10:00, the house veterans affairs committee investigates the recruitment of veterans by violent extremists groups. everything is also available online at c-span.org, or on our free mobile app, c-span now. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by these television companies and more including well. -- wow. >> the world has changed, fast internet is something no one can doubt. wow is there for our customers. now more than ever it starts with great internet. >> wow, supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> here on c-span this morning, we look at the impact of debt on the u.s. economy with christopher russo from the

mercator center. and later, president biden's recent actions to protect three national monuments and potential challenges to future land protections. washington journal is next. host: good morning. it is wednesday, october 13, 2021. legislation now goes to president biden for his signature. governors in several states are pushing back against federal vaccine mandate requirements. that is the discussion we will begin today. phone lines are open. give us your view on vaccine mandates.

if you oppose vaccine mandates, (202)-748-8001. if you support them, (202)-748- 8000. catch up with us on social media. on twitter at @cspanwj. facebook.com/cspan. go ahead and start calling in. earlier this week, the texas governor issued an executive order banning entities in texas from acquiring vaccine mandates at businesses. here is the headline from the austin american statesman. he has urged texans to get vaccinated throughout the pandemic but banned entities from requiring the shots.

private businesses cannot require patrons to be vaccinated but until monday, companies were not allowed to mandate vaccines among employees. president biden said all private companies with more than 100 workers will be required to vaccinate or require weekly tests. here is some reaction yesterday to that executive order by greg abbott. the house member saying the governor has no intention of saving lives. vaccination is critical and corporate america must join the effort to vaccinate the unvaccinated. from the houston area, this is

dangerous and potentially deadly. texans cannot tolerate another possible pandemic surge and more lives lost. here is the white house briefing room yesterday. reporter: what is the president's message to businesses in texas? when it comes to federal guidance, what would the president say? >> we know federal law overrides state law. earlier when we put out guidance on the president's announcement about mandates several weeks ago it made clear, again, requirements are promulgated pursuant to federal law.

additionally, nothing excuses noncompliance with any municipal ordinance. we put out guidance several weeks ago conveying that clearly. fundamentally, beyond the legal aspect, which is unquestionable, the question for any business leader is, what do you want to do to save more lives in your companies? how are you going to create a workforce where people feel safe to go to their workplaces? what is fundamentally in the interest of your businesses over the long term? we have seen economist after economist and many business leaders show that this reduces uncertainty and that is good ultimately for businesses and the economy but also saving lives is something fundamentally business leaders can do by continuing to work to implement mandates. a lot of these businesses are doing it on their own to date.

the osha requirements are the next step. reporter: clearly governor abbott knows federal rules supersede state rules. why is he doing this? >> politics. reporter: can you elaborate? >> it is clear when you make a choice against all public health information and data out there, it is not based on what is in the interest of the people your governing. it is perhaps in the interest of your own politics. host: that from the white house briefing room yesterday. a look around the country at what is happening in individual states. 20 states have a vaccine or regular testing mandate, according to tracking. seven states have some sort of prohibition on state or local agencies mandating coronavirus vaccines. in florida, the governor has threatened to fine localities

that mandate vaccines for government workers. the county that contains tallahassee was fined for violation. more from governor desantis yesterday in st. petersburg, from first coast news, at a press conference talking about vaccine mandates and protections for private workers. >> the issue is going to be now looking at the private sector, biden announces this mandate on private employers. one month ago? a month ago. it has not been issued yet. the reason is because it is a definite loser in court. we are prepared to contest that immediately. i know other states will do so as well.

you are in a situation where you will force businesses -- they need employees. they want to hire. now you may be forcing them to fire employees. why would we want people to be out of jobs? it is totally unacceptable. i think what is happening in the private sector is some of these businesses are scared of the feds and they think they need to do that. every worker, not just police and fire, but every worker should be protected from losing their jobs over this. this has become a political issue. unfortunately, this has become politicians wanting to control people. why would you want to see people lose their livelihood, in the place where this is most outrageous, with the hospital workers. these are nurses working this entire time, once again, most of them have probably had covid and recovered and now they are going to lose jobs at a time when the health care system has been

shortstaffed for the last year. we just went through a delta wave. hospitalizations go up. what is going to happen in the north? you're seeing cases rise. unfortunately, you are going to see a wave there. are they going to do this shorthanded without those folks? we should be providing protections. you need legislature to pass a law. i don't know it can be done unilaterally through executive agencies. we will look. you need a law to say, you should be terminated -- you shouldn't be terminated for this reason. host: that was from florida yesterday, governor ron desantis. getting your thoughts on vaccine mandates, we want to know if you support the idea of vaccine mandates or if you oppose them. (202)-748-8000, if you support. (202)-748-8001, if you oppose.

waldorf, maryland. caller: good morning. i appreciate letting me in on the call. i believe it should be left up to the states. the federal government is already doing more than they are supposed to as far as exercising laws. it is limiting and it should be left up to the states. the main reason i say that is because if you look at these mandates, harsh penalties are actually affecting the livelihood of americans. if you don't take the vaccine, we are going to fire you and possibly jeopardize your family and income. that is very uncouth. it should be left up to the states. the states should be allowed to exercise the proper laws they feel necessary for the citizens of the state. it should not be in the hands of the federal government.

we see how the federal government wants to be god over god of the universe. host: sandy, silver spring, maryland, for those who support. caller: don't even worry about the mandates of texas and florida. everyone is going to die. those governors don't give a damn about anything then themselves. they are the head of the trump trash party. that is all i can say. they are a disgrace and they should be kicked out of this country. host: okeechobee, florida, good morning. caller: good morning, john. i oppose this. i don't think it is the government's business. i don't think vaccines work anyway. they keep playing around with this since 2019-2020? the vaccine is supposed to help you. you don't have to wear a mask. then you do.

then you need a second shot. then you get your second shot but you don't have to wear a mask, but then again you have to wear a mask. the second shot don't work. now they are talking booster. now they are talking booster because the first and second shots he got are only good for nine months. the whole thing is political. i am kind of wondering about the media. you guys there, there should be a story on. i was told, and i read about, the congressional people, our leaders, are making lots of money on the stocks for this vaccine. that is why it is being pushed so hard. i'm kind of wondering about that. also, how rich are the politicians getting on pushing this vaccine on people that is not really working? not only that, to end the conversation, i am 86. i have my covid, ok?

i got it back in 2020. i did it all by myself. i stayed home and suffered three weeks with the pain and the hurt and all the rest of the stuff that went with it. after i was over it, i went to my doctor and he took blood tests to find out for sure if i had it. my whole body was so filled with my own antibodies it was actually attacking my cells and tissues. that is how strong my antibodies was. i never saw a doctor, i am 86 years old, i don't take flu shots or any medication whatsoever. he put this poison and you -- america has turned into a pill pop or country. host: emmett in louisiana supports vaccine mandates. what kind of mandate would you support? caller: the country is in a

situation. you have people trying to stop abortion yet the situation -- i'm sorry. i can't get my thoughts together. it is so messed up. host: robert, washington, d.c. caller: thank you for taking my call. [indiscernible] -- the vaccine. it should be voluntary, not mandatory. [indiscernible] host: robert, we were having trouble hearing you.

maybe we can get you on a clearer line. westwood, new jersey, mark. caller: good morning. i support everybody getting the vaccine and it being mandated. when i grew up, i am old enough to remember when you had to have a smallpox vaccination and a polio vaccination to go to school. nobody said it was their personal choice or it was political. no one questioned scientists knew what they were doing. people have gone crazy today. they think they know more than scientists. i feel like i am in the twilight zone. that woman from okeechobee, florida, 86 years old running around with chainsaws and refuses to get medicine -- i am glad i live in a civilized place. host: speaking of new jersey, the idea of a vaccine mandate and mask mandates as well coming

up in last night's new jersey governor debate. this election cycle coming up in a few weeks. jack was asked about his opposition to mandates in the state. here is some of that exchange along with the response from governor murphy. [video clip] >> you are against masking mandates for students. how do you propose to ensure safety for all without those regulations? 60 seconds. >> thank you. i just heard the governor talk about mass mandates but he participated in a large indoor conference in the last four days in which no one was wearing masks. [applause] i do think our leadership -- [applause] i do think our leadership needs to be consistent in times such as these. what we saw throughout the course of the 2021 school year

was schools were open, private schools were open, there were some public schools that were open. there was little to no spread of the virus. some way they got it done with their ventilation systems, with their policies on social distancing. i always feel there is a way to do this when we get together and find a way to get things done. there is strong disagreement on how to go about this. >> i have to answer this. are you wearing a mask? we are on stage. 227 covid updates, i wear the mask on stage. it is quite clear what the playbook is. vaccinations and masking, whether in schools or generally, that is the playbook. willfully ignoring that right now is putting people's lives at

risk and we are not going to do that. [applause] >> if i may, david -- ? [applause] >> in all fairness, what am i missing here? >> the cdc is recommending -- >> he was at a large indoor gathering in the last three, fortis. no one had masks on. >> nice try. host: from last night's new jersey governor debate. taking your calls on vaccine mandates, to support or oppose them in any setting. give us a call on phone lines split by support and oppose. as you call in, as we noted off the top, yesterday the house approved a bill for a u.s. default on its debts, sending it to the president. that was 219-206. every house republican voting against raising the debt ceiling, passing alongside

partyline votes. that passed in the senate last week. the current debt limit was set at $28.4 trillion. the treasury has used extraordinary measures to delay the borrowing cap. now, the president's signature would lift the ceiling by another $480 billion. we will talk more about the debt ceiling coming up in the 8:00 hour on washington journal. one other story to note from the front page of the washington times today, a story in some form in pretty much every major newspaper today, "u.s. supply chain cannot keep on trucking, the shortage of drivers threatens christmas shopping." continued problems with the u.s. supply chain. president biden will hold a meeting about the bottleneck today with executives from various ports around the country

including the port of los angeles, the port of long beach and union officials as well as shipping executives. all of that happening with the president today. the president is expected to speak about it later this afternoon around 2:20 p.m. eastern time. that is what is on the president schedule today. check your c-span listings later today for the president's remarks. back to your phone calls, this idea of vaccine mandates. the lines to support and oppose them. michael in miami opposes. why? caller: mainly because who is going to accept liability if something happens? everything is happening now. people getting laid off and everything. what if you get your vaccine and you die from the vaccine? who do i sue?

who does my family sue for damages which haha -- i don't know what your life is worth but you know, this whole thing, ok -- the vaccines -- the one guy about the smallpox -- yeah i had that too. this vaccine had been years and years developing. not six months and we got one. they say, ok -- go ahead. host: one area in which there seems to be a lot of support for mandatory vaccines is for undocumented migrants who come across the border, come into u.s. custody, at least according to a new poll sponsored by the national sheriffs association, overwhelming support for illegal immigrants to get the covid vaccine if they come into u.s. custody, 74%. caller: i don't agree with

having illegal immigrants having vaccines because they should not be coming in here anyway! they should not be allowed in. if they are illegal, they should be deported. why do we need to spend our money vaccinating them? that argument is over. you got a come back on that one? there is a thing called right and wrong. you just said it. illegal immigrants. why are they here? host: that is michael in miami, florida. shreveport, louisiana, support. caller: thank you. let people go ahead and be a current -- and be ignorant. if they decide to jump off the bridge, go ahead. i don't want to get in their way.

