Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 03162021 20210316

at on :00, border control council president brandon judd talks about the biden administration's approach to immigration and border control. host: good morning. it is tuesday, march 16, 2021. fresh off signing the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package into law, president biden reportedly eyeing tax increases to fund new major legislation. this morning, we are spending our first hour hearing from you on whether you support tax increases. if you would, (202) 748-8000. if you would oppose tax hikes on corporations and high owners -- earners, (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a text. that number (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on facebook on twitter, @cspanwj on twitter, facebook.com/c-span on facebook. you concert dialing in as we take you through some of the proposals being considered. this from the bloomberg news reporting from yesterday. among those tax increases, raising the corporate rate to 28% from 21%. also under consideration, raising the income tax rate for individuals earning over $400,000 a year, expanding the estate tax's reach, and raising capital gains taxes for those earning over $1 million a year. that from the bloomberg news story that came out yesterday. a lot of discussion about that throughout the day both on capitol hill and in the white house briefing room. jen psaki was asked about the biden administration considering tax hikes. this is what she said yesterday. [video clip] >> there are lots of conversations in congress and we are working close with them in consultation. the president will have more to say about what he wants to pursue next as part of his agenda. the president remains committed to his pledge from the campaign that nobody making under $400,000 a year will have their taxes increased. this priority has always been on people paying their fair share and focusing on corporations that may not be paying their share either. that remains his overarching approach, but there is not a package yet, so i expect we could have more conversations about that down the road. host: jen psaki in the white house briefing room yesterday. we are talking about potential tax hikes as the biden administration considers its next round of major spending on climate change issues, infrastructure issues. tax increases on the table for corporations and high income earners. hearing from you on whether you support those increases. it was last week that the top republican on the house ways and means committee warned that tax increases are coming, especially as the biden administration looks ahead to this infrastructure deal. this is republican kevin brady last week on fox. [video clip] rep. brady: tax increases are coming. there is no question about it. they intend to parrot within an infrastructure bill, although they are spending almost $2 trillion with almost no impact on the economy, but they are thinking more memorial day, packaging tax increases on businesses, income, perhaps payroll, wealth, energy, in that type of bill. they do not intend to have any discussions with republicans. they made it clear. they do not see a need to have any conversation with us. maybe on the tax side for good reasons. you would not raise these taxes in good economic times, much less trying to recover from a pandemic. host: texas republican kevin brady on foxbusiness. here's a headline from foxbusiness. grover norquist, president of the anti-tax group of the anti-tax group americans for tax reform, a frequent guest here on the washington journal. he said -- "get ready, america. democrats think tax hikes are the answer to everything. everything is an excuse to expand the size of government and introduce new taxes." getting your thoughts on whether you support or oppose tax increases on corporations and high income earners in the months and years to come to pay for some of the infrastructure and climate change issues. billy is up first out of brooklyn on that line for those who would support such increases. good morning. caller: all biden will do is what he promised in the campaign, which is not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. all he is trying to do is rollback the trump tax cuts that benefit the top 1%. we have amazon paying 0% in corporate taxes. the rich are not paying their share. it is just pulling back the reaganite legacy of tax cuts for oligarchs. remember, reagan raised taxes on the middle class, social security. that's text as income. -- that is taxed as income. it is just shifting the burden back to high income earners. i would be in fever of raising the corporate tax rate of even higher than 28%. try to make the rich pay their fair share and to take the middle class. host: what about that top individual tax rate? what would you be in favor of bringing that to? joe biden talking about raising it from, right now, 37% to 39.6%, still under 40%. caller: still under 40%, you. i would go back to pre-reagan, to 70% for people making over $2 million or something like that. it is time to shift some of the tax burden from the middle class. you have people earning money nothing. if you earn $400,000 off capital gains versus ordinary income, you will be taxed higher on ordinary income. you can just sit on a yacht and make $400,000 in capital gains and pay less than for ordinary income through work. host: thank you for calling. elizabeth city, north carolina, those that oppose. go ahead. caller: i disagree with the previous caller. reagan did not hike taxes on the middle class. he saved the economy. trump tax cuts ushered in prosperity for america and i want to be the first to say that if they go forward with the tax -- so-called tax the rich, it is a job killer. corporations will lose jobs, cover themselves, get the losses that they have back. it is a job killer. our economy will suffer even more with these -- if they hike the taxes. host: this ray in north carolina. jason in montgomery, alabama, you were next. you support such increases. caller: the whole corporate tax cut in 2017 was a bait and switch. they said it would lead to growth and jobs and good economic indicators, but it did not. trump never achieved anything above 3% growth, which was the gop talking point the -- point all the obama years. trump never got that even with the tax cuts. the fact of the matter is the republicans love corporate welfare, but they do not want to give the same benefit of the doubt to the american people, to the average taxpayer, so i am for the tax increases, but more than that, i am for them actually paying taxes. it makes no sense that google, amazon, and people relying on capital gains tax paid basically zero dollars. they start with a lower point and get their legal team and accountants together to make them pay nothing. more than just increasing the rate, there needs to be policies in place to make sure they pay something, because right now it is effectively zero for a lot of corporations and hiring individuals. -- and high earning individuals. i am all for it but if you -- but unless you actually go through and take care of the loopholes, it does not matter. host: jason out of alabama. here is how it played out on capitol hill yesterday via twitter. bernie sanders, senator, with this tweet from earlier in the week. "we can no longer tolerate billiard -- billionaires becoming obscenely rich at a time of unprecedented economic pain. the time to tax their wealth and breakup tech giants and other huge conglomerates that have monopolized nearly every sector of our economy." jackson in illinois -- "the big corporations and wealthy individuals have had tax cuts for decades. it is time for them to pitch in." dan writing -- "what do we mean by high income?" the -- steve saying "we need to crackdown on loopholes." some of the responses on twitter. from capitol hill, we want to show you other tweets. john rutherford, republican from florida, with this tweet yesterday in the wake of the story that came out from bloomberg news. "raises taxes during inco economic recovery would be a disaster. our pre-cobit economy was a result of the tax cuts and jobs act and policies that lower taxes for all income levels. i will fight against this tax hike." marsha blackburn, senator from tennessee, saying "democrats are in washington. that means taxes are coming. tax and spend." that will continue as the specific proposals come out, but we are asking whether you would support or oppose the idea of tax increases on high income earners in corporations. andy says he would, add of florida, seminole florida -- andy says he would come out of florida, seminole, florida. caller: the tax cuts that occurred in 2017 -- i don't make $400,000 a year. when i was working, before i retired, i was making over $100,000, but that's because i was a programmer. so this bull -- stuff\ of hurting the economy is exactly that. the tax cuts point to the very wealthy few in this country, which is classic american. further, they are going to sunset those tax cuts on a personal basis and corporations are going to have the tax cuts stay in place, so we really have to go after these corporations because they got a permanent tax-cut. they got that going for them and they need to go in the opposite direction. instead of what they didn't 2017 -- they did in 2017, they need to go higher. (202) 748-8000 if you support the idea of tax increases, (202) 748-8001 if you oppose. spending the first hour of washington journal gauging your support of the several oppose holes out there. -- several proposals out there. the white house is not specifically endorsed a wealth tax, the idea endorsed by senator elizabeth warren, who has introduced a bill that would impose a 2% annual tax on households with the net worth of more than a few million dollars and an additional 1% tax on those with a net worth above $1 billion. jen psaki, white house press secretary, was asked about that idea. [video clip] >> the treasury secretary said the wealth tax is something you have not been talking about. is that on the table as inco approach -- as an approach? >> senator warren has put forth a wealth tax and the president shares her view that middle-class families are paying more than their fair share and those at the top are not doing their part, so certainly he has that shared objective he laid -- shared objective. he laid out his own plan for fixing this, which are different from senator warren's, but they share an objective. >> to be clear, the treasury secretary -- is that accurate? >> how to pursue it. what i'm conveying is that there is a shared view that those at the top are not doing their part, obviously, that corporations could be paying higher taxes. that continues to be consistent with what the president talks about. he has a different proposal than the one senator warren put forward, but as always is the case, i am sure they will discuss at the appropriate time and he will discuss the views of others. host: jen psaki in the white house briefing room yesterday. some polling on the idea of a wealth tax in recent months from a new york times survey setting up -- survey citing a poll on whether americans would support a wealth tax on americans making over $50 million. in november, the total support for the idea was 63%, 73% of democrats, 57% of republicans -- 53% of republicans. it was higher in july, 66% of all americans supporting the idea, including 81% of democrats, 55% of republicans. taking your calls this morning, asking about a tax increase for corporations and high income earners. would you support it? would you oppose it? alex in ashburn, virginia would oppose it. go ahead. caller: i would oppose that. to decrease the deficit, there are four things we need to do -- cut military expenses. it will solve problems. it will save money and we will have money for everything. we spend it 10 times more than russia and china together. this is crazy. we have enough weapons to destroy the world 10 times, so it does not make sense to increase military expenses when you can save money on this. host: josephine, livingston, new jersey, supports the idea of an increase. go ahead. caller: i want to use as an example apple. apple moved there -- moved their headquarters because of the tax rate, and then they said that's too i. then they moved to the isle of jersey in england. they pay zero -- zero. get it? they will never be satisfied, corporations. why should they be stealing from the board to give to the rich? it is corporate welfare, folks. wake up. during the 1950's, corporations paid 90%. we paid off world war ii in 10 years. those corporations were patriots. today, they steal from the poor. host: this idea of corporations moving to different countries to find the best tax rate. janet yellen, the treasury secretary, trying to address this issue with the idea of a global minimum or protects rate -- global minimum corporate tax rate. yelling working with an expert at the oecd. the goal is for oecd countries to agree in principle to a minimum corporate tax rate that makes it harder for multinationals to play countries off one another and threatening to leave one or the other. it would be a global initiative, but plenty of reporting today, including from that story we just showed you. what do we think of the effort? would it work? caller: it would. why? the you is already doing the same thing. -- the european union is already doing the same thing. she is on the right tone. they are finding american corporations for not paying taxes. -- they are fining american corporations for not paying taxes. we have to wake up. somebody has to pay for it. corporations are making money. host: that's josephine in new jersey. that story in the washington post noting the average tax rate among countries. the average corporate tax rate is 24%. in the u.s., 21% under the tax cuts and jobs act. from the proposals being considered to raise money for these new initiatives, including infrastructure and climate change, the biden administration considering a 28% corporate tax rate. a caller in russell, kansas opposes the idea of those tax hikes. go ahead. caller: yes. i do not understand people who think that if you raise taxes on corporations, all they are going to do is turn around and raise their prices if they produce goods or if they produce services. they are just going to go up. he is also planning on raising taxes on gas. he is going to raise taxes on everything. they say he will not raise income taxes on the poor people, but they will still be paying way more in taxes on anything that they buy, whether it is gasoline, fuel, no matter what it is, they will still be raising taxes and they are going to need that stimulus money they have been getting to compensate for the cost of the rise in gas. and not just gas but utilities and goods and services, whatever you buy anywhere. it will just go up. host: that is lindy in kansas. chris is up early in cardiff by the sea, california. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have never minded paying my taxes for the privilege of living in this amazing country, but when the tax increase for those of us in the middle class went through from trump in 2017, i already paid my 2018 taxes, but that increase for those of us in the middle class went through. he stole a $15,000 from my solar savings -- he stole $15,000 from my solar savings so i could pay my 2018 taxes. i want this bill to go through so i can go back to the rate i had before 2017. i think it is only fair that people making over $400,000 a year should they their fair share and that corporations should pay their fair share of the privilege of ripping -- share for the privilege of living in this country that has allowed them to accumulate such wonderful wealth. host: it is not a bill right now. it is just consideration of how to find funding for some of these new proposals. the well over 5 trillion dollars, almost $6 trillion, in covid relief spending, deficit spending, the biden administration reportedly considering several proposals to raise funds for their next big spending bills, bills that have been promised on infrastructure, climate change and other proposals. it will not just be deficit spending. they will raise new funding. we are showing some of the reporting from bloomberg news about what is being considered. raising the corporate tax rate to 20% of possibility, raising the income tax rate for individuals earning over $400,000 a year, raising capital gains taxes, real estate taxes. so we are getting your thoughts on whether that is something you might support ahead of a bill that might do that. joseph, tallahassee, florida, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: basically, taxes will always be here. it was a great american who said no taxation without representation. people always want to make sure they get something in return. this is very difficult. it all depends on where you are at. where's the economy and your lifestyle? it would be better if everyone paid 10% at the end of the year. you pay 10% on your earnings and with that everybody is paying their fair share, but there are going to be loopholes even for the wealthy. there's nothing wrong with that. if i was wealthy, i would want all the loopholes i could find. for lower-class people, that loophole becomes a news around their neck. -- becomes a noose around their neck. host: when you talk about this flat 10% rate for everyone, does that mean no more loopholes, exemptions, deductions? caller: rights. it that way everyone is treated equally and they have to pay that. everybody looks for something they can declare there was a time when you could declare on your loans, mortgages or anything like that, the taxes that were involved with it, and that was included. now you cannot. if everybody paid the 10%, i honestly believe -- i am retired and i have never been in the high bracket -- it would be fair and equal and equitable. host: do you have children? caller: my children are all grown. that's another thing -- host: on the issue of children. there is a popular tax credit, the child care tax credit, saying i have more expenses as a parent. this is summer -- this is something some are saying it would encourage people to have children. are you saying no child care tax credit to go? -- credit too? caller: that's the point i'm saying. if you have those who are very wealthy, if they pay 10% of their income, it would be more than enough money to receive assistance in these areas, not having to claim it. that is what i'm trying to say. if everybody paid the same amount and then if you have certain needs for your family you could go ahead and receive help from the government. this is what we see taking place now. host: that's joseph out of florida this morning. janice is in louisiana. good morning. your next. this you are next. caller: good morning. everyone should pay more taxes, including -- we need cost control, which is socialism, but socialism is not communis -- is not communism. we must support government to support the people. thank you. host: that is janice in louisiana. coming up on 7:30 on the east coast. spending the first hour asking you whether you would support tax increases for corporations and high income earners. (202) 748-8000 if you support the idea, (202) 748-8001 if you oppose. the confirmation wash continues. -- confirmation watch continues. another cabinet position filled and confirmed yesterday on capitol hill. deb haaland of new mexico will be secretary deb haaland of the interior, the first native american to lead a cabinet agency. she became one of the first two native american woman elected to the house in 2018, but her position in particular is historical because the department has spent much of its history of using more neglecting america's indigenous people. haaland confirmed yesterday 51-40. one other story on capitol hill -- an arrest made, multiple arrests made yesterday, and the killing of that capitol police officer who died after the january six riots. the washington post noting that "federal authorities have arrested and charged two men with assaulting brian sicknick with an unknown spray during the capitol riot, but they are not sure whether the exposure caused his death. the two men, julian carter of pennsylvania and george tanney, went into custody. their charges came after t ipsters identified them. more than 300 people have been charged in the assaults with charges expected for at least 100 more in the coming days and weeks." that's the latest of the continued fallout from the january 6 right on capitol hill. -- january 6 riot on capitol hill. brent in alabama. asking whether you would support or oppose tax increases. why? caller: i was a truck driver. i am retired now. when president trump signed that tax for the corporations, my boss gave all the drivers a raise. whether the people like it or not, you work for a rich man or a rich lady. they will give you raises. after that tax that president trump signed, i got anywhere from $800 a month to $1000 a month in a raise. i oppose it. caller: comedy miles -- host: how many miles do you drive a year? caller: [indiscernible] host: how long did you drive a truck? caller: about 18 year civilian, the rest military. i am 61 years old now, but i started driving trucks at 18 years old in the army. host: what do you like best about driving a truck? caller: you make good money. and me bringing home anywhere from $1000 a week to $1300 a week, that's good money in alabama. host: thank you for the call. michael, you are next. caller: good morning. i want to talk about that phrase "tax and spend," because if you had to pick two verbs to describe what government does, that's it. they tax and spend. they have a budget. we all have budgets. we cannot control our revenue, but they can. all they talk about is cutting spending. it is difficult. they do not like to say it is time to raise taxes but that's the other side of the ledger they need to look at. host: to the tune of what, michael? would you support a 7% increase in the tax rate for corporations? are you worried about what that means for corporations leaving this country or, like before you, there will be a rich man who will be impacted by that and it will trickle down to the paychecks of the man or woman that man is giving paychecks to? caller: i am not. if there was truly a free market, inflation will not be that problem. -- market, inflation would not be that problem. they can raise revenue fairly. 10% across-the-board -- that's not fair. all through the pandemic, i was looking at wall street, and they suffered nothing. how can they do that? host: michael in oklahoma. this is joni out of willow street, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: they could for taking my call. when you can make $11 million a year and not pay one red cent in taxes, something is wrong with the tax code. that is morally corrupt but totally legal. the ceos are making money and the little guy has to work three jobs so he gets big money and he cannot just get rid of one that she cannot afford one sent less. -- get rid of -- cannot afford one cent less. how much do people make on the boards of corporations? we do not even know. something has to be done with the taxes. they need to pay more money. host: that's joni in willow street, pennsylvania. this is the editorial board in the wall street journal today. "the spending bill cometh" the headline. "enjoy the moment, because the costs will soon arrive in the form of tax increases. they note that the treasury secretary is floating the idea of a global minimum tax on operations -- corporations, which would reduce the -- expect more surprises," they write, " as democrats debate which taxpayers to gore." john in maryland opposes the idea. good morning. caller: if you give one dollar to the federal government, $.18 come back. if you give one dollar to your local government, probably 60% comes back. when i give money to charity, i look at how much overhead there is. what do you think about collecting this money and giving it to the federal government without actually is a good idea? right? everybody is talking about should we tax. i have not heard a lot of talk about whether this is a good investment. would you give money to a charity if you knew 90% of the money went to overhead? i love animals. what i give to a charity for animals if only 10% went to animals? host: don and maryland -- don in maryland. this is germaine. caller: i supported tax increase our corporations and the wealthy. -- increase on corporations and the wealthy. it is not fair. i do not want to punish rich people, but i do not know what the higher number should be, but i believe they should be paying more in taxes. the wage gap is continuously growing and these corporations are holding the irs or the government hostage by saying, hey, with that threat of goods and services going up if you increase our taxes. it does not have to go up. it is because these people want to do it. as i said before, i definitely support attacks in read on -- i support a tax increase on corporations and the wealthy. host: a caller in fort lauderdale opposes that idea. good morning. caller: before i make my tax comments, i would like to comment on sicknick. they did not say they were being arrested for killing him, but that is the way it be reported politically. it is the same thing as fake news that's been going on for a long time. we have a public document that the democratic party will not release. it is the autopsy of officer sicknick. this is disgusting, how they are using this person as a political tool. host: go ahead with your comments about the tax increases. caller: you know what? the reason you should oppose taxes is because the beginning is never the end. the way they do it is basically plate ground -- basically play ground rationale. they tax the rich people and then they look at you and say, you know what? they are being taxed. let's make things a little more fair. you should be taxed too. everybody will end up being taxed because there is not enough money to tax the rich. economists have been saying that forever and you will find out. welcome to higher taxes, unrestrained immigration and higher fuel for your car. host: that's jim in fort lauderdale on taxing. we noted one of the proposals that senator warren has been on the table is a wealth tax, which would impose a 2% annual tax on households with a net worth of more than $50 million and an additional 1% on those above $1 billion. this is senator warren on cnbc touting this idea of a wealth tax. [video clip] sen. warren: since the pandemic, our billionaires in america having raised their wealth by $1.3 trillion. this wealth tax will raise about $3 trillion over 10 years. what people should be thinking about is what does that tell you about the top end of the wealth distribution, that a wealth tax will raise $3 trillion over 10 years? that's money we reinvest in america. host: senator warren on cnbc earlier this month. keep calling. this is the washington journal. about 20 minutes left. asking you about whether you support tax increases for corporations and high income earners. what is happening later today. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, a hearing on the federal, state and local emergency management response to covid-19 before the house appropriations subcommittee. you can watch that live on c-span3, c-span.org, and on the c-span radio app. later this afternoon, members of the independent review committee are presenting their findings and recommendations stemming from multiple cases of sexual assault and harassment at fort hood. that starts live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, live on c-span.org and on the c-span radio app. rebecca is waiting out in california, supports the idea of a tax increase. go ahead. caller: i do and i think you need to include these mega-churches and may be the catholic church could be part of that as well. these churches do a lot of good -- do not get me wrong -- but they are building wealth in other countries. right now, we need to bring everybody home and get our country together and then we can go back and help. these mega-churches seem to be able to skirt this. what it does is it screws the middle class twice. most people in the middle class will tithe, donate to a church or charity, but the government is also expecting them or us to pay off the debt. so you get screwed two times. so these mega-churches need to step up to the plate and contribute. i do consider them higher earners. host: don, duncan falls, ohio, good morning. your next. caller: i appreciate your time. corporations do not pay taxes. corporations pass on those taxes to the consumer. my solution to the tax situation is to have a national sales tax. everybody pays the same amount and then at the end of the year every citizen would get back a certain percentage of what is taken in, every citizen. therefore, the rich would be paying more because they buy boats, airplanes, or whatever. it is the most stable and efficient way. that way, nobody at the bottom end of income is bothered. they give at -- they get back the tax money they paid and the ones at the top pay the taxes. thank you. host: roger in pennsylvania, good morning. your next. caller: i am a historian and taught history for a long time. corporations pay no tax. they have reams and reams of accountants to figure out what the taxes caused to a corporation and they put it in the end product so whoever buys the product pays the tax. the i/o bite -- the idea of taxing high income earners -- first, the problem is there are not enough of them. we have always said let's soak the rich. we cannot soak the rich because there are not enough of them. what we really need is a consistent, non-loophole tax system so that everybody, regardless of how much they earn, pays a fair tax without a lot of deductions, without a lot of loopholes, and without -- the lobbyists do not do anything in washington but figure out ways to save the people who pay them money, ways to save them money and get favors from the government. host: you are a historian. what is the closest we have come to getting to a system like the one you are talking about? caller: during the administration of grover cleveland. host: remind people what was happening then. caller: it was in 1885 to 1889 and then 1893 to 1897. in 1893, there was the panic of 1893, which was a depression, and we had a boom and bust cycle throughout the entire 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. every 20 years, the economy would crash and the government had no answer for it until they passed the income tax. they promised this is not going to affect anybody except the rich people and it will be a 1% tax on anybody who makes more than $10,000 a year. within five years, we were in world war i. they cranked up the tax rate to 5% and started it on everybody. in the 1940's, they started deducting the taxes from your paycheck because people would not, but the money. -- people would not cough up the money. host: when you hear elizabeth warren saying this will not affect anybody whose net worth is below $50 million, what is your history since saying to that -- history sense saying to that? caller: nonsense. people who make that kind of money can find ways to shelter the income. when politicians say we will soak the rich, it is because the middle class will not hold still for more taxation. host: how long did you teach history for? caller: over 20 years and still as a retiree. host: host: what grades? caller: i taught junior high school. host: are you substitute teaching? caller: i do not substitute. i have my own website and do zoom history sessions, the lincoln session, the kennedy session, and currently i am starting a prelude to world war ii session tomorrow. host: how are kids doing on zoom history learning? caller: they are not kids. they are adults. people over 45, 50 years old will subscribe to the classes because when they were in high school they did not pay attention. they say that. they say i should have paid more attention in high school. you do not discover history until you are about 45 or so and your grandchildren say what's that about? then you say wow and you discover there is this book and that book and then you develop a strong commitment to the history of this country, to the world and many other things you may be interested in. host: roger, thank you for the call. this is johnny out of el paso. good morning. caller: that gentleman gave me a history lesson. i do not pay attention to history either. i will get to my point. i got upset when they were passing this bill last week. i am looking at these people in congress, 535 of them making $83 an hour, and they are trying to choke off the people, just $15 an hour there will be stretched for five years. i am upset with that. i think manchin, would he be willing to take a pay cut? those are my thoughts. host: lynn is in new york. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: taxes should be increased on corporations and high income earners. it is sad that the republicans decided to in many ways increase the taxes on the middle class when they changed the tax laws. and the fact is that that higher income earners have the capacity to support our government and to feed their families while a lot of people who are struggling in this country would not be able to pay the 10% that that former collared was advocating. -- former caller was advocating. host: thank you. more comments from facebook, twitter and our text messaging service. toby -- "corporations are aware from middle-class jobs come from. if you support unemployment, support raising the corporate tax rate." this from roy -- "a tax increase on anyone is an increase on anyone. that's a fact. stop the spending." steve saying "i am ok with corporations pay no tax so long as they can show they are spreading the wealth around." just a few of your comments this morning. about 10 minutes left on this segment of the washington journal today. later, i should know we will be joined by brandon judd, border patrol agent and president of the national border patrol council. we spent a lot of time already this week focused on the situation at the border, the surge especially among unaccompanied minors at the border. it was yesterday that house minority leader kevin mccarthy visited the border to highlight that crisis down there. this is a bit of what the house minority leader had to say at the border. [video clip] rep. mccarthy: the security of our nation is the first and foremost responsibility of our president. i came down here because i heard of the crisis. it is more than a crisis. this is a human heartbreak. the sad part about all of this is it did not have to happen. this crisis was created by the presidential policies of the new administration. there is no other way to claimant -- claim it than abiding border crisis. we learned more about what created it. sergeant gimenez talked to a family from honduras that had been traveling for 22 days. just a coincidence of why people think they can come here and break the law. we went to a new facility built just more than a year ago. they built it with a capacity they thought they could never meet -- 1040 people to be processed. today broke that record. today, they are beyond capacity. they are having to build into the parking lot a makeshift facility. even though the u.s. congress just passed a $1.9 trillion bill, not one dollars there to help. it is taking way the operation costs for the border to be protected. but for all these children that are unaccompanied sitting there, there are 120 border agents that are now inside that unit that are not on the border protecting us when a surge is coming. as we went up to monument three, speaking up to the men and women on the front lines, they catch between 100 and 200 people a night. we talked to the medical units. as i tell you, not as a member of congress, but as a father of a son and a daughter, you look in the eyes of these children. they came unaccompanied. they tell the story of a one-year-old, three-year-old and five-year-old holding hands, walking up to an agent with no parents, no adults in sight. who brought them? the medical units talk about the percentage that get trafficked here, they get harmed along the way. who knows the danger if they do not make it? all because of the policies of our president has told them something different, told him to risk their lives, and broke families apart. we are better as a nation in this. -- as a nation then this. -- than this. host: kevin mccarthy at the border yesterday, the issue of a surge at the border once again making its way to the white house briefing room. this is press secretary jen psaki yesterday outlining the steps of the biden administration has taken to address the issue. [video clip] >> we recognize this is a big problem. the last administration left us a dismantled and unworkable system and like any other problem we will do everything we to solve it. -- we can to solve it. our focus is on solutions. let me walk you through a couple steps. there are always developments on considerations that are underway. first, we have updated -- we have not, but cdc has updated guidelines to return to full capacity. this will help expand capacity to move children more quickly out of facilities. the implementation is ongoing. there is now an embedding at the president's asked of -- president's ask of people who will be able to quickly id family members of the children. the big issue here is expediting what is happening at the border. none of these facilities are made for children and we want to move them as quickly as possible into shelters and then to homes. fema is now providing support at the border, adding extra capacity to avoid overcrowding. we hope this will help quickly get children into hhs and oor facilities, with sponsors and families. the president is focused on expediting what is happening at the border. and this happened on friday, but there was a lot going on. we rescinded the 2018 mou between dhs and hhs, which we believe families will come forward. we see this as an issue where family members or sponsor families are worried that means they will be trapped. this rescinds that. we are also looking for additional facilities and this remains a focus. host: jen psaki in the white house briefing room yesterday. more discussion on the border coming up at 9:00 a.m. eastern. we will be joined by brandon judd for that discussion. this segment -- we continue with the question of tax increases for corporations and high income earners as a way to pay for next agenda items for the biden administration, whether it be climate change or infrastructure. rick supports. go ahead. caller: i just want to make a couple comments. when trump came to office, the first thing he did was talking about how he made a lot of people rich. that will tell you the difference between rich and poor. to give poor people something, what they are trying to do now -- "we are giving money away," "we are not trying to do anything." let me say something. i am 70. i have pay taxes my whole life. -- i have been paying taxes my whole life. i am single. i think they can do better than that. host: that is rick in massachusetts. staying in the baystate. this is jake on that line for those who oppose. caller: good morning. are you talk to me? host: yes. caller: good morning. the woman earlier was calling about churches, going after churches. host: what are your thoughts? caller: sorry, i thought you were not talking to me. she got it almost right. we need to go to blue cross/blue shield, part of it -- i cannot think of the proper word. i am awfully sorry. we allow these organizations like the nfl not to pay taxes. i cannot think of what they call it. there is a proper word for it. we need to fix the taxes, fix these tax loops, start raising taxes. that's what needs to happen. host: why tax churches specifically, jake? caller: i am not saying churches specifically. i am using them as an example because they had that tax-exempt policy for them. i cannot think of what they call it now, but the nfl shares that same exempt policy. host: that is jake in massachusetts. linda instead -- linda in staten island, good morning. caller: i am nickel artist by trade. -- i am an artist by trade. i am completely for the taxes. [indiscernible] that is not debt. in addition, we are paying taxes for land we cannot even live on. so what is going on here? and i am not poor. why are they turning our border states into orphanages? the children in the elderly coming there. host: we will talk more about the situation at the border at coming up next, the biden administration's priorities when it comes to energy and environmental issues. and later, education and labor committee chair bobby scott joins us to talk about school reopening's and the recently passed act which boosts labor unions in this country. first, congresswoman from new mexico confirmed yesterday as the first native american cabinet secretary. here is chuck schumer on the senate floor. >> rep. holland has already made history as one of two members he became the first native american women to serve in house of representatives. she is a citizen of the laguna pueblo nation and her family's roots in new mexico can be traced for 35 generations. by her own account, she grew up poor, moving frequently. her mother served in the navy and her father spent a 30 year career in the marines. while the federal government has often mistreated and neglected indigenous americans, the holland family has proudly and bravely served this country. now, represented of holland's making history twice over as the first native american secretary of the interior and the first native american cabinet official in american history. her confirmation represents a gigantic step forward in creating a government that represents the full richness and diversity of this country, because native americans were for far too long neglected at the cabinet level and in so many other places. she will have an important task ahead of her. she must refocus the interior department on preserving and protecting almost 500 million acres of public lands. combating climate change and environmental degradation and upholding the federal government's obligation to try relations. the trump administration did more to undermine the relationship between the federal government and the sovereign tribes than many have in decades, from desecrating sacred burial sites to building a border wall, to neglecting the desperate situation of native tribes during the pandemic. shame on them. in elevating rep holland, we reset the relationship between the federal government and tribal nations to one of cooperation, mutual respect, and trust. so different than the last administration. announcer: washington journal continues. host: environment and energy news reporter kevin joins us now for a spotlight on president joe biden's energy agenda. a key player and implanting that agenda is now in place. one of the headlines yesterday, challenges galore await holland. explain what some of those challenges are. caller: -- guest: well, she comes into the department of interior with a very much different agenda from the trump administration. she is going to be looking at restoring national monuments, how far does the biden administration go on the oil and gas drilling in public lands? she is also going to have to deal with any other appointees confirmed to the department and she is going to be overseeing several agencies dealing with huge issues from the migratory bird treaty act to the endangered species act. it is a big, big job. she is going to have a lot on her plate. host: a big job that includes issues dealing with the united states public land. i want to take viewers back to deb haaland's confirmation hearing. it was for public and senator john barrasso who was pressing her on that topic during her confirmation hearing. here is a bit from that. >> you have stated that you are wholeheartedly against fracking and drilling on public lands. you have said that "we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground." you have also stated that you oppose all fossil fuel infrastructure. if confirmed, president biden is likely to ask you, specifically, whether he should extend the ban on oil and gas and coal on federal lands and waters. you said repeatedly that president biden's agenda is your agenda, but what this committee wants to know is how would you advise him? how will you act? your principal role as secretary of interior. how will you advise him, and will you encourage the president to extend the existing day -- the 60 day ban on leasing or o ot? >> yes, i will reiterate again, president biden's agenda would be my agenda if i am confirmed. i recognize that the roles are different. the role of a congresswoman in one district in the country is much different than the role of a secretary who is fighting and working for every single american in all of our public lands across the country. those are two different things, i recognize that. i want to make sure that if i'm confirmed, we are working to strike the right balance. we need to care as much about the environment as we do about the fossil fuel infrastructure in your state and other states. we need to balance those priorities, and i feel that yes, sometimes it might seem like a tricky sort of balancing act, but i feel very strongly that if we have a mind to protect our public lands for future generations, that we will also be able to protect jobs for future generations as well. host: talking about the biden administration's environment and energy agenda. kevin, the now-secretary noting repeatedly that her job as secretary is different than her job as a sitting representative. did she have different views in the biden administration when it comes to these public land and energy issues as a sitting member? guest: i think it is fair to say she probably had different views as a house member than what she might carry out now as interior secretary. i mean, we will have to see what happens today. it will likely be her first date after being confirmed yesterday evening by the senate on a very tight vote of 51-40. she is considered a progressive, she is a cosponsor of the green new deal which again, is kind of aspirational for transforming the economy and the energy sector, that republicans basically used to swing at democrats. something democrats have pitched as something to fight climate change, investing more in clean energy and republicans respond with your never going to build oil and gas infrastructure ever again, you are going to keep it in the ground, fossil fuels like coal and so on and so on. president biden and also candidate biden would rhetorically say i am not the green new deal, i have my own deal, this is my plan, but kind of progressive supporters and allies of president biden would influence his agenda. climate change, the environment, energy. there is aspects of the green new deal. -- various aspects of the green new deal. it would be interesting to see how this moves forward. i think it is fair to say that biden was probably the most aggressive candidate in a presidential race on climate change, and he has come right out of the gate with the policy and personnel to execute that agenda. we are still very early into this administration, within the first 100 days, but it probably won't be exactly like the green new deal. i think it is fair to say that biden's agenda is inspired by parts of the green new deal, for sure. host: if you want to talk about the biden energy, environmental agenda, have questions on it, now would be a great time to call in. phone lines as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. this vote yesterday on deb haaland coming less than a week after michael regan was confirmed to be the epa administrator. what should viewers know about michael regan? guest: michael regan is, like you said, was confirmed last week by the senate on a relatively easier vote at 66-34. 