so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> a front row seat to democracy. >> here is a look at our live coverage today. at 10:00 eastern on c-span, education secretary testifies before a house appropriations subcommittee about the president's 2022 budget request for his department. at 3:00, two house subcommittees hold a joint hearing. on c-span2, the house of -- appropriations subcommittee on homeland security looks at tsa operations now and post-pandemic. that is at 10:00 eastern.

coming up in an hour, a report on the impact on covid lockdowns on states that took respective actions. michael lee with an in-depth look at the census and redistricting. ♪ host: almost four months to the day of the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol, the fallout continues. an arrest yesterday of a wisconsin national guard member on charges of participating in the riot. and an expected announcement today by a facebook review panel on weather former president donald trump should be further banned from or reinstated to the social media platform following his posts on the day of the attack. good morning, it is wednesday, may 5, 2021. cinco de mayo. this is "washington journal." our first hour this morning we'll ask you about the upcoming decision by that facebook panel. should former president trump be

reinstated on facebook. democrats use 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents and others, 202-748-8002. also send us a text that's 202-748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from. twitter, c-span wj and yes we are on facebook, facebook.com slash c-span. that review panel from facebook, by facebook is expected to make the announcement sometime around 9:00 eastern this morning. if you don't get through in the first hour, you can call us then. we'll lell tell you a little bit about that board that facebook has assembled to make that decision. not just for president trump but in other cases as well. here's the reporting this morning of the "washington post." their headline, facebook and trump are at a turning point in their long, tortured relationship. on january 6, they write, as an

angry mob stormed the u.s. capitol, president donald trump posted on facebook that his supporters should remember this day forever, quote, these are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is owe unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long he said in a post. in response, facebook did something it had resisted for years, banned trump's account indefinitely for inciting violence. twitter, youtube, and others, followed suit. the ban is the culmination of a long running and tortured relationship between the politician and the social media company. that relationship will hit a new inflection point on wednesday, today, when a facebook funded panel of experts will announce whether the social media giant must reinstate trump's account. the impending decision by the oversight board are less than one year old body that describes itself as an experiment in the regulation of online speech could be the most consequential decision ever regarding free

speech on social media, according to experts. it could also at-er the way social media companies treat public figures going forward. that decision expected by 9:00, around 9:00 eastern this morning. 202-748-8002 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and 202-748-8002, we'll play you some of the recent comments of mark zuckerberg, the founder and c.e.o. of facebook. let's hear first from president trump, former president trump recently on with sean hannity about the ban and what he calls cancel culture. >> you were canceled off twitter, can you imagine? canceled off twitter. canceled off social media platforms. now, you put out your presidential statements they go viral. people -- you know who misses you the most? the liberal media, the mob. they hardly ever see joe. there is nothing to cover there except covering when he falls down climbing the stairs. but, what about -- what is the answer? is the answer antitrust?

is the answer ending section 230? is the answer donald trump starts his own twitter, facebook, instagram? is that something you are considering? guest: i think all of that. i am getting a big word -- >> every time i do a release it's all over the place. it's better than twitter. much more elegant than twitter. twitter is very boring. a lot of people are leaving twitter. twitter is becoming very boring. when i started with twitter years ago it was like a failed thing. concept. media, platform. it was failed. and it became exciting. i think that had a lot to do with it to be honest t became very exciting. and now it's boring and it's no good anymore. people -- host: the former president on fox news with sean hannity. and since then he has launched a blog post site. here's the headline from reuters, trump launches to post ahead of his facebook ruling on

his ban. that ruling is set for -- to be announced at 9:00 this morning. let's hear from callers. joe first in indianola, iowa. hi, there, democrats line. caller: top of the morning, to you. host: top of the morning. caller: he should be banned. fool me once, shame on me. until me twice -- fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. him and the republicans, he's been guilty on everything they charged him with. he's had his accessors in the government, mitch mcconnell and the gang, let him loose. the man's a criminal. host: jerry, west virginia. republican line. caller: top of the morning. this is crazy. i was telling your screener a week ago i was a democrat. i have been a democrat all my life. and i have watched him.

if anybody thinks that joe biden got 80 million votes, 12 million more than obama, they are just plain crazy. the democrat party has went crazy. host: you just decided to be a republican last week? caller: last week. i went over and registered republican -- i have been a democrat all my life. host: jerry, i am going to assume you voted for former president trump in the recent election. caller: yes, i did. gnatter of fact he's only the second republican i ever voted for in my life. i voted on the second term of ronald reagan. host: what about our specific question this morning about the returning the former president to facebook. what are your thoughts? caller: well, anybody can see why was he ever banned? there is no reason to -- it wasn't only trump. look at all the conservatives they banned.

they are on a sweep. they are part of the democrat party, a right arm of the democrat party. that's all twitter and facebook is. host: jerry in west virginia, some political fallout from the january 6 attack likely for the conference chair for republicans liz cheney. steve scalise is backing elise stefanik's bid for house republican conference chair. she's campaigning in advance of liz cheney's ouster. this is a major development in the house republican leadership. from manu, stefanik's efforts to coalesce g.o.p. support behind the scenes has been bolstered. republican sources say, by mccarthy himself. the leader of the -- minority leader who has made it clear to members she would be a strong fit for the role. that likely change is set to happen possibly in a conference meeting next week. the house is not in session this week. out on their district work

period. we hear from larry in california. democrats line. caller: good morning. no, he should not be reinstated until he says joe biden won fair and square. that january 6 attack, all that did was help russia make us look bad. the 2016 election, he stole it. he got away with it. he had two impeachments. the republicans seem like they do not like all people, just like trump. the big guy is crazy. it comes down to education. i.t. 21, information technology for the 21st century versus guns. it's sad, our country's sad. no, don't give him anything back. keep him out. host: what about for future leaders? if an independent, private organization, private company like facebook can make this decision about this former leader, what does it say about their ability to control the posts of future political and

other leaders? caller: yes. if you attack our government, yeah, you should be banned from everything. if you say something about somebody, that's your opinion or say something about something, that's freedom of speech. but when you attack the government and -- we heard him on january 6 right there on the screen when he said i'm going to go down there with you. he never did. but these guys went to go hurt people. that was deadly force. he's lucky we weren't back in the days like kent state. they would have been shooting these people. host: california, independent line, andy. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't think that he should any way, shape, or form be able to be back on facebook. he's just -- he incited the most terrible situation we ever had.

to see the republicans -- to hear the republicans first condemn what he said and then no more than a week later retract, it's an embarrassment to see -- i have never seen a trial where the actual jurors were involved or discussing the case with the prosecutors or the defense counsel. it was an embarrassment. to think that -- the trial was even -- was even legitimate, i mean really. i mean you could have had a baboon, a lama, and a gopher representing the president and he still would have won with how

they just failed to give justice. host: the facebook oversight board will make their decision we understand this morning by around 9:00 eastern. we'll have that for you. back to the "washington post" reporting on the relationship between the former president and facebook. they write that for years critics asked facebook to ban trump, citing his frequent promotion of misinformation and extreme rhetoric. but the facebook chief executive mark zuckerberg long felt the public needed to hear what politician has to say as long as troubling comments fell short of violence. according to his public statements. he also said facebook shouldn't be in the role of making such consequential decisions and started to create plans for the board, oversight board in 2018. he was asked about the decision this time on january 6 to ban the former president from the cite and the recent house hearing at the end of march. here's mark zuckerberg.

>> i can't speak for everyone else, tv channels, radio stations, other apps i can tell you what we did. before january 6, we worked with law enforcement to identify and address threats. during and after the attack we provided extensive support in identifying the insurrectionists and remove posts supporting violence. we didn't catch everything but we made our service inhospitable to those who might do harm. when we feared he might incite former violence we suspended the former president's account. many people are concerned that platforms can ban elected leaders, i am, too. i don't think private companies should make so many decisions like this alone. we need an accountable process which is why we created an independent oversight board that can overrule our decisions. we need democratically agreed rules for the internet. host: comments on social media and on texas. send us a tex 202-748-8003. a tweet from rick here says this

about the liz cheney news. liz cheney tells the truth and g.o.p. wants her out. matt gaetz is on suspension of rape and he's on tour with the neanderthal looking women. g.o.p. has lost its way. liz in texas, do i believe in free speech. however you can't yell fire in a crowded room when there is no fire. the ex-president being a sore loser and still insisting the election was stolen from him is a lie against democracy. he's a sad little man who shouldn't be given a platform. i'm so tired of the lies. randy in michigan, facebook has a right to ban or allow whoever they like. as a private company. i would look at it as a company that is willing to put a fox in charge of the hen house then turn their back and say we had nothing to do with it. this one, yes, absolutely free speech. social media go hand in hand. if not they are guilty of censorship. they should fact check all democrats not just republicans. democrats make plenty of offensive and incendiary statements said william in

