tv Washington Journal 04052021 CSPAN April 5, 2021 7:00am-10:05am EDT
james carano worlds the world health organization's report on china and the origin of covid-19 . we also take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: the house and senate both in session briefly today. pro forma, lawmakers returning a week from today. here are some of your monday headlines. "usa today," a target all the time, coming as lawmakers look at new security measures. "the wall street journal," shaping the post-covid economy as the imf and world bank officials begin their meeting
today, a meeting that will be held virtually. from the hill.com, some customers think that vaccine packed sports will backfire -- passports will backfire and democrats. this idea, do you support or oppose it? (202) 748-8000 four those who support, (202) 748-8001 for those whose -- to oppose, and undecided call in at (202) 748-8002. send us a tweet, @cspanwj, or you can text us a message at (202) 748-8003. thanks very much for being with us. this is the headline from the associated press. vaccine passports are the latest flashpoint in covid politics. they are being developed to verify covid-19 immigration status and inoculate people to travel and dine, the latest
flashpoint in the perpetual american political wars with republicans host: again, that story from the associated press. on one of the sunday shows, a doctor from minnesota was asked about the possibility of a fourth wave, he called it a category five, comparing it to a tropical storm. [video clip] >> at this time we are in category five hurricane status with regards to the rest of the world. we will see the highest number
of cases reported globally since the end of the pandemic. in the united states, we haven't even really begun to see this surge. over the course of the past year we have had a surge of cases in the upper midwest, the northeast, big increases through the southern sun and it subsides. northeast, midwest comes back again. we are in that cycle where the upper midwest is just now beginning to start the fourth surge and it was a wake-up call yesterday when michigan reported 8400 new cases and we are seeing an increasing number of icu hospitalizations for individuals between 30 and 50 who have not been vaccinated. host: that from "meet the press," one of the five shows that we re-air on c-span radio. this from twitter, what's wrong with carrying a card that says you are not fully vaccinated?
the headline from usa today, our question is whether or not there should be vaccine passports. dr. scott gottlieb responded to michael oser home on the threat of a fourth wave in the country. >> i don't think it will be a true fourth wave. we have delayed the point where we can get this behind us. with the rate that we have right now, 4 million people a day, that will reach 5 billion people per day. level of immunity, we have probably infected about 130 million americans. i think that there is enough immunity in the population you won't see a true fourth wave of infection. we are seeing pockets and younger people who haven't been
vaccinated. also school-age children. michigan, minnesota, its outbreaks in schools and infections in social cohorts who were maybe doing a better job sheltering and now they are out and about eating exposed and infected. the infection is changing its contours. host: this from jim on twitter, we are open to discussing the passport, you had to be asleep at the switch not to see it coming. carol is joining us from texas. you oppose the idea of passports. why? [video clip] that's because -- caller: that's because, steve, there are a lot of people who have decided not to take the vaccine. the real reason i call, steve, i watch every morning and when i heard your voice i said that's steve, that's steve. steve is back. god bless you, steve.
i miss you every sunday, steve, glad you are back. host: thank you. more on the idea of vaccine passports, they are typical, typically an app with a code that verifies whether someone has been vaccinated or recently tested negative and they are in use in israel and underdevelopment and parts of israel -- parts of europe. they mirror measures already in place for schools and overseas travel that require proof of immunization. lawmakers are already taking a stand against the idea. in pennsylvania, they write that the associated press -- they write that -- they are writing legislation to prohibit travel passes from being used to bar people from routine activities. next, bill, orange park, florida.
caller: what good is that going to do, to know when we all had our vaccines when the biden administration is letting in all these people that have the virus? do the democrats think it's only going to kill republicans? i don't believe this. thanks for the call. stephen is next from massachusetts. what about this idea of vaccine passports? caller: i oppose the idea. host: why? caller: it's not necessary. host: thank you for the call. if you support the idea of a vaccine passport, call (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . you can also send us a text message at (202) 748-8003. catherine, you are next in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. yes, my comment is just about
the passport. i do think that we should have something to identify that we have had the vaccines and what i did was i had both of mine two months ago i guess, both of them. i just use my phone, of course it wouldn't work for people without a smartphone, but i used my phone and took a picture of the finished card that has the date i got my vaccination, the county in my name. the second date has a little stripped down below that tells that. and it's on my, it's on my phone. i have my drivers license of course to identify that i am the name of the person on the card. host: thank you for the call. robert has this on twitter, saying vaccine passports, are you kidding me? democrats don't believe that you need an id to vote. calls and comments in a moment.
elena train covers the white house for axios, thank you for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: this centered on the sunday shows yesterday, the infrastructure plan outlined in pittsburgh by the president and whether or not it will be bipartisan. will it look more like the covid-19 relief plan or will there be bipartisan support? caller: steve, having covered the current congress, seeing the way it's operated the past year, i find it hard to expect any republicans to jump on board. particularly the way the plan is now. $2 trillion in spending for this infrastructure package, republicans across the board are already ramping up their counter programming on the bill. calling it a progressive wish list, saying there's far more than roads and bridges.
the plan for president biden is to still try to find some kind of compromise. senator kunz this morning said he didn't think any republicans would vote for the entire package but they could vote for some part of it. that is how the white house is looking at it, splitting it up to get to get the bill passed with bipartisan support where it addresses climate change in a reconciliation package. host: of course, a big part of that is raising the corporate tax from 21% to 28%. guest: it's a big push. a lot of republicans are also criticizing that. it's interesting that over the past few years, raising the corporate tax rate or raising taxes on the wealthy in general has become much more popular and we are seeing progressives
really pushing for that and trying to pay for this by raising taxes on the wealthy. janet yellen, the biden treasury secretary will announce today in a speech that she is working on a global minimum corporate tax rate that could provide biden with some cover for the bill. there is going to be a lot of criticism about this. president trumper lower the rates from 35% to 21% and he said he wanted to make the u.s. more competitive when other countries have a lower rate. i know that the biden administration is going to take some criticism for it in the way that he thinks he can pay for the bill. moderate democrats have to get on board. joe mansion -- senator joe manchin said that he's not
comfortable raising it and he needs to get on board if they want majority votes. he would be a key person to pass it that way and there will be a lot of negotiations happening in the weeks to come as they continue to roll out different aspects of the bill. host: let me go back to that corporate tax rate. if it has risen to 28%, based on the timeline, the infrastructure plan would take 15 years to pay for assuming the tax stays in place. guest: that's the assumption and that's another part of the criticism and it is ambitious, you know. normally when you look at paying for a massive package like this you try to factor it in over 10 years or so and the biden
administration is looking to go further than that. you are right, of course, another president can come in and reverse that. that's a lot of the internal discussion in the administration and the top lawmakers on capitol hill are discussing it. corporate tax rate is one of the main things that the administration is driving home and it is going to take several years to pay for this. at the same time you have people on the left like congresswoman because io cortez -- congresswoman oh because io cortez -- congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez calling it emergency funding right now that's being pumped into the economy and we should be doing more over the next several years . that is where progressives are. of course the moderate stance amongst the rest of the
democratic party and republicans are not on her page with that. a lot of factors that the administration needs to factor into the negotiation and that is what the bill, what the president rolled out last week, it's intended to be an opening offer, not the final thing. there will be a lot of talks about how they can change this to make different parts of the democratic party and even some republicans happy with the bill to see how they can get on board. it's -- host: this headline, "the capital target all the time." how will lawmakers be addressing capitol hill security? guest: it's tough. my thoughts and prayers will out to the family of the slain police officer.
but also, following the january 5 insurrection, it has been, the security the past several weeks, they had initially taken down the fencing and the barbed wire surrounding the capital complex very recently and of course we saw the attack on friday with the driver who drove his car into one of the barriers. what a lot of people are paying attention to is does capitol police insecurity have what they need in place? a rehired officer yesterday said that they will need more manpower, more police officers on the job and they will need the national guard to stay in place a bit longer. as a capitol hill reporter who has covered congress for many years now. it's not normal. the capital is supposed to be a place where people from all over the country are supposed to be
able to come in. we haven't seen that as much since covid but it has been accessible in public and most lawmakers want that to remain in want people to access congress freely but in a way that is safe. right now, with so much heightened tension on capitol hill following the january six attack and the political nature of the environment and the united states right now it makes some of these security concerns a bit more worrisome so i think they will have enhanced security in place for a longer time after what happened. but who knows how long the presence will remain. finally, if tradition were to hold true, the easter egg role would seem different today because it would only include remarks from the president. guest: you are right, normally we would have the easter egg
role. we are not having that because of pandemic, talking about easter. president biden is a very religious man and he was at camp david to celebrate the holiday. a different kind of celebration, given coronavirus. tomorrow he will be giving a speech in virginia on the vaccine rollout plan. the president has said that by may 1 most adults in the country should be vaccinated. we have seen the numbers increasing steadily over time. there's a lot of potential on that, something that everyone is looking forward to, having a more vaccinated population. later this week he will be giving remarks on infrastructure and we will be hearing that over and over again from the president and other senior administration officials over the several not just, but months. this bill will take a lot longer
to pass. i think it will be several months to get the parts of this plan through. he will be trying to sell that package to the american public and get as much popularity as he can. host: have a great week, thanks for reporting with us on this monday. guest: you, too. host: steve on twitter says it's one more tool for opening the economy and lessening their spread of the virus. that it need not be a government run program. mark joins us next from minnesota on the idea of a vaccine passport. actually, new hampshire. go ahead, mark. caller: i've been on homework -- on hold for a long time. i'm opposed to the vaccine passport. i don't understand why i need to prove i had a vaccine but i don't have to prove who i am to vote.
this is topsy-turvy, completely crazy. i have a question, with all the numbers of deaths that we have reported from covid, what happened to all the malpractice deaths that happen every year in this country? 300,000 people die from malpractice every year. where does that number fit into the covid numbers? everything that we hear on a daily basis is opposite, upside down, and changes every 24 hours. host: thank you for the call. this text message from maryland, and says she supports the passport and that it will allow for the safest and most responsible reopening. only a vaccine passport can put the pandemic you hind us. jim joins us next from illinois. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning.
i support the passport but i have a few concerns. the way people are getting vaccinated right now, it's kind of staggered. everybody's going to want to get renewed at different times. how do you know when to get renewed? have they decided that it is nine months? a year? my concern is that it is going to be all year-round. if you forget are like a week late on your passport, i can just think there's going to be huge problems in the fall and winter of next year. and you have to get a regular flu shot, a covid shot, and if another flu thing comes up in the fall, just like a lot of shots just to satisfy the government. host: this is the headline from politico.com, u.k. to pilot covid certificate for nightclubs
. "britain will start granting access to selected venues, including sports stadiums and nightclubs as ministers mull over ways to reopen host lockdown. people who have been vaccinated get a test or have excellent immunity after recovery from last month. sports venues and nightclubs. they go on host: the next call is from susan in massachusetts. good morning. caller: hi, mr. scully. steve, first i want to welcome you back.
