able to reach the landmark 2015 nuclear deal. host: tell us where we stand right now after the trump administration entering into the biden administration. the trump administration withdrew from the iran nuclear deal. what happens next? guest: as you know, the trump administration withdrew from the agreement in may of 2018 with no good reason. iran was fully complying with the agreement at the time. it's nuclear program was in a box and was one of the most rigorously monitored programs in the world. iran was about one year away from having the ability to break

out which means having enough material for a single nuclear weapon. the idea was that rim position of sanctions would pressure iran to come back to the table and agree to a deal that was more advantageous to the united states. in practice what iran did was ramp up its nuclear program and right now it is only a month away from the ability to break out. in addition to that, iran has become more aggressive in the region and more repressive at home. the trump administration's maximum pressure strategy turned out to be an absolute failure. the biden administration came in with the objective of returning to the agreement and restoring the restrictions and monitoring on iran's nuclear program, but it appeared that the talks works really difficult. there were six rounds of negotiations in vienna but the parties were not able to reach an agreement by june 20, when

the negotiations stopped, when iran was going through a presidential transition and three months later, they have not resumed yet. host: we want to point out to our viewers and listeners, first of all, our phone line for ali vaez, if you support the iran nuclear deal, the number is (202)-748-8000. if you oppose, it is (202)-748-8001. if you are unsure, that line for all others, (202)-748-8002. if you would like some information or you would like to know some highlights of what is in the jcpoa, the joint comprehensive plan of action, it is online on the national archives. when the biden administration came then, was the regime in tehran mistrustful of the biden administration? did they show any sign other

than opening up for talks that they would be willing to engage in these discussions? guest: obviously because the u.s. reneged on the agreement, the iranians were extremely mistrustful of the u.s. as a reliable negotiating partner and the president had promised during the campaign that he would return to the jcpoa. the iranians expected the biden administration would do what it did in the case of the paris climate deal or return to the world health organization, the idea was that the u.s. unilaterally went out of the jcpoa nuclear deal and would unilaterally return to it. that didn't happen and also when the biden administration didn't really do much in its first few weeks in office in terms of any goodwill gestures towards the iranians on him in a terry relief from sanctions given that iran was dealing with a deadly situation given the covid

pandemic, all of that really disappointed the iranians and push them to harden their position. from the time talks started in vienna in early april, the iranians already had hardened their posture and that is one of the reasons that the parties were unable to reach an agreement by june. the expect tatian is that talks will resume next month, but there are also -- the expectation is that talks will resume next month but there were also expectations that talks will be much harder. host: -- is he involved in that talk, in those talks? guest: yes, he leads the u.s. negotiating team along with other experts and his team who are very familiar with this issue. most of them were involved in the obama administration negotiations with the iranians that led to the nuclear deal but

on the iranian side we have a situation that all the architects of the nuclear deal are out of power and they have given their place to the jcpoa's critics in iran. that is one more reason it is hard to be optimistic abut the prospects of the deal's revival in the next few months. host: it is a reversal of the trump administration. critics of the jcpoa, withdrawing from the deal in 2018. guest: that is absolutely correct. this is the story of iran-u.s. relations in the past four decades. they have rarely been on the same wavelength with the exception of the second term of president obama when there was a relatively moderate president in iran and all the stars aligned allowing both sides to finally have an agreement on the nuclear issue and that is why it is a pity that president trump reneged on the agreement because the one deal that iran and the u.s. have had since they broke

up to the medic relations in 1979 had a sorry fate and that is obviously not encouraging future negotiations within the two countries. host: you had a piece published that was headlined, how to save the iran nuclear deal, both sides must revise the redlines and in that you write at the heart of the standoff are misperceptions on both sides. the biden administration treats iran as it would any adversarial the goshen party -- adversarial negotiating party, whereas iran sees itself as the aggrieved party. for its part, iranian leadership believes time is on its side. the economy has survived and is now expanding. given its nuclear program's x financial growth, officials in tehran believe they are well positioned to extract more concessions from the west. what sort of concessions do you think iran wants to extract from the u.s. and other partners?

guest: there are three buckets of issues that iranians really care about. they are absolute redlines. one is the question of some of the sanctions that the biden administration wants to keep, some trump era sanctions. for instance, last year the trump administration tried to prevent the u.n. arms embargo and -- unconventional weapons from being lifted as part of the jcpoa. they failed miserably at the security council, one of the most million defeats the u.s. has had on the international stage. the trump administration imposed a set of unilateral embargoes on iran jacky ability to purchase or sell conventional weapons. iranians want the sanctions lifted but you can imagine the biden administration, given the fact that iran is involved in attacks against u.s. forces in

iraq and mimetic facilities in iraq and is engaged with israel, it is supplying to houthi rebels in yemen that are attacking saudi arabia. it is very difficult to imagine the biden administration will be able to do this without paying a huge political price in washington. there are other sanctions as well, out of the 1500 sanctions the trump administration imposed or reimposed, the biden administration is seeking to keep around one third of the. -- one third of them. second is the biden administration wants iran to commit to follow on negotiations and they are obviously mistrustful of the u.s., extremely reluctant to accept that. finally, there are some conditionality's that the u.s. has attached to some of the sanctions that are not related to the jcpoa. for instance, sanctions on the

supreme leader's office or designation of the royal guard as a terrorist organization. in return for iran making that commitment, that is also complete and except about to the iranians. the u.s. also has redlines we can discuss later but at the end of the day, the point i am trying to make is that if we get back to the negotiating table and resume from where we left off, we are still going to be in deadlock. it requires both sides, if they want to restore the jcpoa, to show flexibility, especially given the fact that the alternative is not that much more attractive. host: in your view, did the trump administration sanctions cage iranian behavior? guest: it only made it worse. there nuclear program is now closer to the ability to develop nuclear weapons than it was in 2013 when the obama