middletown, connecticut. the oversight board, the board that will make that decision today is a recent creation of facebook. and from their oversight board site he they say the social media platforms allow people around the world to connect. while this create many opportunities to unite, it allows us to see things that divide. they say they come from different backgrounds and cultures and have different beliefs. this diversity lies at the core of of the indid he ever. we are committed to making principleled decisions binding on facebook about important pieces of content and issuing advisory opinions on facebook, content policy. go to oversightboard.com. read that. take a look at some of the members part of the board. we'll show you some as we go to jim next in highland park, new jersey. democrats line. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i, too, am in favor of the ban

against number 45 himself. for obvious reasons. from the moment that he became president, and even before during the primaries, he proved to be a disgraceful candidate and subsequently a disgraceful president. of the united states. and because of his actions during the january 6 uprising, i call it uprising, insurrection and his inciting those who went to the capitol and stormed the capitol, he should be put on

trial for treason against the united states of america. host: republican line, san diego. good morning to janice. caller: good morning. i have so much i'd like to say. i'm listening to all these democrat callers and all of their flat out bias. ridiculous about trump when they overlook maxine waters and all of the other democrats with all of their outright calling for violence and destruction and mayhem. and i don't hear anybody outraged about one thing that the democrats ever do. all the lies and the bait and switch mr. moderate joe biden and people truly believe that

this man won this election? he couldn't get but 22 million viewers, 200 people to show up at his rally. he got 80 million votes? and people want to go there. you think that taking away someone's wife to -- right to freedom of speech is cool as long as it doesn't affect you. i have been put in, quote, jail over and over again because of my own personal thought and what i believe is true. and at the end of the day if it doesn't line up with the leftist ideas, they are putting no one else that i hear of in quote jail but conservatives. host: janice how long is the longest that facebook suspended your account? caller: 30 days. host: how did you get it back? what happens to get it back? how does that happen? caller: after 30 days they let you come back.

basically you don't have to do anything. you just have to wait out your 30 days. you can go on your page and you can see what people are commenting. they tell you what -- i put up a comment the last time that they put me in quote, jail, i'm a african-american woman and i ask black america how do they feel about the bait and switch and how joe biden lied? and you have black leadership groups that are now coming out with how he used the black votes. but -- host: when they put you in this jail, do they say specifically because your post said something -- caller: exactly what they say. yep. they put up the post and then they tell you that this is not, quote, facebook -- it's against facebook rules. i read things on the liberal pages and think that come out of liberal news and so forth, for instance, lebron james going

there with that police officer, that is an outright terrorist threat. you are threatening a police officer. host: let you go there. "washington journal" is right writhing about facebook jail. inside facebook jail, the secret rules that put users in the doghouse. facebook jail many users are serving time for infractions they don't understand. one was restricted after ranting about student dent. recent graduate posted anyone who is mad about loan cancellation was sad and selfish. sentenced three days without posting on facebook. alex, a freelance writer in brooklyn, got a similar ban after sharing a link to a story in smith sown january magazine about tribal new genie. a history teacher in oklahoma served 30 days after jokingly telling a friend, man, you are spewing crazy now. none of the three understand what they did wrong. if you use the term crazy, does that automatically get you banned, asked mr. barksdale.

the "wall street journal" writes after the plight of users caught in facebook's system for adjudicating content has reinforced the company's reputation for policing of its platforms. the problem which has been mounting for years is increasingly acute as lawmakers an the public focus on the vast powers social media holders hold over the flow of information. read that story at wsj.com. carol in florida. carol, go ahead. caller: first time caller. thank you for taking my call. host: glad to have you with us. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. first of all a man by the name john paul sullivan from utah was a member antifa. he was the one who was paid by cnn, $35,000, to go to the capitol and start taking videos.

he also was paid by msnbc. you can find it on the web. and nbc. i am banned on facebook also. and i think it's unfair because i thought we had freedom of speech in america. host: what was the reason they gave you, carol -- are you permanently banned? caller: they just said i said something that was not on facebook standard. something to that effect. i thought, gosh, i can't say anything. it wasn't even on my page. i liked somebody for what they said. and it was because of what they said that i got banned. host: do you think there should be no rules? they shouldn't have this oversight board? anybody should be able to say

whatever they want no matter how true or false or incendiary? caller: any kind of incitement of riots, even on twitter, they have some pretty bad actions on there with b.l.m. and the antifa. they talk about where they are going to go next. and i was in oregon once in portland. and antifa was there with all black outfits and they had bats with nails and screws in them and they were hitting cars, windows, and breaking them. i thought, oh, my gosh, i never want to go back to oregon again because of that. host: good to have you as a first time caller, carol. this is from yahoo! finance, about twitter, witter c.f.o., no changes to our thinking on trump's account. they say that don't expect real donald trump account on twitter to be back in action any time soon. there has been no changes to

anything we shared in the past around the former president's account. said the c.f.o. on yahoo! finance live on january 8 this year twitter famously handed out a permanent suspension of then president trump's widely followed account. the decision came in the wake of the uprising on little capitol hill which many believe was fueled by trump's comments on twitter. the c.e.o. and founder of twitter is jack dorsey, he, too, was part of that house hearing at the end of march and talked about how twitter handles the -- how they handle content on their site. >> we believe in free expression. we believe in free debate and conversation to find the truth. at the same time we must balance that with our desire for our service not to be used to sew confusion, division, or destruction. this makes the freedom to moderate content critical to us. our process to moderate content is designed to constantly evolve. we observe what's happening on our service, we work to

understand the ramifications and use that understanding to strengthen our operations. we push ourselves to improve based on the best information we have. much of what we are likely to discuss today are entirely new situations the world has never experienced before, and in some unique cases involve elected officials. we believe the best way to face a big new challenge is to narrow the problem to have the greatest impact. disinformation is a broad concept. we needed to focus our approach where we saw the greatest risk if we hope to have any impact at all. we chose to focus on disinformation leading to offline harm. three categories to start. manipulated media. public health, and civic integrity. many of you will have strong opinions on how effective we are in this work. some of you will say we are doing too much in removing free speech rights. some of you say we are not doing enough and end up causing more harm. both points are reasonable and worth exploring. if we woke up tomorrow and

decided to stop moderating content we would end up with a service very few people or advertisers would want to use. ultimately we are running a business. and the business wants to grow the number of customers it serves. enforcing policy is a business decision. different businesses and service also have different policies. some more liberal than others. we believe it's critical this variety continues to exist. forcing every business to behave the same reduces innovation and individual choice and diminishes free marketplace ideals. host: president trump's account on facebook was banned on january 6 for comments made on that day. the facebook board will announce today their decision to reinstate or continue the ban on the former president. that announcement expected around 9:00 eastern this morning. taking your calls and comments. should former president trump be reinstated to facebook

202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. others, 202-748-8002. fallout continue from the january 6 attack. this is "the washington post," wisconsin soldier the fourth service member charged in the riot. a soldier in the wisconsin national guard was charged monday in connection with the capitol riot january 6, becoming the fourth service member linked to the violent attempt to thwart the certification of joe biden's election as president. abram an associate were arrested monday in wisconsin and each charged with four counts related to the capitol breach. including violent entry or disorderly conduct and entering restricted spaces according to the justice department. markofski is a private first last listed in the army national guard. he is an infantryman assigned to the first battalion, 128th regiment. the four service members facing federal charges in connection with the capitol riot are all part-time troops.

your thoughts on social media. you can send us a text, 202-748-8003. one from james in walker, louisiana who says this. freedom to criticize government is the reason the founders gave us the right to free speech. your callers would be more comfortable in soviet russia. this one says if facebook continues to ban republicans will cry cancel culture, that must not apply to what mcyarte is doing to cheney says tim in ohio. tim in kentucky says lies are not free speech. the former president is not a regular citizen. his words have consequences. people follow dangerous to let the lies -- people follow dangerous to let the lies continue. steve in fort pierce, florida, says if to incite to cause societal and governmental chaos, facebook should ban itself. it's a communications network for destructive protest, hypocrisy. sam in wildwood, georgia, former president trump should absolutely not be reinstated to social media. he abused his right to post and

would only go back to more lies and hate speech. we all had enough of that. in lynchburg, virginia. next up is richard on our democrats line. caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: how you doing. host: fine, thank you. caller: i don't think president trump should ever be allowed to do anything concerning the government since he breached, him and his followers breached the capitol. that's just a disgrace. he ought to be outlawed for doing that. we need to get on -- we need to get off of trump and on to america because we got a lot to do. america's in pretty bad shape. we need to all come together, democrats and republicans, and for god's sakes get off all this talking about trump here and

trump there and forget him and we need to get on with america and straighten that out. there are so many things that are wrong in america that we need to go on and fix. we can do that. we are a democratic society. we can fix things. regardless what side of the aisle that we are on. we need to shake hands with each other and get on with the program of fixing america. and get off all this crap on tv and all about trump this, trump that. just forget him. we need to get on with the america. that's all i got to say. host: i appreciate that. thanks, richard. to michigan, debbie, independent line. caller: hi, i believe mr. trump should be banned. he's spreading lies and keeps