it gives me great joy to make this call and have you be the moderator this morning and welcome back get yes, i do support a vaccine passport. by the way, i just got my pfizer shot here in boston at the fema site. host: how do you feel? caller: i feel great. i had a pretty sore arm. just some mild achiness but really within 15 hours, less than 24 hours it was all good and i'm older. older people don't have as severe a reaction because their immune system is diminished as they age. i was very pleased with it and more importantly i commend the fema operation here in boston that was just set up in the past couple of weeks. top-drawer. glad you are feeling -- host:
glad you are feeling good. caller: i am. but back to the passport, back in the 80's i was lucky enough to be able to travel all over south asia and pakistan, india, parts of the himalayas. before i left, it was exhaustive, i had to retrace all my childhood inoculations to see if i needed boosters and then i had to go to the tropical medicine clinic to get a bunch of those shots and i had to do malaria prophylactic treatments and i had a yellow booklet i had to take with me everywhere and i couldn't get into any country without it and i called it my little vaccine passport. i'm a big believer in this. one, it just gives people the assurance that the people around them are vaccinated. just one more thing, steve, since i got you, my dad served in, i believe that since we haven't had the draft in over 40
years, i think that this is one small thing we can do for our country to step up and report for duty and get our vaccines. my dad served in world war ii. he at that time was being sent to the pacific as a part of the army air or and he talked about this near the end of his life, he had to get all kinds of crazy experimental vaccines and at that time it was either take the vaccine or get court-martialed. you had to take a vaccine. i think about that and these covid vaccines, i'm in the industry and i can speak with authority on this, the safety protocols, the vetting, people can have full confidence in these vaccine. thank you, steve, and welcome back. host: you mentioned india, they
surpassed 100,000 new cases in one day for the first time. dr. seth berkley is the head of the alliance. he talked about the vaccines in india and here's part of what he said. [video clip] >> by volume, they are the largest vaccine supplier in the world and because of the outbreaks right now they have stepped up their vaccination programs, meaning that they have required more doses, meaning that they have made less doses available for the rest of the world. we had expected in march and april about 90 billion doses and we suspect we will get much, much less than that and that's a problem. but we are in a race because we also see wealthy countries beginning to cover much of their population and the hope is that they will begin to make the vaccines available to the rest of the world, including ones
they may not use. for example, the u.s. not only has moderna, pfizer, and j&j, but also vaccines from novavax and astrazeneca. those could be made available and it would make a big difference in terms of the supply to the world. host: that from "face the nation." marlene, vaccine passports, what's your view? caller: i oppose it. i believe that text message from steve, who said we don't even have to show proof to vote, which really bothers me. everyone should have to show a license. but as far as this vaccine goes, no. if we aren't going to do it for voting, we shouldn't have to do it for the vaccine either. host: this is from jersey girl in pennsylvania saying she's undecided.
what is the proposed timeline? we are in states where we will not have a chance to be vaccinated until late spring or early summer. this comes into play after all of us have had the opportunity for vaccination, then yes. athens, georgia, good morning. caller: i want to start out first, steve, thanks to our steadfast leader brian lamb. steve, we work rallying behind you after the incident. i don't usually call, how much do i love c-span, steve scully. listen, steve scully, how poignant is it after the easter weekend and the rise of jesus christ, we have the lamb of c-span back. let's get straight to the suspect -- subject. i oppose the vaccine passport, steve. why? because this is america.
we are not forced to abide by any tyranny of the government. i understand that there's a global pandemic. with a global pandemic we can't give up our way of life any more than we have. give me liberty or give me death. i believe that we, the american people, we shouldn't ever give ourselves, give our freedom over to tierney. steve, greta -- glad to see you back at the table and we would love to hear from you and see you more and more. thank you, sir. host: on our facebook page, on the idea of a vaccine passport, donna smith has one word, unconstitutional. the headline from the associated press, california, covid cases
begin to flood and she, sports and theater venues opening again. as cases -- "after a year-long ban on most indoor seating, they set the stage friday host: more details available from the associated press. back to your phone calls. juanito joins us from illinois. good morning. caller: i've never called him before, good morning. host: we're glad to hear from you. caller: i don't see any reason why people are so afraid that they -- afraid to show they have the vaccine. i wish there was a way of really getting people to take the
vaccine because it is not hurting them. it's preventing the virus. all they are doing is they are just walking time bombs walking around by not having it. i'm sorry to say that my children are some of them. i just want rid of this covid after being locked up for a year. i'm fed up. i had mine. i haven't had any side effects or anything from them. i'm all for it. host: who do you think should administer this? the government? your drug store your doctor? who should be in charge? caller: i think the doctors should do it. i don't think the government has any say in it. they might be giving the shots and everything, but i don't think they have any say in telling us we have to carry something.
host: the other question, how do you enforce something like that? caller: i don't know. this world today, it's just, i don't know, i'm 76 years old. i have never seen the country and the way it has been with the civil rights and everything. i believe in freedom for everybody. i don't have nothing against anyone and i believe everybody has the right or polity. to be treated right. host: don't be a stranger, thanks for phoning in, we would love to hear from you again. caller: thank you. host: a lot of you, we get comments on c-span's page, this one says no, it's already orwellian and this would be a
step in the step -- this would be a step in the direction. i've been vaccinated once already and i'm not comfortable with the idea of a passport. next is heidi in north carolina. caller: i'm not getting the vaccines. because of caesars and barbara saul, it's a bad reaction and that's discriminatory. isn't it? host: thank you. a little bit of feedback, but we heard your comment. erica, san diego, up early. caller: i have a passport already. the covid-19 vaccination record card. what's wrong with that, it's the best thing to have in my hand? host: thank you for the call. next, randy. good morning, joining us on the phone from michigan. good morning, randy.
caller: good morning, steve. first, i would like to welcome you back and i would like to thank you and all the other men and women out there for bringing us this great program. on this subject, steve, i think the passport is one step too far. i'm not against it, but i haven't been vaccinated because i live out in the middle of nowhere. i will get it eventually, but personally i want to see the kids at the grocery store get it, then people i got to come in contact with. i just don't believe in the tracing. i just can't get comfortable with that. it seems like a step too far. i can't agree with that, steve. thank you for letting me put in my two cents worth. welcome back to the trenches, have a nice day. host: thank you.
market, next here in new york city. you oppose the idea. why? caller: in the beginning someone was texting about what a good idea it was. i don't know about that, but it's like training, training and brainwashing. you know? host: thank you for the call. this is the headline below the fold in "the new york times," " white evangelical resistance code yesterday they discussed why some people were reluctant to get a vaccine. [video clip] >> i don't think that there is any doubt that there is vaccine hesitancy across america in rural areas. we also had hesitancy early on across america and we are seeing significantly higher up takes their as each polling data comes in and we are seeing more and
more americans willing to take the vaccine. we have approximately 535,000 mississippians fully vaccinated every day, another 300,000 plus that have received their first dose and i'm hopeful that as we move forward more and more of my constituents will recognize the importance of it and it is important. it's something i have done, something i family has done. i was able to see my grandmother recently for the first time in a year on her 90th birthday. the vaccine is our path towards normalcy and it is one that i hope more folks across the country will recognize. host: that from the governor of mississippi with jake tapper. thomas joins us from pennsylvania. good morning, tom. caller: good morning. i am 100% for the vaccine. if it saves just one life. i mean we have lost too many already.
i'm just thinking that other countries like taiwan, where everyone is on board, the rate is very low. they are constantly letting us get out of hand here by not complying with the things we should be. host: thank you for the call. this from a woman in california, please consider that the vaccine is life running for us. i would be -- for me it would be deadly, but in general i'm supportive of a vaccine passport. this from "the wall street journal," "when will it be safe to show up at the office without a mask, sooner than experts are willing to admit if the coronavirus pandemic continues on trajectory, the need for
masks outside local outbreak host: next up is don joining us. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. a couple of things. first of all, the license, people are saying you don't have to show your license to go vote. i don't know what state doesn't make you hold some kind of license or id. the passport, i think it's a fallacy. i have a card, i have an
appointment card. i got my second card, they stamp it, they put it on, that way when you do go somewhere if you have to, if someone is nervous about it, you can show them the card and say look, i got vaccinated. there it is right there. there is no thing out there that will come up to say you need to show your birth certificate to get a passport or get anything. still, i'm flabbergasted of people calling in and saying you don't have to show your license to vote. what state is that? because i don't, i can't find it. could someone there try to find it for me? i think all of them make you do that. but the passport is already in your wallet. if you guys would go get vaccinated, you would see that. it's documented and everything is fine with that. my wife is getting her second shot next week. we can't wait. we haven't been to a restaurant
in how long because why would we go and make somebody else sick or some elderly person sick and have that on our conscience? it doesn't make sense. thank you, steve, it's glad to have you -- good to have you back. host: this from our facebook page, vaccine passports are all about control, resist. the headline from the hill.com, republicans thinking that vaccine passports will backfire on democrats. we are asking you about the idea of vaccine passports, whether you support or oppose it. angela, you oppose it. why? caller: i oppose it. i work as a registered nurse at a major hospital in the area. i got my vaccine, i got my second shot from pfizer back in january of this here because i want to be able to take care of
my patients and make sure that everybody is safe and that i don't get covid and can continue to take care of my patients and i do have issues here in my rural area that i live at. a lot of people say you are not going to hit me with that shot, i'm not going to take the shot. they are scared thinking that their freedom is being taken away, or some type of conspiracy theories, i think, they have been listening to for a long time. yeah, i'm against the passport just because you know, we have our card that has our vaccination time and records on it, everything. just show that card. people out here are so scared anyway because they think there is a big government spheres see. i live in rural northwest ohio and there is just not a lot of trust with the government for governmental people. maybe just saying you don't have to get a vaccine passport. just get your vaccine and you can have the card to show people
and vaccinated and everybody can be healthy and we can get on with our life. host: thank you for the call. vaccine passports, this is the headline from "usa today." the headline on their website, with this text message from greg in cleveland, ohio. "i believe it's a violation of people's privacy, talking about papers to make sure they were free, calling it the same scenario as slaves with passport papers. -- papers." louise, north carolina, you support the idea. why? caller: yes, you have to have your drivers license showing the different things. our country has become selfish.
they use freedom of speech and everything else for this. if the president, our former president would have came out and told the truth about covid, we wouldn't have this problem. he also has been vaccinated. but is not really out there for the republicans, telling them to hear that. we have became such a selfish country. people have a right to not vaccinate, but they don't have a right to put everybody else's health where we will get sick. i an african-american. there are more now that are getting vaccinated and were tested. i just, republicans and other
democrats are doing the same thing. host: thank you for the call. this from stephen, saying that violation of human rights and hippo laws. -- hepa laws. what's your view? caller: i disagree with it. i mean i agree it's a public health crisis, this pandemic. but then, so his diabetes. what's next? blood sugar? passport panels? other markers for cardiovascular disease? i just don't see where it stops. as far as your return, i do think that honesty is important in journalistic integrity and i hope that you do that going forward. host: thank you very much for the call. this is the headline in a second pandemic easter, christians gather to rejoice.
joining us from columbia, maryland, good morning, paul. caller: it's kind of a violation of your rights. next is what, you have to prove that you got the flu shot? what's next? other things? i have had both of my modernity shot and i still walk around with a mask regardless. thank you for taking the call. host: this from "the new york times," johnson & johnson claiming full responsibility for
the vaccine mixup. the mixups boiled up to 15 million doses. dennis is joining us from williamsport, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i don't see anything wrong with a vaccine passport. i have had both my shots. i have family members that won't get it, they are idiots. why should you be allowed to go some to possibly spread a deadly disease when you can get a vaccine? by the way, these are the same people who are going to keep the restrictions on because the only way covid is going to be beat -- i know several people who have died from it.
they think it's all a hoax. i quit bowling at a bowling center because they violated the were -- the rules, no rask's -- no mask or anything like that, i said that's it i'm done. by the way, these people think it's wrong for the vaccine passport. they are probably the same ones that think a baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for certain people. yet that same baker could let somebody and with a deadly disease. doesn't make sense to me. have a nice day. thank you. host: from "the washington post," surprise of the biden presidency, harmony with the left, working through with congress. could it be a bipartisan bill? can joins us from lancaster.