administration started negotiating with iranians, or when the jcpoa was finalized. we saw the kind of attacks that the iranians had not been involved in, at least since the 1980's like the attack on saudia ron: oil company which took half of saudi oil exports off the market for a while. attacks on tankers and shipping in the persian gulf, those of the kinds of behaviors we have not seen before the trump administration imposed its maximum pressure policy. at home, the iranian system has become much more oppressive and we have seen protests that have been brutally crushed. all in all, i would say none of the objectives were materialized despite the fact that sanctions really devastated the iranian economy and inflicted a lot of harm on the iranian people in the middle of a pandemic. host: we are talking with ali vaez, senior advisor and iran

project director at the international crisis group, talking about the u.s.-iran nuclear deal. (202)-748-8000 is the line if you support the deal. (202)-748-8001 if you oppose the deal. for all others, (202)-748-8002. we will hear from carl in hawaii. good morning, go ahead. caller: hello there. i appreciate you taking my call. i have a few questions if you can tolerate me. i wanted to bring up a couple issues i'm sure you are familiar with. first is the israeli archive. could you please elaborate and answer this after i finish my series of questions. the israeli archive which disclosed information with some

extroverts archer -- which some experts were trying to claim were nonrelevant or highly relevant. two, is the huuti's. the biden administration took them off of the terrorist organizations, then their behavior show they really were a terrorist organization. three, the time frames from the original jcpoa show that the time frames that were elaborated in the negotiations obviously are about to come to pass now, and even if we are able to get to the original deal, the iaea inspectors have said that it is completely dead.

things have to be completely reengineered, and unless we can go back to the original nuclear negotiations and remove all of these sanctions, that we will never be able to make headway with the iranians. host: three issues and ali vaez, if you would like to respond to any or all of them. guest: on the nuclear archives, the fact that in early 2018, israel managed to steal a lot of physical evidence of iran's past nuclear activities from storage in the middle of tehran's spectacular intelligence operations and a major victory for israel. that archive put meat on the bone but what we already knew was the case, was that iran had pursued a military nuclear program, preacher thousand

three. -- pre-2003. it did not include much new intelligence. it had some elements and iaea had concluded they had some elements in their research. that makes the value of jcpoa much more because it proved with concrete evidence that there was a military dimension to this program and so it is much more important to be able to put the program in a box and under serious monitoring. let me answer the other nuclear question and then i will talk about the houthi's. on the possibility of going back to the deal, given the advancements that the nuclear program has made in the past,

reducing its compliance with the nuclear obligations, the reality is while that is true, it is not entirely restorable, but it is much better compared to the alternatives because it took two and half years to negotiate the jcpoa. if we want to start from scratch and negotiate an entirely new deal, given the amount of mistrust that exists, the iranian nuclear program will continue to go and they are only one month away from having enough material for a nuclear weapon and that is not a sustainable situation. it is much better to restore the deal and get a longer and stronger nuclear deal. with regards to the houthis, the decision to take them off of the terrorist organization list was a purely human to terry and just year because they control huge chunks of yemen and if they are a terrorist organization, basically a lot of human agencies would not be able to deliver food and medicine and humanitarian goods to the

yemenis and it was not done as a key that would open the door of resolving the conflict in yemen. host: does iran support the houthis with arms? guest: there is evidence iran provides material support to the houthis in yemen but the reality is that one of the positive things that have happened in the past few weeks is that iran and saudi arabia have had several rounds of negotiations in baghdad, mediated and facilitated by the iraqis and there is a possibility that iran could eventually end up reducing its support for the houthis as part of a deal with saudi arabia. that makes for a much more sustainable agreement and it could potentially be the beginning of de-escalation in the persian gulf region. host: this is sam in new jersey,

who says he opposes the deal. caller: good morning. i don't oppose the deal per se. there were faults in the original deal and also with the idea of pulling out. i hesitate to cast pulling out of the deal under the light as trump did it so it is automatically bad. i think there were problems on both sides. as a massive fan of c-span, i have spent enough time in the middle east that when i hear rhetoric like this gentleman is using, it is pretty clear to know which side he falls on. out appreciate somebody in a case like this or somebody is so clearly pro-iran, if you could consider next time having somebody with a perspective from the other side. i represent what i think is the majority of americans would say

iran is all well and good but it is not our job and friendly when it comes to iran, a heavy hand is necessary. i would like for the government account -- clarify two things. he has said twice now that iran is a month away from their material. are you saying they will have a nuclear weapon in one month because it sounds a lot like the bellicose rhetoric at the end of your foreign affairs article or when you say the u.s. suffered a humiliating defeat. when you say these things, you make a position clear so if you could comment on that, are you telling us they will have a nuclear weapon in a month because that is significant news. second, is -- would you please go back and clarify, let's say we had stayed in this nuclear deal. is it your contention that iran

had just hung up their nuclear ambitions forever? that was their agreement. everybody at the top, everybody said we are never going to go for a nuclear weapon again. i spent time in gaza and i spoke with people who were receiving money and everybody knows how they spread the money around and you said there is evidence to support the houthis and then follow that with, if we get a deal, they will stop. host: we will get the response. guest: the reality is, when i say one month from breakout, it doesn't mean one month from nuclear weapons. breakout means basically that you have enough material for a single nuclear weapon, but then you have to put that material into -- basically weaponize it which in and of itself is a process that could take about a year. you have to fit it on the cone of the missile and then you have to test it before you can actually say that you have an