thanks for taking my call. host: glen falls, new york, cecil opposes mandates. you have to turn your television down and talk to your phone. you have to stick by your phone. david, flint, michigan, those who support mandates. sue, flint, michigan. caller: i don't understand these anti-vaxxers. i get tired of hearing their excuses. they don't follow the signs. these republican governors are supposed to be pro-business. you don't want your people to remain well? i don't understand. the nurses. you get a science degree. they are not following science. this does not make sense to me at all. the only excuse i would say to not get the vaccine is if your

doctor told you not to. half these people probably do not go to their doctor. thank you. host: david, independence, louisiana. caller: good morning, johnny. how you doing? host: doing well. caller: i am opposed to making people take a vaccine. i've never worn a mask since this started in march, 2020. i don't know how, i don't have the virus or i am not dead. it is fully common around this area. i know plenty of people, we ride in the car together, we are not six feet apart, no one has gotten sick that i know of. one person has pretty bad heart problems after taking the vaccine. i don't trust the federal government for the most part, especially cdc. one time when i was younger, i

lost 50 pounds. after i lost 50 pounds, going to the cdc, i was classified as obese. they are one-size-fits-all. it is not real. host: a few comments from social media. joan in minnesota saying i believe in local mandates but not a federal mandate and no mandate on those who had covid and have antibodies. let each business and each state decide. brandon saying ron desantis is the only governor who has common sense. jim from lake abbott, no authority to dictate to a private business what they can and cannot do. he is wrong on this one, is what jim says. yes, from pennsylvania, and one

more, this from scott in tennessee. i am for the mandates. people don't want to work. we have millions of mexicans who will take those jobs. fielding your comments from social media this morning. casey in oregon opposes mandates. go ahead. caller: good morning? host: go ahead. caller: i am opposed to vaccine mandates. i feel the american people should have the choice. also i am a pro vaccine but there is not enough research behind it. our polio vaccines, mumps, rubella has so much research behind. this vaccine has been pushed out so quickly and fast on the american people, it feels like something sinister. host: when will you feel comfortable with this vaccine?

at what point? caller: i would like to see more research, especially being a young female, with pregnant women and their pregnancies and how they progress. i would like to see further trials. it seems like the american people are the guinea pigs. host:, enid, oklahoma, for those who support mandates. caller: hi. thanks. this argument has devolved. everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room. they keep moving the goal posts. it has turned into this political argument. wearing a mask or not, it is going to be subversive versus the government. the common sense versus the subversive. the elephant in the room is they

can test to see if you have antibodies. to make fun of the lady who says she is resilient at 89 and can still chopper on would, it is crazy. people are yelling and laughing at each other about dying. they are laughing at you if you are jumping off a bridge. even the -- the moderator is laughing at everyone. this is not healthy anymore. host: john, alabama, your next. caller: i am opposed to the vaccine. there are some articles about nanotechnology. they are the vital components of moderna and pfizer. host: where are you reading these articles? caller: excuse me? host: where are reading these

articles? caller: it is all over the internet. they are in the covid-19 vaccines. this nanotechnology is a new form of really therapeutic medicine out to people -- host: we will hold off on the nanotechnology discussion. we are talking about vaccine mandates this morning, getting your phone calls on it. you can keep calling in, this discussion of vaccine mandates coming up a couple times yesterday in the white house briefing room. here's more from jen psaki yesterday. [video clip] reporter: what is the white house response to those who say vaccine mandates have reduced the workforce? >> world-renowned business

traveler ted cruz has made that point but i would not say that is not widely echoed by business leaders who have implemented these mandates, by health experts who conveyed the way to get out of the pandemic is to ensure we are doing exactly the steps the president has announced and working to limit. this is challenging. we are in a global pandemic. the job of the president is to lead. it is to ensure he is protecting the lives of people across the country. i know there was a hubbub over the course of the last few days about southwest airlines. we now know some claims were absolutely false and the issues were completely unrelated to vaccine mandates. what we have seen business-to-business across the country is this is the way to save lives, create more

certainty and something we are looking forward to implementing. host: jen psaki from the white house briefing room yesterday. we expect another today as well as a covid task force briefing, around 11 a.m. eastern this morning. that all from the white house today. one of the stories on vaccine mandates from usa today. new york must allow religious exemptions to the state vaccine mandate for medical workers, a federal judge ruled yesterday. northern district of new york granted a preliminary injunction barring new york state and employers from enforcing the vaccine mandate against medical workers claiming a legitimate religious exemption, requiring most workers to get a first vaccine dose by the 27th or lose their jobs. it left the fate of 36,000

workers to receive the shots, uncertain. many of the medical workers who claimed religious exemption had been placed on suspension pending the outcome of the court battle. back to your phone calls. stephen, michigan, supports vaccine mandates in all settings? caller: all settings, yeah. you should get the vaccination. i mean, what else do you have to lose? other than your life, if you don't? it is stupid. just go get your shot. stop whining. man up. get the business taking care of. we are not going to get back together until this mess is over with. stop letting people come in. it is ridiculous. we have people flying in, diseases from all over the country, all over the world. it is stupid. just get busy. get the shot. stop whining. do the right thing.

host: at what point will you feel comfortable with international travel again or international travelers coming to the u.s.? when you think it is ok to start letting people come back in again? caller: when the disease is not killing people. that is when. you don't let a pandemic race around the world, no vaccine, nothing. tough it out someplace. go die quietly. host: all right. michael, marietta, georgia. caller: i just want to say to those people just hating everybody, they hate republicans, they hate former president trump -- they are so full of hate they cannot think straight. us republicans are not against the vaccine. we just know you don't have to take it -- if you are not a sick

person, you don't have to take it. if your doctor says you don't have to take it, you don't have to take it. if you are a sick person and you are taking medication, you should take the vaccine. it should not be everyone has to take it. it is ridiculous we are fighting among each other. we are missing the point. the science tells us you don't have to take the vaccine if you are a healthy person. they did a study at harvard university and said the average person who died from covid was already on five or more medications. i mean these people were already sick, most of them. people need to realize the science is behind -- you don't have to take this vaccine if you are a healthy person. host: you don't think anybody who was otherwise healthy that has gotten covid has gotten sick? of the 700,000 people who have died of covid, you don't think

any of them were otherwise healthy before they got covid? caller: the studies say most people that have died because of covid were already sick. host: a few more of your comments from social media this morning. vaccine mandates are not new. i was a school nurse in south florida for eight years. the countywide motto was no shock, no school, no kidding. deborah singh the mandates are working. it is sad. bennett saying everyone would get the shot if you called it a requirement. social media comments, about 20 minutes left of this segment getting your thoughts on vaccine mandates. do you support or oppose them?

duane, michigan, supports the idea of mandates. in business settings? caller: first of all, thank you. look at the highest death rates in the country. texas and florida. what more do you need to know? they need to fast-track a vaccine for stupid. that is what these people are. this is a public health issue. it doesn't matter what you think or what you want to do. this is for the entire country and world as a matter of fact. host: let's rein in the name-calling today as we have this conversation. it helps keep the conversation on track. rose, north carolina. caller: good morning. nice to speak with you. i do not believe in health care mandates. hippo needs to be strengthened -- hippa needs to be

strengthened. you do not have the right to know my health history, neither does any other person. it is intrusive. it is big brother overreach. it is like asking my personal pronouns on a job application or my age or my race. you need to keep your nose out of other people's business. you do not need to know my medical history or that of my husband. we need to stop being a cheap tablet behavior -- the shot deftly has side effects. it is depressing. that is all i have to say. have a great day. host: beverly, madison, alabama, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: well, go ahead. caller: i am a nurse.

it should be public mandated. it is a public health issue. i don't understand -- they don't believe in getting the covid shots but they believe in antibodies. they got that once they realized they got the covid. that is fairly new and rationed by several states because of government takeover because so many states were using it for treatment. why do the people -- [indiscernible] -- then rushed to the hospital and take up a lot of the beds? i don't get their thoughts about not taking the vaccine. [indiscernible] -- to get these new treatments. i don't get that. thank you. host: sue, redhook, new york.

caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i am opposed to a mandate on anything, to be perfectly honest. i am listening to the other colors. i feel so sorry for this country. we are being ripped apart. there is a hatred toward one another which never existed, that i can remember from way back when. i think we should get our priorities in order in our own homes and stop pointing fingers at everybody else and calling them stupid and they should die. i mean, it is just not a healthy way for our country. this is our country. we have to take control here. the government has overstepped, and the last nine months, i will say, on everything period.

they have divided us as human beings by race, religious beliefs, all this crazy stuff. it is up to the individual what they want to do. if they don't want to take the vaccine for whatever reason, that is their prerogative. wear your mask if it makes you happy. i say the government -- the biden administration, i am sorry to put it that way but it is the truth -- has divided us. they walk around in these private settings, no masks, no nothing. they are out dancing, outdoing this. and they are laughing about it. we are stuck. we cannot go to work. it is mandatory we have it. even if we don't want it. this is insanity. host: you talk about government overreach, coming back to where we began this conversation. it was the executive order by greg abbott in texas saying

private entities couldn't have vaccine mandates for their employees or consumers who come in to their business settings. is it an overreach for a state government to say a private business can't have a vaccine mandate? if a private business wants to do that for their employees, is it the state governments business to say, no, you cannot do that? caller: i think the federal government -- [laughter] -- has a lot of the problem here. they have mandated this for businesses. i personally, i mean, look at the businesses we have lost in this country. china is doing well. china is passing us by millions and millions of dollars. meanwhile you have people living here who are struggling, truly struggling. somebody brought up about people

coming over the border. what is it that united states citizens born here have to take something they don't want but you can bring in all these other people and not even give them anything? it is insanity. it doesn't make sense. you are inserting them into our communities. that is another issue. they are getting the worst of it. people are starting to resent them, which should have never happened in the first place either. host: impacts on businesses, kelly sadler, editor from the washington times. mandates will lead to a ruined christmas. "the u.s. faces severe u.s. worker shortage. mandates of the exact wrong policy prescription. mandates have the potential to cripple our industries, increase

crime and weaken the educational system." some example she points to -- "mr. biden has told health-care care workers to get vaccinated or get out. the ability home care ceo in san antonio, texas told npr she is concerned her unvaccinated employees may refuse to comply with the mandate. a police union warned of submitting resignations before the mandate." the massachusetts police squad is already shortstaffed. after the new york mandate when into effect, many employees have been placed on unpaid leave for refusing to comply. some school systems will have to switch from serving hot lunches to offering grabbing go options because of a lack of staff.