what is your view on a -- ken joins us from lancaster. what is your view? caller: please give me the time. new world order, this is working perfectly. you said it a few minutes ago, slaves having to prove their papers to be on the road from their master. this is the same thing. this virus, the drug, it's not fda approved or nothing. it's the emergency authorization act. why did they pass it? it took what, nine months to get it passed? it used to take five or six years to get a vaccine past. they rushed this through. nobody knows. i'm not saying the coronavirus isn't real, but it should be a personal choice.
a person is terrible for not having this paper? you probably have your papers like diabetes or the flu. then they say there's another one coming into thousand 25. they said the way to decrease the population of the world is through vaccines. host: julie has this point, supporting the idea on a temporary limited basis. this might be a good idea for cruise lines. usa today writing about stimulus checks, saying that some who lost jobs get more stimulus, saying that the irs is putting plus up payments adjusted for tax returns. greg, good morning, what's your view? caller: if they had made it mandatory to begin with, we would be ahead of the curve. for our kids to go to school,
they have to be vaccinated. that's for every child and that's for the good of the public. this is on the same line. host: thank you. this from sheila, she says to watch how fast counterfeit passports will be available over the net. we will be talking to nicole lewis to discuss coronavirus in american prisons. later we will talk to james cara bono of the heritage foundation with questions about the who report and why he distrusts china with much more ahead on the issue of covid-19 in the course of the program. danny joins us from tucson. good morning, do you oppose the idea of a passport? caller: yeah. if you get the shots, there should be a card from them saying who give it to you, getting it stamped and sealed. you carry the cart around. you really don't need a passport
. if you do have a passport why not take your little blue or yellow booklet with you when you get your shot and then fill that out so there's your shot record for this covid. people aren't making any sense, what they are doing. they got the things in place to do it. if you go into where you got a passport and you decide to go to south america or somewhere like that, you got to make sure that you got shots for malaria and all these other diseases down there and they would put it in the shot record. you could do the same thing with these shots for covid-19. you could put in the shop where they have them give you the card that states you had the shot on this date. it would be real official like.
you could just carry it with you. it's a tallahassee driver's license. that's me. i went to get my shot -- i'm going to get my shot in a couple of weeks. host: do you know which one you are getting? caller: i was thinking about getting the johnson & johnson because they said it's a one-time deal. out here in arizona, there are not that many of them. they have got many -- more of the pfizer and -- host: moderna. caller: fiona shots. host: this from a viewer, if you choose not to have an id, you may not be able to purchase alcohol, same with a passport. if you choose not to get one, you may not be able to attend public events.
this story breaking down online, the biden administration saying that there will be a goal met by the end of may despite the contamination of millions of doses at a troubled manufacturing vicinity -- facility in baltimore and that officials who spoke anonymously on the sensitive matter that officials had spoken for more than a week on the arrangement with johnson & johnson taking over the facility. mill berry, massachusetts. caller: i am surprised that we need another bureaucracy. my main concern is the manufacture. i heard china manufactures 50% of our pharmaceutical products. it comes to mind, how come nancy pelosi didn't ok the $800
billion that donald trump did last year. he advocated putting that into it, putting it into the manufacturing of the pharmaceutical. could someone please answer that? host: jennifer, oak park, with this message, saying you have to carry a card to show that you are diabetic or to get a child into school. babies get over 25 shots if mandatory and they give you a card to show people if you don't want it, don't get it. this is al, joining us from michigan. good morning. al, you are on the air. caller: this is alan, this is alan? i'm actually calling from hawaii. i don't know why you went michigan. host: good morning, up early. caller: yes. and welcome back to c-span, by the way, steve. so, here in hawaii right now, we
are really moving towards the passports. it's a very attractive concept for sure. i have been scouring a lot of literature for the last few weeks. lots of op ads that are pro and against. you know, i stumbled on an article that was published today in a publication called the regulatory review that i emailed c-span that kind of aligns with some of the experts i have heard from, like michael mina, who has a phd from harvard who says it's a good idea but that it really needs to be worked out in a few different ways. in this article it really cites the concept of interoperability. if it's going to be digital, it has to be something that will be utilized and is not controlled by one power base. yet does the government want to be the entity that controls
that? or is it going to be third-party like microsoft wants to do it and some other countries? -- companies? israel is doing it and it needs to be done in a lot of ways for transit. definitely, vaccines are becoming effective, even with a variants, it appears. the big problem is that it isn't going to be a useful tool for people who aren't able to get vaccinated right away. so, there is the perception of the haves and have-nots and that will be an issue that is going to be haunting society. the article talks about that, too. i think you need to bring some guests on. i would love to hear you get dr. michael mina on about testing and this and i would love to hear you get dr. monica gandhi on. i think both of them could help
to fill in a lot of blanks on these discussions. thank you for your time, i appreciate it. host: thank you there from hawaii. this is like a year ago when we had to get letters for companies to prove we are essential workers. another form of control and a waste of money for a short-term thing. to give you a sense of where this is, the associated press writing about vaccine passports, "vaccine passports allowing inoculated people to more freely travel, shop, dine, and become the latest flashpoint in the perpetual wars of political freedom in america
host: back to your phone calls. patsy, massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning morning, dear. i'm patsy from massachusetts. i'm 75 years old. when i was 10, i went to ireland. we got shots to go to ireland. international travel is understandable. intelligible. having a passport to go from state to state, watch out. that's all. i have also been a social activist for 50 years. so i just feel that it's another tracking system. host: thank you for the call. this is from lisa, facebook. fully in favor, doing my part to
keep my community safe and would prefer to know who is helping to keep us safe so that i can continue to be virus free. carter is next. chester, vermont. go ahead, carter. caller: steve, great to have you back on c-span. i don't think we need passports. i think we can just use the cards instead. that's all i got to say. i want to go back to all the baseball games and mass. host: ok. this from another viewer, use the cards given. you can join us on twitter or facebook. next up is david, joining us this morning from louisiana. good morning, david. caller: good morning, sir. i'm from independence. i'm independent. i've always believed that the best way to determine
independence is to force federal regulation. i'm not going to get a vaccine and i'm not going to have a passport and i don't know why i should because i have never worn a mask yet. i believe the virus is real, but something surely doesn't make sense. i'm not a guinea pig for the government. god bless you, sir. host: for those allergic to the ingredients in the vaccine, according to this, they will neither own past test they will need their own passport -- they will need their own passport. sara, ohio, good morning. caller: i feel that a person that wants to travel around the country overseas, they should have their papers. this virus, you know, has taken out too many people. too many families have lost loved ones.
so, if they don't care about their own health, they should stay at home, not travel. you host: become media pages. continue -- thank you for the call. our conversation continues on our media pages. joining us in just a couple of minutes, steve deace will look at his podcast, and his new book . and we will talk to nicole lewis about coronavirus and how it has infected the prison population. you are watching and listening to "washington journal" on this april 5. >> today starts the second week
of the trial of derek chauvin, the former minneapolis police department charged in killing dortch lloyd -- killing george floyd. watch on c-span, c-span.org or on the radio app. if you missed our live coverage, you can watch at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two and any time on demand at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television company in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. ♪ >> go to c-span.org/coronavirus for the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. if you missed our live coverage, it is easy to find the latest briefings and the biden's -- the
biden administration's response. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this week we are featuring the host of a podcast and joining us is steve deace from the steve deace show. he is the author of a new book called "faucian bargain." good monday thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's talk about your book and your criticism of dr. fauci. what is it based on? steve deace -- guest: all of our lives, families, schools, sports teams, businesses, churches, every aspect of their lives, whether they can breathe free air outside. last week the state of nevada
which is a desert, for the first time in a year allowed you to go to a park but yet you can walk into the casinos, remove your masks and inhale carcinogens and blow them out months and months ago. the stupidity. the stuff that doesn't make any sense. the way our lives are being turned over stems from the power of one unelected bureaucrat without one vote cast, without informed consent, which is what you and i are given when we go to a doctor and given a series diagnosis good we are even an opportunity to reject at treatment or get a second opinion. this guy has had complete, unadulterated power for the better part of a year. that would be a dangerous premise enough for our rate of life or any way of life, but you throw out how inaccurate and
inconsistent as we document in the book "faucian bargain." it has more footnotes than pages. this just isn't pontification. this is often into foti in his own -- often anthony fauci in his own words. host: you are calling him the most powerful dangerous bureaucrat in american history. why dangerous? guest: human nature cannot handle that much power. that is why the founding fathers felt that individuals were angels. they wanted power limited and still washington famously comparing government to a fire. it is necessary to provide warmth and shelter and security but left on intention, it -- unattended, it rages out of control.
there is a balance and when one person has way too much power and way too much accountability, other than three testimonies in front of rand paul and a couple of recent media interviews where they pushed back on him saying things, a, get an experimental vaccine and you still have to wear a mask. with those limited exceptions within the better past of the year, he has left unassailable. whenever someone is unassailable, that is when it is time to get suspicious. host: when it comes to the pandemic and government health officials, who do you trust? guest: that is a good question. one of the things we raise in the book is what has been fascinating is we have been told to trust the experts. i don't know how many of the audience realize this, that the day after the imperial college survey came out in the u.k., the very day after, oxford university had a primary expert, the number one rated in the
world, and she was in the pages criticizing the integrity of that model the very next day. even before anyone knew who dr. scott atlas was, there were numerous scientists at stanford university, where the top five in the united states, already pushing back on some of the data assumptions, some of the models and procedures and policies we had in place. we have seen people in universities of harvard, yale, carnegie mellon, these are esteemed, elite universities, places that probably don't agree on social policy like someone like me, but they also thought what are we doing? never before in human history have we ever quarantined the healthy. that is just not how this works. anthony fauci said last january that respiratory virus contagions and outbreaks are not driven by a symptom attic spread.