16 republicans support him, kind of a more bipartisan support for him. he is coming from the north carolina department of environmental quality where he was secretary. he served there for four years. he kind of comes in as someone who could help restore staff morale in pa. it is a similar job he did at the department of environment of quality down in north carolina. essentially, he has already been telling staff and saying i hear you, your voices matter, we are going to listen to you. epa during the trump administration was particularly targeted for proposed budget cuts. they did not come to pass but it sent a message that they wanted to downsize the agency and on top of that, hundreds of employees did leave the epa during the past four years, many of them frustrated over the direction the agency had taken. so now reagan comes in and i think his first priority is going to be listening to the staff and restoring staff morale, saying we value you, please stick around. let's move forward and get back to the job of the epa, which is protecting human health and the environment. host: now we have got interior secretary, but we also have a national climate advisor in gina mccarthy. and a special presidential envoy for climate in former senator john kerry. how are these folks all going to work together and play together in the same space? guest: well, i think reagan, is mo, his responsibility will be epa and epa will have a huge role to play in climate but it is also going to have a huge role by in water, chemicals, toxic waste sites. there is a lot for epa to do. he will be at the forefront. of course, the epa is going to be drafting new climate change regulations, but essentially, i think how all these people are going to work together, to get back to your question, reagan will have epa, but mccarthy is going to have kind of the domestic sliced of climate change policy and she will be responsible for the whole of government approach and epa is not alone agency on climate, there are plenty of other agencies. i wouldn't call him a second secretary of state, he has already served ones as secretary of state, but he is already traveling around the world. he was in europe this past week meeting with dignitaries, basically trying to get everyone to increase their goals in reducing carbon emissions. essentially, mccarthy is going to be ensuring we can meet those goals, promising these meetings with foreign diplomats so we can kind of get a global momentum going again on cutting down on carbon emissions. host: before we leave, michael regan, i should note that his confirmation supported by the two republican senators in north carolina, richard burr, thom tillis. what does that say about his ability to build consensus? guest: good question. getting back to reagan, he came in at a very difficult time in north carolina, a very contentious election. governor cooper down in north carolina won a close election, but state legislature still controlled by republicans. essentially, reagan had to deal with republican lawmakers all the time for his budget, for any action. this environmental agency was in charge of. he went out and he met with them, had phone calls with them, kept an open door. was very, very accessible. he also was very accessible to industry groups, agricultural groups, kind of the whole spectrum of people who were interested in environmental regulation and enforcement. and that got him a lot of friends. i talked to a number of republicans and business groups in north carolina, they had nothing but great things to say about him and they recognized that they were going to disagree with him on big things. maybe how aggressive he moved on climate. he is probably going to end up moving very aggressively on climate at epa, but he was willing to listen to the other side and i think that helped him a lot to win friends and also tamp down criticism if he did go very tough on a certain environmental issue. host: kevin is with the environment and energy if you want to check them out and talk to them. phone lines are open to do so. good morning. caller: good morning. the thing that impresses me about secretary haaland is that she is a member of an indian nation and as a result, she really has two citizenships, both in the united states and in her nation. and she moves in an area which has just been hit hard by not taking account of climate change and she can now work making possibly a way in which we can work with climate change across nations. there is an artificial line within her nation that separates the nation in half. now we can have working with mexico in establishing solar and wind energy and not be so dependent on a very weak fossil fuel economy. host: kevin? guest: that is true. at interior, as secretary of the interior, she will be the first native american ever to serve -- sorry, first native american ever to serve as a cabinet secretary, let alone the first native american to lead the interior. she has a lot of experience and thoughts on environmental issues. as we mentioned, she cosponsored the green new deal. she has also been part of the protest against pipelines. a much different person than what we saw in the prior administration. and the interior has a huge role to play in climate change. studying and researching the issue, but also a big thing is going to be this drilling on public lands. this new leasing of oil and gas drilling in public lands. does that pause become a permanent ab? -- ban? i think that is something that is going to have a lot of friction between what we would see from house maker or lawmaker haaland versus interior secretary haaland because in order to get her confirmation, she had to make a lot of promises and commitments to help win some votes, but we will see how far this pause becomes a permanent man. i think that is -- permanent ban. that will be a big part of what interior does, the department of the interior does. host: that explanation about the size of the lands that interior is responsible for, some 500 million acres of surface land, 700 million acres beneath the surface and 2.5 billion acres at the outer continental shelf. 50 million acres of native american land. 500 wildlife refuges, and water supply for some 31 million people. that in the portfolio of the interior department. taking your comments about the biden environmental energy agenda, this is steve out of illinois, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i was watching c-span yesterday and they want to put gps trackers on gasoline cars to pay for the infrastructure. i live in a food desert. it takes me 35 miles to get to the nearest walmart work aldi -- walmart or aldi. it is 20 miles to the nearest grocery store. how is this going to affect me, and i live in farm country. i can't even get a coronavirus vaccine. joe biden paid for my gasoline tax with his $1400 check. it is really upsetting if they are going to track me and gps me. host: got your point, stephen. kevin, how much can you talk about gas tax policy? guest: well, i think with the caller is getting into there is that we have now passed the covid-19 relief bill, the american rescue plan, but now we are getting into the next big item on the biden agenda which is going to be a huge infrastructure package. that is going to be -- a big part of it is going to be roads and highways and how we pay for it. and do we pay for it? that is an open question, too. but there is a lot of debate on how we pay for it. do we raise a higher gas tax? there is debate of a mileage tax, which is basically how often does your vehicle -- excuse me, how many miles your vehicle travels, maybe taxed by that. some people are nervous about raising gas tax, i think there is a separate issue on the mileage tax. it is going to get very sticky and of course, democrats, this is kind of their big hope to get republican votes on this one. there is no republican votes from covid-19 recovery bill, but there has been a lot of hope that we will be able to get enough republican votes in the senate that they won't have to do reconciliation. we will have to see what happens. basically, that is going to be one of the stickiest if not the stickiest issue on infrastructure, how do we pay for it, and if we do pay for it. host: if they can't get any support from her publicans on infrastructure bill, which traditionally has been a bipartisan issue, what does that say about the ability to get votes on a major climate bill that joe biden is also promised? >> that's true. infrastructure may be the only train out of the station where they can get republican votes. if they don't succeed on matt, i think climate, major climate legislation was always looking very tough, even after biden's election and even after the special elections in georgia and democrats took the senate, because you need 50 votes to overcome the filibuster. and it's not clear that they even have all the democrats on major climate legislation. of course, i'm thinking of senator joe mansion, the chairman of the senate energy and national resources committee. he comes from west virginia, has been a big opponent of climate legislation. so if you can't get climate legislation, what do you do? that is where you come to the epa again and have them develop climate change regulations, which basically, the epa under the biden administration is very much likely to do. looking even further down the road, you're probably going to run into litigation and it would be interesting how those rules survive in court, especially with a supreme court that is very much conservative-leaning now. host: tulsa oklahoma, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, i am glad we have a climate expert on because i wonder whatever happened to al gore's global warming scenario, particularly with all the democrats voting in colorado on climate change with getting all the snow and ice and so forth. what was the reason since the solution to climate change was and is the same as the solution to global warming? how come we moved away from global warming, because that could be measured, whereas climate change really is more of a difficult thing, since the climate always will change? host: climate change and the politics of it on capitol hill today? guest: climate change, i think the caller is getting into maybe the change in rhetoric from global warming to climate change. i don't have the numbers in front of me but i think maybe, probably last year, maybe the year before was the hottest year on record. if you keep on looking at global temperatures, they are rising more and more each year. that said, i think climate change refers to a whole host of issues that are affected because of increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, carbon emissions and everything else into the atmosphere. climate change refers to a whole bunch of phenomenon like increasing wildfires in the west , stronger hurricanes. and, yes, even harsher and colder winter storms. kind of these extreme weather events become more extreme. to get back into the politics of climate change, you now have a president who won an election by saying i am going to fight climate change in the white house, compared to the past president who downplayed it or did not really address it or in some elements also called a hoax. you also have republicans i think who are more comfortable with taking action on climate change, more and more. you have senator romney talking about a carbon tax or a carbon price. you also have seen senator murkowski talk about how this is affecting her state of alaska, where you are seeing basically villages and towns of their starting to be affected by that, starting to lose land. you are seeing coastlines change very gradually but it is happening across the country. i think one thing when you look at supporters of aggressive action and climate change, they told me look at the coastal republicans. infrastructure, you mentioned earlier, the potential of climate legislation might not be climate legislation per se, but it might show up in this infrastructure bill. a lot of measures to combat climate change and also putting more money into more federal investment, things like clean energy, electric vehicles, things like that. the infrastructure bill might end up being the climate change bill. host: about two minutes left this morning with kevin, ee news. diane, thanks for waiting. can you make it quick? caller: yes. i would like to know if somebody could address when they were testing the nuclear bomb, one bomb was tested on the d2 mission and after a time, levels did not come down off the coast of california. host: giant, kevin, i'm not sure if you can address that. nuclear energy certainly is something in the portfolio of the energy secretary, we have not talked about. next in the statement if you want to take that up in the final minute and a half or so. guest: i guess one big thing to refer to, we have talked about deb haaland and michael regan, the big three on energy and environment have now been confirmed, including jennifer, the former mission and governor energy secretary. she has a huge role to play on all aspects of energy policy. including nuclear energy. supporters of that source will talk about how it is low emission were zero emission--or zero emission, but environmentalists will push back and say where you put the waste? and then we get into original program politics. of course, with yucca mountain in nevada, with this site that has been basically put on ice. so it will be interesting to see how much. we have not had a lot of discussion of nuclear energy, but it will be interesting how much support that gets from the biden administration. host: all the coverage of the big three that you can ask for at eenews.com. thanks so much. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: up next, we will be joined by education and labor committee chairman bobby scott, the democrat from virginia to talk about school reopening in the recently passed pro act. later, we will turn our attention to the search in border crossings with the president of the border patrol council. first, the biden administration approach to school reopening was part of mitch mcconnell's floor remarks yesterday. here is a portion. >> for months, science has confirmed that schools are remarkably safe and do not surge transmission of the virus. this administration's own expert amplify this before liberal politics got in the way. as i look everywhere, president biden specifically said that in it in the grown-ups should not be a prerequisite for reopening them. but on thursday, instead of: for schools to reopen right now, the president endorsed moving the goal posts. he said that because the democrats passed their spending plan and because he has tried to move teachers toward the front of the line for vaccines, now, now, schools can move toward reopening. this approach has put liberal interest group politics ahead of vulnerable kids and their parents. it was reported last week that the following message was supposed to be between private online group members of on public-school union in california. here was the quote. friendly reminder, if you are planning any trips for spring break, please keep that off social media. it is hard to argue that it is unsafe for in-person instruction if parents and the public see vacation photos at international travel. further reports from california suggest some local government may consider using some of the massive bailout the democrats send them on bonuses. reportedly, one unit argues that grown-ups should get bonuses for things like "an airplane trip to hawaii when this is all over." a lot working-class families in the country are struggling through untenable situations, and large part thanks to the liberal government as school have needed lots more cash to become safe. and now, unions are talking about trips to hawaii. every day, the biden administration does not urge schools to reopen safely, right now with simple precautions, it hurts kids who cannot afford these moving goalposts. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are always very happy to welcome back bobby scott. he is the chairman of the house education and labor committee. congressman, first, on the american rescue plan and that $125 billion in their frayed for k-12 schools -- in there for aid for k-12 schools, what are the rules about how school systems can use that money? >> basically, the schools need to use the money to reopen safely. there has been an attempt to the friend the debate as to whether or not we want schools open or not. that is not the debate. the debate is whether or not we want schools open safely or whether we want it to be safe or not. the fact of the matter is that we know these children are much better off in school then out of school. they do much better academically in school. their access to school nutrition is there because they have access to the school meals. the social skills that you developed in school cannot be developed if you're sitting at home before a computer. and identifying mental health problems can't be done and child abuse cannot be done at the children are not coming to school. so we know that children need to be in school. but there are things that need to be done according to the cdc. resources are needed to open the schools safely. and the money is there to open the schools safely. one of the biggest deficits is ventilation. you know you can eat outside at a restaurant but not inside. that is because if you're inside poorly ventilated restaurants, the environment. and everybody is in trouble. if you're outside, there is better ventilation. it is not as much of a problem. it is the same thing in the classroom. if you have a poorly-ventilated classroom, by the end of the day, if you have one affected student, nearly every student has a problem. they released a study that we requested last spring and found that 40% of the school districts in this country, 40% of the school district in this country need to repair or replace the heating, ventilation and air conditions stems in more than half their schools. well, that is a problem if you're trying to reopen the schools. you need transportation. you can have as many children on the bus. that means more bus trips. you need personnel like nurses. who is going to diagnose whether it is a runny nose or covid-19? ppe and disinfectants. and you need staff to disinfect the classroom. the classroom isn't going to disinfect itself. there are a lot of expenses that are needed to reopen safely, and it is just not a question of whether it is safe or not. if there are things that we can do to make sure that the schools are open safely, resources are there in the recovery plan to make sure that the school systems can open and open safely. host: do you think every school should be able to open an open safely five days per week by this coming fall? guest: we have the resources there to make that possible. we put a lot of money into education. it's not just to reopen and stay open safely, it is also to catch up for lost learning. that means that these summer schools have longer days. a lot of children have been out of school for a year. some, that didn't benefit very much at all with this distance learning. and some additional expenses, resources are needed to catch up. but the resources are there. i don't see any reason why schools should not be able to open by the fall. all of the resources, they can identify what is needed to reopen safely, and the resources ought to be there to make it happen. host: congressman bobby scott, the chair of the house education and labor committee. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. the labor side of the education and labor committee. you are protecting the right to organize act of 21. that passed house last week. for viewers who don't know about the bill, what does that do? guest: well, the protecting the rights to organize act eliminates some problems that presently exist in perpetuating the right to organize into a union. the national labor relations act describes how that is done. it says that the national labor act should encourage the formation of the union, but regrettably, some of the provisions are so weak that people who want to join a union find that they can't do it. as many as 50% of the workers in america would like to be in a union if they could get in, but only 10% actually are in a union. part of that is because some of the sanctions for unfair labor practices like firing somebody illegally when they try to form a union. if you fire people, that is an unfair labor practice. but the sanction, regrettably, in many cases, has none at all. the sanction would be that you have to rehire the person and pay back pay when all is said and done. when somebody is trying to pay their mortgage or buy food for the family. when all is said and done a year now, that doesn't work very well. they need a job. the other part of that is that you get to deduct whatever was made in the process. if you fire somebody from the job and they get another job to make almost as much or even more, they may not face any liability at all. you don't have to fire many people in this situation without meaningful sanctions for everybody to get the word about what happens if you are caught trying to form a union. so we put in meaningful penalties to discourage that kind of thing. host: you probably saw the u.s. chamber of commerce came out against this bill. this is what they wrote, saying that this legislation strips workers of their privacy, threatens the public ballot, encloses california's disaster tests, jeopardizes employers' right to free speech. this bill is a threat, they say, to america's workers, employers, and our economy. guest: there is a provision in there that requires people who benefit from the union representation to pay a fair share of the expenses that they benefit from. there is an old saying that when you are used to privilege, equality seems like oppression. and when you are used to getting the benefits without paying dues, having to pay a fair share of the expenses and the benefits that you are enjoying seems unreasonable. well, i think most people would say if the union gets together and negotiates to a higher pay and you get a higher pay, you work in a safer workplace, and even individual representation. if you get sanctioned, fired, or suspended, and you want representation, they have to represent you with the same degree as they would a union member, which may mean hire a lawyer to represent grievance procedures. paying a fair share for those benefits does not seem unreasonable. now, the fair share does not include your fair share of the union contribution to the food bank if you don't want to participate in that, or the holiday party, or political activities. just a fair share of the representation that the union is required by law to provide. paying a fair share for that seems reasonable. like i said, if you have been getting it for free, without paying any dues at all, without having -- then having to pay a fair share seems unreasonable. and the scare tactics when they say redefine independent contractors. we take what is really the majority definition of when somebody is an employee and when they aren't. there is what is called misclassification, classifying somebody as an independent contractor when in fact, they are an employee. they don't have to pay social security, the employee is not entitled to unemployment compensation, the employee would not be entitled to workers comp, health benefits, and other things that go with employment. and so the employer can save a lot of money by miss classifying somebody as an independent contractor rather than an employee. and what this does is kind of makes the more objective standard to which somebody is an employee and when they aren't. host: we will get right to those callers. karen in alabaster, alabama, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say, i kind of feel like i'm in the twilight zone. i turn on c-span in the morning and i hear this person talk about how we need all this money to open the schools safely and blah blah. our schools have been opened down here for a month. in several states, schools are open. our economies are open. we are doing whatever we need to do. my question is if you don't have some kind of hidden agenda, and i don't know what that might be, why don't you ever talk about that? i'm certain you know that schools are open in several states. host: congressman? guest: several states just opened their schools without any regard to the safety of the children. reports in some schools, they are not even requiring students to wear a mask and if they want to take those chances, that is a policy decision they make. i think most school systems are interested in the safety of the children and let the cdc weigh out what needs to be done to open the schools safely which includes proper ventilation, proper ppe including masks, which includes things like that. it costs money. how do you have a school open in a pandemic without a school nurse? things that cost money that you don't usually have to spend when you are not in a pandemic. you also, in addition to that, need to catch up for lost education. many students have fallen further behind. everybody knows what achievement gap means. the students at the bottom of the achievement gap have tended to drift further apart. we need to assist them to find out how far behind they are. but we need to catch up. that means summer school, that is an additional expense. that means may be longer school day. you can't tell the teachers we are going to extend the school day a couple hours and you're going to get the same pay. if you're going to extend the school day, that would incur additional costs. we need to catch up. that is why we have the money in the american rescue plan. host: just about 15 minutes left with congressman bobby scott. taking her phone calls. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take you down to florida spin. -- to florida next. caller: good morning. listen, congressman, i don't mean any disrespect, but the longer you talk, the longer your nose grows. just spend money, spend money, print the money, spend money. schools are open in states where there is some logic. it is going to be like musical chairs. one of these days you are going to find out you can't just print money. host: congressman? guest: i didn't say that, i said 1.9 trillion dollars was over 80% of the benefits going to the top 1% in corporations, and there was no emergency. now we are in the middle of a pandemic and we ought to spend money to reduce child poverty in half. spending money and schools to help them open safely for those school districts that care about the safety and want to comply with the centers for disease control guidelines. a lot of people have gone back to work, and people have not. we still have about 10 million fewer jobs than expert economists and frankly, 7 million are not coming back. those people are out of work and they are going to stay out of work. we expect another legislation for mass injection of job-training money. those who can finally conclude they are not getting their jobs back, you can get other opportunities. there is a lot in this bill. even the republicans who glittered against the bill, one republican senator was talking about money for restaurants. because of the policy inflicted upon them by governments for safety reasons, we couldn't allow people to in restaurants. restaurant have suffered. there are significant funding in this bill to help restaurants. there is a lot in this bill that is helpful. when you're helping somebody, they don't want to support it. when you are helping the top one percent of corporations, they are all for it. host: mark on twitter have this question. most children do not get the virus or if they do, they don't get sick. could teachers go back to the classroom after they get vaccinations or will they say that the children need to be vaccinated, too? guest: the evidence says that children even if they get infected generally do not get very sick. the president has a plan for teachers to get in a separate line so they can get vaccinated quickly. if you are telling them to go back into the classroom in the public situations, it is a little unfair. they will get a separate line so they can get vaccinated so that they can go back safely. children who don't have a vaccination yet, vaccinations have been tested about 18, maybe 16. vaccination for children, the studies alone don't tend to be done until sometime next year. there will not be vaccinations for children as they go back to school. but all of the evidence says that schools can open safely. the potential harm of going back to school is a lot less than the harm inflicted inside the school. everybody knows that students are not doing well when they're not in school, not learning, not getting nutrition. mental health situations. they are not learning the social skills. there are a lot of problems if they are not in school. we want them back in school as soon as possible. the cdc has prevented an outline for what needs to be done. a lot of it costs money. host: meant victory, ohio, good morning. you are on with the chairman of the education and labor committee. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. the longer you talk, sir, with all due respect as the gentleman said before, you contradict yourself. you was asked in the beginning of the conversation by the host whether children would be back in school by this fall, and you gave a vague answer that you think so since the money is there and that the schools could be taken care of. the cdc, and you said here, the cdc said that kids don't transmit the disease. the statistics show clearly that the death rates and stuff are from older people with underlying conditions. sir, i question your title in the sense of this. you say education and labor chairman committee. i do believe your education is only worried about the teachers and the union. host: congressman, a chance to respond. guest: i'm not sure exactly what he is criticizing. i set up the children do not generally get sick but they do get infected, they do transmit the disease. as he suggested, the cdc has said you can open school safely if you follow certain protocols. and people tend to skip the part about you need proper ventilation when 40% of the school districts need to repair and replace half the schools. if we follow the cdc guidelines come it can be done safely. having fewer students on buses mean you need more bus rides. it costs money to open safely. not just open safely, but to make up for past learning loss. frankly, i would be disappointed if there were not a lot of students in summer school making up for past learning loss. and possibly in the longer school year. we have a lot of catching up to do. we can't just allow students to miss a year in education and think everything is going to be ok. host: georgia, democrat, your next. caller: good morning, congressman, how are you? guest: i am ok, how are you doing? caller: pretty good. i used to live in chesapeake and i'm back in atlanta now. i have a small nonprofit that focuses on training and education, trying to bridge the digital divide, and i would like you to explain to me how i can participate in perhaps getting a grant or helping the community through the american rescue act. you said that there is some money there to help train, educate and catch up students. i'd like you to explain how that money is going to be accessible and also the procurement aspects. guest: the money will be distributed to the local school systems if the content of the policy is generally done on a local level. and so how you catch up is going to be a local decision. the expectation is if you are use to that, a lot of them are catching up. if you contact your local school system you will see what the local plans are. host: minnesota, independent, you are next. caller: you keep talking and talking, saying the same stuff. we need more money for ventilation l anda -- and la da da. we have got california shutdown, we have got superintendents taking the children to a private school to be taught while the public schools are closed down. what i don't understand is why aren't these people being put in jail for child abuse and having their children taken away from them? guest: i'm not sure what the allegation is, if you put a child in a private school, why that is child abuse, but as you pointed out, different school systems have had different reactions. some have been very conservative in terms of exposing children to the virus, and others have been a lot less cautious. what we have had to do is make sure that every school system will have the resources to be able to comply with the cdc guidelines. those guidelines are not free. i keep mentioning ventilation because that is a problem all over the country. and it is expensive. one of the things in the rescue plan is assistance to state and local governments. state and local governments provide most of the resources for education. their revenue has been down and they have been balancing the budget. they will openly put an end to firing