fueling this fire. it's not going to go away because he keeps spreading lies. if he can speak truth, then, yes. but not lies. thank you. host: massachusetts, andrew's on the republican line. hi, there. caller: good morning. first thing is, yes, donald trump should be reinstated. no one should be banned off these platforms. they are public. and if i'm not mistaken i do remember joe biden saying ed he'd like to take donald trump out behind the wood shed. and i recall maxine waters talking about going out in the streets and actually promoting riots. not promoting a protest. she definitively said she wanted people out there angry. now, how in the world is this country at the point where we are saying donald trump should be silenced? we have tv and video games with shooting violence all over the place. if we want to help people and

stop violence, let's stop ridiculous video games. i'm 42 years old and i grew up playing nintendo and atarry. are we real -- atari. are we really at the point where everyone is playing shooting games wearing a bunny outfit. that's where we stop violence. not donald trump. thank you. host: p.a., john on our democrat line. caller: i think it's ridiculous to ban the president of the united states like the other caller said. if you're not going to ban democrats like maxine waters and lebron james and all these other -- -- ayatollah khamenei sit there and say death to israel. you don't ban them. i want to know when the "wall street journal," c-span, and all you rest apologize for lying to the american people saying brian sicknick was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. that's a big lifmente it's not a

lie. i have seen it. there were widespread fraud in this election. they know that joe biden didn't win. there is no way they got 80 million votes and beat bram and hillary clinton. -- barack obama and hillary clinton. that's why the people are mad. james o'keefe from project veritas exposed all this with cnn they banned him. it's nothing but communist russia. it's nothing but state television. they want people to conform to this president and his lie that he won this election. and you know that he didn't. everybody knows he didn't. i don't know why we keep playing this game that joe biden's our president. he's not our president. he did not win legitimate. he's an illegitimate president. host: question for you this morning, should president trump's facebook account be reinstated. the decision will be announced by the facebook board today around 9:00 eastern. here's reporting from vanity --

"vanity fair" and the broader look at flicks and big tech, ron desantis, josh hawley are trying to get a 2024 leg up by attacking big tech. they write in this piece that shortly after donald trump's major social media accounts were banned, punitive measures enacted in response to him encouraging supporters to storm the u.s. capitol, florida governor ron desantis made his stance knows. the big tech oligarchy is a clear and present danger to free speech. now his state is on the verge of passing a bill he proposed that would fine social media companies for willful -- quote willfully deplatforming political candidates. the bill which passed the house and senate in florida last week in which desantis, seen as a 2024 presidential contender, is special the to sign would dole out penalty of $250,000 a day for statewide candidates, and $25,000 a day for other candidates. here's governor desantis talking

about that legislation. >> there wasn't a state in the union that ran a better election than florida last year, we still saw on the national scale how articles, candidates, and content had the thumb prints of this big tech executives all over them. look no further than the last several months of the election as coordinated, calculated efforts were undertaken to advance an increasing evident political agenda of the big tech companies. the problem is these companies are playing a significant role in the advancement of issues and candidates but do so without recording many of their efforts for what they are, political contributions. if i were to give something of value to a candidate or political committee, it would be a contribution. but big tech has been manipulating news content and designing algorithms yims to give the upper hand to their candidates of choice. they do so scot-free. again, euphemistically called content moderation. i think it's more political manipulation. that's why in florida we'll take action -- aim at those companies

and pull back the vail and make sure these guys don't continue to find loopholes and gray areas to live upped the law. under our proposal a technology company deplatforms a candidate for elected office in florida during election, a company will face a daily fine of $1200,000 until the candidate's access to the platform is restored. again, any floridian can deplatform any candidate they choose. simply unsubscribe. it's a right i believe belongs with the citizen. host: some florida politic news, governor's race, "new york times" reporting democrat announces challenge to desantis in florida, representative charlie chris, democrat of florida interert the race, becoming the first challenger. republican who raised his profile by shunning lockdowns during the pandemic and a leading contender for his party's presidential nomination in 2024. charlie chris served as governor of the state -- ran as a

republican in 2006. now running as a democrat. he's currently a democrat member of the house of representatives. our question for you this morning, should former president trump be reinstated to facebook. that announcement will be made later today by the facebook board. here's the poll @cspanwj if you want to post your thoughts. you can participate in the poll. here's where it stands. so far those saying yes, 26% or so. and 73.1% saying no. the former president should not be reinstated to facebook. richard's in west virginia. st. al bans, west virginia. republican line. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: i can, go ahead. caller: my answer is i really don't care. i think there is a bigger issue here which is the fact that especially from the democratic side, these companies are being pressured to decide what is true and what is not.

and this is essentially they have become government agencies and the government is saying what the truth is. read 1983 and then you'll see where the government is telling the people what the truth is. and this is a very dangerous thing for this country. as far as these facebooks and twitters and all that stuff. i think they need to be treated as platforms. that's how you call t they need to be broken up the way at&t was back in my lifetime. they need to be broken up. quickly the january 6 thing, that's terrible. it was nothing compared to the riots that were insurrection that took place all over this country, cities burning, people's lives ruined, 20 to 40 people killed. $2 billion to $4 billion worth of damage and the democrats are

going about the january 6. which was a few people. they covered it the same way they covered the other riots, they would have said the january 6 thing was -- host: hannah in louisville, kentucky. nanna, louisville, kentucky. democrats line. caller: good morning. i want to speak with opposition to some of what you're doing. i hope you give me an opportunity. as i see we are talking about the former guy, he's not the president anymore. the president of the united states of america is joseph r. biden. he's the president of the whole of america not part of it. whether they like it or not. when the other guy was the president, i had to accept it. he was my president. i have an issue with c-span because c-span is a gatekeeper. every time you talk about the former guy, then you owe the same amount to barack obama. barack obama was the president,

he's building a library in chicago. why don't we hear about that? i watched the show on frontline last night about the issues in east africa. why don't you cover things like that and how the last four years under the former guy they had nothing to say about all of the oppression going on in east africa. i am getting more and more disappointed with c-span because c-span is -- this is propaganda. with the other guy i guarantee you need to have a couple of scholars on there to talk about how the george orwell's book "1984" relates -- host: we hear your criticism. and welcome your criticism. i will say that the reason we -- we cover public policy of all sorts. we certainly cover a lot of free speech issues. this is a major free speech issue. thank you for your call this morning. to david, independent line in

oakdale, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. i think that trump should never have been kicked off facebook. i don't think facebook or twitter should ever have the power to censor anybody. it's a public forum. and if people want to fact check what people are saying, they should do that. and i don't think trump was lying about anything. i think he tried to bring out a point. and i think if the democrats really want to buy votes and allow certain people to vote for them and nobody's common sensors them -- censoring them, i think trump should be allowed to get votes any way he can. it was good for the goose it was good fored gander. if that's how politics is being being played, what does it have to do with facebook or twitter? host: for what purpose does page this morning of "usa today." biden aims for 70% vaccinated by

july 4. the president wanting 70% of u.s. adults to have at least one covid-19 shot by july 4. a goal he announced on tuesday. with steps to vaccinate harder to reach populations in preparations for vaccinating teenagers. "usa today" writes about 56% of adults have received at least one shot. they also write in here that the u.s. actually may be closer to a vaccine tipping point. they say it may not take true herd immunity, writes "usa today," to see dramatic drop in covid-19 cases. some researchers say an additional 30 million to 40 million first shots could be enough for the united states to reach a vaccine tipping point and containment of the disease caused by coronavirus. some comments on social media on our question this morning about the facebook future for former president donald trump. donny in louisville says this. president trump should have free speech rights. told league protestors to go to

the capitol and peaceful let your voices be heard. not storm the capitol. should be re-established on facebook. this one tweets, what were the specific comments trump made on january 6 that got him permanently banned from facebook? seems like social media just can't tolerate free speech. and can't tell the difference between unpopular speech, which is protected by the first amendment, and inciting violence. james, independent in new mexico says, once he serves his time and if he is rehabilitated, then, sure. but his words should be carefully monitored if he gets the privilege. maggie in fresno, california, if everyone would stop using facebook, twitter, etc. for a while, they would change their minds. no freedom of speech except for liberals on motion social media hit their pocketbook. i have not been on for months and don't miss it. in louisiana, tony, republican line. go ahead. the chair: hi. good morning. host: good morning. caller: i'm not opposed to our

current president, joe biden. he was fairly elected. and i go along with that. but i did not -- i was not a biden supporter. i supported donald trump. i still think they did dirty, jack dorsey need to remember that it was -- if it were not donald trump, he wouldn't have have the users he has. he made that service famous. he was the most famous twitter user in history. he took that service when it wasn't that popular and made it popular. and to take your number one twitter user and treat him the way they did is disgraceful. and dorsey ought to remember that. they should get on their knees and thank donald trump and ask his apology for how they mistreated him.