-- by a symptom attic spread -- asymptomatic spread. in the world, 3% 8% spread. he was right about that in january and yet we have largely pursued for a year a policy according to quarantining the healthy out of in unscientific flat earth voodoo that the data does not support of asymptomatic spread. there are questions we need answers to. we believe we need a 9/11 tribunal when this episode is over for an in-depth look at what went on, why only some who fit a narrative work considered and why others from esteemed colleges were ignored. we have to say, i have a right to know.
someone said show them your papers. we are saying this in the united states now? we are saying this as if we've never read a history book for as we sit here today on april 5, 20 21, the case fatality rate for covid-19 is 1.8%. we are doing this over a cfr of 1.8%. the cdc says we have 10 more cases than we have been able to detect, that would put the infection fatality rate at 0.18%. we are tearing our lives asunder for something that has impacted lives on an individual level, but in terms of public policy, the data doesn't justify. if we are going to have radically different views of society, then we need truth. we don't need to know what changed anthony fauci's mind, relax we can get this under control to run for your lives.
we also need to note in the future we may run into something that is ebola-like where there was a 50% infection rate and have serious considerations about how much to live it -- limit freedoms and liberties. now we have sanctioned another half of the population to not believe that because they have been gas lighted and like to. we need -- and lied to. we need a 9/11 tribunal so people answer questions and explain why their solutions did not real-time data. host: our guest, steve deace, joins us from iowa. he is the other of a new book "faucian bargain." he is also the host of his own podcast which is one of the reasons we invited him on we are focusing on podcast guests.
we want to follow-up up on the mlb pulling the game from atlanta. this was due to the georgia law to change the voting laws. to the point and the mlb decision, your reaction. guest: the washington post of all places fact checked a lot of these and found them to be false. the premise of the georgia law is to expand voting opportunity while increasing identification. i can't walk up and get tickets at will call in any major league stadium without showing my identification. we have to show id almost everywhere. this issue has been pulled -- has been polled so many times in the last years. if i tell you is mostly sunny, someone will call and say it is partly cloudy.
this has overwhelming support across the board. this issue was gas lighted. i have to give a toast to stacey abrams in georgia. she baited this so successfully that it went beyond what she thought was capable. her own media listened to her so much now she is complaining that mlb has pull out of your state. i don't know how many times your audience has been to fulton county, georgia but i have been there and there are a lot of minority owned businesses around the games and now they have been destroyed with the gas lighting associated with this and the backlash is quite substantial. i think you can see it right now in what is happening and half of america's social media accounts in regards to major league baseball. as someone who grew up as a fan, the last hearing -- thing america's pastime needs is further alienation of fans.
we have to start saying, we went to this evolution. when i was first coming up in politics, corporate america was considered a tool of the republican party. hey, we will fund your social causes if you keep government of our backs from a tax and regulation standpoint in the 1990's and early 2000's, corporations of solved themselves, which is a smarter play. now, corporate america has largely become woke corporate america. now it wants to wield the hammer and sickle for the left of america and make themselves into partisan beings. what we need is a lot of red state governors to say it is a free country, but you're not coming to my state for low taxes and low regulation. you can go to the blue states with the high taxes and high regulations and screw over your
bottom line and enjoy all the woke but we are not subsidizing. when you see senators like ted cruz and mike legal after the antitrust exemptions, the corporations will soon learn that the blowback and wanting to exert so much political influence, particularly on a false premise like this, is a motherless goat. host: will go to linda in new york. good morning with steve deace. caller: i don't understand how he is complaining about dr. fauci and what he has done with the pandemic when all across the world people have come to the conclusion that they had to do even worse shutdowns. i don't think that -- i don't understand why he thinks somebody in the united states is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. the other thing about the
voting, i don't know what to think about having the id. i know in new york state when i have been voting for 50 years, we go and sign in below our signature for all the other times we have voted and we vote and there have been no issues. i just think that a lot of this is just being created by donald trump who came into office basing things on complete lies. most of the crab he spouted was just --crap he spun was lies. and now he is raking them over the coals with donations. one man's account was empty because they kept taking
money from them. host: let me follow up on the first point because this was a text message a question about dr. fauci. do you really believe dr. anthony fauci did anything but show good faith and due diligence in regard to the best practices with this virus? guest: you bet i do. that is why there are 200 footnotes that say the exact opposite that point out the inconsistencies. on february 28, 2020, he wrote in the new york medical journal, he wrote about what we know about respiratory viruses and sars, he estimated that in the end the fatality ratio would be somewhere around a pandemic level flew in monday fatality ratio for flu is .1 and the infection fatality for covid is
0.18, he was exactly right. it was a pandemic level flew. we would not have shut the country down -- flu. we would not have shut the country down. norway does not mandate masks. their public health department found they would have to mandate masks for 200,000 people to stop one single infection. they don't have masks. almost every other western country in the world returned to school quicker and sooner than we did, have more kids in school than we do right now. there has been more about what to lock down and went to lockdown and we would believe. we have a control group in sweden. there has been a lot of gas lighting and lies about what went in -- on in sweden. in 2020, sweden's death was 7% higher than the last four year average, the rest of the european union was between 12%
and 18%. this idea that we don't have a control group, we wouldn't know what would happen if we didn't do the mitigation and the fallacy and falsifiable fallacy, it would have been worse if we had not done these things, sweden is the control group and showed they have actually outperformed the rest of the world. they had the lowest mask compliance in all of the european union as well. it is not true that everyone has done the exact same thing. i would also say the caller made my point and the fact that countries have gone f dirt wave and wave -- have gone on with wave after wave after wave of lockdown's is that they don't work. lockdowns don't work but they do kill. they have created a mental health apocalypse in this country right now. lockdowns do not work and haven't worked anywhere in the world, but they do kill.
host: the podcast is available on the website the place.com. our guest, steve deace, "faucian bargain." bridget is joining us from washington, d.c.. caller: i have three points for steve i was open he would address. the first 1 -- do you know who faust is because there is no correlation. what kind of medical authority do you have as a political analyst and podcaster to have any kind of informed opinion on the medical advice that anyone is having at all, much less dr. fauci? and thirdly, why should i listen to a man's opinion who has a poster of his dark night in the basement. guest: i will take offense to
number three. i have to pride myself on the place i have in pop culture. if you want to dog the greatest movie trilogy of all time, the dark knight trilogy, i have to question you whether you are part of the mental apocalypse we are on. but as to the rest of her questions come what right do i have to question, i am a dammed american. it says we, the people, not the public health experts and professionals. your government told you for 80 years that you are full sartre real and suddenly now they want to tell you they are. as the tuskeegee airmen what they feel about medical officials. this government begins with we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, not just the health department. when you go to a doctor and say you have breast cancer, are you not given informed consent
options, are you not entitled to get a second opinion? michael author, todd erzin and i, that is why we quote so many doctors. the center for responsible medicine, evidence based medicine at oxford come all the epidemiologists come with a b expert enough for you? dr. john in these a director -- john ianidies, would that be expert enough for you? i would ask you, who are you to question by your own logic, who are you to question all these experts at harvard, yale, stanford, carnegie mellon, the number one university in america, in the world according to u.s. news and world report, oxford university? who are you to question the
justifications of dr. fauci? who are you to tell those doctors you don't know what you're talking about. i would refer to you, why are you questioning those who question dr. fauci? they have farmer impressive diplomas and accreditations, ma'am, then you do. host: let's go to johnny from tacoma, washington. caller: good morning. i just want to say to steve. you are on here promoting your book and dr. fauci is a scientist and we have to understand science. so at one point we might say that you don't need masks, but with science and then you realize that out there without masks this is spreading faster. so you regroup and say, ok,
maybe we do need masks paid you try different things and you tell the people who lost family members. we had over half a million people to die from this. this herd immunity who was talking to trump about letting it go. how many people do we want to die before we say we need to do something like quarantined? i am a schoolteacher, so i understand how quarantining students and doing virtual learning has impacted these students. don't get me wrong, because i have kids who have not logged on and i am concerned. i am concerned if we had just let it go and done herd immunity, we would have millions die so staying home for a year so we can eventually get back to the way we possibly work it seems to me like you are promoting a book and we have to
believe the science. even if there were half that many people who died, inc. about the family members who lost someone -- think about the family member who lost someone. if we say dr. fauci was out to showboat on his own, don't crucify the man. that is how i look at it. host: thank you. we talked about the book and dr. fauci, but you are also the host of your podcast. guest: we are noon to 2:00 right after going back for two hours monday through friday. i would like to explain what she said. i have not ascribed any motivations to anthony fauci, so that is a false claim. we have to follow the science, whose science? i can cite experts across the world. the idea that mines would've
died, we have a control group. -- the idea that millions would've died, we have a control group. it is called sweden. they beat and surpassed and dominated the rest of the european union and excess deaths last year with nowhere near the mitigation efforts the rest of the world did. we have a control group that answers that question. the notion of herd immunity. it is funny to watch people who say they believe in science go around one of the most scientific things in history. you are here as a human being despite far worse plagues than the current one. you are here because of herd immunity. it is not a theory as trump wrongly said. it is an observation and we look to this because we recognize and observe how contagions work and what is the threshold for when cultures and communities can
begin with healthy immune systems pushing back. let me blow some minds this morning. do you know what a vaccine program is designed to get us to? wait for it wait for it, herd immunity. the point is to get us to herd immunity quicker so we don't have more loss of life on our way to the herd immunity threshold. i would encourage that teacher to study science before coming on a national program and outing yourself as a teacher and saying follow your science what she spewed was unscientific psychobabble. this notion that i don't care about the half-million people that have pierced with covid, that is another fallacy. every single one of those lives -- yesterday was easter, jesus died for every one of those visuals like he died for you and me and everyone was fearfully and wonderfully made. look how she just dismissed --
we have a couple of students who don't show up by zoom and i worry about them. where is the concern for them? where is the concern for people who didn't get cancer screenings? where are the concern for people who didn't get their heart screenings, which killed over 600,000 people every year. how many people didn't get early detection? how many will have a lump on their scrotum or breast that could have been detected and could have saved them but now the cancer is too far gone and they will now not survive question mark who cares about all of their lives -- survive? who cares about all of their lives? it works both ways they don't want to make it work. you can throw many accreditations up for it dr. fauci but i can throw up many who have just as good and better accreditations pay this is why we have checks and balances and why we didn't have an expert class that all power was given to and who knows if they are
right on any day? in my lifetime, 47 years old, fiber is good, too much fiber is bad, fiber is good. this is why we need wisdom and a multitude of counsel. we need to hear from more voices. biggest mistake the trump administration may find the beginning was putting too much power in anthony fauci's hands. in the first 15 days when we were shutting down, we should have had a room where all the experts who disagreed and put them in a room together and rotate and see who has the best evidence-based medicine, best arguments. we never did that. instead we elevated one particular group of experts, in this case auntie found she -- anthony fauci, to the height as almost like a colt.
-- cult. host: one question is will i will have caucuses in 2024? guest: yes, it would just depend on if trump runs again or not. it is slow but a lot of people are waiting to see if the former president will run again. if he makes it clear he will not run, then things may get started late. until then, this will drag along. if he cites he doesn't want to run again, then the iris -- iowa caucuses will be 80 --. host: this headline from abc news, the feds looking into presented matt gaetz' allegations that he has online solicitations and paid women for sex. what is this political future? guest: this is an odd story. he is making some incredible
allegations to counter this on his own. i think it is a bribery scandal with the department of justice investigating. i don't know what to think of it, but if you know me for five minutes, you're never going to get me to say and of people are in jail. i'm fine putting lots of people in jail, if you are bad, you go to jail. if he is guilty of this, i am happy putting him in a whole. if he is getting frame, you just let the process play out. host: anita from imperial, new jersey. caller: i would like to comment on the guest's remarks about the law in georgia. he forgot to mention that part of that law says that in the case of discrepancies or
arguments that the georgian attorney general is no longer in charge of looking at that and that the legislature can take away the votes of the people. host: your response? guest: i don't know what clause she is talking about but legislatures cannot take away votes from people because you vote or legislatures. logically, the point doesn't sustain. you vote for legislature. you consent to them legislating over you. legislature is where state election law is vested. this gets back to the anthony fauci point, what is the need that we have in the people to concentrate so much power in one individual? i would rather have one attorney general, one person have all that power than a body of don't know how many people are in the
digital age in georgia. we have a hundred in our state leg just are. i would rather take -- we have 100 in our state legislature. i would rather take my chances that i could come up with 10 or 15 people in that that could block what i don't like that are duly elected and accountable to me every two years and one singular official that i don't know what his motivations are. that is an upgrade if you want more accountability. i would rather have a body most directly accountable to me have that power than an executive branch officer. host: steve deace joining us on this one day as we focus on podcasts. his work is available at the blaze.com. our next caller is jay, republican. caller: steve, i just want to say you are very curtis -- mary corti us -- very courteous to
the callers. you are kind to everybody and i am a big fan of yours. i think it is great to have you back on. i have been calling you for 30 years. not only are you a nice gentleman, but you are nice to everyone, rather republican, democratic peer you are an asset to c-span and the cash democratic. you are an asset to c-span and the country. host: you have a question for steve? caller: i totally agree with him. i think fauci has too much power appeared that is wrong. i am a big supporter of trump and we don't need to give in. he is a great guest and i enjoyed his commentary. host: he calls every 30 days and
we appreciate hearing from you. you want to comment on his point of view? guest: i appreciate the kind words. i don't expect a lot of the people in your audience to be intimately familiar with my podcast. but on our show on the blaze, there are no sacred cows. i don't care what the letter after anyone's name is. if you are right, you are right, if you are wrong you are wrong. all we care is a ruthless pursuit of the truth. what is the truth? we have october 1, 2017, the worst mass shooting in american history and done by a white male. nothing has been more politicized in my career than mass shootings and this was done by a white male. he turned his own hotel room in one of the most surveilled city in the world and somehow he turned into a sniper's nest and nobody knew and committed the worst mass shooting.