operating nuclear weapon. if you look at the history of proliferation in recent decades, there is a process and usually countries don't break out with just enough material for a single weapon because you need an arsenal. the jcpoa was designed on expanding that window, the breakout time to 12 months so the international community would have enough time to detect any breakout attempt and try to deal with it with sanctions or military action against iran. that is the first point. second point, again, the reality is, this was only a nuclear deal. it was not a nuclear missile original deal. -- nuclear missile regional deal. if we wanted to put all of those issues on the table, it would have become impossible to resolve them. the obama administration's -- approach was the most urgent

issue, the nuclear issue, on the back burner or basically put it on ice to try and then address other issues, but they ran out of time because the deal was implement in 2016 and then in 2016 we had a change of administration, and critics of the jcpoa came to power. the deal has been in limbo longer than it's been fully implemented. host: let's hear from crystal, who supports the deal in florida. caller: good morning. i just want to say that -- host: make sure you mute your television and then go ahead with your comment or question. caller: i have. i support iran's right to choose. i believe in america pulled out of the deal, they did it for political expediency and gain.

it is really unfair because we are so unreliable, whether or not we are good partners can change every four years, so why should anybody trust us? i just want to say -- i want to ask a question, how is or is israel dealt with as a party that is monitored by this gentleman and the work he does? how does -- is that one of the groups for deals or parties that are mentioned because it seems like they are not allowed to be criticized. guest: i think trust is a really important dynamic -- dimension in international diplomacy all the leverage is necessary if you want to get a deal that serves your interests and by definition, diplomacy is about compromise so any deal you get,

it is win-lose. unfair deals begat unfaithful dealmakers and the jcpoa was a case of win-win and mutual compromise. but is why it has opponents both in tehran and washington. the reality is that we can compare the situation with regards to iran's nuclear program or even other regional policies, or even domestic policies, human rights, before and after the nuclear deal. it becomes pretty clear that the jcpoa, despite all of its shortcomings, was serving the interests of both sides and that is a formula for win-win diplomacy. israel is not a member of the nonproliferation treaty so it has not committed as iran has committed, not to develop nuclear weapons.

neither international community monitors israel's activities nor our group which basically is focused on preventing conflicts. my colleagues work on israel-palestine and we work on iran-israel tensions, especially in the maritime realm. israel's nuclear program is not something we work on. host: one more call, valery is in new york and unsure about the deal. caller: good morning. i do have mixed feelings about it. part of me says some deal is better than no deal, and another part of me says we have real genuine problems with iran, and if they violate a deal, what do we do? . i am critical of all religions so this is in particular to islam. the accra fleet -- theocracies as i'm concerned are the worst

sorts of autocracies and i blame the governments, not the people of the nations, but we have real problems there. islam has not had a reformation the way the west has, and everything has gotten more extreme in iran. it is not the iran that elected a democratic government and that if we had left them alone might have gone on a better path. host: we will get a response. . guest: valerie is right, there is plenty of blame to go around from the u.s. pummeling iran's democratic government to iran taking hostage of u.s. diplomats and so on and so forth. the reality again, that we have much broader problems with iran is should we have to tackle everything at the same time? the trump administration imposed

12 conditions onas i said, the . it did not really managed to achieve all of its -- any of its strategic objectives. that is why i think tackling the most urgent issue with iran is important. although this will be an imperfect agreement, you usually start with the first deal and start building on it. if you destroy it completely, it is more difficult to bring a stronger deal forward and built on the ruins of the original agreement. i think that is the mistake that was committed. host: ali vaez is the iran project director at the international crisis group. ask for joining us this morning. ahead, we will talk about the doctor shortage and medical worker burnout. we are joined next by dr. brian

miller to discuss covid related burnout in the medical community and the looming doctor shortage in the united states. ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks, secretary of defense lloyd austin, general mark milley, and the head of u.s. central command testify on the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan in two hearings. c-span3 will have live coverage of the testimony before the senate armed services committee tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern and the house armed services committee wednesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the senate banking committee holds an oversight hearing with janet yellen and the federal reserve chair on the federal economic stimulus measures taken in response to the pandemic. we will have live coverage. thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, health and human

services secretary javier garcia -- javier becerra xavier -- xavier becerra. also, go to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> you can be part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's studentcam video competition. we are asking you to create a five to six minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? your documentary must show supporting and opposing points of view on a federal government policy or program using c-span video clips, which are easy to

find and access. the competition rewards $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have a shot at the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. to get started, visit our website. ♪ >> weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. you will find events on american history tv. on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore weekends on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: dr. brian miller is the

assistant professor of medicine at johns hopkins university school of medicine. he is joining us to focus on the looming doctor shortage in the u.s. and the burnout caused by -- caused to doctors quite nurses, and other workers by the pandemic. the pandemic was declared in march of last year. the pandemic obviously continues in surges with the delta variant. the fine for us with the term burnout means to you and how much are we seeing of it in the united states? guest: i think burnout is a loss of personalization, of connection to your work, a loss of sense of meaning. most studies show about one third to have a physicians are experiencing burnout in the u.s. even before the pandemic. host: how is that expressed? does that mean they are done

with their career or considering moving to another career? guest: that is a good question. it means people are disconnected from their day. they are thinking about leaving the profession. they are thinking about changing to an administrative role. burnout came before the pandemic. it is a long-standing issue exacerbated by the pandemic. what happens is you are going through your day. you are trying to work there cannot be there with -- try to work there, be empathetic. most of your time is not spent seeing patients, so the few minutes when you do spend time with patients you are not there to fully support them. host: this is an issue that is not just a demand on time in terms of the numbers of hours you have to put in at a hospital, clinic, or with patients anywhere but the emotional effect of the pandemic. guest: absolutely.