it's bad enough that he was a good twitter user. he was the president of the united states. how you could do that to any former president or current president is just unspeakable. host: tony in louisiana. billy long, congressman from louisiana, on the oversight energy and commerce committee i should say, their hearing in late march, asked facebook's mark zuckerberg if he would stand by the decision of the oversight board on whether former president donald trump should be reinstated on facebook. >> as a way to help hold facebook accountable. they are currently looking at facebook's decision to remove president trump's facebook account. if the oversight board in terms of facebook should have left president trump's account up or leave it. >> congressman, we'll respect the decision of the oversight board. and if they tell us that former president trump's account should be reinstated, then we will

honor that. host: back to your calls and comments. to columbus, georgia, on your democrats line. kenneth. you are on the phone. are you on the air with c-span. you're on "washington journal." caller: thank you. i appreciate you-all having me on the phone. listen, i believe that donald trump should be reinstated. i believe also that words have power. i believe that there's always three sides to any story. and that's your side, my side, and the truth. the problem of it is a lot of people get distorted with that. and i agree with the previous caller, couple of calls ago, who says we need to work together. and i also believe that he

should be monitored. but at the same time everyone has rights for free speech. that's my comment. host: ok. appreciate that. mack in tallahassee, florida, good morning. caller: hey, good day there. host: you're on, go ahead. caller: ok. thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. i believe that speaking for donald trump, i think as a businessman, since twitter is a business and facebook is a business that he should really not even want to be part of that business. and i facebook, if they are going to kick him off in the first place, that donald trump would be the same yesterday,

today, and tomorrow. what's going to stop him from kicking him off again? pretty much it. host: ralph in las vegas. on the republican line. hi. good morning, ralph in las vegas. you with us? we'll hear from jean in detroit. democrats line. caller: good morning. i just -- i just want to say that i think that he should not be reinstated. and there are several reasons. first, he is an enemy of the state. and more importantly he's an enemy of the word of god. he has all the characteristics of the devil. he lies, he's full of pride, he demonizes people that he feels are not loyal to him. and he knows that he shouldn't be deceiving people. i feel that we really need to

reinstate the sabbath day as a holy day. where no businesses are open. and people can learn what the word of god says. we need to pray for spiritual leaders who will truly teach us. thank you. host: ahead of the expected announcement today by the facebook oversight board, the former president announced a new blog on his cite. writing about that is "politico" this morning in her they hadline, why trump's new blog could lead to more social media taketowns. they say former president donald trump launch add new blog tuesday to get his message out to users. a task that's been complicated by his bans from facebook, 2013, and other social media platforms. the move could actually also lead to more takedowns of his remarks online. most major platforms prohibit users from circumventing their suspensions by turning to alternate accounts to put up posts. those rules prompted twitter and facebook to take action earlier this year against post these

said sought to skirt around trump's january suspensions, including ones by his campaign contract and his daughter in-law laura trump. now trump has launch add webpage making it easier for users to post his remarks verbatim to both facebook and twitter. it could lead to more run-ins with the social media policies sharing content from trump's new site from the desk of beyond j. trump is permitted as long as the material does not earwise -- otherwise vie light twitter rules. chris on independent line. go ahead. caller: hello, how you doing this morning. host: fine, thank you. i -- caller: i personally think that donald trump is not a devil. he's not -- he's not like evil or nothing like that. i mean if he didn't give a crap about this country, he wouldn't have stepped down from his

trillion dollar company to be able to, you know, run for this country and stuff like that if he didn't care. that's all i got to say pretty much. host: jeffrey, woodbridge, virginia. next up. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. to answer the question, my opinion is no. this isn't about free speech. it's about speech that is damaging and incliting -- inciting as we saw on january of. i think -- 6. i think more importantly people talk about the first amendment and free speech. the first amendment protects congress from making laws against free speech. those rights are not absolute, either. the supreme court put limits on those. you can't scream fire in a crowded theater. things like that. and also you shouldn't be able to incite violence. that's exactly what we saw on january 6. and now you have -- you just

mentioned it, trump launching a new blog. obviously he has the ability to speak. he can go on fox news. can he go on oan or any of the other cites sites and say anything he wants. people who advocate free speech also don't talk about the second part of that, which is accountability. they don't want to be held accountable for whatever they want to speak. you talk about things like cancel culture, look at liz cheney. she's being canceled by the republican party because she doesn't endorse the big lie. the republican party is really in danger of -- if they are now choosing to believe things like the big lie, that this election was stolen. like you had a previous caller say ridiculous claims by project veritas, which is a have i particular cue luss outlet that no one should believe, this is the state of the country now. it's a litmus test for republican members of congress and the senate. and even state and local officials. if you're going to endorse the big lie that the election was

stolen, i hate to break it tourks it wasn't. it was a free and fair election. even trump's cyber security force and d.o.j. both said it, then you can't run for office. this is scary territory that we are wading into where people are endorsing lies over election results because they don't like the results. host: that's jeffrey in virginia. mentioned liz cheney reporting this morning that the g.o.p. conference chair could be challenged next week by other republicans with reports that both steve scalise and minority leader kevin mcy are backing elise stefanik in that potential matchup next week in the republican conference this morning. this morning on cnn brianne why tweeting this, just like liz cheney, i believe in telling the truth. georgia lieutenant governor jeff duncan says, any republican talking about the election fraud issues that have been debunked is not leadership. it only shows you are able to take commands from donald trump. rich in marion, ohio, on the

independent line. go ahead. caller: yeah. great conversation. i think as we think about free speech and lies, it gets really interesting on being able to keep our doctor or health care costs are going to go down and whether they should be protected as free speech. if they lie about it. it seems like different presidents have our country first and some don't. it seems like we try to protect our country and incite riots. got to remember 9/11 was hit two times, first with trying to take the building down, and we caught them. second time they won. third time right now we have a president that's inciting riot by letting illegals come in our southern border. that's illegals was what we got trouble the time 9/11 happened. i'll hang up and listen to your answer. host: lawrenceburg, missouri, is next. we hear from howl.

caller: yeah. this is wilhelm. i just want to let you know that donald john trump, people need to stay away from fox news and they need to stay off there and stay off there then we will have -- we will be on the right side to listen to listen what people have to say. biden, he doesn't lie. trump, i know this is freedom of speech, also i like that coffee cup. c-span. c-span is number one. host: thank you so much. i think you can go on our website -- i don't know about that one but you can buy a number of our coffee cups at c-span.org/shop. you can find it on the website.

the conservative social media site partlyer was reinstated back in apple. by apple. apple reinstates parler the app after review. a parler said it worked to put in place systems that will better detect unlawful speech. a tweet from senator ted cruz last night. the senator having dinner with the former president. a great dinner tonight with president at march alaga, he's in great spirits. we talked about working together to reretake the house and senate in 2022. darell in new york, democrats line. caller: yes. i say no, that they should not reinstate him. i totally agree with jeffrey from virginia. he absolutely, i said no, did you get that? he lied thousands of times. he incited that riot on january

6. and all those people supporting him, do they realize all the money they are sending to him he's pocketing it. he never gave anything away. he's such a failure it just drives me crazy that the people still support him. especially congress members and senators. i guess they do not love this country. host: this is ravel in south haven, massachusetts -- excuse me, mississippi. go ahead. caller: yeah. i say no. but there is a part of me that asks the question, isn't that why he lost this election bigtime? bigger than anything that they expected? exactly. because he's running his mouth. let him talk. he ain't got nothing to say. no one believes what he said.

the majority of the american people know who he is. what he is. why he is what he is. let him talk. that is exactly why the turnout against republican party and donald john trump was so huge. let him talk. he's an idiot. so what. let him talk. like he got something different to say than he used to say. that's it. host: an opinion piece in the "washington post" by david ingatius. russia's plot to control the internet is no longer a secret. russia's campaign to control the internet isn't just a secret intelligence gathering, it's a goal proclaimed by russian president putin as a key element of the kremlin's foreignpolicy. read more at "washington post."com. ben in chester, pennsylvania. on our democrats line. go ahead, ben. caller: i say no, he should not be let back on the air with facebook. nor with any other legitimate

network because what he's saying is sputing violence and anti-democratic feelings around the country. our country is in worse shape than i ever seen it before. i got a criticism about c-span. c-span is a great network. giving people choices what to say. but if you start letting people speak violence like donald trump, you might as well let white superiors come on like ku klux klan, the bugea lao boys. even the black panther party organization. you going to let them on because they know what they project. and c-span was one of the great -- it still is. one of the greatest network where people can get on and speak their opinion. but not when they saying stuff like these other organizations.

sputing things against race and other people culture, black and jewish people. c-span, you are a great network, but you will lose that ability that you have by letting these people come on and voice opinions that they recite what trump is sputing now. host: we appreciate and welcome your criticism. more of the program ahead here on "washington journal." coming up next, we'll be joined by vivian ho, she's the chair of health economics for rice university's bakers institute. she'll talk about her research into the cost and impact of various state lockdowns across the country this past year. later, we'll dig into the recent census numbers. the 2020 census and impact how congressional seats are apportioned. that conversation with michael

>> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend, saturday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral history, oliver recalls his time as a u.s. navy crewmember in vietnam. saturday at 8:00 p.m., the american car culture and films of the 1970's university of dayton professor john, sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral history, charlotte on her experiences with the u.s. air force during the vietnam war, sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on a real america, the 1972 film, a time for peace, documenting president nixon's trip to china, the first ever by an american president. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american artifact, we visit san francisco to hear about the story of chinese in san francisco.

watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> here's a look at our live coverage today. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, education secretary nagel cardona testified before a house appropriations subcommittee about the president's 2022 budget request for his department. at 3:00 p.m., two how subcommittees will establish rules that will govern activities. on c-span2, the house appropriations subcommittee on homeland security said tsa operations both now and post pandemic with the agencies acting administrator. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest is vivian ho, professor ho is health economics chair at rice

university of charlotte james a. baker institute and director of the baker institute for public policy. good morning and welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you very much. host: the field of health economics, what is that cover? guest: it covers a lot of things. we think about economics as resource allocation, scarce resources, health economics is about the issue in the health sector, it is different from what we think about a natural competitive market because you add the large participation of government, plus more than half of the consumers have health insurance, so you have a lot of additional actors on top of that in terms of adverse election, a large government programs like medicare and medicaid. host: we will talk about your report, but broadly about the health economic impact of the past year, the covid-19

pandemic. we look specifically at one of your reports released at the end of 2020, december 16th, state restrictions on -- in the, 19 death rate. the baker institute, they are at rice university, why did you undertake this study? guest: this is a study that is different from the other ones that i have been doing it. i have done an interview with wallethub early in the pandemic, i would say april, when they were asking experts for advice on how to open up safely. one of the people who had read my report in houston as a strategic consultant named michael seleka -- michael and he constructed the data you see in this report in a way most economists would not think of and he had the graph and he showed them to a doctor and the doctor said, you need to get

this out. he contacted me out of the blue and said, look at these graphs. i thought they were striking that i thought i had to put a report out on them. host: one of the graphs, one of the figures you looked at with the correlation between states that lockdown and the death rate in the seven day average death rate and this -- define for us what we are seeing in this line that goes through the end of november i believe as it rises. what are we saying in terms of states that are lockdown and the death rate? guest: wallethub, the first time they measured the openness of every state to economy, they did similar reports nine different times through october, but the lines are essentially the same. for example, you take the state of openness of each state on may 5 and you correlate that, that

is an index that runs from 0 to 100 and you correlate that with the daily death per million on every single day observed through early march through, i believe, we ended up in november. and you look at the correlation between the openness in states and that deli -- daily deaths per million due to coronavirus and would you find is that early on, the states that were more open had lower death rates and at first, that sounds strange, but when you think about it, the governors were responding to the amount of the current -- consequence of coronavirus they were seeing in their own localities. new york had extremely high death rates at the start of the pandemic and so had little openness. they locked down severely.

at the start, you see that the most open states had the lower death rates, but that is -- that correlation starts to reverse around may and it turns out by july, you are at a correlation of 0 and after that, there is a positive correlation that you will see in the graph. in other words, there becomes a point in time where those early restrictions actually lead to lower death rates and those lower death rates left out away from july all the way through the end of october. it seems that at first, it is the number of deaths driving the lockdowns, eventually, both early lockdowns lead to saved lives several months further down the road. host: did your research and find out, such as the sturgis motorcycle rally, but there were others, incidents that states

did not lockdown at these incidents happened that caused a spike in the debt curve in that state. -- death curve in that state. guest: we did this all un-funded. we did not have the resources to track those incidents. my guess is that you would see them if he started looking more closely at the graphs for the different states. host: for the conclusions your report came to on the reporting of the state lockdowns and death rates, say, by shutting down large portions of the economy, lockdowns were accompanied by the failure of many businesses and a massive increase in unemployment. while the entire country was affected, low income and middle income workers have been as proportionately impacted. why have those workers been disproportionately impacted? guest: when you look at our

lower income workers, a lot of them are in the service sectors, the ones working in restaurants and bars, working at our movie theaters, at our baseball and football stadiums. those were the people who had the frontline jobs that disappeared. other people had fought my jobs and stayed, but lower income workers did not have jobs that were amenable to work from home. host: to go back to graph and tell us about the graph in terms of the relationship between a state of short openness and unemployment. guest: right. what we did see is when you look at the severity of the lockdown, the severity of the lockdown is associated with a higher unemployment rates down the line. now, i do want to caution people in terms of interpreting some of these numbers because what we do not know is how much of that lockdown, how much of the effect

of the lockdown is the true state regulation that led to the increase in unemployment and how much of it is due to greater fear in the local population, which then would lead governors to feel that they are more -- have more leeway in imposing a large lockdown, but that greater fear can also can lead people to decide to behave safely. i think there is a high likelihood that that increased fear was what drove the economic activity that boosted unemployment rates rather than necessarily the actual government intervention. host: we are talking about the cost and impact of color lockdowns across the country. our guest is professor vivian ho, health and economics chair

at rice university and one of the researchers and writers looking at the same issue. we welcome your calls and comments, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. what do you see in -- are some of the most effective ways that states have used lockdown their states? guest: wallethub ranks the highest score for producing openness of the state to restaurants and bars and those are situations where people are indoors, not wearing masks, potentially close to each other, so that is the highest chance of respiratory droplets being exchange with someone infected. but you have -- that is one of

the more striking things, there is disagreement in terms of what happens in terms of opening schools, statewide. schools that have excellent ventilation and a lot of room to space out students will be in better shape than some of our schools here in lower income areas of houston that do not have modern day ventilation, but there are other things in terms of guidance for assisted living homes and nursing homes that could be quite effective. that was early on in the pandemic and we now know that we have gotten more vaccines to those locations, so the story has changed there. host: what are some of the unintended consequences of the lockdowns? guest: some of the unintended consequences, it is interesting that it has been only recently that the cbc has relaxed its -- the cdc has relaxed its guidance

on wearing masks outdoors and i remember having great concern, we needed to have those protests regarding the death of george floyd early on in the pandemic, but there were a lot of researchers that were concerned about what that would mean in terms of the spread of the virus, but interestingly, there have been other studies of that and when you looked at the timing of the protests a different cities, you did not see a correlation between that and an increase in the spread of the virus. there's a lot of outdoor things that probably could have done safely and we shut down completely. you know, we shut down the entire baseball season completely. and maybe we could have figured out how to do that in a safe manner so we could have had some economic activity that would have kept people going. host: i want to ask you about education and this question come from an opinion piece in the wall street journal. you pay a high price for covid protection says the opinion

writers. the cost include reduced schooling, reduced economic activity, increased substance abuse, more suicide, more loneliness, delayed cancer diagnosis, delayed child vaccinations, increased anxiety, lower wage growth, travel restrictions, reduced entertainment choices, and reduced opportunity for building friendships. in a 2020 study for -- they estimate that the loss to lifetime income for individual students will be 6% -- assuming schools will be closed for the equivalent of 77% a year. do you think that loss of income and that gap in education will be something that lingers quite a bit for a kid coming out of secondary and high school in particular? guest: yeah, i think the greatest concern is the increase in inequality in educational

attainment. some of the data is showing that the higher income -- children in higher income families and middle income families that can stay at home and had excellent access to internet, internet access, they did just fine and some of them preferred staying at home, which i found interesting. it is lower income students, when you do not have wi-fi, you do not have the computers and technology and you do not have the assistance to figure out all of this, i think there were some families, and there were a lot of nonprofit organizations in school districts that stepped up to try to get this to work, thank goodness they did. they cannot take care of everybody, there were students who did not tune in to school at all and we have lost them. i think fortunately, we have a large increase in funds that have done two different school districts around the country and i am wondering how they are going to handle that money if they are going to direct it

toward those students who had the educational losses. that would be the most appropriate thing to do, but i am sure they are going to do it. host: bob in logan, utah. the morning, you are on with professor vivian ho. caller: thank you for letting me call in. i would like to know where we are looking to get the herd immunity. they are not seeming to do it. what do you think about if a third had their shots and open everything up and still people who have many days to do your shots and get -- it costs us money, but anyway, thank you for

letting me share my idea. host: vivian ho, any thoughts? guest: i cannot relate to mr. logan's concerns about this issue -- i can relate to mr. logan's concerns about this issue. some are concerned that we will not reach herd immunity. we initially heard that it will be 70% and now i believe that they are talking about 85% because there are concerns about a variant developing that can eventually escape the vaccine. in terms of reopening, in favor of that argument, we know that vaccines are 90%-90 5% of active, at least the ones in the u.s.. we know from cdc studies that it appears that those who are vaccinated, it is about 90% effective in terms of preventing them from even carrying the virus and transmitting it to others.