if there was ever one to politicized, it would be this one with the weaponry, a white male, this would be the one to target, and yet we just memory hold it, it doesn't matter. over the last couple of days we saw the attack on the d.c. police officers pigments the eye dented tea -- officers peered once it was identified that he was islam, we don't talk about it. enough of this. what is the truth? that is why i was anxious to come on is because you are one of the last outlets that will let people come to the table from all perspectives and let's have it out. that is how we need to do more things in america. too much pursuit of my particular narrative and not nearly enough pursuit of what is actually true. host: steve deace, i want to ask you about former speaker john boehner. his book is coming out later on. it is called "on the house."
he is talking about his former colleagues, including michelle bachmann. he says, "bachmann represented the sixth congressional district since 2007 and made a name for herself as a lunatic ever since, came to meet me in the busy period in late 2010 after the election. she wanted a seat on the ways and means committee, the most powerful committee. i told her no. her response was no, i will have to talk to sean hannity and fox and mark living on the radio and say this is how john boehner -- mark levine on the radio and say this is how john boehner is making it possible for republicans to take back the house. i just thought she had the power and she was right, of course." that was john boehner talking about radio hosts and those on fox and the blaze.com. guest: to me it did not matter how any books we sold, i'm just
glad we sold more than john boehner. we live in an era of such a lack of self-awareness. him on the cover of his own book with a drink -- that is about as on brand as it gets for john boehner. like i said a toast to stacey abrams but also to john boehner because they are pretty much on the same side because what they are saying is the idea that there might be power outside of me. the idea that power might come from the bottom of as opposed to the top down, because i am such and such in line to the presidency that i don't get to dictate to you uninvolved pleads that you are not part of district one in the hunger games and the capitol. you have your own people to talk to and the idea that you can do
this around me, that i don't get to dictate to you, it offends him which is definitely why we need more of that. this was government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not through you, dude. this is not through you and your cartels and pastry donors. it ain't about you, it is about the people you represent or at least are supposed to. host: we will go to laura, next from texas p you are on with -- texas. you are on with steve deace. caller: i agree with you on dr. fauci. and i want to remind every buddy that he said the aids would go into the heterosexual community, and he was wrong. you are talking about passports earlier. i was -- i have already had the virus, why do i need a vaccine and why does that mean i can't travel? i wonder if your book addresses
that at all. host: thank you, laura. guest: our book comes up to the vaccination debate. that debate is raging now. since we are dealing with emergency authorizations, meaning these are not that stations, the mrna taxation's did not go to normal authorization -- vaccinations did not go through the normal authorization, we are talking about experimental substances. we are not in human trust but out in the population. the experiment is happening on the efficacy and safety is now happening right now in real time. i am pro-vaccine and pro-science, and so is your caller, because she asked a good question. if i already had it, why am i getting vaccinated? what puzzles me is the desire to get these vaccines to market.
we have things raging in the southern hemisphere's with a lot higher ifrs and cfrs, and there was not a priority to see if we had a vaccine for right now a 0.18 cfr. we are working so fast to get these to market, what i have never understood as we have not had our cdc published antibody data since july 4 weekend, and that testing was done in late april and early may. i would imagine the virus has affected far more people since then. to me it did not make any sense from a public policy standpoint peered don't we want to know who has already had this so if you want to vaccinate everybody as possible as fast as we can to get to the herd immunity threshold as fast as we can, wouldn't we want to know who has already had it and therefore prioritize those in particularly vulnerable demographics who have not. those are some of the questions
that we don't have answers to and we deserve answers to. we are the american people. we rule here. experts and politicians don't rule your. regardless of which of the lines you are calling this morning, this is your country. you are in control. you have a right and i would argue a duty to ask these kinds of questions that i think we needed to get the answers to, particularly to say we are going to create an entirely different class of people based on whether you want to get experiment vaccines or not. the fifth amendment to the constitution says no person should be died -- should be denied life, the routine did moderna, pfizer, astrazeneca, johnson & johnson, to get due process? we are talking about taking people who didn't get vaccinated and make them into a separate category classification of
people. the constitution is not look kindly on that and neither does human street. how about -- human history. how about we take a timeout and follow florida's lead which has targeted the most vulnerable demographics and hospitalized have plunged 18% since it began its vaccination effort. why don't we wait, those of us who are healthy and didn't edit and have already had it on a wide in a hurry? let the people who are most vulnerable -- who didn't get it and have already had it, why be in a hurry. let the most -- the people who are most vulnerable get it. my mom has a destroyed immune system and was one of the first people who had h1n1. when we let her go and let us then have conversations with the rest of the population. you should be very suspicious
that before we get to the vulnerable populations is how much control can we give government over your life rather than less wait and see if the vaccine nations work -- the vaccinations work? this is about something more insidious or shall i say nefarious. host: we will leave it there. steve deace, the host of a podcast and the author of the book "faucian bargain;the most powerful dangerous bureaucrat in american history." when we come back, we want to turn our attention to president biden's $2 trillion bill and whether there is difference between the republicans and democrats. our phone lines are open. we will be back in a moment. >> weeknights this month, we are
featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on c-span-3. tonight, a college professor looks at the depiction of slavery in hollywood films raising -- ranging from birth of a nation and free state of jones p talks about early films laura fight the lost cause -- jones. he talks about early films and a lost cause. the idea of a white savior is often still central to the narrative. watch tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span-3. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. it was created by america's cable television company in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a
public service. ♪ >> c-span's shop.org is the new online store could go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory, a spiral-bound book with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments and contact for the biden administration. order yours at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is a headline at politico, bidens next bill could revive or very is bipartisan brand -- or bury his bipartisan brand. we are asking -- can it be bipartisan?
republican, (202) 748-8000. for independent, (202) 748-8002. yesterday, former michigan governor now energy secretary, jennifer granholm was asked about this issue. >> obviously the preference is to have this done in a bipartisan way. 80% of america supports investing in infrastructure. that is democrats, republicans, and independents. the government is conservatively reaching out to republicans to say, come to the table. if you don't like the component, tell us what you would like to see in the bill. the vast majority of this bill includes things that publicans are supporting, like roads and bridges, like broadband, like water, manufacturing supply
chains. these are all things that republicans have introduced bills on. so come to the table, we want to make it bipartisan. host: will republicans come to the table, especially with the corporate tax increase from 21% to 28%. this is a headline, roy blunt who is stepping down says the biden structure built would be an easy bipartisan win if it was more focused. he made those comments yesterday on "this week." we will have your comments on whether you think the bill can be partisan. but from abc news yesterday -- >> are you are the gop is on the wrong side of this issue? >> i am for all of that if the proposal was to do just that, there would be a problem with i partisan group of supporters for this package -- with bipartisan group of supporters for this package. i have reached out and say you have an easy bipartisan win here
if you will keep this package narrowly focused on infrastructure. and then the other 70% or so of the package that doesn't have much to do with infrastructure, if you want to force that in a partisan way, you could still do that. why would you pass of the opportunity to focus on roads, bridges, what is happening underground as well as above ground on infrastructure, broadband question mark all of which -- rod band? broadband? there is more in the package for charging stations for electric vehicles, $174 billion, then there is for roads, bridges, airports. host: that from abc's "this week." this from reuters, biden will push the infrastructure plan if no republicans support it.
we have a tweet, it can be bipartisan but it won't. the gop in mouse drink the kool-aid -- en mass drink the kool-aid. your view on this? robert, are you with us? we will try one more time for robert your view on this? we lost that call. we will go to sarah joining us from york, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i wanted to thank you for having me, and i want to say i am an independent and if i was elected, i would try to maybe bring the democrats and republicans together and maybe audit the things they don't like with this bill for infrastructure. i have lived in america my whole
life, and i have seen the things that support our networks crumble over the years. i would also like to see some type of vetting process to make sure what's actually done is by american workers and american companies with manufacturers here. i don't know if there is a place where you can go to find that information. maybe that is some research i could do. i think everyone has a sensibility to hold what people say accountable. so if people say they are going to make this happen with american people and american supplies, we should make sure that happens. host: next is darnell, join us from kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. welcome back. i think the bill is a great thing. it will put americans back to
work and create tax dollars. as far as it not being bipartisan, it is bipartisan. we are leading the people that really matter out of this. we got the legislators in washington that don't give a darn about the american people and what they want. what we need to do is purge congress of those folks who do not represent the will of the people. that's my comment this morning. host: wednesday, the president will deliver marks on his infrastructure bill, calling it part of his jobs plan, to $20 plus. i had like, -- a headline, biden offering its own take on bipartisan. it is a test of his belief he can generate popular backing across the country as republicans seek to block him on capitol hill. the next color is from maine -- caller is from mean. caller: a bill that was passed
that would not require increase in federal taxes to fund it. it would be funded by outstanding debt, particularly securities, which people would exchange, particularly maybe insurance companies or retirement plans and pensions in exchange for 2% more over what the fed is actually paying. in that way, that money could become available for loans and strictly dedicated to infrastructure. so people who are holding the securities would get 2% more in the bank would charge low interest rates for infrastructure projects, state, local, national, and what they
make on the loans obviously would keep everything going. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, heard coast-to-coast on serious radio. -- siriusxm radio. a quote, hopefully we will have bipartisanship. eric in seattle saying, it is bipartisan, republicans, independence, democrats all benefit from the plan. a conversation yesterday with george stephanopoulos and pete buttigieg. >> we believe pipes are infrastructure, because you need water to live. too many people live with the threat of lead poisoning. you talk about roads and ridges,
but also airports. we need to make sure we need broadband. infrastructure has to include looking to the future. railroads seemed futuristic and now they are deemed infrastructure. you could say the same about roads. electric vehicle charging infrastructure is absolutely a core part of how americans are going to need to get around in the future, and that the distant, far-off teacher, but right now. host: that from pete buttigieg, the transportation secretary. a story from political, house speaker nancy pelosi is hopeful republicans would get on board with major infrastructure jobs but was unsure if her colleagues would reject or accept the agenda. another viewer sent this message
saying, it is long overdue action paired this nation needs a facelift -- action. this nation needs a facelift. united states jobs and building materials. from arkansas, terry is next. good morning. caller: it is another who do jobs. i remember they put the solar panels at the d.a. and never hooked them up because the buildings were engineered poorly. that is what the charging stations are going to be like. host: this is from mark stone saying, only about 25% is infrastructure, why not detail the other 75% of spending? following speaker pollutes his almost partyline passage of the $1.920 coronavirus bill -- 1.9 trillion dollar coronavirus bill, only immigration, the fact that the american rescue plan
felt without republican support, they will have to navigate slim majorities in both chambers. welcome to the conversation. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: on c-span? host: yes, good morning. caller: i really believe that the infrastructure plan is one of the best plans we have had for the american people. i really don't understand why the republicans won't go for it, because like florida right now news about the reservoir. i don't know why the republicans and gop wants to sit back on their hands and try to put people back to work. at the same time, mitch
mcconnell stood up and said the same thing he said about obama, i am not going to vote for and no republican -- i just wonder, do all republicans feel like mitch mcconnell when it comes to providing funds for their family in the future? host: thank you for the culprit is headline from cnbc, biden won bipartisan support for infrastructure but republicans and democrats are drawing battle lines. morgan is joining us from reading, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. the republicans are not going to go long with nothing joe biden does. the republicans are not the party of donald trump and negative and going against anything democrats want to do. it is not going to happen. it is what it is. the democrats are going to have to go on your own to try to get america back on track.