my colleagues and i have seen hundreds of people die, over the past almost two years now. it takes a toll on you. if you work two weeks a month in a hospital with an 84 hour workweek and suddenly you are working four weeks a month, you do not have time to decompress, to recharge. you do not have time to reconnect with yourself, your friends, your family, let alone your patients. host: let's look at the potential shortage in the medical field particularly among doctors in the report by the association of american medical colleges. they say the united states could see an estimate is shortage of between 37,820 -- including shortfalls in primary and specialty care. is that driven by what we are seeing in this pandemic?

guest: that had been in the pipeline. it has worsened because of the pandemic partially because of how we use physicians. we do not use them as clinicians. we use them as an ministry of machines. as a consequence got you go through four years of medical school, three to 10 years of postgraduate training, and sacrifice most of your 20's to this noble pursuit of helping others. then you show up and find out most of your work is documentation. the nail global pandemic shows up. i would say the problem was there and has been made -- then a global pandemic shows up. i would say the problem was there and has been made worse. host: what is your day like? guest: i work in the hospital one to two weeks a month. when i work on shift, i do seven days in a row.

i work the next shift, which is the hard shift. i work in 80 hour or so workweek, address patient issues as they come up. in my nonclinical weeks, i work with a policy group of about 15 people and service resources for regulators and members of congress and their staff. host: our guest here to talk about the burnout among medical workers because of covid and the potential looming shortage of doctors nationwide. (202) 748-8000 is the line to call on the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific. for medical professionals, that line is (202) 748-8002. we would love to hear from you, how you are faring these past 18 pulse -- past 18 plus months, and what your level burnout may or may not be. a report in the washington post,

about three in 10 health-care workers say they have considered no longer working in health care. is that a higher number than we have seen before? guest: i would say that is relatively higher. part of it is a loss of control that comes from the pandemic. people already felt burned out and out of touch and the pandemic made that worse. part of this is because physicians cannot change and control the practice environment and make it better for patients and physicians. physicians cannot open hospitals and billed medicare programs. that is illegal. host: what is the impact of hospitals and clinics closing in places like rural areas in particular? those staff left are far fewer than before. guest: people lose access to

regular doctors, to specialty care. they lose access to a hub serving people in rural communities and shunting them to urban areas for major care like organ transplants and cancer care. people in the clinical staff, when the facility closes they either find new work or move. then that labor force is gone. host: what sort of new skills have you had to learn and take on since the beginning of covid? guest: we have more serious conversations with patients. we have to be more aware. patient in the hospital with covid, one moment they are fine. the next minute, they can be headed toward the intensive care unit. it is very scary. host: there is a headline in the washington post that says health-care workers fight fear

and exhaustion. here we go again. at the delta variant began to rise late in the summer, what was your reaction? guest: part of my reaction is i think a lot of this was avoidable. i encourage everybody to get vaccinated. it is now a preventable disease. if physicians were more in control of our health-care system, we will be in a better place. host: let's go to our callers. our line for medical professionals is (202) 748-8002. otherwise, it is central and eastern time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. in delaware, june is a medical professional on that line. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i am a senior citizen. i am still working in the health care profession. i am training the front-line workers. what i have seen over the years is repetition of the same issues , shortages of health care professionals, shortages of doctors. what i have seen over the years is that the agencies are not putting funds where it should go. when there is funding, it goes to the upper levels of the profession. not to the people who need to be trained to become professionals. the united states health care system is selective. if you look at the types of people in the profession, you are looking at the same entitled people.

you know who the doctors will be. you know who the nurses are going to be. you know how hospitals employ certified nursing assistants. those nursing assistants sometimes work in hospitals for many years. where is the wherewithal to educate at the very bottom of the health care system and elevate those to the level of professionals that are needed? also -- host: go ahead. caller: i started out in chicago . the united states will import nurses but they will not train them. i have seen more filipino nurses imported to take jobs away from people who could be trained for those jobs. there is a lot of issues in health care that needs to be addressed. i salute to those front-line

workers. i keep seeing the same problems. there is a shortage. what can we do about those shortages? host: thanks for your insight. guest: first, thank you for speaking up. i appreciate your efforts and you asking these questions. i prettier work. two things come to mind. we talk about a shortage of professionals. one thing we can do is expand the scope of practice for nurse practitioners and physician assistants so we can allow them in areas where it is appropriate to practice with fewer barriers. that can help combat the physician shortage. the second question you brought up is about how do we take people and pull them up and migrate people up through the health system as petitioners. the best example is the retail industry. i think about someone i once

heard, the ceo of starbucks. he started out as a bag boy in a grocery store, worked his way up slowly over time with school and training and experience. that is something health systems do not do a good job of and should do a better job of. host: you said expanding the scope of practice for nurse practitioners. how is that done? is it done on the state level? is that something the american medical association would do? guest: the american medical association would probably disagree with me on this. that is done at the state level through legislative intervention in partnership with the governor. addressing the nursing scope of practice usually through a nursing practice act. host: a comment on twitter says, i have spoken with several people in health care. a lot of them say the corbett eyes asian -- corporatization

of the hospital is driving them away. guest: i agree. i think the corporatization of the hospital industry is a problem because it takes away those who care for patients, takes them away from the bedside and away from the control of that relationship between the practitioner and bedside. now if you want to create a change in the hospital, you have to go through committees, through letters of administrators. it is hard to change how facilities work. you end up as a clinician as just a number in a spreadsheet, as does the patient. host: also a question from jim on twitter who says, what percentage of applicants to medical school are accepted?