teachers assume to be heard in the u.s. circuit court of appeals. john, spring, texas. on the idea of mandates, where do you stand? caller: i am in favor of them. i have no problem with a mask. i have one a mask some -- worn a mask some. if people in these red states do not want to wear masks, we still have 90,000 infections a day, people getting sick. if they want to get sick, that cost me money. i am tired of it. you are causing me a problem. you watch this krapp on fox news -- crap on fox news, reporting

on radio in houston the other day was saying the airline problem with southwest was caused by president biden. the president had nothing to do with that problem. you cannot blame every freaking thing on president biden, you stupid not. -- you stupid nut. i filed a complaint -- i cannot remember his name right now -- i complained to the fcc about that radio station. host: the fcc got back to you? caller: i mailed it yesterday. michael barry, the mass mandate by president biden was the reason southwest airlines have canceled these flights. [laughter] it had nothing to do with it. host: on southwest airlines,

plenty of focus on that, not just local talk radio but members of congress including senator cruz pointing to that shortage and making the connection to a vaccine mandate. southwest corporate leaders, pilots union and the federal aviation administration have all forcefully pushed back on the claims the flight cancellations were caused by pilots protesting the coronavirus vaccine mandates. the southwest pilots association circulated an analysis this week showing particular updates in pilots calling out sick and cited evidence pilots were continuing to come forward to pick up extra flights as well. that from the washington post story today about vaccine mandates, the debate over mandates around the country. carl is in barrow beach. what do you say on mandates? caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate it. i don't believe in vaccine

mandates because i do not believe the government should be telling us what we have to do and not do. i had both my shots in april. march and april. i just got covid this weekend. i went in monday, got a positive test. even the doctors said, wow, i cannot believe you got covid after having the vaccine. they tell you you get your vaccines and you are going to be ok and you cannot get sick, then they tell you you need a booster shot. now i understand that because the immunity from the vaccines are wearing off. you have to get your booster shot because you are not protected from covid. i am not. i just got sick. i'm quarantined in my house this week because of it but the government does not need to be telling me what to do. i went down yesterday and got the regen antibody shots, you get four of them. they actually work.

i can feel it is helping me get better from the covid. i don't have it bad. the government doesn't need to be in our life. biden's policies and what he is doing is destroying the country. host: what line of work are you in? caller: i am a superintendent, around 20 people. host: what is the rule in your company about when you can come back and what you have to show to come back on the job after contracting covid? caller: the dr. told me when i tested positive, i had 10 days mandatory quarantined. i cannot go back until monday. host: how are you feeling? caller: i am feeling ok. kind of anxious. we are quarantining ourselves in between each other inside the house. i feel good.

i am ok. i am sure i am not that bad. i took the shots because my parents are in their 70's, to protect them. i don't want to get my shots. i have friends who will not get shots. the government is telling you one thing and then they tell you something else, then they tell you the shots are going to protect you, then you have to have a booster shot. there are people that are sick, people not sick. i have seen 4, 5 of my friends and my doctors kids get sick one day. it is like they build their natural immunity, they are fine. anyone under 18, they don't need to get shots. they are not dying. they are knocking sick. they are building natural immunity. they told me when i get done with this, with the vaccines, with getting covid, with having this regen shots, i am almost bulletproof. my natural immunity, i will not

get sick. host: carl, continue to feel ok. sharon, hyattsville, maryland supports vaccine mandates. caller: [indiscernible] i'm pretty much confused. with all the republicans calling -- [indiscernible] -- like the last one, bulletproof. [indiscernible] my niece, who is eight years old, had covid. she had it seriously. it was really really bad. my mother had it last year. i almost lost my mother. my best friend. i'm just basically confused. it is like they have so many excuses. like, pretty much their doctor told them they should not be taking, they don't have to take the vaccine.

a lot of them probably don't go to the doctor. speaking from the heart, i am nervous right now, it is early and i have a headache -- this is serious. wear your mask, get your vaccine, stop politicizing this. one lady said there was too much hatred but then on the other end she went and said biden, basically, i don't want to say anything about the administration but she said biden. so who is politicizing this? this is serious. this is a public health issue. to sum it up, yes, i voted for biden but it is not about hate. i am born and raised here in america, my mother is from trinidad, tobago, my father is

american. just like the pope said, y'all republicans say y'all christians and y'all believe in jesus and all this, and abortion and all this, the pope said getting the vaccines is about love. it is an act of love. let's not focus on biden, jump. let's focus on the act of love. host: about 10 minutes left in this segment getting your thoughts on vaccine mandates. cassie, wichita falls, texas, opposes them. caller: hey, wow, some of the stuff i have heard i don't know where to begin. i am a registered nurse. i believe it is my choice. i had covid while working in icu taking care of people who had covid. i was great and fine when there wasn't a vaccine, when no one

wanted to show up every day. it is heartbreaking. i love democrats. i love republicans. i wish everyone could find unity. at the end of the day, i have heard some different people say, well, you're tired of using hospital space, you're tired of this and that. if you are overweight because of a lifestyle you have or you have a condition because of a lifestyle you have, i am still going to treat you and take care of you. your personal choices may be different than mine but i am still going to treat you. i think it is too new. i think there is not enough testing done. for me, i am against it. that does not mean since you are vaccinated, i cannot love you and care for you and have respect for you. the bottom line is we should all care for each other. i don't even understand how it

has gotten to the point of people being so angry and upset with each other. now if you could have this vaccination and eradicate it or not pass it, it would be completely different. you can still get covid. many of my team members have been vaccinated that have covid, that got sick with covid, that have been off work due to covid and then i have others that have not been vaccinated that have been here since day one and have never had covid or they have had covid and they are a symptomatically -- a symptomatic. host: how do we fix not testing enough in this country? as an example, some school systems have instituted mandatory or randomized testing in school to see if covid is in

schools. how do we fix the testing situation? is a testing mandate something that concerns you? caller: i don't know if you got that from another caller but i did not say that. i test weekly. i don't have an issue with testing. my husband is a game warden and he tests frequent. if our children have any symptoms, we test them. i don't have an issue with testing. if it means for the greater good or somebody else, i don't have a problem with testing. there are not any long-term side effects or anything that can come about from testing. same with wearing a mask. i don't have an issue. i will wear one everyday. i don't have a problem. i will wear goggles. i can wear anything you want me to wear. i can take it off. i go home. i am still knee. -- i am still me.

host: more of your comments from social media. registered respiratory therapist. i have never in 35 years of practice seen so many patients be preventative basic. -- preventably sick. there are plenty of other health-related directives which we all adhere. this is just another one. this from denise in nevada. i oppose mandates. i voted for trump. i got vaxxed because trump did. maria, tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning, how is everybody doing today? seems pretty riled up. i don't blame them. i support the vaccine mandates provided they are applied equally to everybody under the

law and that there is appropriate follow-through for businesses under the osha guidelines. for example, the vaccine mandates are not applied to congress or staff. they are not applied to the post office. they are not apply to anyone receiving government income such as social security or ssi disability. they are not being applied to the immigrants coming into our country. as far as osha goes, if osha is going to mandate this for businesses, well, if someone gets covid while working, is that a workers comp issue? if they have a reaction to the vaccine, is that workers comp? if they die, as a result of the vaccine, is that workers comp? there was a lot of telling people what to do but i do not think there is enough follow-through in thought processes to realize what the outcomes are going to be.

so if it is applied equally with appropriate follow-through, i am for it. host: we will see what comes from the order from osha, the occupational safety and health administration, the rules still being developed. the latest reporting on it is the draft text of the rule on vaccine mandates for companies with 100 employees or more has been submitted to the office of management and budget, one of the preliminary steps these regulatory rules have to take before they are then issued. we will see with the final language of the rule says when it comes out. mike,, crofton, maryland. caller: good morning. i agree with the last callers. the policy this administration's implemented, they don't consider any consequences or effects. this will destroy the economy.

they are destroying the economy. number two, i am not an anti-vaxxer. it is not political. it is the choice made. it was intended to prevent spread. we know now it does not prevent spread. the only justification for this thing is we are protecting you from may be dying. people are still dying on this vaccine. it is not based on science. it is kind of one of those things where we continue to do it and do it and do it because the government says it and it turns into a narrative and everyone follows it but if you step back and think, we are losing so many of our rights everyday for something that is really not that serious in the long term. everyone needs to step back and consider that. the hospital thing. people are complaining about the hospitals are this and that.

if that is an issue, why are we mandating and firing hospital workers? they are talking about not enough beds. it is that there is not enough staff in the hospitals to staff the beds. if there is an issue, a medical personnel shortage and this is so bad people are dying, why are we firing people? also, it is a personal choice. it is a personal choice to use heroin. people are overdosing in the hospitals. doctors will treat them. it is a personal choice to shoot and kill each other. we can talk about this all over the place. it needs to be a personal choice. i don't believe in any mandates. with regard to governor abbott, if he would have mandated that off the bat absent any response from the government mandate, i would have been against that as well, and desantis.

these mandates are basically to protect the individuals to say, look, the governors are not saying you cannot get one if you want to. make that personal choice for yourself. what he is saying is that the government shouldn't be mandating it for anybody. whenever youit is a mandate, bun response to this federal mandate. host: jim has been waiting -- david has been waiting in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i appreciate what everybody is saying, but why can't you as a reporter tell us which is the approved fda shot? because you probably don't know and you are not going to tell us. there is no reason to hide the ingredients.

that is scary. host: we talked about that on monday. dr. scott gottlieb is out with a new book about covet -- covid. he talked about that with viewers. this morning, we are asking people whether they support or oppose mandates. caller: i oppose the mandate because i do not know what you want to put in my body. show us the shots and then i will take it. host: jim, missouri, last call. caller: president biden said either get a shot or get tested on a regular basis. you still have your choice. i am a cigarette smoker. i am banned from smoking in most

businesses. similarly covid and smoking is airborne. if somebody can claim that a puff of my cigarette smoke goes in their lungs and they're going to die, if i've read on somebody and i have got covid, that is more dangerous than cigarette smoking. there are mandates all over the place. being able to test instead of the shot still if you you are choice. host: our last color in this segment. stick around. next, we will be joined by the mercatus center's christopher russo to discuss the debt limit and the impact of rising debt on that u.s. economy. later, jen yachnin will join us

to discuss national land protections. ♪ >> the supreme court hears oral argument in a case concerning the duchess -- the justice department's attempt to reinstate the boston marathon bomber's death sentence. at 3:00, avril haines talks about security challenges facing that u.s. at the c-span two at 10:00 a.m., the recruitment of veterans by violent extremist groups. everything is also available on line at c-span.org or on our free app. ♪ >> download c-span's new mobile

app and stay up-to-date. live streams from the house and senate floor, key congressional hearings, white house events, supreme court oral arguments. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. ♪ >> weakens on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, the latest in nonfiction books and authors. discover, explore, weakens on c-span2. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: a conversation on that

national debt with christopher russo, research fellow at george washington university's mercatus center. the house acted yesterday to raise the debt ceiling ahead of a potential default. why we have a debt ceiling? why we keep creeping towards these potential default clips? guest: thanks for having me. this debt limit began pretty recently in our country's history. it was created in 1917 is a way for the u.s. treasury to fund the first world war. up until that point, congress usually authorized each individual issue of the treasury debt. with the advent of world war i and the massive increase in government spending, it became reasonable. debt limit gave treasury more