it is a disgrace, if you look at china, the airports, the cities they have built. what a disgrace. we are supposed to be the richest country in the world. let's get on board and make america really great again. thank you for c-span. host: the bipartisan brand president biden is part of the story at political.com. we are joined from philadelphia. caller: the democrats have to do what they want to do, we want to privatize the schools, the charter schools aren't doing any better than the rest. now you are going to privatize the water system. texas privatized the electric system and you see what happened. they always want more money. you will be conned again. you can go out in the streets of philadelphia and run into a con
man. but they are conning from the capitol. host: on the republican line, will, you are next. caller: the american people are just sick and tired of these bills being put out for where 75% is not infrastructure and 25% is and they call it an infrastructure bill. the american people are sick of it. and they want the government to stop that and start taking one bill at a time, so we know what we are paying for. host: thank you. the independent line, massachusetts. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. from what i understand, the
plan, only 5% of it is actually going to infrastructure. to build 500 million electric charging stations i think is kind of ludicrous. have you tried to buy a tesla? those cars are $100,000 or higher. probably the cheapest you could get is a kia or something. so many people will not be able to buy them. i remember something during the obama-biden administration, where we spent $500 million and it went belly up in a year or two. that was a waste of money. as far as this, they keep pushing this as a stimulus to the people or infrastructure plan. when people want to get free money from the government, they will realize, it is our money.
we are getting our money back and it is a small portion of what we give them to spend. and as far as -- i do not understand why people are getting unemployment. at first, they were getting unemployment plus $600 a week, now it is closed $300 -- it's plus $300 a week. in many cases they are making more money than when they were working. host: sue saying "too much stuff in the bill. trim it, including the parts mandating american materials and then maybe." we will continue to focus on this topic. but the president is at the white house today. he will travel to alexandria, virginia tomorrow to talk about the vaccine rollout, but when we come back we will talk about covid-19 and its impact on those
incarcerated. we will be joined by nicole lewis to talk about how this has impacted america's prison population and later, james carafano to talk about the source of covid-19, as "washington journal" continues on this monday morning. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to buy these television companies that provide c-span as a public service. ♪ announcer: c-spanshop.org, go there today to order a copy of the congressional directory, a compact spiral-bound book with
contact information for every member of congress. also for state governors and the cabinet. order your copy at c-spanshop.org. every purchase supports c-span's nonprofit operations. today, i really you know when -- today, speaking with the international monetary fund about fairly distribute in the covid vaccine worldwide. watch beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. host: every monday, we take a closer look at various aspects of the coronavirus and the impact the pandemic has had on the country. joining us from brooklyn is nicole lewis, a staff writer with the marshall project. i want to start with a study you conducted and what it tells you
about the prison population and the coronavirus. guest: the marshall project has been keeping track of covid cases in prisons. and what we know is about 400,000 people have tested positive for covid and in these numbers are slowly increasing each week, but what we know about that number is it's likely an undercount. many systems did not conduct widespread testing, only testing based on severe symptoms, so they are missing a widespread of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases. we know about 2500 incarcerated people have died from covid-19. and what is important to point out is these rates are higher than the rates of recorded deaths and positivity in the general community. for the number of cases as of mid february, that was four
times higher the rate than outside of prisons, the death rate was about three times higher than the community rate. so covid has hit the prisons hard. host: you focus on michigan, and all the states, but was surprised you the most about what is happening in michigan? guest: a number of states have done a good job of conducting widespread testing. this is so important, again, because prisons are a setting in which you cannot social distance, sometimes you're locked in a cell in a dorm or with other individuals, so it became important early on further states to have a good picture of how just how far and wide the spread of covid was behind bars, so they could make a decision on how to quarantine people, treat people with the most severe symptoms. and michigan, along with colorado and connecticut, were
-- they wanted to test everybody regardless of symptoms, to understand how the virus had penetrated people in their custody. and they saw there was a wider number of asymptomatic cases. but that then allowed her to take precautions, so they had relatively good outcomes in terms of lower hospitalizations and fewer deaths. host: just over 26,000 prisoner infections in the state of michigan, about 6800 per 10,000 prisoners with 149 deaths. guest: that's right. again, we have some bigger systems where we see only a few thousand cases, but you have to point out that the number of cases is a direct reflection of the prevalence of testing. we know the coronavirus is highly contagious, and in a closed system with low ventilation, it has the
potential to spread widely. host: we are dividing the phone lines regionally. in the eastern half of the country, 202-748-8000. in the west, 202-748-8001. if you are a former inmate, we would love to hear from you at 202-748-8002. and if you have a family member in prison, 202-748-8003. when it comes to the vaccine, what are you finding in terms of whether or not the inmates are receptive to getting a vaccine or are they required? guest: no one is required to be vaccinated. it's a choice. so we wanted to know what was the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy behind bars. we had a curiosity about whether people would say, yes, this is important for me to take. and what we found was by and large this year of lockdown has been so difficult for so many
people. let me paint a picture. for many people it meant a year without seeing family members. for others it meant college classes, or mental health, was either canceled, restricted or modified. daily life became more limited in people spent more time confined in their cells. for many people, they see the vaccine as a potential opportunity to start to function closer to normal. so that makes them very interested in the vaccine. that is not to say that there is no hesitancy amongst the incarcerated population. prisons are notorious for having really poor health care. so, many people highlighted that they have had simply so many negative experiences with the health care system behind bars, that they are wary and not so sure if they trust the medical staff to handle these vaccines, some of rich require -- which
require refrigeration. they are not sure they will make the steps to actually taking it, because it would mean they would have to interact with nurses and doctors. so it is a thing where these two things are true, that there is open interest but there are also a lot of questions. host: to that point, during a house hearing last month, the director of the federal bureau of prisons was asked about vaccinating the inmate population. [video clip] >> the guidance i have been given by my medical folks and general counsel is the same reason i cannot compel any inmate. we encourage it, but i cannot make anyone take the vaccine. >> same question as to the officers, have you offered the vaccine to all inmates and what
is the percentage of acceptance versus refusal? >> great question. as i stated, 100% of our staff has been offered. on the inmates, no dose goes unused. we offer it to the staff, if they choose not to take it, we use it on inmates. about this time going 25% of the population has been vaccinated. and by july, the last thing i was told was by july 100% of inmates will have been offered at the vaccination, ok? host: as you hear that, obviously these facilities can be a cesspool for spreading the virus because of the very nature of where these inmates are housed. guest: it is concerning. july is not far away. but what we know about the
variants, how highly contagious they are, there's a huge risk to incarcerated people. i know the federal bureau of prisons as well as other systems have taken opportunities to try to educate and inform incarcerated people, and in some cases they are providing incentives, like $25 to every incarcerated person who chooses to get vaccinated. we will see how these campaigns work and if they are able to compel a percentage to get the system closer to herd immunity. from my reporting, the more concerning aspect is the resistance or hesitancy among the staff. these are folks who work in the system, they have seen how the virus spreads, and they may have been affected themselves, and we are finding that there are higher rates of refusal among the staff as well. host: comments on our social
media pages. one person writes, "if they wanted to vaccinate the prison population they could go sell to sell or set something up in the cafeteria or a mess hall." scott is joining us from los angeles. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i was incarcerated in california in 2013. host: for how long? caller: just eight months. i'm in contact with a friend there and he is in a california prison, a medical prison designed to treat mental health and people with long-term illnesses. they had a huge outbreak of covid-19 throughout the whole california system, the san quentin and some of the other prisons in the san joaquin valley were hit really hard.