i see some arguments and the color's argument that most of us are protected, it is not 100%, but it is close and we can open up schools, people with strong immune systems can go about in their daily lives. the negative side of that is when people think about the health care cost, which is what disturbs me because every person who gets covid and requires hospitalization, we are talking about $10,000 -- $10,000 in terms of expenses and potentially higher. when they go to the hospital, it is either the people with their type of health insurance, the insurer will have to raise the premium because of the additional cost or it will be passed on to the county government and then we will have to pay for it in terms of higher taxes when they are cared for. it is a lot of additional costs that i would like to avoid. it is cheaper to get a vaccine then to deal with a hospitalization. host: we read a story earlier, the headline on washington

times, lied and wants 70% of adults to get one passing by july 4. bradley from kentucky. independent line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to thank c-span for having a guest on. we have to understand how catastrophic these lockdowns have been for us. this idea to even do this came from china. a lockdown is not a medical term. it is nowhere in medical history. it is a police term. we have to start asking questions about who the victims of this have been as soon as everyone said it was a bad idea, which statistics seem to fall now, but once everybody said that, we have to look at the victims, i think the biggest victim has been kids, our kids. they do not have a voice to advocate for them. we have set them back so far and we set them back so hard.

another example i was reading about, special education group meeting at our class and it said from the time that they left when the lockdown started the time they came back, one of the individuals have lost their speech ability, which mean they had regressed, their education and social ability had regressed . the individual no longer has the ability to communicate verbally. to amplify that out into the country and this has been a tragic, catastrophic mistake and the more we realize it, the better we learn from it and think -- and thank you to the guest. host: has states learn anything? -- have states learned anything? have they learned how to do it better next time? guest: i think they have.

some of these approaches of closing non-essential businesses , i do not think you needed to do that. if you have a clothing store where there are not that many customers and everyone is wearing a mask, that is perfectly fine to stay open. we have some outbreaks that occurred in grocery stores, but i think that is a small proportion of the total number of outbreaks compared to restaurants and bars, which are much worse. in terms of what the caller is saying, i agree that there are a lot of students that suffered from the pandemic, but you have to weigh that in terms of the findings of the report. they saved lives many months down the road and so what it turned out, the lockdowns that happened in may where the most effective in terms of saving lives, the lockdowns that have been later on were effective,

but not as strong. you have to weigh that against what happened in terms of schools. and in terms of special education, that is a shame in terms of the story that bradley told. we also know -- in texas, it is frustrating because we had a huge problem with the special ed for the last several years and there have been federal oversight saying we need to fix the problem there, but articles coming out this week saying we have not fixed the problem. that is why we need to resources directed, that the federal government has sent to us. host: vivian ho is one of the three authors of the report, the state restrictions and the covid-19 death rate at baker institute. silver spring, maryland. caller: good morning to you and your guest. i wanted to say first, two comments, one is that i was really suspicious that this virus, whether it was more

severe in some places and less in others, but i thought also, efforts were used to get rid of the king, donald trump, so you put us in a mask. to weaken his presidency. nonetheless, i want to address that the mask has been very dangerous because in a mask, it cuts off your blood-oxygen absorption and for children, it is very dangerous to cut off their oxygen to their blood, blood-oxygen absorption and i wanted to say that god gave us nostrils so we can inhale oxygen, exhale carbon, so the mask is very bad. if we have a lot of pollution in this country and they are cutting down trees everywhere,

trees finds the air, but how do we get good air, we have -- if we have a mask on. that is my only comment. i thank you. host: did your part look at the efficacy of masks in states that relocked down? -- that were locked down? guest: that is an excellent question. we did not look at the efficacy of masks compared to other actions, but they are included in the index. to the extent that they were in the index, they worked to say why. this is a virus that transmitted by respiratory droplets, that is what the scientists have told us at a mask is most effective in preventing that. i agree that it is inconvenient to wear a mask. i tried jogging and it is really hard. there has been no medical evidence that shows that it leads to a drop in blood oxygen level. even though it is uncomfortable,

it does not affect blood oxygen levels and as a matter of fact, there are nuisance -- there are nurses and physicians that won them four months -- that have won them for months. we do not have to wear them outside as long as we are not in close contact with people for a long time who might be carrying the virus. host: allawi, larry on the republican line. good morning. -- larry on the republican line. caller: there were three young children on fox news, which i know is the devil excellent news network, and they were saying how hard it was -- is the devil's news network, and they were saying how hard it was to get an education and they said it was a 4th, 6th greater and the 4th greater was more concerned -- grader four result

and she feels like she has lost a whole year of education and she will not be able to get in a school without going to a junior college first. there was another young lady who was in 6th grade, she was still doing what she considered ok, but her two young brothers who are doing well are both feeling. -- failing. this older generation on generation. secondly, major league baseball and all the players in the dugout's masks whatsoever, watch professional basketball, all of the high paid people like you and others, you do not have to follow the rules they give us. if you listen to biden, he says one thing and the cdc says another. who do you believe in all of this? host: vivian ho, do you want to

respond? guest: there are a lot of important comments. first of all, baseball, outdoors, that is fine. i have not followed their protocols, the nba was extremely careful, so they were doing regular testing and if we had, i am still appalled that we do not have -- michael at harvard had been promoting passage of that-a-state coronavirus, if we had that for the entire population, we would not have -- the nba had all of the resources to do the testing. in terms of the children, -- in terms of texas, i thought we did a relatively good job in terms of students who have been allowed to come back to school since last fall.

it was up to the option of the schools and school districts on how to design this. it has worked pretty well. what i find that fascinating thing about this is that there are still huge numbers of schools, students, and families who have chosen to keep their kids at home because they are still afraid of their children going to school and getting the virus. it is a personal decision and not a decision by the state in terms of forcing those children to stay at home. it is very unfortunate that there are some children who feel left behind, that they feel left behind by the online teaching system. i have had to do it this year and believe me, it is not fun and i have college students who are more mature than the elementary school students, so i can sympathize with the teachers as well. the biden administration is

moving towards having all kids back in prison in the fall and the sooner we get there, -- in a person in the fall. they may start the school year earlier next year and i hope they do that. host: how difficult was it for you to do the research on this and not get pulled into the political arguments on opening and lockdowns and things like that? guest: that is the advantage of working at the baker institute. when secretary baker agreed to lend his name to the institution, he wanted the research to be nonpartisan. what that means is that my colleagues and i, you will hear us if we are talking on a daily basis, we have people who are extremely liberal, we have people in the center, and we have people who are very conservative. we will talk about that, but we care most about is getting out objective research to the public.

because, we have the talents in terms of analyzing complex data, thinking about access to all of the regulatory issues and thinking about them and that is what is important to us. host: there is a headline in the washington beacon which -- some religious gatherings early on in the pandemic caused outbreaks and wound up going, number of cases in the states went up to this supreme court -- supreme court, do you look at that at all? guest: in the wallethub index, i do not believe -- that is a good question. i do not think they assigned a metric to a religious gatherings. they did say restrictions on large gatherings. i think their notion was that these large church services would have been included in that category.

host: is a too general to say that businesses have learned -- is it what are too general to say that businesses have learned lessons to vivid -- to commit -- to pivot. any businesses had to retool what they do because of the pandemic, in general, is that the way businesses look here a year and a month into the pandemic? guest: i think some businesses pivoted quite cleverly in terms of the restaurants. you see in houston, there are many restaurants that have outdoor patios. the quality of the service in terms of their pickup and how you can order online has improved. that is where they work well. i find other things, i find target took a while, or walmart. i remember trying to order online from them at the start of the pandemic and the system kept crashing.

i felt a whole basket to check out and i could not check out. things have improved. it has taken a lot of time. when you think about medicine, in terms of health care, at the start of the pandemic, all 1% of physicians were telemedicine, and now we are 30%. that is a change that will change health care going into the future. host: nancy in pennsylvania, democrats line. -- caller: good morning. i want to say that reacted in a way that we had to because things were out of hand. we cannot take one business and say, you do not have very many people, maybe you can stay open. we needed to curb this pandemic and we needed to wear masks and if you say, well, you know, it is not mandatory or it is not

necessary, even when it was -- when the outbreaks and hospitals were so full you could not contain, they were out in the halls and things, people did not want to wear masks. and they still -- we do not know who has their shots out there now and their vaccines for covid and who still does not want to wear masks. when the lockdowns happened, they held and what is our it is to wear a mask. come on. come on, america. i think we have to do what we have to do at the time. and the quicker, the better. it wasn't even quite quick enough and lockdowns did save lives and in pennsylvania here, we are still having in our county, blair county, higher numbers.

we are the top again in -- and our hospitals are filling up again. we do not know how long these vaccines are going to last and with people refusing vaccines still, i just say, when we are told to do something for our country to get back to normal, i think it is a good reason to. people in america do not seem to take it serious enough and mask, i cannot be -- believe people complain about that. guest: i agree with nancy's sentiment. i do not think it is hard to wear a mask given the circumstances of how dangerous this virus is and how it is transmitted through respiratory viruses. i wish the data i had was maybe