ability to manage the treasury's cash but it also constrained treasury to make sure we were not issuing too much debt. the debt limit evolved over time. in more recent years, it has been used as a backwards looking constraint on spending or has been attempted to be used in that way and also for political purposes. the cosmos as of that in the last decade plus, we have had will they or won't they default episodes. it takes a lot of political pressure in order to get a debt limit raised. host: the debt limit raised by $480 billion dollars. expected until we have another debt limit default clips that

will be a part -- cliff that will be approaching. guest: at this point, the debt limit poses a danger to the u.s. economy that is no longer worthwhile. the congress authorizes the spending and taxes. for better or worse, congress mandates the deficit. treasury should be able to undergo the actions necessary to finance that deficit. we do face a run-up in our debt levels that is unsustainable. all of human history suggests that that is not going to work out well if it continues. i propose that congress tackle these two essential issues together, hopefully finding middle ground. that would be pairing a permanent suspension of the debt limit so that we do not have these every few years along with long-term reforms to stop the

unsuitable rise, as well as structural forms to grow their economy. if you have a faster growing economy, the world can sustain higher levels of government spending. host: house and senate democrats with plenty of criticism about the death -- debt limit. nancy pelosi proposed giving the treasury department the authority to limit the debt. speaker pelosi: there are all kinds of suggestions. one that was endorsed a while back by mitch mcconnell, but who knows -- it was -- the manifestation now puts a responsibility on the secretary of the treasury to make the determination to the debt ceiling. the decision could be overruled

by the congress. it would take 60 votes under the present custom, but nonetheless, congress would have to overrule that. that seems to have some appeal to both sides of the aisle, because of the consequences to people of not listening. but why -- many democrats and republicans have voted against the debt ceiling, but never to the extent of jeopardizing it. >> argue in favor of that idea? speaker pelosi: i do think it has merit. host: that proposal and others get around debt limit. guest: let me not comment on specific legislative proposals. on the whole, i think a

compromise that cumbersome policy is talking about makes sense. -- congresswoman pelosi on the one hand, you finance the debt. on the other hand, to get political support, there would need to be lots by both parties to have fixes. host: we have heard about ideas of mixing a -- of minting a $1 trillion coin, invoking the 14th amendment without proposing any specific proposal. you check about those issues in general and why they come up as a way to get around the debt limit? guest: one of the great things about america is we have creative people. some are lawyers. when we are faced with a crisis, people go back and do creative

readings of the constitution to figure out a runaround. i see the actual compromise from congress. wesee -- we see this would be a complete catastrophe for the u.s. to default. financial crisis, deep recession to say the least. but i do not see those as anything other than the mix. on this, i agree with treasury secretary ellen, fed chairman powell. host: christopher russo with george mason university's mercatus center. we are talking about the done -- debt limit. republicans, (202) 748-8002. democrats, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

the u.s. national debt is over $20 trillion -- $28 trillion. how much debt is too much? guest: right now, federal debt, the u.s. treasury bonds that the government issues held by people like me and you, that is what hundred percent of gdp. there is a lot of space about what a sensible number is four debt to gdp. you can think of it like your mortgage. you have a mortgage of 10 times your income, maybe that is pushing it up and down about what is acceptable. when debt gets to 100% of our national income, that is pushing

it, but the u.s. is one of the most developed countries. we have a phenomenal financial system that helps us finance this debt. i don't mean to be alarmist and to say but tomorrow there's going to be a crisis, but if you look at the level of debt to gdp over time, that will grow out of control and beyond projections released by that congressional budget office. we have seen that there was a time where the federal reserve was worried there would be too few treasury securities outstanding. they would not be able to do reagan -- regular monetary policies. now, after the global financial crisis and nearing the end of the pandemic recession, we are at 100% debt to gdp, plus other liabilities not counted but which are implicit backstops to the financial system.

i do not want to throw a particular number out there, but to say that whatever a sustainable number is, whether it is 100% of gdp, 150% of gdp, eventually that maximum will get reached if we continue to grow debt. host: can you briefly touch on what they are? guest: the basic economic fear is that there is usually debt that the u.s. government deems inappropriate. you and i and the audience have bank accounts, give our dollars to the bank, they give us a checking account number. we think of that checking account balance is being actual dollars, but it is not. we can go to the bag at a time and say, we want our money and they have to give it to us.

during the great depression, the u.s. congress and president roosevelt decided this was important enough to back by a guarantee of u.s. government. in normal times, that works. these deposits are backed by the u.s. government. people do not need to worry about the solvency of their bank. unlike ring the great depression, we do not need to run to the bank every time we get spooked about the market. another big example is mortgage-backed securities. these ran into significant problems during the 2008 financial crisis. fannie mae, freddie mac, there was already an implicit understanding that of mortgages look bad, the government would step in. that is been unfortunately made

explicit in the last 10 years. these are the types of things. the point is that the u.s. government sees some sort of private liability and says this is too big to fail. we will stop it. those numbers are not counted in the actual numbers of treasury debt. host: caller plenty of callers, including william, democrat. caller: i think the politicians should keep their hands out of the national debt. it is a shame that way this could be a great country, but politicians does everything to try to keep it away. i am 86 years old. i have always voted democrat except i voted for one republican. i am thinking about

discontinuing, because all we have is crooks, the lobbyists who line politicians' pockets. we are supposed to have a government. it is a shame. i feel so sorry for my great grandkids. it is corrupt -- they have a chat i don't know -- this corrupt political system. host: who was the one republican you voted for? caller: thank you. host: christopher russo on too much politics around the federal debt. caller: i wanted to know -- guest: i wanted to know which republican he voted for. i sympathize with his concerns, and i hope that the issue we are facing is important enough that in the way he described it can

be nonpartisan. i'm not here today to argue that we need to have a small government or big government. we could have either. it is a choice that we as a country need to make. we can have a large debt to gdp or small debt to gdp. there are pros and cons to both. when i do argue is that an unsustainable debt is unsustainable. whether you have a small or large government, that holds. host: todd, north carolina. caller: i agree with the previous caller in regards to politicians voting on the infrastructure will. president obama was trying to get a program together or welding, improving our roads and privileges -- bridges, the republicans were against it. when president -- the previous

president was in office, he wanted to develop an information structure bill to improve our roads and bridges, the republicans were for it. now again republicans are against it under biden. my personal concern would be if president biden would do something to reduce or eliminate these tariffs that were imposed by the administration, because that increase was passed on to us as taxpayers and people that buy commodities on the market. host: christopher russo on tariffs. caller: more generally, as part of the package for political

compromise to fix the debt limit and debt, i think we should have structural reforms. a greater level of economic growth -- [indiscernible] -- particularly on the perspective of debt. the mercatus center looked a lot at the reform of our medical system. it would be great if we could have more providers of medicine to lower costs. but there are things that prevent new hospitals from starting without the approval of other hospitals in the state. infrastructure is essential. i do also wonder whether there are constraints right now on individuals and businesses that prevent them from investing themselves in infrastructure. you can have private or public investment in information

structure. there are regulations that provide homeowners from improving their properties -- things like accessible drawing units that can raise that housing stock and lower the cost of housing, and big concern for families. there is a lot of important stuff by pairing the debt limit fixed prefix of the debt itself. we might be able to generate the type of compromise we need. host: chris, new york city, text message. if the debt ceiling wasn't raised now or in a month, with or be annexed -- enough tax revenue to pay existing debt? what exactly with the practical effect be? how much daily revenue comes in? caller: that is an excellent question. let me address the fact that, yes, social security and

medicare are "funded," but in air quotes. we go to work, get our paychecks, that money is earmarked for social security that money is not put in a separate account and invested in a variety of investments to grow the value so it is ready when we retire. instead, that social security revenue is used to pay for anything and everything government spends the -- whether it is war, justice. that is what it is used for. it just goes in the same checking account as everything else. the way that operates from a financial perspective is the treasury gives the social security trust fund. they say you took in this much in taxes, we paid out this amount in revenue.

as a consequence, we "owe" you this amount. social security is going to go bankrupt in the next decade or so. likewise, medicare is due to go bankrupt a few years from now. these programs need to be fixed. to address the specific question of what would happen in the near term if the debt limit is not raised and treasury must start prioritizing payments, the best i can tell from reading public documents, treasury would choose to pay principal and interest from the existing national debt. it went use the remaining inflow of cash to pay whatever obligations the u.s. government could. there are a slew of government obligations. in the past several years, there has been talked about whether treasury should prioritize

payments, extended just social security, medicare, national defense. we can play the numbers, but that sort of scenario seems possible for time at least. i just don't know whether it is technologically possible whether treasury can prioritize payments in that way. speaking as someone who advised officials during the 2019 debt limit episode, let me say that i am not confident that could be done. i do not know. this is not an easy system. host: switching gears a bit, explain what tapering is. caller: tapering is a process of the fed ending its massive asset purchases. the fed has the largest asset program in history with the start of the pandemic. its balance sheet has over double the size, now in about $

8,5 trillion, up from $4 trillion at the start of the pandemic. this has helped a rapid recovery, putting millions of people back to work. if the fed continues to buy u.s. treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities every month, tapering is the process of reducing those purchases, ultimately bringing them down to zero. host: when they do that, what is the schedule? how much is that subject to change by the winds of commerce and this debt ceiling issue that has now been printed -- punted? guest: let me defer to comments that have already made. in a high level, back in october, fed officials announced

that they were considering the possibility of begetting the tapering process. that could occur as soon as november. they have an upcoming policy meeting where they might announce that. the debt limit might be punted. hard to say. chairman powell has always been clear that monetary policy is not preset. we need to react to changes in inflation, the job market, the debt limit. there is no clear guidance about when they would begin the tapering process. last i saw surveys of market participants, these are the banks that fewer operate with in rocket operations -- for example, bond securities. these banks want tapering to take between half a year and a year. host: do you have an opinion on

the right rate that the fed should be prepared to respond to in future crises? caller: when it comes to tapering, simpler is better. if you want to get down to zero asset purchases a month over the next year, simply take off at 12 of the current rate of purchases each month. i should note, though, that even when the fed stops purchasing assets that does not mean it is beginning to reduce. the fed invests each month, both treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. if the past is any indication of the future, it would take a period of time in which they hold the balance sheet. then slowly and methodically, they would allow maturing securities to join the site of

the fed's balance sheet. host: talking with christopher russo. if you have questions, now a good time to call in. nelson is in florida, republican. caller: i would like to point out that virtually all civilizations have declined in the past. they have had as a basis for decline their national debt, starting with the romans, when they lowered the amount of silver. and the british empire, who had a national debt that exceeded their gdp the. eric national debt already exceeds gdp --our national d ebt. if you watch the little ticker, you can see that. the only thing that gives us

pause as to how much money we are spending is that [indiscernible] our rising. the debt limit causes us to stop and talk and be able to realize just what a quagmire we are putting ourselves in. the government has got to stop exceeding its ability to spend money. there are not enough wealthy people in the universe to pay off the national debt. the only way to start pivoting back is to grow the gdp. that way to do that is by what was done under donald trump when he had taxes lowered and corporations, jobs expanded and more money went back into the

national treasury than in the history of the country. i wanted to point that out. guest: i think that was an excellent question. there are a few important things. i note two examples where we have had in the history of the nation a country with over 100% debt to gdp and paid it off. the first was the u.s. after world war ii. that was a period in which we had tremendous structural reforms, and the first decade after world war ii in which the fed was doing monetary policy to help the treasury finance debt and not react to changes in unemployment or inflation. god willing we will not have a repeat of the 1940's in which we had 20% inflation year over some

circumstances. assuming we don't have that again, how do we get ourselves out of this quagmire? i turned to my second example of a country that grew their way out of it, the united kingdom following the napoleonic wars. they levied a tremendous military force to be napoleon. they were doing that following the industrial revolution, the beginning of a worldwide trend of positive growth. the world had never seen that before. i'm not saying we need a second industrial revolution, although that would be phenomenal. we need as a part of the package i am putting forward away not just to fix the debt limit, which is a self-inflicted wound, but also a way we can raise the overall level of growth.