i would say probably they had a really high outbreak among guards, staff and prisoners. many prisoners recovered from the disease. and they monitored them very carefully. and they actually vaccinated them, while we were still in the age 65 and above category, so they were given the vaccine even before i could get it, because i am 56, which is good because they cannot -- they don't have a choice on who they come in contact with or who they live with, and who comes in from the outside. so a lot of the staff brought it in, or people transferring from county jails came to the reception centers and infected almost everybody. then it was spread within the whole prison system. it was a big mess. and quite a few people passed
away. i think it is about the same rate as far as, if you get hospitalized, we have a fatality rate of 4%. so there's people there who are not very healthy, drug addicts or they have poor health habits. but once they get to prison, they are fed well, they exercise, so they are fairly healthy and controlled as far as substance abuse or alcohol abuse, things like that. or even, i wouldn't say obesity because some people can get heavy there because they are locked up, but they put everybody on full lockdown pretty much, which means they cannot go exercise and they -- uh, they just had -- after my friend got the virus, he was
vaccinated after that. now they went in two months later and they are starting to retest everybody. i'm not sure why. are they looking for variants? are they using prisoners as guinea pigs? i'm not quite sure. host: thank you for sharing that story. good luck to you. we'll get a response. guest: there's so much to unpack. i want to talk about the things he said. incarcerated people tend to be much -- than the general population. as he pointed out, there's history of substance abuse, and that puts them at a higher risk of having a fatal outcome if they contract the virus. and to the point about testing, one of the things we turned up in our reporting is there's a f ear, and widespread fear about
how incarcerated people are used for research and medical purposes, so there has been a history of experimentation on incarcerated people. i think what we are looking at today, with research, it's much more tightly controlled. i hate to use the word experimentation, this is more like research. i think that there are many systems that have learned hard lessons. there was a terrible outbreak and many people died and it was something that could have been avoided with widespread testing and being thoughtful about policies. so they allowed people to transfer in to the prison systems. we have to question, were those people tested or quarantined before they came into a new population? if not, then you probably would not have seen this outbreak as -- it would not have been as
bad. so, i think following up with testing and part is to make sure, have we achieved what we hoped? can we assume that people are vaccinated that they are not still carriers of the virus? there's only one way to be 100% certain. fi they are going to -- if they are going to open up the prison system and resume transfers, or allow visitors and volunteers to come back in and run programs, they need a clear picture of the pandemic behind bars. host: what is the marshall project? guest: we are a nonprofit in new york city that focuses on the criminal justice system. our mission is to create a sense of sustained urgency about the issues that the criminal justice system has today. host: i want to ask about how thsi technology -- this technology has changed what we are doing. how have prisons adapted with
family visits, are they allowing zoom conversations? guest: at the start of the pandemic, almost all systems shut visitation in an attempt to limit the number of people coming in an thed. virus -- and the potential of spreading the virus. so, some are able to use emails and photos, as well as video calls. so not quite zoom, but a system in which you are sitting at a kiosk, you are able to look in a camera and to speak to your loved one, and they are able to meet you at there home or wherever they are. so it is important to point out that these are, in some cases,
extraordinarily expensive sources to use. many systems did find a way to provide at least one free video call or phone call throughout the pandemic, understanding that loved ones are not able to come and visit. but these are expensive services. and in many cases, the quality is not so great. so your internet connection might be stable, you might be able to hear and see each other clearly, but that is not always the case. sometimes the calls would cut off halfway through and people cannot get their money back. there's little and limited projections and there are terms people have to agree to. and one other point about that. when we talk via video or i call my mom on zoom, i do not say i am having a video call with her. i think there is a big concern
amongst family members and with those incarcerated, that now that they have shut out visitors from coming to the prisons, that they will not go back to opening up visiting rooms again. this is concerning for people. research has shown the connection to family while incarcerated is very important to boost your prospects of going out and staying out of prison. so there is concern. some of these systems are encrypted -- incredibly profitable. they are able to work out deals with contractors by which they are able to get a cut of the revenue. so there's these mixed financial interests in which stays and what goes. host: nicole lewis it is a staff writer for the marshall project, marshall project.org, formerly a
fact checker for the washington post, she has also appeared on slate.com and the new york times. "the biggest thing is most of the spread was from staff coming and going everyday into the prisons." that's one comment from social media. gerald now from alabama. caller: my name is gerald hubbard and i am a retired navy officer. and they got all these people rushing into the united states, so they can have more democrats and keep them in the presidency and in other jobs. the only problem with that is these people will not have any money to live on. and they're going to have to
resort to illegal methods of getting money to live on. and eat and have a home. and those that do not have money to live on will start doing illegal things, robberies and killings. i do not understand why they do not understand that. i want to know -- i have served my country. host: thank you for your service. guest: it sounds like he was talking about immigration. if we can digress, my colleague at the marshall project, anna, conducted research two years ago to really ask the question, does immigration actually boost crime, like the republicans like
to say. what she found by looking at the data, looking at the evidence, and i must stress this, very clearly it was absolutely not. in many cities in which immigration has risen, crime has gone down, so we do not see the connection that he is pointing out. it's not borne out by the facts. host: 391,782 from the marshall project, state-by-state look at the coronavirus in prisons, and that is the number of inmates who have tested positive for covid-19. "there are some inmates who are followers of islam that do not believe in vaccinations. some have deliberately spread the virus in hopes of getting an early release date from prison." can you address those issues? guest: it may be true that is on
lam is not interested in vaccinations, but i wonder if he has a sense of how many people are we talking about -- a large enough number to really hamper efforts to get to herd immunity? and the notion of willingly spreading the virus, i want to underscore again the reality of prison. we are talking about cramped, closed cells, in some cases dorms with 50 to 100 people. this is a place in which people have no opportunity to social distance. at the start of the pandemic, some did not have access to masks, or access to basic hygiene items like soap or hand sanitizer. so really thinking about the conditions, it's highly unlikely, in fact it would not make a difference, if that is
the setting in which you are living, because you do not have much room are many places to go to avoid contracting covid. so i think that the notion of willingly or unwillingly, it is important to just focus on the conditions that have allowed the virus to spread. host: jim, a quick question, "how many have died or what is the death rate among the prison population?" guest: about 2500 deaths, a death rate higher tan three times -- than three times the broader community. host: maureen in new jersey. caller: good morning. i had a comment. because we already know, at least for the most part, that the prison system is completely just undignified for all of the prisoners. they have little to no access to
any type of health care in there already, now we have the issue with covid and there is still nothing done for them, so it was in evitable that it would happen. and it is absolutely abhorrent that this is still allowed to happen. so, i mean, it is only natural for the prisoners to get their rights and dignity when they are stripped of that immediately when they come into the prison system as it is. it's just a really sad reality and it's just completely unfair what they are already dealing with there with rehabilitation, yet they are limited in the resources that they could be given, but typically are not. host: thank you. did you want to respond? guest: the point is well made,
it is a tough place. i think many people believe that those who have committed crimes deserve to be punishment and part of that might be the conditions in which they live. it's important to point out that the majority of people come back home one day, so i think there are questions about what are they receiving, what do they get during the term of their incarceration? are we setting them up to learn from their mistakes and be productive members of society or are we creating an undignified, dangerous and deadly experience? for many of these folks who died, they were not sentenced to death in prison, yet that was the result. so their families are grieving. i reported on this at the peak of the pandemic. in many cases, they do not get answers. in most cases, they do not get to say goodbye. so it compounds of the trauma and heartache at the center of
our prison experience in the u.s. host: not only the prison population but the staff, as of the end of march, 107,000 staffers who have been diagnosed with the coronavirus. of that, you point out 195 have passed away. i want to talk about another issue that was talked about at the house hearing on the issue of home confinement and where that stands among federal prisons. [video clip] >> there are about 7500 prisoners under home confinement. the website indicates the total number placed in home confinement since march of last year is over 22,000. so what have you learned about home confinement during the pandemic and has it been underutilized and could the bureau do more to leverage this opportunity? >> thank you, congressman. that's a great question.
i will tell you that first of all, we have utilized the authority given to us to the best we can. the numbers that you mentioned are there. i will say that the current statute for home confinement is for a reentry program for those inmates at the end of their sentence. the cares act did not change that. we have been applying inmates to home confinement under that statute, which has created challenges. you said we have about 7500, but 4500 of those are on cares act home confinement. we have used our authority as best as possible. we were given the criteria in we have followed that. host: has that been an effective tool for the prison population,
home confinement? guest: it is a great question. so, let's go back to the start of the pandemic. the attorney general at the time instructed them to immediately maximize the release to home confinement. so, they had evolving criteria over time. in the beginning, there was a list of people who had a low risk risk assessment, those at risk of having death if they contracted the virus, those with comorbidities, those who committed nonviolent crimes who were near the end of their sentence. and this increased the number of people eligible to go home. what we know about what was said, intending percent of the
population, 4500, and i want to bring your attention to an inspector general report conducted over the summer looking at about 900 eligible people who could, at one prison alone, who could go home under the cares act criteria. and they had only sent eight of them home by summer. so what we started to see at the beginning was this was an extraordinarily slow rollout in which prisons were able to make lists of people they had identified of people that seem to eligible, but then there was decision-making about who actually gets to leave. the process has been very opaque. i reported on a man named byron miller, and he had been told he was eligible by his case manager. he said his name was being called so much that he thought that this was his moment to go home.
he was hoping to get home before his father, who had a terminal illness, passed away. he was optimistic that this would happen and buy everything that we reviewed, it was looking like it was going to happen for him. then someone said, no, we cannot send this person home because they are going home to reside with "a vulnerable population," referring to his father that was sick, and his mother. but at the time, byron's father was so ill, that he already had hospice care. so the notion was not relevant. unfortunately, he did not make it home to see his father before he passed away. so the question we have is how many byron millers are out there? people who fit the criteria, as far as we could tell, but because of some discussion within the system itself, they did not make it home. another important thing to point
out is confinement at home is only one tool they had to release people from prison. they also have a tool called compassionate release, which has historically been used to send people who are sick or dying home, so they would have to die in an incarcerated setting. that's rarely used. under the cares act, the definition was expanded so it could include more people. it's also important to point out that as we saw at the end of his term, in the president has the ability to commute sentences. so there are multiple mechanisms for reducing the prison population, which would have reduced crowding and increased the opportunity to help incarcerated people. but those tools were underutilized. host: nicole lewis is a staff
writer, thank you for being with us. coming up, the who report and whether or not china was transparent in its information on the origins of the coronavirus. one skeptic is james carafano, who will be joining us in a moment with his perspective. this as "washington journal" continues on this monday morning, the fifth day of april. announcer: today, the treasury secretary addresses of the global economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic in an event hosted by the chicago council on global affairs. watch at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. announcer: go to c-span.org/ coronavirus for the federal
response to the pandemic. if you miss live coverage, it is easy to find the latest briefings using interactive gallery of maps to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. c-span.org/coronavirus. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies that provides c-span2 viewers as a public -- c-span to viewers as a public service. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: james carafano is a senior fellow out of the heritage foundation, good monday morning to you. guest: good to be with you. host: virus origins remain unclear in the world health organization china inquiry, but
you are a skeptic, why? guest: i want to go back to the start and say why does this matter. there's certain classes of viruses, they can jump from species to species. and we have seen before where some of these can be highly contagious for humans. sometimes they come from bats, pigs or birds. china, and this area of china, is a roadwork and iced global hotspot -- world recognized global hotspot for animals, including bats, that host different families of of viruses, including the coronavirus. and we have had contagious viruses come out of this part of china before. so long before this pandemic, the world was watching parts of the world, including that part of the world, as this is a place where a dangerous pathogen could come out of. so it is important to understand
how it emerged, how it transitioned from animals to humans, because you want to have the right surveillance in place so that in the future if you know a disease is coming coming can take steps to mitigate the spread before it starts. so that is why this is really so important. the particular question is, how did that transmission happen? people have talked about wet markets and everything else. we know it started with bats. there may have been an intermediate step. was it a species, a place, was it released from a lab? so one of the purposes of this commission was to go to china and begin the investigation. and 34 members went to the wuhan lab, and why does wuhan have a
virology lab? that's because that is where many viruses are present and so it is important to test and investigate viruses there. so they went to the lab and one issue was, is it possible that they were studying a virus and there was an accidental release in the community? that was the connective tissue. the report came back and said, we do not have evidence of that. but when you dig into the report, it's about 300 pages, one thing noted is there was no access to any of the raw data that china had available, blood samples and everything, so they were given a tour. there was a claim from the lab that no, we were not looking at anything in the lab that looks like this. we were not studying anything like that. so, the problem is -- and i think even the head of the w.h.o. said this -- the report
is not conclusive. the chinese were not transparent . one concern is, in contrast, the chinese government said we are completely vindicated. it did not come from the lab. we suspect it did not even come from china. what is problematic about that is we have to understand the origins of the virus, so we can have the testing in place to make sure if another virus emerges, and it will because these viruses are very adaptive, changeable and likely to create threats to humans, that we have the mechanisms in place to start again. i think if we have learned anything from this pandemic is the best way to deal with a pandemic is not to have an outbreak to begin with. host: listeners, you can dial in. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. for independents, 202-748-8002.
james carafano is joining us until the top of the hour. this is a piece you wrote in december, but relevant to what we are talking about today. "the chinese, and his party has lied about covid-19 from the start and it is still lying. the regime -- began when underreported the size of the initial outbreak in china, then the government tried to hide how contagious it was, even denying it could be transmitted by human to human contact. they allowed international travel to continue, knowing it was exploiting a global outbreak." then you say, "their outrageous conduct has gone beyond -- and they have even bullied other nations." guest: we have to go back to sars, which is also contagious,
but did not quite represent the threat that the coronavirus did. after the sars outbreak, the world health organization put new reporting regulations in in-place because the chinese government had not been forthcoming and they had not provided information on the sars outbreak. so there are a couple factors that are undeniable. first, the chinese did not meet their obligations in timely reporting under the revelatory guidelines. that's problematic because that takes away the ability of situational awareness from other governments to understand the disease, thick about how to react to it, think about things like, do we need more or new kinds of tests, do we understand how it is transmitted. and we know for a fact that as the disease began to spread, the chinese did not respect international travel and there were tons of people traveling locally. one situation we know about is
there were a number of chinese that worked in italy. many of them went home for the chinese new year, then returned to italy, which is why most people believe that we had this initial spike and outbreak in italy. so regardless of understanding the absolute origins of the disease, which again are so important because that will be key to understanding how to prevent the next outbreak, i do think it is clear that the chinese, by not reporting promptly, by submitting international travel, they facilitated this part of the pandemic. and we could probably do a mental exercise if we had adequate reporting early on and the kind of early warning that other nations should have been other to get -- should have been able to get, what kind of travel restrictions could have been put in place, what kind of vaccine research could have been started earlier, and it is likely that
it could have jumpstarted in dealing with the coronavirus by many months, and maybe it would not have become a global pandemic. it's hard not to hold it the chinese government did not meet its international obligations in reporting and dealing with the initial outbreak of the virus. i do not think that is even up for debate. host: that is the headline from yahoo news, "the pandemic was deadly." a caller from minnesota on the air. caller: good morning. i cannot tell you how excited i am to see you back on the air. this is the best birthday gift i have ever received. host: happy birthday. caller: it is wonderful to see you back. i'm very excited. my question is, well, i am a huge supporter of w.h.o.