why don't we have more medical schools if we are facing a doctor shortage? guest: that is an excellent question. around half of applicants to medical school get into a medical school. in terms of a spending the supply of medical schools, the supply is currently growing. host: we touched on this earlier in our conversation. the projected shortage of physicians by the american association medical colleges by 2034 is between 18000 and 48,000 -- 40,000 primary care physicians -- 48,000 primary care physicians. in tennessee, stephanie is next. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? i do not have a question. i have a comment.

i agree with the covid being here and doctors and nurses being overwhelmed with it, but the shortages themselves are due to the mandates. we do not need to be forced into doing something that we do not want to do. they were our first line heroes. now they are being treated like trash. point blank simple. if biden wants our doctors and nurses, he needs to lift this mandate. this is uncalled for. that is all i have to say. host: dr. miller, along that line, new york is and lamenting -- implementing his medical mandate. new york preps for step shortage with vaccine mandate, the governor saying she is -- staff shortage with vaccine mandate,

the governor saying she is prepared to call workers from outside new york to address potential staffing shortages caused by the approaching vaccine mandate for health care workers in new york state. guest: this brings up several important points. first, as a country we thought covid vaccines would result in the end of covid, that we would all be fine and could go home and continue our normal lives. if we look at diseases from prior generations, smallpox, polio, smallpox took over 25 years of sustained effort to eradicate worldwide. i believe it was eradicated in 1979. polio took two vaccines and a total of 10 to 15 years to eradicate. part of this is about our expectations about covid are unrealistic. we have to accept the fact that it has become an endemic disease

with localized outbreaks and manage accordingly. in terms of public health messaging, largely we have fallen on our face. we should be seeing messaging on the internet, on tv, everywhere about getting vaccinated, how it is important and how it is something we can do to serve our country. i have not seen that unified message ever. i think that is one of the problems. that is why the government has resorted to mandates, which i disagree with. i think private businesses should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. host: we will hear from john from wilmington, illinois. caller: i have a question about doctors who treat chronic pain patients.

we have seen over 1000 doctors leave the practice because of the war that has been waged against them as a result of donald trump's opioid commission threatening every doctor, pharmaceutical people, saying we are not going to fill prescriptions for people like myself. i am wondering what we are going to do about this aspect that has killed over 2 million americans in the last four years that no one seems to talk about. can you give me insight on that? my wife, being a nurse practitioner, has told me if i want to get treatment i have to lie to get the pain medicines i need to function after being poisoned by a statin. can you give me insight here? guest: that is a good question. you highlight the challenge of the opioid epidemic. it is a local issue, state issue, federal issue.

we have to have a whole person approach to pain. that takes time and funding. right now, i think physicians do not have the time to adequately treat pain patients because the in ministry to burden is too high. i think you are right. i think that is something that needs to be addressed. host: let's hear from kathleen in new york. you are on with dr. miller. caller: my concern is the reason you have a shortage of doctors is because for many years the american medical association has restricted the number of students that can go into medical school and who they are. they have wanted equality for everyone going into the schools and sometimes they have left out students who deserve to be there because they have the intellectual ability and they have not been able to qualify. maybe i am wrong, but i am a

retired nurse and i worked in hospitals for years. that is what we saw. host: dr. miller? guest: i would say the profession has worked to expand the number of medical schools. we are seeing medical schools opening in the southeast and texas. you hit on the points that diversity and opportunity in the medical profession has not been what it should be a thing expanding that supply allows that opportunity. that is something we should continue to support in addition to finding ways to drive down the cost of medical education. there are programs where people are considering having three years be the norm for certain medical schools and certain training pathways, which would save a whole year of tuition. we should look to expand those

opportunities in addition to extending the scope of practice in some areas in terms of cost and quality, like nurse practitioners or physician assistants. host: you had mentioned that covid in your view is now endemic in our society as a disease. a question for you from jim in texas. he says on immunity, what percentage of the u.s. is protected? is containment a rational approach? don't some clinicians disagree? guest: our initial for strategy -- our initial strategy for covid was if we vaccinate the population the disease would largely go away and we would have containment. i do not think that is realistic as now we are approaching two years in. i have been treating covid patients for almost two years. vaccination will help with potential containment.

we will still have localized outbreaks come as we are seeing in states like idaho and in florida, whereas in other states covid is not as much of an issue. instead of being a national issue, it has become a distinctly local issue. covid will eventually change to either an annual booster or a multishot regimen to bring you lifetime protection. host: we will go to anthony in pennsylvania. caller: i had a quick question for dr. miller. in new york city, mayor de blasio passed a law where you have to be vaccinated to sit in a restaurant. you need to be vaccinated to go into a gym. my mother is in a nursing home. how is it that they do not make it mandatory to be vaccinated -- they keep saying it is mandatory, but it is not mandatory to check to see if they got the virus but it is not

mandatory that they are vaccinated like it is mandatory to be in a restaurant to eat. i do not understand that my being they are around elderly people. maybe somebody can enlighten me with that answer. guest: that is next like. a lot of nursing home chains are looking at making the covid vaccine mandatory for staff. a lot of hospitals and health systems have done that for the same concerns. i think that change is going to happen and is happening. host: let me ask you about our crisis standards of care. the washington post writes, the long feared rationing of medical care has become a reality in some parts of the united states as the delta variant drives a new wave of coronavirus cases, pushing hospitals to the brink. in alaska and idaho have