-- and your willingness to wear a mask. as the caller said, it has become politicized and that is unfortunate. i wrote an op-ed many months ago , fortune magazine had a good article about this about how the top fortune 500 companies stepped up at the beginning. for example, in seattle, cosco make sure that there was a way to get ppe manufactured quickly and get it to the health care providers. all sorts of moves like that. why did our major companies not step up early before the politicians stepped in and say, we need everyone to wear a mask? instead, it has been this case of, oh, we want to make sure our customers are happy. we -- if we have leadership that is a-political, maybe we would be in a different place. host: republican line. caller: good morning.

ms. ho had one concern, the high cost of each covid case. i think she referred to $10,000. that is also my concern. since president biden has stopped the construction of the wall, we have already detected hundreds of cases of covid that have gotten through and our border patrol, they are so overwhelmed and some of these people get out and get sent around throughout the united states and that is a concern of i think every citizen no matter what political party you are affiliated with. what is ms. ho's concerns about that? guest: so, the border issue as a separate issue which unfortunately, i am not an expert on and i wish my colleague at the baker institute, tony, were here to talk about it.

it is a concern in terms of more people coming in who have covid. my understanding from what i have read is that they are being tested. the ones that are running through ice and the formal process are being tested and let's hope that when these other families have an opportunity that they do get testing as well. i have to say, we have not heard about people -- that much about the testing apparatus that i will have to say, it is really good in houston right now. there are places you can schedule online that you can walk right up and get a test and you get the test results the next day first thing in the morning. to the extent we can make use of that, it is a good thing. let's hope that our government leaders can settle the issue at the border. host: the washington examiner

coverage of your baker institute report has a headline that says, studies suggest that lockdown costs have outweighed benefits. do you agree with a headline that that is the gist of your report? guest: i disagree. that was unfortunate the way the washington examiner chose to interpret the report. my co-authors were very concerned about the unemployment consequences of the pandemic and the mental health consequences. i agree that they are significant. but we did not do a full cost-benefit analysis. we did not put a monetary value to the lives saved. we did not put a monetary value -- we did not even talk about hospitalizations and i mentioned how expensive those are. so it was -- i would have

emphasized the might and pretend for some states. it is because of the strict lockdowns in california, closing down disneyland, maybe we do not have did that because orlando is doing well with handling disney world. i do disagree with that interpretation. host: what is next for the baker institute in terms of this area, in terms of your coverage, your reporting, your researching on the effect of lockdowns and measures during the pandemic? guest: before the pandemic, we were worried about high health care costs for consumers because i think that is one of the main reasons why some laypeople in texas are uninsured because health care costs -- why so many people in texas are uninsured is because of health care costs. we are following closely what were the bailout packages given to health care providers because it is turning out now that many hospitals earned a profit from

the pandemic because of the cares act funding that was put through by congress and what we want to do is make sure that we focus carefully on the consolidation that is occurring in the health care industry, the pandemic was very hard on individual physicians. they are being forced to consolidate with large health care systems. that means those large health care systems have tremendous margin a power that will raise health care prices. that is something we are trying to work toward, keeping those prices from going up so much so that health insurance is more affordable to americans. host: let's hear from kate, adrian, michigan. democrats fine. caller: good morning. -- democrats line. caller: i hope this is not to be off-topic, but does she have any explanation for why there is a high concentration of cases in

michigan and i saw an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago, 8 out of the 10 cities were in michigan for the highest cases per capita, including my very small town, i have never seen my small town in new york times. do you have any idea what might be going on there? guest: i wish i did it. i am very sorry because i have seen the stories. it has to be a combination of unwillingness to get vaccinated as well as people in close quarters and not wearing masks in those types of centers. we did another story, we asked a large law firm in houston to give us health filing an expedited request to get the case data from the cdc in august and we got the data quickly, 2 million records of case reports if your -- case reports.

it is extraordinarily detailed in terms of the exposures each person had in the last 14 days. then, when you open the data set, it is mostly empty. in other words, the data is not filled out. if you were to have the idea -- the data and you had excellent funding for contact tracing and you have done that contact tracing extremely well in five major cities, you would have had better data which you could have gone to the cities in michigan and said, it turns out these types of workplaces are the most high-risk or it is the bar is causing the problem, or it is traveling. the fact that we do not have that information and we do not have a uniform case report in this country, i think it does not bode well for the next pandemic. host: michigan: fox news, texas

and florida reporting fewer covid cases than democratic led michigan, pennsylvania, and new york. professor ho, a rhetorical question on florida, a comment from -- florida that is one of the largest -- many transient workers and visitors. death rates in line with national numbers and current unemployment, how is our response so terrible? guest: texas and florida benefit from having a mild winter. in a lot of cases where people are forced to stay indoors if they want to socialize in michigan, that is not happening in florida and texas. i will also say this, florida has an extremely large elderly population that pays attention to c-span and other news sources providing information from scientists, so they are behaving safely. they are not going to bars and restaurants.

part of this is that part of the population is extremely carefully. i have friends in my neighborhood, if you are walking outdoors, i am on the sidewalk and they moved to the streets -- move to the street. there is a large population that is extra careful. it is easier to do in florida and texas. host: lee in west olive, michigan. caller: hello. everyone is missing the point on all of this. this is a democrat-driven show. all you guys do is reference the new york times and have people like this lady on. this is ridiculous. the republicans do not believe what cnn, abc, nbc, cbs are all saying. once you figure out that the democrats are in control of our media and brainwashing

everybody, the republicans cannot believe anything they say. host: the report is from the baker institute, our guest is professor vivian ho, the health economic chair at the james a. baker institute. thank you for being with us this morning. caller: -- guest: thank you. host: we will find out in 15 minutes whether the facebook oversight board will reinstate former president donald trump or continue the band put in effect on january 6. we want to hear from you, your thoughts, you can call these numbers. democrats continue to call (202) 748-8000 interior -- (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002 it should be former president trump be reinstated on facebook? your callers next.

i do not listen to c-span's podcast notes plus. me james, -- meet james -- booknotes+, new episodes available every tuesday morning. subscriber you get your podcast. more about all of the c-span podcast at c-span.org/podcasts.

>> washington journal continues. host: we will open up our phone lines and hear from you and hear -- about the facebook oversight about whether they will reinstate former president trump. that announcement expected here in about 9:00 eastern this morning. (202) 748-8000, the line to golf democrats. republicans, call (202) 748-8001. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. as we hear the news, we will pass that along to you. a headline from the washington examiner today, we will call this with an update cheney can be ousted from gop leadership next week. there has been news on that this morning. punch bowl with a tweet early

this morning that kevin mccarthy, the majority leader and steve scalise, minority leader, turn on cheney and baxter phonic for the conference chair and a tweet from political's -- politico's, a spokeswoman for cheney, regarding the news that steve scalise is supporting stepanek to replace cheney as conference chair, this will have more to come -- liz will have more to come. the house is not in session. numbers are out -- members are out. let's hear from you, comments about former president trump and facebook. here is michael in pipestone, minnesota. go ahead. caller: good morning.

my question and concern would be , if he was reinstated, if he had any type of guidelines that could be imposed on him because my concern would be the rhetoric that would come behind it. i would vote no. host: you would vote yes that he should be reinstated, but you're concerned that the potential rhetoric if you were reinstated, and my reading you right? how do you think they can control that? caller: basically, it should be a contract, a legal contract that if he were to turn on that contract, his rights would be revoked. host: clark in bloomfield, new

jersey. caller: first of all, people should start listening what the president has to say in his own words. he said peacefully demonstrate, peacefully. this is to me -- i do not understand it. do not -- do people not speak english anymore? how can you make the jump from peacefully that he is inciting a riot? this is crazy. anyway, freedom of speech is not only important in this country, that is what we need and that is what we should go by, freedom of speech and to censor him as un-american. host: the former president was on fox news and talk about that suspension and his social media plans.