third component is also bring down the local spending to be more commiserate with taxes. nonetheless, it does not help if taxes are higher than ever and spending is higher than ever. particularly in the long term there are programs that need to be fixed. host: this is ken from montana. caller: good morning. i am 80 years old. i'm old enough to remember eisenhower and his warning, beware the great military complex. i'm old enough to remember how ronald reagan was the first one to really give us the "trickle down theory." all these things combined, the great expense we are spending on the military, huge tax cuts that happened between ronald reagan

and all the republicans, and the christmas gift they give to "the taxpayers" at the expense of our country. anybody -- i'm not an economist -- i think most people that run a household know you cannot cut income and increase spending and come out with more money in the end. i do not care how you increase the amount of people. when you do not support the people at the bottom end and the people at the bottom do not have money to spend, we do not have an economy that is working. host: mr. russo? guest: i was not alive during the eisenhower administration but i like ike. he was a great guy from what i know.

speaking to the economics, i agree. we need a system that works for all americans. a system that puts americans to work. i think the fed has done a tremendous job in the past 16 months, 18 months at doing that by having a strong response to the pandemic recession by promoting aggregate demand and national spending, and it put millions back to work more quickly than it would have. the gentleman used the phrase trickle down. that is a use of-ism -- euphemism for supply-side economics. i am a supply and demand economist. in the long term i recognize we need structural reforms in congress to improve the long-running growth and

employment prospects of the economy. the gentleman alluded to the lacquer curve. if taxes are high, you can still bring in more revenue. it promotes economic activity. economist debate the validity of that. i am generally skeptical at current tax levels that in general reducing taxes would bring in more revenue. there are some special circumstances in which that does hold. one pernicious one is among the poor, who we have a special obligation to help. the way we have our benefits system structured, taxes -- over 100% of each dollar earned if they choose to go out and work. they will lose more than one dollar they earn in wages. ways of modifying our system to help the people that are worse off while at the same time not

imposing 100% tax rates on them could be a way of helping bring more people into the labor force, which is good economically and socially. host: talking about the poorest americans, a lot of discussion about inflation. especially its impact on poor americans. republicans are concerned about inflation during the biden administration. this was treasury secretary janet yellen last month talking about this issue of the rise of inflation. [video] >> tell me what you thought inflation would be at the end of this year. you told me to percent. do you stand by that prediction? >> clearly inflation this year is going to be above 2%. just the experience so far this year makes that clearly true. i think we are seeing monthly inflation rates taper off.

>> what do you think you will be at the end of this year if not 2%? >> probably closer to 4%. that is already must be the case based of what's happened this year. host: christopher russo on inflation concerns. guest: i sympathize with americans with concerns about inflation. i am also concerned. let me give you the perspective of someone at the fed thinking about these issues. there is always upside risk and downside risk. the downside risk is the possibility tightening policy, raising interest rates to quickly, lowering asset purchases to quickly will lower estimate double dip recession. that would be horrible for the job market. insufficient monetary support

could lead to a weaker jobs recovery. we saw that following the global financial crisis. if we keep interest rates too low for too long over keep asset purchases going too high for too long, we could have inflation begin to spiral higher and higher. the balance of risk in the past decade or so, and the last year or two has been tilted towards the downside. as time has gone on and we have seen the recovery continue, risks are more balanced. the question we have to ask ourselves as economists and what the fed is considering is whether the inflation we are seeing today is driven by the fed's monetary policy or driven by the supply chain disruptions we are seeing? if it's the monetary policy, we are seeing 4% inflation year-over-year, that would be

because to reduce the level of support to bring inflation back down closer to the fed's 2% target. in the view of many economists the high inflation we are seeing is due to supply chain disruption. temporary dysfunctions in the economy that will be resolved by the market over time. if we react to the supply chain disruptions as though they were due to an overgrowth of money and credit, that would compound the situation to become worse. the conventional wisdom is if you have a temporary supply chain disruption, don't change monetary policy. keep a steady hand and allow for inflation to fall back over time as the disruptions are resolved. host: mississippi, john. and independent. caller: my question is simple. first i would like to know if it's possible to put a cap on

people's salaries who are working as servants of the public. they take jobs on working for us and they deserve a salary. at times like this they should realize enough is enough. or, put a 10% tax across the board on everybody regardless of income. or we can let the rich start paying their fair share of tax because they don't pay taxes at all. that is my three questions i am putting to you. guest: there is a lot of interesting stuff there. when we think about structural reforms like the ones i was talking about, fixing the structure of the tax and benefit system so we are not taxing the worst off of these extort nearly high rates -- extraordinarily high rates, there is debate about the numbers that should fill in the legislation.

should the capital gains tax be 10%, 20%, 30% or 0%? my suggestion is we should figure out the right structure of the tax rate for the tax structure itself, figure out what to spend money on, and then back out of the rates to raise the necessary revenue. there is a lot we can do to fix the tax system without changing the distribution of who pays taxes. raising taxes on certain individuals or certain aspects of the american people. we can do that while also making the tax system more incentive compatible, a fancy way of saying compatible with people who are wanting to work hard to make a living for themselves instead of being penalized for doing that by the government. host: westport, connecticut.

gary, a republican. caller: i want to add to your social security comments about them using ious. when lbj was president he saw how much money was coming into the treasury at that time and saw a cash cow. social security and medicare money. he put it into the general fund that allowed him to spend that money. if you took from his era to this day, social security and medicare would be owed $11.8 trillion. that money went to wars and everything. you are right. there are ious in this box. i don't think many people realize that. now they want to spend so much money. we are at $28 trillion now. nobody thinks about putting money back into social security. yes, medicare and five years

will run out and social security by 2030 will be depleted. my whole thing is if everyone in washington thanks money grows on trees, which it does not. now the debt ceiling, they want to eliminate it. if interest rates went up, the fed raised interest rates, we cannot even handle that payment on $28 trillion. it would eat up everything. that is all i wanted to add. guest: i appreciate the gentleman's comments and sympathize with his concerns. i was not aware of the lbj origins. when we have taxes to pay for those programs, it goes into the treasury general account. the checking account at the new york fed to make payments and

receive receipts. i was in charge of forecasting that on a daily basis for beneficial and treasury officials -- fed officials and treasury officials. we could put them on a more solvent footing going forward. i think we will need to do that end in the next few years. i hope we will find the political will to do it. i will emphasize to the gentleman and the people at home that sympathize with those views that the solution to our nation's fiscal problem cannot come from these two-your fights -- to your fights -- two year fights. in 2011, we were downgraded for the first time by the s&p. if we were to have the self-inflicted wound, if we push ourselves into a financial crisis and recession, that would be terrible for our fiscal

outlook. even more so. i tried to emphasize these are both fundamentally important issues we need to fix, the debt limit and this will day-one day default game every two years. and the rise of the national debt driven by mandatory increases and spending every year. if we can fix these things, that is a win-win that it maybe 2021 congress can get behind. host: rob, good morning. caller: i have a couple of little things i noticed on the program. one was the statement that social security would be bankrupt in 10 years. social security hasn't bankrupt since the johnson administration. all the money was taken from the trust fund and put into the general fund and has been used mostly for social programs. lbj did this so he could find

the great society. -- fund the great society. they said they were borrowing the money from the trust fund. they were not borrowing anything. when you take it with that intention of paying it back ever and continue to take it, that is stealing. the second thing is on both sides, republican and democrat, went up politician tells you if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and both sides have done it, we will default. that is alive. -- a lie. we have enough money to service the debt. the debt has to be serviced first before anything is taken out. until we stopped servicing the debt, we don't default. that is not true. host: i will let you jump in. guest: i appreciate the gentleman's passion on this issue.

i'm always try to clear to say that we have been defaulting on the obligations. as the gentleman says, it could be possible treasury prioritizing existing interest on the national debt with incoming revenue. that said, the government has other obligations. spending congress mandated beyond social security, medicare, national defense and a variety of other things. we would not have enough money coming into pay. then the question for me as an economist is, how would a worldview a circumstance in which the congress authorized these programs and treasury has to be bound by a debt limit that prevented from making the payments which it is obligated to make by the congress? i do think the financial system, the broader u.s. economy would view that favorably.

the notion of prioritizing payments -- i'm not a lawyer. i can't speak to what legal or not legal or what treasury mechanically could or could not do given existing payment systems. it is not clear to me that is a foolproof response or a bulletproof solution. when we get down to the weeds about this in a hype echo -- hypothetical situation, i don't mean extra near measures that they do before we had the debt limit or try to manage under the debt limit. i mean prioritizing payments. when we get to that position with the fed having to intervene in financial markets to stop the dysfunction as a result of that, it is not clear to me we are in a good situation. we are in a poor situation. thinking about the political realities we are living in, i wonder if we got to that situation, would congress be

willing to continue to pay all the national debt? would there be in china or other countries in which congress might know what treasury to make those payments? i think that would be a terrible idea. we are taking a gamble in many dimensions by going beyond the data. it is too dangerous of a risk to take. host: there are a couple of callers who have been waiting to chat with you. we will get them in. rick in atchison. caller: good morning. this is a follow-up to the statement you made about social security and medicare possibly going bankrupt in the future. however, the fix for one is much easier than for the other one.