activated statewide crisis standards of care in which health systems can prioritize patients based largely on the likelihood of survival and even deny treatment. the decisions affect covid and non-covid patients. some health-care providers have turned to crisis standards in montana as well. hawaii's governor released health workers from liability to have to ration care. is a lot of this driven by the fact that there are shortages of health care workers and this health worker burnout happening? host: -- guest: a lot of it is driven by shortages, burnout. you mentioned alaska and idaho, two highly rural states. there is a limited supply of rural clinics and hospitals, so people do not have the flexibility and labor and facility supply needed for something like a pandemic. if we had allowed opportunities for expansion of facilities,

expansion of nurse practitioners or allowed physicians to own and operate and build hospitals, we might be in a better place today. those are things we could have changed or could change as we think about future pandemics. host: here is for dell, calling from connecticut. -- fidel cannot calling from connecticut. -- fidel, calling from connecticut. caller: my question is about additional supply of doctors from certain types of schools. my experience has been the anti-vaccine movement comes from that type of doctor advising folks, talking about things that seem suspect. can you educate me about why you are confident supply will be beneficial? guest: i think they're

historically has been a division between allopathic and osteopathic physicians. that gap has been bridged. i have not heard physicians making those claims. i think that osteopaths offer an opportunity to fill needed gaps in areas like primary care, general surgery, and other areas. host: from west liberty, kentucky, gary is on the line. make sure you mute your volume on your television and then go ahead with your question or comment. caller: right now? host: go ahead. caller: yeah. host: you to the volume on the tv and go ahead with your comment.

caller: my question is you say there is a shortage of doctors and nurses. i know a lot of people in the medical field. the reason i know a lot of them are quitting is because they are being asked to take the covid shot and they are all saying they will quit the profession before they take the covid shot. i know a lot of doctors and nurses that have already quit. i cannot understand if you are vaccinated what threat do you have? if anybody has a threat from covid, the vaccinated carry the bug. what threat is it to the people that have not taken the shot? guest: vaccination prevents largely death and hospitalization. it does not necessarily prevent absolutely that you can still

get the covid infection but it is the harms of covid infection that vaccines protect us from. i think the amount of physicians and nurses who eventually will refuse the vaccine is small, especially in light of the fact that the majority of the health system in the u.s. requires that we get the flu vaccine annually and i expect that requirement from private hospitals and health systems to get the covid vaccine will eventually be a national requirement on the part of private actions from hospitals and health systems. host: the kaiser family foundation has a tracker of deaths per day in the united states and causes of deaths per day in the united states. the number one cause, heart disease with 50 average deaths per day. 1600 per day by cancer. from covid, 700 deaths per day. on our medical professionals

line, pittsburgh. caller: my name is martha and i work in a medical field. i worked in x-ray all 50 years and i was a medical transgression asked. i think people do not realize that working in the medical field, everyone that worked in the hospital had a job to do. the only thing required of you is to do your job. everyone that works in the hospital has a specific thing they do. everyone is important. i don't care if you are a nurse, doctor, whatever. an x-ray, you connect with all the doctors in the hospital because everybody has to have an x-ray of some type or ct scan or

mammogram or whatever. being a transfer finessed, my job was as the go-between. i would type up what they said. i had to have knowledge. i had to have knowledge of spelling medical terms, knowing what the doctor was talking about. i could be working right now. guest: i appreciate your 50 years of service and i think this brings up an opponent point about allowing flexibility in the labor supply and training people in hospitals to do different roles and providing opportunities to do that. the hospital industry, the economic performance on average for every year i have been alive, over 30 years and approaching 40, has had zero to at times negative labor growth, meeting on average for every

year the unit of labor in a hospital has been as productive as they were before or less productive than they were the year before. that is a typical -- atypical for every industry. that is a product where most health systems are monopolies. as a consequence, clinicians and other workers have limited choice in where they can work. the clinical practice environment has not changed much because we have lost the innovation in care delivery and that opportunity for flexibility to benefit host: patients. -- benefit patients. host: mark says, would a merit-based immigration system help with the doctor shortage. -- shortage? guest: it depends on how you define merit. we already allow and provide pathways for immigrants to participate and join the medical

profession depending upon at what age and what stage of their training they are coming to. the u.s., a large portion of physicians are foreign trained and provide equivalent care to that which american trained physicians provide. host: we will go to oak hill, west virginia. caller: good morning. i have a statement. i turned the tv on and heard a caller asking dr. miller about osteopathic doctors. i worked in a hospital that was next to the west virginia school of off the a pathic -- osteopathic medicine. i find them just as qualified as an md. my personal physician happens to be a doctor of osteopathic medicine.

i have full confidence in those positions -- physicians. when doctors of osteopathic medicine take their internship, they are alongside medical physicians and hospitals that offered internships to physicians. i see no difference really between osteopathic physicians and mds. i have been a dietitian and hospitals for 60 some years and worked with both. that is my statement. host: dr. miller, any further thoughts on that? guest: thank you and thank you for your six years of hard work and effort. i agree. i have seen mds and do's who have been excellent. host: let's hear from john in california. caller: good morning.