education employees and then the money we provide for education, we can hire some more. you are going to have to have school nurses. there are a lot of additional resources that are needed to safely operate a school. others are more cautious and say we are going to make sure the schools can be open safely before we open them. the rescue plan will provide enough money so that schools can open safely and get open. i don't expect to be or any excuses. host: new york, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, congressman scott. all i want to say is democrats have to do their thing. roosevelt gave us the social security, johnson gave us the people rights. you don't get anything. i'm 86 years old, i have never, never voted republican because now, there's only colors. every thing the democrats are trying to do and president biden is trying to do is to get us all out of this problem that trump started by not telling us back in december. nobody told us. host: what do you most want to see democrats do in control of the house and senate and the white house? caller: to get rid of the 60 votes in the senate. because it's ridiculous. host: congressman, your thoughts? guest: it is in a situation which is somewhat dysfunctional. the american rescue plan was pulling around 70% and never got a single vote in the house or senate in the republican side. you need 60 votes and you cannot get a single vote for a plan that is running 70% in the polls, including a majority of the republicans. and then the senate has a problem that exceeds any of the reasons -- recent bills that have been considered. you mentioned president roosevelt and i guess that, ignore the fact that this plan will cut child poverty just about at half. roosevelt ended poverty for much elderly citizens with social security and medicare. with this bill, we were able to cut child poverty just about in half and that is something i can be proud of and something that isn't disparaged. does that have to do with covid-19? what difference does it make if it has to do with covid-19, we are cutting child poverty and a half good that is a good thing. host: do you think the senate should do away with the filibuster? guest: i think they have the figure out how they can operate because they can't function right now. if you cannot get -- if you cannot pass meaningful legislation, cannot get a single vote on legislation that is running 70% in the polls, how popular does it have to be before you can get any meaningful republican support. earlier on, you had republicans that met with the president, they can only -- they were only willing to think about it. it is a greater problem if one of them change their mind or makes an unreasonable demand. that it all falls apart. you can only find 1000 senate will have to find a way to function. if they do not do that, they will have to figure out some kind of way. to advance legislation so that the senate can function. they cannot function right now. host: we are running short on time with you. i want to take get to a call there waiting for a wild. -- eight color -- a caller waiting for a while. caller: i work for you way back in a day when i was a vcu grad student. that was on your campaign. i am calling because as a teacher, i think people do not realize that a lot of parents are not choosing to come back in person and we have to continue the work of finding ways to -- for teachers to teach in-person person students and virtual students at the same time, that costs money to. -- money too. there is this assumption that everyone will come back in person once the thing is open, but a lot of parents are still wary about coronavirus and are wanting to continue virtual learning. host: stay online for a second, i let the congressman respond. guest: that is why we have to make the schools, we have to follow the cdc guidelines, make school safe, and i think most of the parents will recognize that the students are much better off in prison and ultimately, the overwhelming majority will elect to send their students -- children to school because it is safe. if it is not safe, i think a rational decision can be made that is not a good idea to send children when safety has not been a priority. i think the cdc guidelines have been fairly specific and you go down the list and comply with all the guidelines, i think we can safely open the schools, but a lot of things in those guidelines cost money and that is why the rescue plan is so important. host: how many congressional campaigns have you worked on in your life? caller: that was the only congressional and i were done campaigns, gubernatorial campaigns, and then jim webb's senatorial campaign. host: under in a minute, why was congressman scott the only congressional campaign you worked on? why did you want him to be elected? caller: it was the iraq were at the time -- iraq war at the time, so it inspired me to get involved in politics. guest: i voted against the iraq war. i think the evidence that we had did not justify the war. host: congressman bobby scott is the chairman of the house education and labor committee. if you have been joining the washington journal, since the 90's, we appreciate you coming on and chatting with our callers. come back again. up next, we turn our attention to the surge in border crossings and all that we will be joined by the president of the border patrol council, brenda judd. -- landon judd. -- brandon judd. here's a portion of republican leader kevin mccarthy's remarks after a tour at a processing center in el paso, texas followed by white house press secretary jen psaki on the steps at the biden administration is taking to address the situation. [video clip] >> much and we asked the border agency. the look in their eyes, -- they are more than just a job. these people are mothers and fathers. they say they never have seen some of the unaccompanied children holding hands and walking up to them with nobody in sight. they told me about a one-year-old, a three-year-old, and a five-year-old holding hands. could you ever envision that of your children? this does not have to be this way. we are a land of immigrants. we can continue to have that. what is happening right now is beyond a crisis. it is a human heartbreak. for our president of the united states to ignore it, not acknowledge it, and not do something to stop and save the lives, the help of this nation, the safety and security of americans and our border is a job of the president. he is the one who created this and he is the one who can fix this. >> we updated -- the cdc has updated guidelines to return to full capacity. this will help expand capacity to make children -- that is an important step. the implementation of that is ongoing. there is an and bedding at the presidents ask of ahr with cdv, which will allow governments to more quickly id that confirmed sponsors and family members of the unaccompanied minors lead to quicker placement. big issues here are expediting what is happening at the border. and of these border patrol facilities are made for children and we want to move them as quickly as possible to shelters and victims. fema, this was an announcement over the weekend, is now supporting providing support at the border, adding cut -- extra capacity, to avoid overcrowding, this will help quickly get children into hhs and or facilities. the president is focused on this what is happening at the border every step in the process. this happened on friday, but it did not receive -- i wanted to -- we rescinded the 2019 mou between dhs and hos, which encourage family and sponsors to come forward without fear of additional immigration enforcement and we have seen this as an issue where family members or even sponsored families are worried that this will mean that they will be trapped in this rescinds that. we are also looking for additional facilities and this remains a focus. so, we recognize the problem, we are focused on addressing it, we are continuing to evaluate what additional steps can be taken to address the situation at the border. >> washington journal continues. host: we welcome you back to our program. the president of the national border control council, in his group to serve as a union representing about 20,000 border patrol agent and staff. branded judd on the surge of legal -- brandon judd on the surge of illegal crossings. what are your agency on the ground right now? guest: what we are seeing is the quickest surge in my 24 year career. we dealt with numbers like this in the past. the numbers are not necessarily what is concerning. it is how fast the numbers continue to rise. in less than a month and a half, we have seen numbers rise from less than 100,000 apprehensions in a month to over 100,000 apprehensions in a month. what that does is that puts extreme pressure on our resources. when we apprehend a group, we have to take that group back to our processing facilities which pulls agents out of the field. when we have such an influx, where we are pulling too many of our agent, that creates gaps in our coverage at the border and that allows criminal cartels to exploit that coverage and they are able to cross their higher value products, such as opioids, cocaine, criminal aliens, aliens from special interest countries. this creates a serious security issue and it is strictly driven by the cartels crossing women and children, unaccompanied minors, all of these different things that tie our hands up and allow them to generate profit. to give you an idea of the type of profit, on average, and this was from congressman cuellar, on friday, he said that on average, the illegal border crossings, the normal illegal border concert retains about $4000 to cross into the u.s. it is not whether they get apprehended or not. they pay $4000. that means criminal cartels generated over 400 thousand million dollars -- $400 million in profit in the month of february alone. that is an astronomical number. host: can you speak to what your agents have and have not been able to provide them. we are hearing stories about is this an -- rotating sleeping spots on floors. guest: these are the same detention centers that we had in 2014. so, what really frustrates myself, especially when i put on a uniform and i go out and patrol the border, what really frustrates us is when we hear the political rhetoric. when we get attacked or putting children in facilities that were built, that were supposed to house these children, we were supposed to be able to get them out of our facilities within 72 hours. we cannot do that. when we have this and flex. we have the exact same facilities that were built in 2014, yet we were accused of putting kids in cages and we do not hear that same rhetoric now now that a different administration. that extremely frustrates us. we end up getting politicized by both the right and the left and it is strictly to make a political point when elections are coming up. we have 22 midterm elections, they will be coming up shortly and of course, you will see the democrats with their rhetoric and the republicans with their rhetoric and what that does is that puts us in the crosshairs of board -- of both parties. host: i'll give the phone numbers. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. a special line for border state residents. that number is (202) 748-8003. start calling now for brandon judd. we heard over the weekend that the biden administration is deploying fema to the border to help respond to the surge. how's that going to work? do you think that is going to help alleviate the situation? guest: we do not know what fema can possibly do. we do not have the facilities, it does not matter. you can have enough manpower on the ground, but if you don't have the facilities to transfer these children to, it does not matter if we have them on the ground. what we need as we need additional law enforcement so that we are not depleting our resources on the field and allowing cartels to generate billions of dollars in profit a year based upon our political policies. host: let's chat with a few colors. tampa florida, independence, you're on with brandon judd. caller: good morning. this is extremely concerning to all of us. to see what is going on, not only for the side of the ones coming across the border, but also all the people here that are homeless, that are not even being attended to and we are just all of a sudden having to worry about new people coming in. that are homeless and we are sending fema to take care of them? yet we have children here that are being abused and in poverty and they are not being taken care of by fema? this is a horrible, horrible situation altogether. host: brandon judd? guest: again, i look at this and this is strictly about policy. border security has not become about the security of the american public. it has become about politics. who can make more political points rather than just doing the right thing? i listen to jen psaki and she is talking about how they rescinded the mou between cbt and ao chest. the reason why that is a mistake is because all that does is perpetuate and invite smart people across the borders illegally. we do not need more people across the board is illegally, we need less people across the border illegally. host: there are a group of republican lawmakers down at the board yesterday. is it helpful for you and your agents when members of congress come down and do these press conferences on the board? guest: it depends on what is going to come out of it. if it is not just politics and we are actually going to get policies that are going to help us secure the border, it is helpful. what we see a lot as you will see the left put pressure on the right, the right put pressure on the left. if the right -- yesterday it was republicans down at the border, if the right puts the correct pressure on the administration, then we can actually see policies that will work to secure the border. if not, it becomes politics. host: some limitation builds on the floor of the house this week. -- immigration bills on the floor this week, and he that your group supported? guest: the main thing we are looking at is that you have to look at the overall big picture. you have the left talking about immigration reform and the right seeing we will not give immigration reform unless we have the proper tools. all i have to do is go back to the immigration reform and control act of 1986 and see the failures from their and know that if we repeat that, we will be right back in the same situation 10 years from now. what we have to do is we have to have the proper border security measures before we even talk about legalizing those people that are here. otherwise, if we put the cart before the horse, we will be back in the same situation again. host: do any of these -- or has invited's larger u.s. citizenship act of 2021, do they do what you are asking for there? guest: no, most of them fall short. want to either have strict border security, the other only has the amnesty portion of it. none of them married together. let's be honest, none of these bills have any chance of passing right now. not with this political gridlock, not unless we look at and say the right will have to understand that this is going to be difficult to deport the millions of people here and if we do not have the proper border security measures, we are going to have 11 million new illegal aliens in the united states 10 years from now. both of them have become together and none of the bills do that right now. host: california, this is sam, and independent. good morning. caller: thank you for your service again. i personally am a legal immigrant. i came to this country as a grad student over three decades ago. we did many long years to get a green card and then more years to come a citizen. not american for over a couple of decades. i am an independent. -- proud american for over a couple of decades. i am an independent. i am against illegal immigrants because i came here legally. those who come here legally and follow the process and jump through all of the heaps -- all of the hoops, and then looking at people who caught the boarding in california and it is not fair. it is not just. that is something that you need to grasp that the difference between illegal and legal