you did not make a distinction. you did say later there are fixes for both of them. maybe if you talked about the fixes you see for both of them that would clear it up. guest: i appreciate the gentleman's question. this is where we get a bit off my expertise. i have great colleagues that deal with this more on a daily basis. it should be pretty easy for most americans to understand. take social security for example. people have been living longer since the program was founded. they are drawing larger benefits over time. if the benefits are increasing over time and tax revenues are not keeping up, there are two things to do. try to scale benefits back in a methodical way over time that will not leave anybody impoverished, but at the same time tweaks the edges to bring

benefits down to a more sustainable. you can raise payroll taxes, or choose to fund social security not just from payroll taxes but from other taxes the treasury issues. medicare is a bit more difficult. the growth in medical spending over time is tremendously large. a friend of mine was joking that if trends continue we will have 100% of gdp spent on medical care in the united states. that will not be extrapolated over time, let's hope, but the medical spending needs to be brought down. when you get to such high numbers of medical spending, it is not plausible to raise taxes enough to bring that up to a sustainable level. the question becomes, then maybe this is a more difficult question, how do you do that? my colleagues have done work on

this. i would refer you to their work. on a whole, in my view and their view, it would involve having a more competitive system for providing medical care. the same way markets can bring down the cost of everything. host: james from san diego, republican. caller: good morning. two calls ago you made a correct statement and an incorrect statement. politicians correct the debt. the president, senate, house of representatives come to congress and make the debt. we all have to live with it. number two, there is a ladder of what payments will be made by the government as we approach this limit of how much money be taken and how much we will spend out. please answer those two questions. you can answer yes and no to

either one of them. guest: i apologize. i'm not sure i caught the second question. yes, the house of representatives, the senate and president set taxes and spending. my emphasis is on congress because congress has the power of the purse and the power of the credit card. the compromise that would be necessary to get through congress would likely require the assent of the president. it could be vetoed if there was sufficiently broad compromise in congress. there are political issues that need to be worked out by legislators and staff on the help. at a high level i think some sort of compromise, a broad-based compromise would be necessary. on the second question, i'm not quite sure what the second one was. host: we are 10 minutes over on this segment and appreciate you sticking around for a few extra

calls. we will have you on again down the road. christopher russo of george mason university. you can follow him on twitter. guest: thank you for having me. host: we turn as we often do to the open forum where we let you lead the discussion. time for you to call on any public policy or political issues to talk about. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. start calling in. we will get to your calls after the break. ♪ >> you can be a part of the national conversation and the studentcam video competition. your opinion matters. if you're a middle or high so

student, create a five to six minute documentary that interest the question how does the federal government impact your life. , show supporting and opposing points of view on a policy that affects you and your community using c-span video clips which are easy to access at c-span.org . the studentcam competition awards $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. visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪ >> get c-span on the go. what's the biggest political events live or on-demand any time, anywhere on our new mobile video app. listen to c-span radio app and discover new podcast for free.

download c-span now today. >> washington journal continues. host: coming up on 9:00 a.m. eastern this wednesday morning on the washington journal. in about an hour, if you stay on c-span, we will take you live to the supreme court of coverage of the oral arguments of united states v.'s are not have -- joe cars her knife. you can watch live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span, on c-span.org, or watch it through the new c-span video app at c-span now. it is free to download and free to watch. it is our open forum. we are hearing about public policy or political issue to talk about. it is the time for the program where return the show over to you. john in virginia on the line for

republicans. caller: good morning. i want to say i am 70 years old. i read "1984" for the first time about three years ago. it is kind of amazing. i don't know if you have ever read the book. one of the things he describes is the hour of hate in the factories. everybody went and a hallway at 11:00 and started screaming about how much they hated this one leader. it is so similar to what is going on nowadays. we have an hour of hate whenever c-span brings up trump for the last four years. we have an hour of hate where the people call in about how much they hate him. it is amazing the similarity. i wondered if you noticed the same thing. how george orwell could have predicted this in 1949.

all the hate has got to stop. host: how do we stop the hate? caller: probably turn off the mainstream media. that seems to be what is feeding into it. for four years they could not stop talking about how bad trump was. anything they grasped at. they attacked everything he ever did. when hunter biden comes out -- if any body watches anything besides msnbc can see what illegal stuff he did, yet he gets a free pass. you have got to have a free press that reports on both sides. fox is not as bad as everybody says. maybe just watch it half an hour and they would get the news. that is the only way i can see it ever straightening out. you have got to stop on the hate on the left. host: mohammed in dearborn,

michigan. democrat. caller: good morning, john. i'm calling from michigan. this is the third time i have been able to speak on c-span. one of the ways to respond to john who just called about cutting down the hate is for people to once again try to follow the constitution. everyone has an opinion. follow that. my other point is it did not make sense for congress to allocate $40 billion more than the president requested for the defense budget. my last point is one way to solve, what you call it,and thed taxes high again and give

the corporations two choices. either you pay your employees more, which will give them more income, which will give the government more income taxes, or the corporations to not pay them, but then foot the bill for higher taxes. thank you and god bless. host: staying in the wolverine state, this is joyce, and independent. good morning. caller: yes. i think there is so much destruction going on because people just don't have respect for anything anymore. not for institutions, not for each other, not for the rule of law, not for the law. this has been several years now. it's a little disturbing. the hate that comes out, the

republicans say it is just against trump. but he tried to take down the institutions. he lost the respect that was there for everybody, the institutions and everything. his language is so, i mean, this is in the way we were raised -- is not the way we were raised, and we wonder, how are our kids going to be raised, listening to all this hate for each other and division? it is sickening to some of us who enjoyed at the other way. thank you. host: jack is next in maryland, republican. good morning. jack, are you with us? caller: good morning, this is jack nicholson. they are always talking about,

let's pass these high taxes and put them on the rich. my consideration, rich people do pay taxes and so forth. if a government puts a 10% tax on the high price and don't pass it onto the public, even a small person who works at mcdonald's that makes $13 an hour, $14 an hour. but when i was a kid, i am 85 years old, and i made $36 a week. but the 2 -- we got were $36. i think about how the world has changed. the rich people are always going to have a percentage of what

they are going to make, regardless of how they got it raised, raising prices on everything, from cars to whatever. i don't understand the democrats, because if they can understand it, they would not be doing what they are doing. that's as much as i have to say. host: what democrats are trying to do, the build back better act, the budget reconciliation bill that democrats are trying to find some agreement on the final side of that build -- final size of that bill. nancy pelosi spoke about the so-called social infrastructure bill yesterday in her weekly press conference. this was the speaker yesterday. [video clip] >> in your letter last night to the caucus, you said we should be doing fewer things well. are you suggesting this might drop the universal pre-k, the child tax credit expansion, free

community college or even the medicare expansion? >> let me just say at 3.5 trillion dollars, we are doing everything well. it's not a question of now we are doing it well because it is less money. but if there are fewer dollars to spend, there are choices to be made. members have said, let's get the results that we need. we will not diminish the transformative nature of what it is, and it is, some members have written back and said, i want to do everything. we will have that discussion. but again, in the family section of it, the transformative nature is the biden child tax credit, childcare and universal pre-k really go together. they are part of the same need. issues that relate to home health care -- there are certain

things, i mean, we are still talking about a couple trillion dollars, but it is much less. mostly we would be cutting back on years or something like that, but those are decisions we have to make. >> will you have to drop one of those programs? >> we hope not, but we have to make sure we have a bill, which i also said, which is we have to have something that will pass the house and pass the senate. pass the house and pass the senate. i am not asking members to vote for something that has no chance to pass in the senate. host: speaker nancy pelosi yesterday on capitol hill, talking about conversations in the democratic caucus on the so-called build back better act. speaking of the democratic caucus, an upcoming departure we found out about. john yarmuth in kentucky, the lone democrat in kentucky's congressional delegation,

announced that he would not seek reelection in 2022. mr. yarmuth writes to playing a leading role, the first democrat to say he will not run in the midterms, which republicans believe they will have a good chance at wrestling the majority back. he has held the seat since 2006 and been the only emma cried in the blue grit -- democrat in the bluegrass state congressional delegation since 2003. our next caller, ricky. good morning. are you with us? caller: good morning. what i am seeing happening in this country now is terrible. [inaudible] if we do, we are going to regret it. we have to walk together.

democrats, republicans, independence have to learn, americans, all of us. we must all walk together. no position of this country should sabotage the effort of the other. each side wants the other to look bad. what is going on? host: when was the last time we work together? when was the last time we weren't trying to sabotage each other? caller: [inaudible] more and more republicans don't believe anything their constituents say. [inaudible]

if we'll start doubting elections, where do we go from here? that's all i have to say. we have to work together. host: that's ricky in maryland. blaine is in canton, ohio, an independent. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, blaine. caller: yeah, good morning. i am talking about the social security going to go bankrupt -- that doesn't make sense. we make our own money. you have trillions of dollars you are putting out in stimulus checks and everything, but you are still making people pay taxes on social security and stuff. it really don't make no sense to me, what's going on in this country. i mean, it's just crazy. you complain about people not wanting to work and their ain't no jobs out there all the time.

why, why go to work? these people have 3, 4, five kids and are getting $200 a month, $300 a month apiece for them? why go to work? the government is making it worse for themselves. you are giving all these people this money, i will just sit home and relax and not have to work at all. host: you started talking about social security, views on that front. millions of retirees on social security will get a 5.9% used in benefits for 2022, the biggest cost-of-living adjustment in 39 years, following a burst in inflation. the ap noting that the co l.a. amounts to $92 a month for the average retired worker, marking an abrupt break from a long lull in inflation that's all cost-of-living adjustments

averaging just 1.65% over a year. the average social security payment for a retired worker will be $1657 a month for a retired -- for next year. a typical couples benefits would rise to 2753 dollars a month. caller: hello. i think anyone who is running for president should be required to take an iq test. i am thinking about volunteering with mensa. i do not know if trump and biden are dumb and dumber or biden and trump, dumb and dumber, but they have made some terrible

decisions. i hate to sound there out right field -- sound out there in the right field too much, but larry kudlow on foxbusiness, and i watch npr. i think it is the extremists that are the dangers to this country, the extreme right and the extreme left. we need to be moderate without being wishy-washy, opinionated moderates. perhaps it is the golden rule. host: who is an intelligent moderate that you could see yourself voting for in 2024? caller: oh, gosh. i don't know. back in 2016, i was hoping for the democrats, i was hoping -- oh gosh, the guy who wrote "fields of fire," james webb.

but anderson cooper censored him from the get go. he wouldn't hardly let him speak. for the republicans, i was hoping rubio, marco rubio would get in there. now, looking -- i don't think he is electable, because he is from utah, but mike lee seems to be pretty sharp. i don't know. we will leave it up to the voters and see how it goes. thanks for your tremendous service and thanks to c-span for the studentcam program. what an important program. host: have you seen some of the studentcam documentaries that the students have put together? how do you know about the program? caller: well, yeah. over the years i have watched some of these kids, what they come up with. it gives me hope for the future. let me make one more comment

about inflation. there are a lot of people on the left and the right that encourage inflation, because it does devalue the national debt, but that is the wrong way to go about it. there has to be a better way. that's all i got for now, i guess. host: since you gave me the opening, the studentcam competition, our national video documentary competition for students in grades six through 12 for the 2021, 2022 school year, we are asking the students to submit a five to six minute documentary on this year's theme, how does the federal government impact your life? tim in albany, new york, democrat, good morning. caller: yes, i wanted to put my

two cents in to what i have been hearing. some of the problems i have seen , the problem with a lot of people, whether it's the democrats are the republicans who only want to complain about it, a lot of this icy having come from the past. there was a time when you could trust your religious leaders, your business leaders, your political leaders. people like trump were the result of what's been going on for many years. it's a shame. i don't know how you get back to the way things were. the other thing i see, the unbridled capitalism. the love of money. the root of all evil. i think that's another thing -- i'm not sure how you fix that. how do you get rid of the greeting people -- greed in

people? thanks a lot for c-span. host: alonzo, good morning. it's our open forum. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a standpoint as a vet, and is the reason as a vet and the united states military, we are looked out on the battlefield, we don't have any type of title when we go up against the enemy. they cs as americans. as soldiers. the reason why i am saying this starting off is because the media has helped in this division. when i watch c-span, which i do like watching c-span, i wish that you would not have a title behind a democrat or republican or the independent line.