i have a question for dr. miller about the overall covid burnout and shortage. my math tells me we are talking 670,000 deaths. let's rounded up to one million -- ground it up to one million. we have 360 million people in this country. if 1% -- at 60% we are down to less than half of 1% deaths from this. then you add in the potential of that being over 80 years old, cut that figure in half. we are down significantly in the 1% of 1% deaths. does it justify the destruction of the entire economy for the efforts to help so many people

that are marginalized healthwise and age wise? guest: you are asking partially about the different between public health and controls to communicable disease and public health policy, which as a country we have not done a good job distinguishing between public health policy having to also consider economic effects, which has become clear. in terms of deaths, a death as a patient come as a physician, as a family member, any death is depressing and heart wrenching. my heart goes out to anyone whose family or friends or coworkers have passed away from covid. it is devastating. that being said, we have to consider the risks and benefits

of our interventions. lockdowns in some circumstances have exacerbated substance abuse, depression. we have seen a spate of childhood suicide attempts. in the future, we have to carefully consider unintended consequences and economic effects. host: we pointed out covid is now the number three because of daily deaths in the united states. -- number three cause of daily deaths in the united states. no matter what it was, it would test or tax the medical system. guest: absolutely. that is a testament to the fact that covid is here to stay. we have to figure out a way to manage it. we have not made that transition. we are still in our flight or fight response. we need a long-term plan going forward to manage covid.

host: let's get one more call here. terry in pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a couple comments here, so hear me out. i worked in the construction field all my life, and i remember in the 1980's the health insurance, they had big problems back then. i'm thinking it might still be interfering with it to this day because of malpractice insurance. it is awful expensive. then with these hospitals being in rural areas, they need the insurance. in order for you to even purchase that insurance, you need to have a horrendous amount of business because of the cost

structure. my third comment is i was in the hospital friday. i went into have surgery and had to go to the hospital. i was in an outpatient building. they transferred me to the hospital because of mild complications. i cannot believe what they told me in their about the people, the society of what i was hearing people say. there was a child next to me that had cancer and they kept trying to tell him to drink water and do some walking. he flat out refused.

then i heard a couple other people talking, which i do not want to get into, but that is all i have to say. host: any further thoughts? guest: i'm sorry to hear that you had complications on your surgery and i'm glad that it sounds like you are on the mend and able to talk about it, so good to hear that. you bring up a couple points which are important. one is public insurance does not pay hospitals well. medicaid rates are not a sustainable business for a clinical practice or hospital. if we are thing about expanding medicaid, we have to be careful and realize insurance does not equal access to care. the caller also brought up an important point about employee sponsored health insurance. it is a challenging marketplace especially for small businesses. we have to provide opportunities for small businesses to think about other ways and mechanisms

to ensure employees. host: dr. brian miller, thanks so much for being with us this morning. we will open up our phones to hear from you. our open forum and the issues we have been hearing about, including looming budget agreements set to come up for a vote this week. we will take your phone calls on that and other public policy or political issues. democrats, it is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. for all others, (202) 748-8002. ♪ >> this week on the c-span

networks, secretary of defense lloyd austin, joint chiefs of staff chair general mark milley, and the head of central command testify on the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan in two hearings. c-span3 will have live coverage of the testimony before the senate armed services committee tuesday and the house armed services committee wednesday. the senate banking committee hold an oversight hearing tuesday at 10:00 a.m. with treasury secretary janet yellen on the federal economic stimulus measures taken in response to the pandemic. we will have live coverage on c-span.org. thursday, health and human services secretary xavier becerra and the education secretary are before a senate committee to discuss school re-openings during coronavirus pandemic. watch this week on the c-span networks or listen on the c-span radio app.

also, had to c-span.org to stream video live or on-demand at any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. host: quite a week ahead for the house and senate. they face the end of the fiscal year thursday and the passage or debate and vote on two major pieces of legislation, priorities of the biden administration the infrastructure package that has already passed in the u.s. senate, and what is called the budget reconciliation package, the $3.5 trillion measure that includes social spending and social programs. that includes climate change spending and policy. senator cory booker of new jersey talked about that yesterday. [video clip] >> why can't you trust moderates

or whoever we want to classify folks? why not pass this on monday and put points on the scoreboard for president biden, which right now hopes the whole party, and trust the moderates will be there? >> i do not think it is a matter of trust. i have been around the town for eight years watching the best of intentions not manifest into something real. we were told this was one package. the president said don't separate this. this is one package. i want to make sure this is not about a bunch of people battling it out in congress. this is about the american people. to get half of this done and leave americans looking for lower-cost prescription drugs, to lead people like that on the wayside, families that need that child tax credit, leave those folks on the weight side -- wayside is on except a bull to

me. i want a real guarantee. -- acceptable -- unacceptable to me. i want a real guarantee. i haven't looked in the eye by people in this town and they have meant it. there was honor in them saying we are not going to get this but we will get to it. sometimes that turns out to be years and then the next congress or what have you. when you have the leverage, you use the leverage. for me it is about the communities in this country. independence, 60% to 70% support what we do. >> i want to get to breaking out the policies. i'm having flashbacks to health care. i hear the same thing, the individual parts are popular. they are. should you deal with them in an individual piece? i understand the situation of reconciliation, but you could be

debating each part of the bill one at a time and might get your message to people. >> i was a mayor during the health-care debate, and it took years before suddenly the affordable care act -- now the affordable care act polls above water for every group. again, there is movement and moments. this is a moment for america to go big. host: cory booker yesterday on meet the press by the action getting underway later in the u.s. senate today. the first item of business will be a vote on advancing legislation passed by the u.s. house. this is legislation that will keep the government funded past the september 30 deadline. it was passed of the house last week. it would fund the government through december 3 of this year and suspend the debt limit until december of next year.

it would add nearly $29 trillion for disaster relief and $6.3 billion for resettlement of afghan refugees. the house is coming in today. we will see debate later in the house on the structure bill. house democrats will hold their caucus meeting with the speaker later today as they discuss the way forward on the infrastructure spending and budget reconciliation package. let's go first to dilbert in texas, republican line. there you are. go ahead with your comment. make sure you mute your volume. caller: yes. host: make sure you mute your volume on your television. go ahead with your comment. caller: i did. host: great. how are you?