immigration. one solution is not to grant automatic citizenship to those who come here illegally. because that is unfair to those who came here legally. that is all my comment. guest: rule of law is extreme the important. for the vast majority, i cannot agree with him anymore. if you look at him -- the reason why that united states in my opinion is the greatest country in the world, it is because of our justice system. when we throw the laws out the window, when we fail to enforce those laws, we become no better than the other countries that are struggling right now. that is what we cannot do. that is where we cannot go. we do have a legal process for immigrants. it is a good process. we are a nation that is very compassionate. we allow more immigrants into this country than any other country in the world. historically speaking. we are extremely compassionate. when we start allowing illegal aliens to jump the lines, get in front of everybody else, that incentivizes illegal immigration rather than the legal process. that caller had a dead on. host: ohio, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning, i would like to say about border patrol that i, i live in a small community in willard and i live on one side is hispanic and one side is black. and i get very good vibes from those people. i lived beside and see them everyday. they are very good to me. a lot of people in our small community, there have been kids that have been taken, molested, kids that have been killed actually. and, you know, -- host: are you saying during the process of trying to get into the united states that those things have happened? caller: oh, yes. i have actually seen where there has been trucks coming around my neighborhood and they would scout out children and they would -- i would turn them in and they would be hispanic people. there is a lot of illegal aliens coming into our cities even now, they were clear. i am not for one minute saying that those people that come in -- i am saying let them do it legally. host: mary in ohio. brandon judd? guest: i want to be very clear on this point and this is one of the problems that we have in this country right now. we generally tend to identify illegal aliens with race. it is not true. i personally have arrested people from poland, russia, from bangladesh and of course on the south american countries, brazil, i arrested people from the northern tribal countries, el salvador, illegal immigration has nothing to do with race, yet that is what a lot of people want to do. i'm not saying that that caller were trying to do that. we do get politicized in this matter as well. race plays a large part in the narrative that some people want to build on illegal immigration and is is just not true. we arrest people from all over the world. they come from everywhere. we cannot make this about race. you have to make it about how do we secure our borders, how do we ensure the safety and security of the american public? host: what is the best thing a member of congress can do to make is not about politics, not make this about reese? guest: -- about race? guest: you have to work across the aisle. i am proud of our history. we have endorsed democrats, republicans, but we do is we look at those individuals that are going to be good on border security. if you are good on border security, you will work toward that end to secure the border for the american public, we are all for you. that is what has to happen. but politics too often has come about, what is good for me in my race, my district, or my state. we have to transcend that. you have to look at how we can cross the aisle, work together to actually secure our border. host: you've endorsed -- for some of the members that you have endorsed? guest: if you look in the last senate race, we endorsed several republicans and we endorsed gary peters out of michigan. we endorsed him. we endorsed martha mcsally. unfortunately, she lost. we look -- those people that come to us and ask for an endorsement, we do not look to endorsed anybody. people had to come to us to ask for our endorsement. we turn down most of the endorsement request that we get, but we will endorsed those individuals that are good on border security. host: middleton, new hampshire, karen, an independent, good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, first of all, i thought that it was a privilege to come into this country and not a right. i could be totally wrong. and my other question is, by sending fema whether it is our military just like around the capitol, if we have a bad storm happening in our country somewhere else and all of the people, resources were down at the border, how would we help to take care of our own people with a flood, hurricane, or whatever. guest: yeah, i don't -- i will have to see what this rollout of fema looks like. i do not know what they will be able to do right now. it is not like we can have fema in our detention facilities to reform security measures. that has to be done by training law enforcement officers. i really do not know what fema is going to do. it is not like the and just magically set up detention facilities that meet all of the law standards that we have to meet for children. i really have to wait and see what this fema deployment looks like pretty right now, i cannot wrap my head around it. host: two questions posted on washington times. as the border surge -- do think that term really matters? guest: it does not -- it does matter. we have to define that what the situation is. if we do not define it, we cannot solve it. unless you give the term crisis a definition, all that is is once again political rhetoric. in my mind, a crisis on the border is one's border patrol resources are overwhelmed. once we do not have the resources to do the job that we need to do to secure the border, then it becomes a crisis. a week and a half ago, i would not have called this a crisis. today, with the increase in illegal border crossings, week on week increase, we are in fact at a crisis right now. our resources have been overwhelmed. host: in february, it was 100,000 plus people intercepted at the border, 19,000 families on the units included. 90,000 unaccompanied children. do you expect those numbers to be beat with the march numbers? guest: absolutely. i know that they will be. i do not have that -- beat. i do not have the specific numbers to this point in the month. what i can see is what is going on at the border and we are seeing increases. in the month of february, and i am going to take the real round valley sector in texas, the busiest actor, they were apprehending somewhere between 752,000 illegal border crossers a day. -- -- 750 to 2000 illegal border crossers a day. what should be concerning as january, february, march, these are typically slow months. these are not the busiest months that the border patrol has. the busier months come in april, may, june july. -- june, july. right now, this is very concerning. we are on pace and one calendar year to arrest more people that we have ever arrested in the history of the border patrol. host: indiana, this is the last of the republicans, good morning. caller: i want to make three points before possibly getting cut off. number one, if those immigrants that are coming over here were in such poverty, then how come all of them have very nice clothes on, they do not look underfed whatsoever, they have $1000 cell phones and their hands. number two, why couldn't we have sent money over there to take care of them in mexico? we could have built temporary housing, took care of them instead of opening up our gates like they do. now the democrats think this is a big game because they only thing they are trying to do is get everybody to pay attention to that while they try and change the gun laws. what is really happening is, trump came on board as far as i am concerned, he is still the president, not biden. number two, you're going to really upset america and when americans start dying, that is when you're going to see that democrats and your socialist ways are not the majority. -- majority rule in america. guest: what i think is interesting about this from a political standpoint is, this is actually very bad for the democrats. they are scrabbling right now. they understand that on this issue alone, they could potentially lose the house and senate in the midterms. it doesn't look like they learned from history. 2016 should have told them that illegal immigration essay huge issue for the american public. and a majority of democrats do not like illegal immigration. when this explodes like it is exploding, this is extremely bad for the democrats and could hurt them greatly going into 2022. if they do not get it fixed, i believe that they could lose just on this issue alone. host: oakville, washington, terry, independents. caller: i have 28 apartments i want to make use of as a private landowner. i am looking for a long-term -- these are agricultural people -- permanent housing facilities would help to relieve some of this pressure. how do i go about as a landowner to help those little children to get more permanency rather than tempering housing. -- temporary housing. guest: that is going to be something that is out of the realm of the border patrol. what i can tell you is the long-term solution to this is adjudicate cases immediately. the doj, the internal memorandum says that claims can be educated within 190 days. if we hire judges and we put -- set up courts right on the border, help individuals in custody instead of the catch and release program, which is what perpetuates illegal immigration, if we help people pending asylum cases, we would solve this crisis immediately. it would solve it basically overnight. people thought coming. what we have to be cognizant of it that there are people who have legitimate asylum claims and those people need to be given relief. unfortunately, because of all of the false claims, a lot of the legitimate takers get put on the back burner and they are left in limbo for years. that is what is currently happening right now with a lot of these children. if we were able to adjudicate the cases immediately and those that do not have a legitimate asylum claim are sent back to their country, we would fix this problem and the border patrol would be able to focus on the criminal cartels, the dangerous drugs, the dangerous criminals, dangerous people from -- if we could focus on that, we could solve this immigration problem once and for all. host: where are these court hearings held? you talk about getting the judges down there at the border doing it immediately, how does it work right now? guest: they are held all over the nation. that is the main problem. when someone crosses the border illegally and claims asylum, if we do not have the facilities to hold them pending their court case, they are released into the united states. then, they are given what is called a notice to appear. they are supposed to appear tell court appearance. they usually do not happen for a couple of years. then, they are given work permits, they build a life here in the united states, they go to court if a judge orders them -- they will issue a stay on that deportation order so that they can get -- then they are supposed to turn themselves into ice yaro. they never do. 99% of the people that are ordered deported and then subsequently released, they have gone and never leave this country. that is that megan that is drawing people here to the united states illegally. they know that even if they are arrested, they can get relief on their own recognizance pending a hearing, they are never leaving this country. issue high for two more calls. caller: i would like to come from a different point of view. i have two points i want to make. these people that come over, they are hired to do a job, some of them come looking for a job. they do not receive a w-2 form. a lot of them -- when the judge gives them the order to come back to court, these are seasonal workers. if the job is in ours, they go there. they come over and -- one thing i will say is that the worst days in america is better than the best days in their country. if we do not give them jobs, they would not come over here. we are just as much to blame. you're still going to have the problems -- guest: i cannot disagree that the worst days in the united states are better than the best days in a a lot of these countries. that is why some new people want to come to the united states. this is the land of opportunity, this is the land where you can actually make something of yourself, which is why people want to come here. that still does not justify illegal immigration. i'm not saying that that caller was justifying illegal immigration, but it is still legal. it violates our laws. what makes our country the best country in the world, the reason that the worst days in that u.s. are the better than the best days in some of these countries is because of the rule of law. the moment we throw that out on the window, we become no better than most of these countries that people are trying to escape. host: now near the border in sierra vista, arizona, this is james, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. mr. judd did -- mr. judd, i appreciate what you're doing. i appreciate the fact that you live in tucson. a couple of years ago, we had a massive, massive amount of people come through this area would and they trashed our desert, they ran our border, they burned out water pumps from the ranchers and farmers, they were killing cattle. they were doing all kinds of crazy stuff. you are right about a lot of their stuff. i appreciate what border patrol does. even recently, i went to tucson and the border checkpoint has been closed, the vehicles are gone, the whole way from here from where i live to tucson is about 70 miles. and i saw one border patrol agent truck, one appeared it used to be we saw hundreds of them. now all of a sudden with this new policy that -- we are going to end up right back where we started from a couple of years ago with the border crossers killing our cattle, they will be reading our ranch houses, -- raiding our ranch houses, and until this gets under control, i do not know what to do because some of these ranchers are going to get upset and may be taking the law into their own hands. guest: i hope that the ranchers do not take the law into their own hands. i live in a ranching community. i live closer to the sierra vista then tucson. i worked at the station for 10 years, which covers sierra vista. what we have to understand, and this is one of the major problems with the influx of illegal immigration, jane talked about checkpoints in his area being closed, that is the station i currently work at. the station that has those checkpoints, that is where i am currently assigned. the checkpoints had to be shut down because we are getting hit so hard in the western portion of the area that is under that particular sector's control that we had to ship resources to other areas and those checkpoints had to be closed. what is interesting about that as we had the luxury of choate -- closing those checkpoints because of all of the infrastructure that we had on the eastern part of the state of arizona, tons and tons of walls were built. and for structure was put in that area. so we have a lot less illegal immigration in that particular area than what we have going on west toward color on you. -- toward california. i will push back on anybody that says that walls do not work. all you have to do is look at the numbers where walls were built. and what the numbers are of illegal border crossings as opposed to where the walls were not built. again, walls allow us to dictate where illegal border crossings take place, which then allows us to be more effective in patrolling the border. host: president of the national border patrol counsel, we appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: 20 minutes left in our program today and after covering tax policy, environmental energy policy, education, and labor policy, and out immigration policy, we will give you our last 20 minutes, asking you what our top -- your top public policy issues are? call you now and we will get your call in a minute. -- called and now and we will get your call in a minute. it was yesterday that president biden made remarks about the implementation of the american rescue plan. he answered reporter's questions about whether his predecessor should help in effort to promote vaccines. here is a portion of that. [video clip] pres. biden: hope this year and real in televisual ways. -- in tangible ways. we are days away from hundreds of millions of shots, into the arms of americans. that is the way. that is the way to get every single american access to vaccines. 