let the individual make that determination, because we are needing everybody right now to cs as one -- see us as one. it's not, are you a democrat, are you a republican, are you an independent? we are americans. host: i tell you why we do that -- go ahead and finish your comment. caller: not independent. the thing is, i like c-span and i appreciate the open forum, but this is where we need to let the individuals understand that you are an american first. host: i appreciate that, alonzo. what we try to do here is here from a variety of folks and let people self identify, call in on the lines that they want, and we have that independent line, but we found this is the best way to hear a variety of opinions, so

one side doesn't dominate the conversation. we do occasionally do segments where we do the lines by regional phone lines, eastern, central, mountain and pacific time zones. caller: i understand that. this is above my pay grade. but we need an independent news outlet that is not helping with the division. the individual who spoke earlier about fox, msnbc and cnn -- litter stand that is a business machine. but we need something where you don't have to go and say, i have to be a democrat to get on this line or have a look -- a republican to be on this line or an independent. in the battlefield, they don't care what color you are, who you are affiliated with. they are going to take you out. and we are losing that.

the beacon of the light that we used to be, we are not that anymore, and we are helping it. i do not walk up to a person and say, i am a democrat, or republican, or an independent. that would be my best practice, if something could be done. host: it was monday on this show that we asked the question of folks, are america's best days still ahead or are they still behind us? how would you have answered that question? caller: right now, coming from a person who is always looking at the glass full, we are and can be if we go back to being simple human beings and respected each other, getting rid of these ideologies around who you are, who you serve. that's how i look at it. if i see you on the street right

now, i am going to say hello, how are you doing? if you have amassed on or if you don't have a mask on. people are dying here. we are getting lost on these issues of who you are representing through a party, the party has nothing to do with life and death. you can't take it with you when you die. host: alonzo, thanks for the call from alabama. john is next as we wrap up our open forum here. brooklyn, new york, republican. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. my concern is about foreign aid and how our government provides foreign aid to other countries. i wanted to know if it was possible that c-span1 day could have an expert guest explain how foreign aid distribution is done to different countries to make sure it is efficiently spent, so

third world countries and so forth can have more efficient spending for their infrastructure, so more of the masses can get out of poverty, because i do believe i hear a lot of different stuff, stories on the news about how the majority of foreign aid gets bypassed to oligarchs and governments and ngos who spend the money and take the money for themselves' income, countries not benefiting from infrastructure projects like water, sanitation, agriculture, things people can benefit from in order to live properly. i am wondering if c-span could bring a guest on to discuss how this is audited to other countries. host: very possible. this is a topic we have done in the past and is a topic we will

do again in the future. it is certainly a topic that gets a lot of phone calls when we do this. we hope you keep watching, you will see it down the road. i do promise that. that's our last phone call in this open forum, but about 40 minutes left on today's washington journal. in that time, we will be joined by e&e news reporter jennifer yachnin to discuss president biden's new actions to protect three recent monuments. stick around, we will be back. ♪ >> weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors, television for serious readers. discover, explore -- weekends on

c-span two. ♪ >> in the follow 2018, historian nathaniel philbrick, his wife, and his dog set out on a road trip to trace george washington's visits to the first 13 states. that inspired his first book "travels with george." the first president says his goal was to bring the country together, and he traveled as far north as maine and as far south as georgia. >> historian nathaniel philbrick on book notes plus. you can listen to all of our podcasts on the new c-span now app. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is our

latest place to browse through folks, the core, and accessories. shop now, or any time, at c-spanshop.org. >> coming up today on c-span, the supreme court hears oral arguments on reinstating the boston marathon bombers death sentence. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 3:00 p.m., the director of national intelligence talks about security challenges facing the u.s., hosted by the american bar association. and on c-span two at 10:00 a.m., investigating the recruitment of veterans by violent extremists

groups. everything is available on c-span.org or on our mobile app, c-span now. host: then every engine in -- jennifer yachnin joins us now from denver, colorado, reporting after president biden took action to protect three national monuments. explain where these monuments are and why president biden took this action? guest: thank you for having me. two of the monuments are in utah, the grand staircase and the bears ears national monuments. a third monument in the atlantic ocean, and that's the northeast canyons and seamounts marina national monument. president biden reversed some cuts and other changes president trump had made in late 2017 at the behest of you -- utah lawmakers, who thought these

monuments in their state were overreach by previous democratic presidents. they successfully asked president trump to roll those monuments back and cut 2 million acres of land from those. in 2020, a little year ago, president trump also removes commercial fishing restrictions from that marine monument in the atlantic ocean. president biden on friday restored protections to those lands, and also reinstated those mercil fishing -- commercial fishing prohibitions. host: for those who have not been out to these monuments, how old are they and how big are they? guest: they vary in age. the marine monument is five years old. in utah, president clinton made the grand staircase escalante national monument back in --.

that's in southwest utah. in southeastern utah, you've got the bears ears monuments, which is 1.3 6 million acres. that's a vast, sprawling monument. it's bigger than what president obama first created in 2016, because president trump did add 11,000 acres, so a little bit of that when he made the boundary changes. host: boundary changes of national monuments. does this happen a lot? guest: no, this is super unusual, and i am glad you asked an interesting question. national monuments are created under this 1906 law called the antiquities act. presidents can set aside land that has historical, cultural, or scientific interest. this occurs on existing public

lands. over the years, monuments have been tweaked. congress has rarely come in to abolish monuments, just a handful of times. but up until president trump, no one had used the antiquities act to cut a monument the way that he did. that in itself has raised questions. there are a few lawsuits pending over his actions, but the proclamations president biden signed on friday, which referenced that action, are more traditional. they talk about the objects being protected, the area, the plant species, that sort of thing. host: for viewers who want to talk about the national monuments, national parks and public lands, now is a good time to call in. jennifer yachnin, a public lands reporter.

if you are in the eastern or central time zone, your line is (202) 748-8000. if you are in mountain or pacific, (202) 748-8001. so what's the difference between a national park or a national monument? guest: the difference is in how they are created. congress has to create a national park. national monuments, they can create that too, but they really don't. there are also national wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, forests. but when it comes to monuments, the president is the primary person who grants those. that's under the 1906 law, so some of the things you have seen over the years, you have seen monuments become parks. the grand canyon was one of the first monuments created back in the early 1900s and of course, is now a national park. host: for the national park

service, did they manage national monuments or is there another service to manage the monuments? guest: yes, the national park service does handle the bulk of national monuments, but if you are managed by the bureau of land management, like the one in utah we are talking about, and the forest manager is the comanager for the other site. the difference between parks and national monuments is a lso what they are used for. national parks, you take the family for a vacation. hiking, walking, there might be extensive visitor services. a national monument, either terrine or terrestrial -- either marine or terrestrial, it depends on where in the water or where in the state that it is. host: when president trump

shrank some of these national monuments in utah, did private enterprises, and -- private enterprises start setting up near the national monument? did the organizations have to leave when president biden re-expands the monument site? guest: that's a great question. businesses would not have come in 24 hours after president trump shrank the monuments, but the land use policy, the management plan for those areas, each national monument has its own management plan. those would have been changed a little bit, and the areas excised to the mountains have become open to grazing, extractive industries like oil and gas. those lands are now eligible for mining claims, but those areas in utah were open to some of

those activities. not every acre that was removed, not throughout the entirety of it, but there were many planes made for alabaster, actually, in grand staircase. a good deal of that had already been extracted. there are questions about mining claims in bears ears. i do not know if any of those are in active use, but there is a question about whether mining claims will still be allowed. while it is not clear whether president trump's actions were legal, whether he had the authority to shrink these monument -- there are lawsuits saying he exceeded his authority, only congress can shrink the monuments. the president can only create or expand a mighty mint. if he had no authority to do this, the mining claims would have gone out the window.

if they came back and said no, those mining claims will have to go through an internal process where an engineer will have to look at them and decide if he wants to challenge them, and that can certainly take years. host: with the claims you are talking about and the separation of powers issue you are talking about, how likely is this to move all the way through the federal court system? is this something that could end up the supreme court. guest: it's interesting. in a case that the supreme court declined to hear related to the marine monument, justice roberts wrote a four page aside with the court's decision to decline that case. what he said basically, in that lawsuit it had raised questions about whether the lawsuit, but whether 5000 square miles of the atlantic was overly large. courts for a long time have

sided with presidents and said effectively that presidents can make a monument any size they want, as long as it falls on federal lands for the purposes of the act. what justice roberts said, they arguments that opponents of this are saying, that the monuments aren't protecting the smallest area possible, which is not a defined concept. he has invited some additional challenges to that so you'd be interested in sharing those arguments. that particular aspect has been sort of grown and not abuse, but overused by presidents. it remains to be seen where those current court cases pending in the federal court and up. several of them were put on administrative hold while president biden was making his decision about restoring these

monuments, and we will see if those become active cases again and whether or not they will proceed through. host: the idea of protecting the smallest area possible, where does that come from? guest: that's in the language of the antiquities act. host: and there was no further definition when they created this act in 1906? guest: that's right, and it has long been a point of contention for monuments. the grand canyon is a case that went before the supreme court in 1920, about whether this was an overly large monuments, whether congress had intended for these monuments just to be a tiny fraction. when congress created the law, they were trying to display something called pot hunting,

taking antiquities off of federal lands, stealing them from tribal lands or other areas of cultural importance. when the supreme court looked at that in 1920, it said no, the grand canyon, this is the smallest area necessary to protect what is laid out in this proclamation, which if you have been to the great him and -- presidents have an authority to dictate how large a monument can be. host: the antiquities act protects cultural and national resources. 16 different presidents have used it to designate national parks and monuments. if you want to talk about the antiquities act, about national monuments, public lands in general. jennifer yachnin with us until the top of the hour, and at