go ahead with your comment. you are on the air. caller: -- from houston -- [indiscernible] host: we are going to go to charles in prescott, arkansas. you're on the air. caller: i just tuned in a moment ago. exactly what are we supposed to be discussing at the moment? host: it is our open forum, so anything you want to talk about in politics and public policy. caller: basically i am an

independent but i have voted for nixon. i voted for bill clinton. i voted for our former president. i spent many years teaching school and i was retired from the service as a lieutenant colonel. i spent three months in little rock, arkansas, enlisted in arkansas army national guard. i think what we need to do is go back to moses, abraham, and jesus christ and our country would go back the way it should be doing. i have been in vietnam. i was there in grenada where 19 people got killed and 100

wounded. a bunch of bodies got sent back in body bags from vietnam. if we go back to god's teaching, we will have a great nation. host: thank you for your service and thanks for calling. on the republican line. caller: i want to say there is something strange going on in this country. since april 2020, there has been a group of phd's, biochemists, scientists who are imploring the governor -- government to look at early treatment. we have excellent antiviral early treatment, whether it be ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, which actually works with zinc. we know all these treatments

work. this is the way out of this pandemic. we know people who are vaccinated are getting sick. whether you are vaccinated or unvaccinated, you are going to need early treatment. host: michael, houston, republican line. caller: my comment is what happened to the phrase "you buy it, you own it"? democrats own it. they cannot blame republicans for it. elections have consequences, and we are suffering the consequences of this election now by them voting in biden. i do not understand why they are complained about republicans. they are the ones that initiated all of this and spent a lot of money. nobody seems to be questioning that.

i am happy with the arizona results. that is all i have to say. host: this is the front page of the wall street journal this morning. congress pressed by deadlines to avoid default, shut down. even by the standards of a capital used to operate under pressure, this week's crosscurrents are setting the stage for an extraordinary sprint. democratic leaders are trying to shepherd two complicated packages, a $1 trillion bipartisan and for structure bill and a sprawling health care education and climate package -- health care, education, and climate package whose details are still under debate in the party. at the same time, government funding is set to expire friday, which would partially shutdown the government if congress does not act. lawmakers are feuding over who is responsible for raising the debt limit and avoiding a potential catastrophic default. absent swift action, treasury

secretary janet yellen notified congress the treasury might be unable to keep paying all the government bills on time during october. in charlottesville, virginia, on the independent line. caller: it is incredible when you consider raising the debt limit and passing this huge deficit down to our children and grandchildren for a plan that we do not even know what is in it. nancy pelosi said we have to pass the bill to know what is in the bill. how can our congresspeople, who have a terrible conference -- confidence rating, do this on the national debt? we have to have the congress read it in front of the public before it is voted on. host: it is our open forum. we will hear from joe in ohio.

caller: i am agreeing on the independent line. there is an important story not being covered, the line three pipeline suspension in minnesota. there have been over 800 people arrested trying to block that pipeline this summer. a lot of people do not know the biden administration went to court to defend trump's decision to push it through even though it has not had proper environmental review and the process of putting it in his destroying ecosystem. we all need to know that is happening and contradicts some of the things he has been saying about what he is going to do for the climate. host: why did the biden administration defend the continuation of the pipeline? caller: i actually do not know what arguments they used.

i think it boils down to the economics of pushing the pipeline through some of the most sensitive areas in minnesota. they did not want to see that stopped. host: eric, democrats line in buffalo, new york. good morning. caller: a few things i want to tackle. about the virus, if people want to go to alternatives -- alternative early treatment, that is what the shot is for, early treatment protect everybody against each other. where is this american community? and on the deficit and raising the debt ceiling, the republicans did it three times.

why don't they explain that is a 10 year period? we have no problem spending $7 trillion on wars and stuff here and how much money do we spend with no accountability? just a lot of nuances that are not reported that people misunderstand. host: facing a heap of defeat, progressives stay copes on the spending bill. they write that immigration, voting rights -- crushed by the reality of slim and democratic majorities, so progressives are digging in on what could be their last chance in years. as democrats raced to put together a multi-trillion dollar social spending package, speaker nancy pelosi left flank is

pushing as hard as it can to see progressive priorities reflected. they vowed to tank a bipartisan infrastructure bill on the floor if they do not see more movement , a strategic flex that reflects how many of their other goals have withered. in west plains, missouri, we will hear from carol, independent line. i was calling on two bills they are trying to pass. i do not understand people calling in wanting that big $3.5 trillion deal when they do not even know what is in it. unless you read that whole bill, i would want no part of it. i wish c-span would help out in this. everybody keeps repeating the major things and that bill, child care, that is great, but maybe every day c-span ought to list five or six other things in

that deal. it might make people think different about what they are trying to get through. i think that would help a lot of people. that is a great suggestion. we have done a number of segments on that bill. number of segments on that bill and i believe we have also linked to that legislation on our website. a very good point to end the program on as well. thanks for joining in the conversation this morning. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 on washington journal. we hope you are, too. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered

view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> i used to think this is just a community center but it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers to provide wi-fi so that students can be ready for everything. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> both the house and senate are in session today. in the house, legislative work starts at 2:00 eastern. members will begin debate on the infrastructure bill. nancy pelosi says the house will vote on the bill on thursday. the house is also expected to consider legislation of discrimination against older workers and a bill dealing with the opioid pandemic -- epidemic. the senate comes in at 3:00 eastern to work