i watch them every monday, wednesday and friday. that's where i have received the majority of my covid information in the past year. my question is, are ua scientist -- are you a scientist? with the pandemic, it is all about science. we need to know the science and we need to know the facts. and when we talk about conspiracy theories, the whole china virus, not quite sure about that, but i remember hearing about another conspiracy theory, is that maybe it did not come from china. maybe trump actually did that. that's a crazy theory, i'm sure you would agree. so i would just like to know the truth. again, i support the w.h.o., and if we are going to bash it today, i wish we would have
scientists on. guest: i want to add my happy birthday. congrats to you. i'm reporting on what over a dozen nations, including the head of the world health organization, have raised concerns about this report. it's not personal observation, this is an observation by a number of countries, including lead scientists, and it gets in important point -- we do not understand how this virus got from bats into humans. since this is an area of the world where we anticipate these kind of pandemics will start, because of the wild population in these countries, and because of other factors, it is important that we understand that. so i do not think that this is china bashing, this is many countries who have raised concerns about this, and even
the world health organization, the head of the world health organization has concerns about the report that his organization did. let's go back. you do not have to be a scientist to understand the basic fact that if you want to understand the origins of the disease and the role the lab may have played, that you would want to look at the raw evidence, like blood samples. essentially, all they did was get briefings and tours. they were not given access to any raw data. as scientists, you can only practice science if you have raw data to look at. if you go to somebody and say, i did an experiment, but they do not tell you how they did the experiment. if you just look at the conclusion and say, fine, you are not being a scientist. so i think there is a problem of scientists not being allowed to do basic science. host: we are focusing on this
issue. this headline from the south china morning post, "the report from the who led, on answered questions," adding that international teams agree that more research is needed. we are speaking with james carafano from the heritage foundation. donald on the line from just across the potomac. caller: good morning. i have a question. since wuhan had a laboratory that researched viruses, that they could use as biological weapons, how is it possible that the cia didn't have access in wuhan, where they could have found out what was going on there? in addition to that, since it is a large city, did the state department have a consulate in wuhan on the spot where they could actually seen some evidence of something happening
over there long before it was imported to us? i wanted to make the observation that mr. pompeo, he was the director of the cia, and for the second part of trump's presidency he was secretary of state, so maybe we should investigate him and what role he played during this time. host: we will get a response. guest: i have no way to know how they would investigate in china. but here is what we think we do know. there's no evidence that has been produced in the w.h.o. report or any other credible report that this virus was man-made. there's also no evidence and
that it was a biological weapon. one suggested possibility is that this is a virus that was being studied in the lab and was somehow transmitted outside of the lab. and that contributed to the spread of the disease. the answer is we do not know. many people have heard about wet markets. it's a large market and everyday it is packed with like 10,000 people a day. there were a number of cases identified in the report of people that were contaminated in the market. there were also pieces of people not connected to the market, who presented with the disease. so this is a complicated story. did it start outside of the market? did people go in and infect
other people? did somebody at the lab shop at the market? we cannot connect all the dots. and it is so important to connect the dots because we know that these diseases do this. we know that they can be very contagious. we have to understand how that transmission happens, so we can look at the cautions we need to take in the future. for example, should they be allowed to operate? what are the other things that the chinese government -- one of the other things that the chinese government encourages is farms for animals for medicinal purposes. then they shut them down. will that stop the disease? ebola, which was in monkeys and transmitted to humans -- so, understanding how that transmission change worked was key to dealing with a bullet in africa. so this -- ebola in africa.
so this is a big question. it is clear the chinese government in this case has not been transparent with the world, and that is a problem. host: a photograph of the wet markets courtesy of npr, showing the investigation into covid-19. we will go to joe and virginia. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i find it ultimately entertaining and hypocritical for any republican affiliated organization to set itself up as being authoritative on anything involving the origin and evolution of anything biological. obviously, that is a reference to human origins and evolution. we cannot forgo this opportunity to point out that all of the lack of veracity that china is
alleged to have committed, and undoubtedly probably did commit, pills by comparison with our ex-president, liar in chief, and the bottom line is why we -- by and by, we should practice some of what we preach. and we could not be doing worse at we already have done. and it's not going to solve any problems. host: thank you. to combine that point with this debate -- this tweet. "we can blame whoever, but it does not solve the problem of what we need to do to save american lives. you nature is what developed covid-19. man is no match to mother nature." to both of those comments, your
response? guest: i appreciate the comments. it gives me the opportunity to talk to people. i work at the heritage foundation, an independent research institution, and it is not affiliated with any political party. by law, it is a nonpartisan organization. and the facts i have been discussing so far this morning are not facts developed by my research organization committees are facts in the world health organization report. and the critiques are not mine, they are from 13 countries that officially raised concern with the world health organization over the efficiency of and the initial report. -- of the initial report. this is not the last pandemic the world will see. these coronavirus is, in particular, this is an outbreak that many people have been
dissipated for over a decade. if you actually read the research on global surveillance of these diseases, people have been discussing about the importance of surveillance on the parts of the world where these are likely to emerge from and of the importance of early warning and understanding the diseases as they emerge and how they are transmitted. so, man can affect the issue. we with our behavior and through adequate public health surveillance, we can save lives. so it is important to understand how we get it right next time and it is an issue that cannot be forgotten. in china, we do not have a partner. this country has not dealt fairly with the rest of the world in reporting. they have bullied not just officials at the world health organization, but other countries as well.
and i think that is a challenge that we cannot ignore by saying, what i really want to talk about is this. the fact that the chinese government is not a global partner in world health that can be trusted, that is a big issue if you care about pandemics, and it is not an issue that will go away after this pandemic is done. host: if you want to read the report, it is available online, the full 300 page report has also been posted on our website. maryann from new jersey, good morning. are you with us? we will try one more time. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: first of all, i want to thank president trump for getting this vaccination for us at a fast pace. and the scientists who have got
the vaccine for us. not biden. biden called him every name in the book when he closed of the borders to china. what i want to say is the world health organization was in cahoots with china. the woman that idolizes the w.ho .o., you are a not job. six -- nut job. six years ago, my daughter worked with a chinese man and they told my daughter that the government of china was creating something in their labs that was going to ruin the world. and my daughter thought that the girl telling her this was a nut job, and she told her, they
cannot do that, why would they do that? host: what is your reaction or thoughts? guest: the vaccine development was a really important part of this response. without that vaccine, you can imagine where we would be today because this is both so resilient and communicative, this virus, and dangerous. if we didn't have vaccine development, the world would be in much worse shape. but i have to go back to my earlier point, which is the importance of early detection, global surveillance, blood samples, access to patients, access to those places, so we can get the basic raw data that you need to begin vaccine development. to think if we backed the timeline up and we responded window disease first presented itself, that would've given us a
head start in vaccine developed and we would've been further along. the good news is we have demonstrated glibly, even though i think some people would like the vaccine a lot faster, we have had an amazing global capacity to develop vaccines and distribute them. i think actually we have done better with vaccines than people thought we could do, but the key point is the earlier you start that process the more important it is, and it does go back to, you have to have the surveillance in place and you have to have cooperation with people on the ground, otherwise you will not get the data you need to make to stop the fire at the front end. host: the total number of cases of the coronavirus around the globe, 131,019,000. and the death toll in excess of 2.8 million glibly.
-- globally. good morning. caller: he dismantled half the stuff we had in charge of find out about diseases like this. two, you are worried about china, you cannot even tell me about the chemicals they put in the water in west virginia and michigan. you keep talking about states' rights, but they do not want to give information about the private companies that are contaminating the water here. get that straight first. guest: we did a lot of pandemic and bioweapons response post 9/11. we put a lot of infrastructure in place. unfortunately, one of the early on issues we had was a shortage of ppe and ventilators, in part because we had stockpiles that were allowed to dwindle. that's an important lesson learned. the other thing is, and this is
not a republican thing, this is under republican presidents and democratic presidents, but we never had a test to stress the system to really understand and prepare for what that did. in retrospect, people will actually look back and be impressed with our agility in how quickly we got a vaccine and deployed it, how quickly we ramped up ppe, how quickly we got out ventilators. i think the most important take away is regardless of all the monday morning quarterbacking you want to do, if you have seen one disease, you have seen one disease. the next disease may not present itself exactly like covid did. there's different transmission factors, different vectors of transmission, they cause different things and affect different kinds of people.
typically, in the pandemic, small children are quite vulnerable but in this one they were not. so do not think we understand how to do this because next time the disease may present a different set of challenges. which is why it is so important links in the chain are in the best shape possible. we need china to be a better partner. we need the world health organization to be more effective and more transparent. and we need to have better infrastructure here at home to deal with this. all of that is true. the next disease could be different. one guy said, all plans fail when you contact the enemy but planning is everything. planning allows you to respond to the things you don't anticipate. preparing to respond to the next
pandemic is as important as getting over this one. host: james carafano is a senior fellow at the heritage organization. thank you for being with us. all of our coverage is available at our website, c-span.org. the derek chauvin trial continues on c-span2. a reminder that we are lie with the treasury secretary, janet yellen, delivering her remarks at 11:00 this morning to talk about an issue of a global corporate tax rate. all of that this morning. hope you enjoy the rest of your day. wishing you a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, created by america's television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span2 viewers as a public service. >> next on c-span, remarks by facebook chief operating officer sheryl sandberg. then in one hour, treasury secretary janet yellen with an update on the global economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, live at 11:00 eastern. after that, a conversation on the worldwide distribution of the covid vaccine at 1:00. later this afternoon, secretary of state antony blinken talking about the coronavirus response here at 2:00 on c-span. you can also watch on c-span.org
, or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> congress returns from their holiday recess next week. the senate returns monday, april 12 at 3:00 eastern, to continue work on the nomination of the deputy transportation secretary, a number two post undersecretary pete buttigieg. later in the week, senators begin working on more nominations, including wendy sherman to be deputy secretary of state, and gary gensler to be the chair of the securities and exchange commission. the house returns on april 13 for legislative business. speaker pelosi announced she expects the house to work on equal pay for women legislation as well as a suspension of the 2% across-the-board cuts to all medicare payments until the end of the year. president biden's infrastructure and jobs package is not expected on the house floor until later in the spring or early summer.
watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2, and follow our congressional coverage anytime at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> facebook's chief operating officer sheryl sandberg talked about the role of social media and helping small businesses during the coronavirus pandemic. this is hosted by the detroit economic club. onomic club. >> a very special guest speaker today, sheryl sandberg, is the chief operating officer at facebook where she oversees the firm's business operations. prior to facebook, she held executive positions at google, the u.s. treasury department and the world bank. she holds a ba from harvard university and an mba with the highest extinction -- highest distinction from harvard business school. she is also an accomplished best-selling