10:00, we are taking you to the supreme court. bob is up first from amsterdam, ohio. you're on with jen yachnin . guest: in the first year -- caller: in the first year of donald trump stream, did he try to sell parts of the grand canyon to the chinese for money? guest: i am not familiar with that, no. host: do you have another question? caller: no, that is it. host: our next caller, out of south carolina. you are next. caller: yes, hi. don't you believe the government is spending too much money on these types of monuments and parks as far as the federal

government should be? these state and local governments have enough money already in place to confirm these things, and if it was sold, it would be sold to an independent buyer. why waste the money on trying to keep and preserve this land? host: the idea of federal control versus state control of these lands? guest: this is a very big question and there are very loud voices on both sides of it. i'm glad that you asked, because in utah, of course where we have the bulova public lands -- bulk of public lands in america. there's about 640 million acres of public lands, broadly managed by four agencies. you have the bureau of

land management, the fish, forest management, and i just blank on the fourth one, sorry. those agencies all have their own respective budgets. some of the forest service has timber harvest, you see oil and gas extraction, so there is income from some of these lands, but it's not like i national monument and the parks charge entrance fees, there are arguments to be made that with the benefits of being outside with folks who like to hunt and fish, they have access to these lands too. you own a little bit of the public lands all across the united states. host: coming back to bears ears and grand staircase and the marine monument, what was the reaction last week from the

various stakeholders here at the scene at the white house? guest: absolutely. the white house held a ceremony on the north line, invited tribal leaders and representatives, as well as those who pushed hard to restore the monuments. it was a pretty joyous event, i would say. interior secretary deb haaland started to cry at the top of her remarks, which was very moving. of course, there was some pushback from utah's lawmakers, both state and federal will. they expressed how disappointed they were in the decision, and raised the specter of filing the lawsuits. host: our next caller, good

morning. caller: how are you doing today? host: doing well, go ahead. caller: bidens public land policy is trying to remove christopher columbus from new york city. that's not fair, but what should he do? is there a way we can go -- host: i think we lost jeffrey in new jersey. the president with his proclamation last week about indigenous peoples' day in the debate over columbus day. how much did you see that playing out in public lands or national parks? guest: i am not 100% sure that i have grasped the question, but i can give it a try. one thing that is interesting about bears ears, it is the first national monument created, instigated by tribal nations who

wanted to see it created. that pushed god cries back in 2010, got momentum, 2014, 2015, before its 2016 creation. that was to preserve the cultural ancestral lands of multiple tribes, some of which aren't in the state of utah anymore, but have connections to that land from their ancestors. to be able to go back to either hunt or gather traditional medicines or to rid -- to visit the land for cultural reasons is important. host: i'm next caller, good morning. caller: i used to work for the bureau of land management in utah, and our job was to clean up the forest so we would not

have fires like they have out west. they had these lands, people get hunt on them, fish on them, vacation, and it boosted the meat for all these little towns -- the economy for all these little towns. in the federal government came in and took them and hurt the economy. when president trump gave them back, that was a boost to the economy. i don't think they should be doing oil and all that. but then i saw all these businesses get destroyed in these little towns and people losing their livelihood to the federal government. that's my take on it, but i worked for the bureau of land management. that's what i saw. host: how long were you there? caller: two years. i was in utah for 10 years, but when i see all these forests burning up, they are not managed right. i go to colorado, and that's going to be the next tinderbox.

i am an environmentalist, but not a lefty environmentalist. they are not taking care of the forests, the trees are unhealthy. the trees should be, circumference wise, diameter wise, certain thickness. they are now smaller and that's why we get all the forest fires. host: before you go, what makes someone a lefty environmentalist? caller: when they get crazy to the left and they don't -- every time the forest service would do their jobs, they sue them in court. in california, i knew it would be a tinderbox, and it is all through the west. i vacation in colorado and it's the same thing up here. they don't let the forest service do their jobs. it's unhealthy. you have to clean everything out. it's just common sense, but they

find them everywhere. host: let me let jen yachnin jump in on forest management. guest: i wanted to clarify one remark about utah and the lands going back to the state. that's actually not quite right. when president trump removed monument protection from those 2 million acres of public lands, they did not go from federal to state. they were stayed in federal hands. a lot of those were federal land management lands, and the protections shift. they could be nominated for oil and gas extraction for releases, they might open up to other uses, like off-road vehicles, if those weren't allowed under the land management plans for the monuments. but they were not sold off or given to utah or anything like that. host: we take viewers back to

december 2017, when then president trump announced he was shrinking those two monuments in utah. here are some of his remarks from that day. [video clip] >> because some people think the natural resources of utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in washington. and guess what? they are wrong. [applause] the families and communities of utah know and love this land the best, and you know the best how to take care of your land. you know how to protect it. and you know best how to conserve this land for many, many generations to come. your timeless bond with the outdoors should not be replaced

with the winds of regulators -- whims of regulators thousands and thousands of miles away. they don't know your land and truly, they don't care for your land like you do. [applause] but from now on, that won't matter. i have come to utah to take a very historic action. to reverse federal overreach and restore the rights of this land to your citizens. host: former president trump in 2017. on the broad strokes of the trump philosophy on the land management system compared to the biden administration? guest: there was much more aggressive pushes for oil and gas. there was the energy dominance agenda on public lands to increase the number of lease sales. there have been some criticism

from the oil and gas industry that the obama administration had not done enough with oil and gas lease sales, and at the start of the biden administration, we saw that shift back. there was a pause on to new leases, as the biden administration wanted to take a look at how that program works, take a look at royalties and related things. host: this is richard in missouri, you are on with jen yachnin. caller: a bunch of politics got involved, connections with their congressmen and so forth. did they buy them leases and they are there permanently? another thing, st. john's. i was wondering if they could

change that, because there is very little private land to be had there. host: did you get those? guest: i did. i am not entirely clear what you are asking about the leases, but typically oil and gas leases, once they have been bid out, continue for extended periods. they have to be up kept, or has to be progress made on them. as far as national parks in general goes, that's an easier question to address. only congress can decide if national parks will shrink or expand, except the donation of land or change its boundaries. national parks are very popular. they tend to see a lot of visitation. during the push last year, the great american outdoors act to ensure there is a maintenance backlog being addressed.

and biden is being pushed to where all americans have access to some kind of park, whether it be a national park, state, local. but it is sort of unusual, i would say, for congress to try to shrink or sell off a park. that would be a pretty notable event. there are other land sales that happen. the federal government owns 640 million acres of land, so sometimes you will see sales or exchanges of parcels. we will probably see that in utah with the bears ears national monuments. when grand staircase escalante was created, there were parcels of state land called sitla land, if you take it jargony, and that is supposed to benefit the state through extraction, leasing, anything that might benefit funds. even though those are in the boundaries of the monument, they are technically owned

by the federal government. but the state and government came to an agreement and exchanged some parcels. so utah picked up some land that turned out to be great for coal, they made some significant royalties off of those, and got a $40 million payment as part of that exchange. we are expecting to see something similar for the bears ears monument for the state parcels of land locked inside that monument, traded out for more valuable pieces of federal land. that's one example of where you might see a federal land sale. host: 10 minutes left in our program today, if you want to talk to a veteran of public lands coverage. jennifer yachnin of e&e news. if you want to join the conversation, (202) 748-8000 if you are in the central or eastern time zones, (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. in about 10 minutes, we will head to the supreme court.

the case being argued, a case concerning the justice department's attempt to reinstate the boston marathon bombers death sentence. you can watch the live oral arguments and listen to them online, on c-span.org, and on our new video app, c-span now. back to your phone calls, this is billy, columbus, ohio. you are on with jen yachnin. caller: good morning, how are you doing today? host: doing well. going -- go ahead, billy. caller: hi, my questions are why are gas prices so much cheaper in the south and up north? my second question -- host: well, let's stick with

questions about gas prices. why are they different prices around the country? guest: that's a little bit out of my wheelhouse. i am not sure i can give an answer that will be entirely accurate. host: what's in your wheelhouse, droughts in utah. what should viewers know. guest: it has been a pretty significant drought year. one of my colleagues wrote a great piece yesterday, you can check it out on our site, about how the droughts are affecting the great salt lake and what that might mean for skiers in utah this winter. this doesn't circle back to gas prices, my apologies, but the drought in itself is also playing back into the question of forest management and fires, and how that drought is exacerbating many of the large fires we see across the west. host: in terms of how you cover public lands, talk to us a bit about your jobs.

you are based in denver, colorado. how many of america's public lands have you seen in your travels? guest: i can't really count offhand. i have been with e&e for quite some time, almost a decade, and before that, i was on the road quite a bit. i have been to some beautiful corners of utah, nevada, texas, new mexico, arizona, hoping to get back on the schedule soon, but i try to get out and see the places we are writing about. many of which are awe-inspiring, to see in person, the scale of which is hard to imagine sitting behind a desk. host: what is it about grand staircase and bears ears that spurred national monuments there in the first place? what does one see when you go to a monument? guest: absolutely. yes, i have been to both and they are distinct.

there are some slot canyons in grand staircase -- grand staircase is known as the science monument. there have been some major paleontology discoveries there. earlier this year, there was an announcement made that within the monument, they discovered a cousin of the t-rex, a kind of taranto store -- tyrannosaur that lived in social settings. they called it the gregarious dinosaur. because this was off-limits for drilling and other extractions, they were able to find fossils, take a look at the sediment, what had likely happened in these areas. that has always been a big part of grand staircase, the scientific focus. in bears ears, the tribal nations where the big push there to create this and preserve it. there is a lot of interesting

antiquities in bears ears. there is the house on fire, you can see areas and homes where ancestors lived, hundreds if not thousands of years ago. there are still things like pottery shards to be found, and visitors are reminded that you want to treat the area with respect. don't take pottery shards and things like that with you. leave things the way they are. host: you talk about stakeholder reaction a little bit, full of questions on that from one of our followers. what are the oil and gas lobbyists doing, saying they must be rage filled about this announcement from the biden administration. guest: well, there was an argument always being made that these weren't areas that would

have huge oil and gas deposits in them. although there were some lands that were nominated for leasing, they had not moved through the process and been put up for sale, so it is more of a mining and extraction issue on that and. in grand staircase, when president clinton made that a monument back in 1996, there is a huge plateau that is a large quartz deposits. that had leases on it at the time that were bought out and became an active in that area -- became inactive in that area, even as the monument boundaries were reduced. host: john is waiting in fort dodge, iowa, good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. i appreciate you having this gal on. i like to refer tile as a desert these days, because they have tiled and drained all of what was known as the prairie pothole region in iowa, as far as

southern minnesota, south nebraska and so forth. it basically exists in north dakota and south dakota. my question to her would be, wood water problems and so forth they have out west and the dehydration that used to occur from these things, as to what is is doing -- as to what it is doing, if you could find that out. i will hang up and listen to her comment. guest: sorry, he hung up so i can't ask a follow-up, but in terms of drought and dehydration for agricultural areas, that would be one question. here in the west and heading over to the pacific post, california, there's a lot of different efforts going on in terms of water recycling, reducing use. there are several water compacts that exist that dictate how different reservoirs are used.

with the colorado river this year, they had a historic execution of one of those contracts. they reduced several reservoirs here in the state to make sure water is flowing to users in the vada and elsewhere. -- in nevada and elsewhere. host: a question via the text messaging service we use -- when the national park or monument is set up, does the government also protect the aquifer underneath that protected area? guest: that's a great question, and it will vary from state to state, depending on who owns it. for example, states like here in colorado, we have split rights. someone may own the land, but not the water rights. things are different in states like arizona offhand. i know if you own land, you can drill a well yourself. it really depends.

the government is generally, particularly in areas following things like water contracts, state laws, existing water rights, it depends on a number of factors. host: with the supreme court getting ready to come in this morning for oral arguments, we will have to end it there. jennifer yachnin, covering public lands for e&e news. we do appreciate your time this morning. guest: great, thank you so much. host: that will do it for us on "the washington journal." we will be back here at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. we will take you live to the supreme court. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021]