100 million checks going into the pockets and or direct deposits, pockets of americans on the way to a million more -- millions of more americans. that is real progress. we have a lot more to do. we have to prove to the american people that their government can deliver for them and do it without waste or fraud. that we can vaccinate the nation, that we can get our kids safely back in school and we can get our economy back on track by helping hundreds of thousands of small businesses open and stay open and that we can get people of this nation a fighting chance again with relief checks, lower childcare costs, lower health care costs, and so much more. that is our job. that is our response ability. in the process will be growing our economy as well. we will have to stay on top of every dollar spent through the american rescue plan. that is what we are going to do. we can do this, we will do this. god bless you all, help is on the way, and may god protect our troops. thank you very, very much. >> promote vaccines among skeptics. pres. biden: i'm hearing a lot of reports from serious reporters like you saying that. i discussed it with my team and they say the thing that has more impact than anything trump would say to that maggot folks is what the local doctor -- maga folks is what the local doctors and preacher say. i urge all local docs and ministers to talk about why, why it is important. to get the vaccine and even after that until everyone is in fact vaccinated to where this mask. -- to wear at this mask. >> washington journal continues. host: 20 minutes left in our program today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. we will take viewers to the senate held education and pensions committee. holding a conversation -- confirmation hearing. a busy day on the c-span network. you can follow along all day at 10:00 a.m. on c-span three, federal, state and -- to before the house appropriations subcommittee on the covid-19 response in this country. watch out live on c-span3, online at c-span.org, and on the free c-span radio app this afternoon, members of the fort hood independent review community -- committee share their findings about sexual assault and harassment at that base. that subcommittee stars live at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org and again on the free c-span radio app. the house and senate also coming in later today, their last week of work. a busy week on capitol hill. for our last 20 minutes this morning, after a busy day covering tax policy and environment energy policy, education and labor policy, and immigration policy, we want to know your top public policies. give us a call, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. huntington beach, california, a democrat you are up first. caller: well, -- allows -- we should at least stop the export of guns immediately. host: we heard a lot of it last week, the house passing two bills to expand background checks, unclear on a timing on the senate vote. at least that issue on the house floor last week. caller: you're right. we heard that, however, i do not consider that serious gun control in our proposals because if you pass background checks, -- they are pushing this and i wish they would go for something a bit stronger, a lot stronger. it is kind of a waste of time in my opinion. host: this is sylvia, republican, good morning, you were next. caller: -- you are next. caller: my main policy would be the education. it is a concern to me. we have done very well in our area with children going into school and they are taking the virtual -- both the virtual and in school and they have done well. i am worried about the children falling behind and i hope that they take that money and help the children that are falling behind. i see it all the time. thank you. host: how can they help those children better? caller: well, summer school. in between right now, they need to understand that some skids, my granddaughter -- some kids, i granted us very well, mike -- my granddaughter does very well. they do need their summer school, which we had that last year. we have been in school the whole time. we are near charlottesville and they just started in school learning now and that is a little late. we have been doing all the air so the kids can go in school and virtual too. host: what great is your granddaughter? caller: she is in a 4th grade. she does extremely well. eyes have seen the kids struggle. -- i have seen the kids struggle. it really makes me sad when they do not catch up with their work. and they do not have -- one child complained that his mother was not helping him with his project. he needed someone in the school system to actually do -- do his on with him. it almost made me want to cry. it is really sad when some kids are going through the crack's for sure. i hope that virginia gives us enough money to help this child to catch up. host: mike, new york city, independents, good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is on the border and what is called legal immigration. migration and the actual world -- actual word is not legal until you can determine that it is legal. my opinion on the border, there is no real answer there. i do believe that this is something in our global community. we should look for examples on the road, example -- an example is israel, the way they manage their border operations. if it is possible, we should consider hiring an independent organization to help us with dealing with border control. that way the republicans and democrats can get on with the real business in america right now. host: that is mike in new york city. from the front page of today's washington times, biden's order policy is the title of the piece by former acting deputy secretary of the department of home that security, ken. he writes that one clear priority of the biden administration as it relates to the border is to never even under the worst circumstances admit that the border is in crisis. saying that mr. biden has been denying the crisis at our border, advancing amnesty legislation. if you want to read the piece, today's washington times. this is from the new york times, mitt romney, senator from utah with this: the right wing, the beijing olympics, he says that prohibiting our athletes from competing in china it easy, but wrong. our athletes have trained their entire lives for their competition, primed their abilities to peak in the games in 2022. if our athletes skip the games on millions of young americans at home i'd skip watching it and they are one of the most enduring demonstrations of the great qualities of human spirit on the world stage. he says the right answer is he economic and diplomatic boycott of the beijing objects. american spectators other than families and athletes and coaches should stay at home, venting us from contributing to the enormous revenues that the chinese communist party will raise from hotels and meals and tickets. american corporations that will send their customers and associates to the game -- rather than send the traditional delegation of diplomats, the white house should invite chinese dissidents and religious leaders and ethnic minorities to represent the u.s.. that from senator mitt romney, has call them today if you want to read it in the new york times. john, minnesota, democrat, good morning. caller: i wanted to respond to that fellow about the border patrol. he said that walls work. of course they will work where they are, but they just moved to the wall -- where the walls are not. saying that walls always work is nonsense. second of all, there is nobody in this country who eats meat, vegetables, fruit, or dairy on any given day that is not eating food that is picked, processed, packaged by illegal immigrants. or immigrants in general because many of them are illegal. third of all, we need workers. our nursing homes are closing down in minnesota because we cannot get enough workers. white people will not go to clean other people's butts. where we have a lot of immigrants in minnesota, they are saving the small towns. they are moving in and taking these areas where the towns have been shuttered and they are very great assets for our country and we need -- need to let in as many as we can and do it legally. that is all. host: that is johnny minnesota. we will stay in the land of 10,000 lakes. minnesota city, republican, good morning. t2 good morning. -- caller: good morning. i want to make a comment about senator wall. that actually works. host: earl park, indiana, independent, and -- good morning. caller: i wanted to ask a couple of questions. number one, why couldn't we just sent aid to mexico to take care of them down there because they do not look like they are too hungry? and they do not look underfed, they all have -- of the other thing is, when i called your program not too long ago, you guys cut me off and did not put my comments on. i thought you were a part of the public and not a part of big news? -- of fake news? host: you are on now. caller: does not blow them out of the water for coming here illegal? why can't we take care of them in mexico? you could have built a small country without money. why couldn't we take care of them right there in mexico. we are not part of it. we don't want to give up our country. the problem is, the heart of america, the patriots is strong, we are the majority, and they are doing anything to try and convince that we are not. and when americans start dying, then you are going to see real america stand up and it will be a bloody mess. host: this is sylvia in north carolina, republican, good morning. caller: yes, i want to know when they are going to start impeaching joe biden, kamala harris, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, and get obama out of the white house. because joe biden is not running this country. host: obama is not in the right house right now. -- in the white house right now. caller: he has, he goes in the back way. host: michael ian west virginia. caller: my policy is this, get rid of the filibuster. it will help both parties. we have been a democratic party -- country for 200 years. you can have one party have nine senators, the other have 41 senators and the 41 can stop every single bill. by getting rid of the filibuster will help both parties. wrote publicans -- republicans in power, to get the build script. until we get rid of the filibuster, we will be fighting each other and not getting anything accomplished whatsoever. get rid of the filibuster and our country will go back to what it used to be. both parties working together. host: when was the last time both parties were working together? caller: during the nixon years, they worked together a lot. president nixon. i voted for him, and i am a democrat. i was in vietnam then and i cannot vote at that time because i was 21. 1968, he did a lot of things for both countries. and also during the clinton years, was really good. both sides were together. you remember nugent rich, they work -- you remember newt ginger which they have done good for the past 20 years since including the bush, obama, trump, and now biden, we will not work together until we get rid of the filibuster and that is it. if we do not do that, it will be the same and it will continue to be the same. host: bernard is in north carolina, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention about the 42 states where republicans and i am sorry, but it is totally republican, are tackling the voting rights of americans in this country. it seems to me that we are coming off an election where the most people ever have voted and instead of salivating that and embracing it, we are trying to take away people's right to vote and restrict them coming out about and i want to mention -- one example, the state of texas, they have 22,000 hours researching their votes, they found 16 cases where people had lifted the wrong address, only 1600 do not take my word for it. please, look it up. -- only 16. it seems the greatest right we have is being assaulted by one party, i think we out to ask them what their reasoning behind that is. thank you. host: joe, independent, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i love c-span thank you for allowing us to hear people's opinions. i think it is important. my point is basically on the taxes, the trump tax policy, the gop policy, -- he was supposed to have them fill out the taxes. other lies that they said, how six present, -- 6%, they need to take response ability and pay this tax. as one of the caller said, until they do, get rid of the filibuster, and allow governors to govern, the gop, we have not -- you can see a ron johnson and the ignorance that this shows. host: they are on tv, on c-span and c-span2. caller: but it is not on national tv. these people should have the answer for what they do. and i understand your coverage. host: we are national tv too. caller: i know, i do not mean anything offensive about what i said. i'm just saying, the point will be, not enough people pay attention. i guess would be my point. i do apologize, i would never disparage c-span. host: we will keep doing what we can. massachusetts, republican, good morning. caller: i want to say is that one thing the democrats want to count every and vote. republicans only want to count votes from actual citizens. the black lives matter and antifa are attacking the country at destroy the country and no one wants to talk about it, or send the -- or say anything about it. they attacked anyone who disagrees with them, they try to cancel culture and it is ridiculous bid i'm a veteran, i have two silver stars and i cannot even be proud of my service. these people are ridiculous. host: why cannot you beat -- why can't you be proud of your service? i think we lost john. margaret in wisconsin, a democrat. good morning. caller: caller: my top policy issue is congress. i cannot understand, they make the laws so we cannot do anything unless they change the laws. yet, they have all the power no matter who we elect. all i hear on c-span is pedro coming from both sides, yet nothing seems to be working together. thank you very much. host: our last caller and today's washington journal, we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific. up to the senate health education labor and pensions committee, they are holding a confirmation hearing today for julie, president biden's nominee to serve as deputy secretary of the labor department, live coverage is beginning now. [indistinct chatter] announcer: we are live on capitol hill waiting for a confirmation hearing for deputy labor secretary nominee julie su. she will be testifying before the senate health education, labor, and pensions committee chaired by patty murphy. coverage will begin shortly. [indistinct chatter] chair murray: good morning. the senate health, labor, and pensions committee will come to order. we are holding a hearing on the nomination of california secretary of labor julie su to serve as deputy secretary of labor. senator burr and i will have an opening statement and then i will recognize senator padilla to introduce secretary su. after her testimony the senators will have five minutes each for a round of questions.

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Honduras ,Louisiana ,El Paso ,Texas ,Alabama ,Washington ,China ,Florida ,Illinois ,Whitehouse ,District Of Columbia ,California ,Virginia ,Fort Hood ,New Mexico ,Duncan Falls ,Ohio ,Oklahoma ,Netherlands ,Maryland ,Pennsylvania ,Capitol Hill ,Americans ,America ,Holland ,American ,Chuck Schumer ,Janet Yellen ,Brandon Judd ,John Rutherford ,Elizabeth Warren ,Cross Blueshield ,Marsha Blackburn ,Grover Norquist ,Hill Deb ,Julian Carter ,Jen Psaki ,Gore John ,Bernie Sanders ,