>> you are canceled out twitter, canceled up of social media platforms. you put out your presidential statements, they go viral, you know who misses you the most? the liberal media. they hardly ever see joe, so there is nothing to cover there except when he falls down climbing the stairs. what is the answer? is the answer antitrust? is it ending section 230? is it donald trump starts his own twitter, facebook, instagram? is it something you are considering? >> i am getting the big word out because we are doing releases and every time i do a release, it is all over the place. it is better than twitter, much more elegant than twitter and twitter is very boring. people are leaving twitter. it has become during -- become boring. it was like a failed concept. it was failed.

it became exciting and i think i had a lot to do with it, it became exciting. now, it is boring and no good. host: we should be hearing news from the facebook oversight for -- by 9:00. we will keep you posted. pennsylvania of next. should former president trump be reinstated? margaret, what you think? caller: no, he should not, period. i will not go into a bunch of details about it because he cannot be trusted. he has already shown us what he can do it. i would say no. host: to bellevue, washington. democrats line. caller: absolutely not. the six bankruptcy filer, womanizer, liar, people died because of his rhetoric. his antiaging comments --

anti-asian comments, i think of sarah palin was used to put bull's-eyes on her opponents and someone got shot because of this . his rhetoric creates destruction. the answer is no, he should not be put back on here. no. host: you can send us a text, (202) 748-8003, make sure you tweet your name and where you are texting from. this from minnesota. he says yes. that has been proven because he has lied many times on the media will not check it. elizabeth in somers, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. a definite yes, president trump should be reinstated. i think the power of big tech is crazy.

it is hard to even take in. if you look on the social media sites, people who truly speak hate speech are permitted to be on them that they never wanted him to be elected, ok. they wanted him totally gone, erased. that is the real reason and they are using the january 6th event as an excuse. host: messed up as helen in kentucky. go ahead -- next up is helen in kentucky. caller: my answer is no, the former president should not be reinstated because his words carry a lot of weight and he has the ability to influence and billions of people -- millions of people and when he was on facebook, he called people names . i do not think that it a good role model or example when this

country is already fractioned the waiters. host: mark zuckerberg, the founder of facebook, he talked about the decisions by facebook to ban the president after january 6 at comments posted on that date. >> i cannot speak for everyone else, websites and other apps, i will tell you what we did it. before january 6, we work with law enforcement to identify and address threats. during and after the attacks, we provided extensive support in identifying insurrectionist and removed post supporting violence. we did not catch everything. we made our services and hospitable to those that might do harm. when we feared that he would inside fillet violence, we suspended the former president's account. -- insight -- incite violence,

we suspended the former president's account. we created an independent oversight board that can overrule our decisions and we need democratically agreed rules for the internet. host: the headline of usa today, donald trump a char facebook, instagram been, will it stick? -- instagram band, will it stick? -- instagram ban, will it stick? california, good morning to rebecca. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe president trump should be reinstated. otherwise, social media outlets like facebook, twitter, they should ban others and take others down that have said derogatory comments, etc. it does not seem as though they are playing a card game -- a fair game and they need to play

fair on both sides. i think he should be reinstated. host: is there anyway for an organization like facebook who has a board that they are a fair judge of the content on this site? do you think it will always be well -- people will say they are not there, they are not there to that side. is this an impossible question? caller: i do not know how it will become accomplished, but if there was some sort of board that is objective and can look at both sides, then may be, but right now, it is two parts. they take down whoever they want to and it seemed to be someone on the republican side. a lot of the people who have an high influence on people at your opinions, they wait too long

before they take things down. i think it is ridiculous. host: thanks for that. we have been holding a poll, should president trump -- former president trump be reinstated? 74.8% say no. cleveland, tennessee. leah, democrats line. caller: good morning. if he is going to have a counsel or a committee, why doesn't he pull people out of communities to do it? and yes, i think president trump i to facebook should be removed. i think it should stay removed. not only that, but zuckerberg wants to do the right thing. these people that want to incite

violence on our capitol are not americans. thank you. host: this is from jason in kansas who says that the earlier called from the man in mississippi and lightened me. when he tells a verifiable i, ban him for 30 days. folks have said that he never told her i will say that a huge percentage that comes out of his mouth is a lie. they and the media is censoring him is absolutely frightening behavior. this one, it is a private company period. i say no, a private citizen will have a second chance. a country cannot be flooded with alternative -- facebook and twitter are a waste of time to time. he should have had a private website for information from the beginning you would i will never -- joint either of the democrat run sites because i never trusted them.

we hear from james. caller: i say no. words have results. results of his words have been negative. people have died. i do not agree with these inflammatory statements on public sites like facebook and outbuildings -- and other things. host: rick on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? i think they should use the same >> council bluffs, iowa. caller: i think that maybe they should use the same guidelines that they use when steve was suspended.

look at all the damage that he did. what do you think of that? >> to john in roswell, new mexico on the democrats . >> no, of course not. no, no. he will have a hard time doing all that from prison in new york or georgia, whoever gets him first. >> and butler, indiana. >> thank you very much for taking my call. i sit here and i listen to this. i do not have a computer or use the internet. i write letters. i serve my country probably to defend free speech. i do not recognize the country or the people that call in.

most important speech to defend is the speech that even eminently disagree with. you may not agree with what that person says, but i will defend the right to say it. words hate speech are ridiculous. they are just words. fahrenheit 451, they burned books. when you have a media tilted one way, when you have big conglomerates tilted one way, everybody listening to the news and the internet tilted one way. it is a horrifying, scary thing to realize that they are in charge. this is gestapo totalitarianism. why can't we agreed to disagree? i say what i say and you say what you say. let good ideas prevail. >> there is news this morning.

facebook oversight board rules to permanently ban trump's account. that is the latest and we do not have further details on that. we will continue with your phone calls, same phone lines. banning president trump permanently from facebook. on the democrats line. >> yes. >> mute your volume and go ahead with your vote here -- your comment. >> yes, i think he should be banned. >> good morning. >> good morning.

in order to make an informed decision, information needs to be heard. how can information be heard if someone cannot speak on their own beliefs? this leaves that scenario in front of us. president trump -- information that is set before the people. >> to new jersey. linda, good morning. caller: i am so relieved that he is going to be banned, hopefully from facebook forever. i hope that goes for the other internet. for anybody to think that he has become somebody that is not on facebook -- he treats to other people -- tweets to other people

and they retweet to facebook. he is a liar and he is dangerous. he is a criminal. >> this is the first detailed report that we have seen. facebook oversight board votes to permanently ban trump's account. they ruled to uphold the network suspension of former president donald trump. it is a monumental development. it follows the deadly the capitol siege on january 6, which she has been accused of inciting. facebook has seven days to enforce the binding decision. the board decision cannot be over wooed by any employees, including mark zuckerberg. facebook first referred its decision to the oversight board in late january. since then, they have invited

the public to submit comments as it has done for all cases it has reviewed so far. they are permanently suspending the account, banning the former president from facebook. caller: this is gerald. i wish he would not do it, but he does have the right. >> beverly is in maryland. beverly, what do you think on the democrats line? beverly in maryland, good morning. ok. albuquerque, new mexico. we will hear from victor on the republican line. caller: i think that he should not be banned. people are so touchy these days. when these big companies start sucking in the president and banning him -- wait until you

get to normal americans. we are going to turn into a socialist or communist country very soon. it is very scary. people do not realize that they are getting sucked in. >> democrats line. what are your thoughts? caller: i think that he should be banned. he should be banned from running for president again. he has been impeached twice. >> a tweet from rick klein. the oversight board puns final resolution. back to facebook, it is facebook's role to create necessary and proportionate penalties that respond to severe violations of its content policies. the board is recommending that he be permanently banned.

the independent line, go ahead. caller: thank you, for taking my call. i want to preface everything by saying that i am an ardent from supporting and i am glad that facebook banned him forever. >> why is that? caller: facebook is about to reap their just rewards. they just made half the country totally irate. on top of that, to add to that, we now know that the present administration and the d.c. mayor had decided to ban the mia pw valley, motorcycle rally that happens in d.c. come every year except for last year. they banned that. they refused to give the permit

for that. these are some of the things that need to be brought up, but i am glad that they did it. now we really look at what facebook is. nothing that zuckerberg said yesterday carries any water. >> we are seeing initial reaction. democrats saying this. donald trump has played a role in helping spread disinformation. they will have to find ways to drive advertising revenues. every day they are promoting misinformation and generally seem to ignore this disturbing reality. it is clear that real accountability will only come with just eight of action. back to calls with adrian.

reacting to the news from the facebook oversight board. caller: i do not think he deserves to be on facebook anymore. he is the worst president we ever had. the democrats -- america never asked for a king. >> jack in florida is next on the independent line. caller: i think he should be banned. he refuses to stop repeating the big lie. facebook is an independent company. they have every option they can take. thank you. >> gilbert, arizona. we hear from mark. caller: he should be banned. i am a veteran. for him to do what he is doing,

he could start his own facebook, if he wanted to. he has the money. companies do not have to cater to people that they think are not working in the best interest of america. my thing is, like a previous caller talked about hate speech. he said, there is not hate speech. they should tell that to all the people who have had all their houses burned, or they got hung on trees. hate speech, you cannot go into a theater and yell fire. this is the same kind of thing. >> there is a story in the wall street journal about some of the legislation proposed across the country. a group of major companies and

business organizations came out against a texas voting bill after debating how aggressively they should be involved in state legislation. many companies signed a letter opposing any changes that would restrict eligible voters access to the vote in texas. state legislatures continue new voting bills. they have grappled with how much to weigh in amidst pressure from civil rights organizations and pushback from lawmakers. companies, including delta airlines and coca-cola lodged public opposition. next up, terrance. . caller: i wanted to comment that i do not think that he should be banned.

i believe that it is important that he keeps going with his lies. he was a bomb thrower on day one. he knows more than the generals. you do not need the media to follow what this man said. you own your words until you speak them, but once you speak them, your words own you. this man has gone, from day one, constant. it is not just one big lie. it is four years of lying. there are 74 million of them who believe this man. he is their messiah. he should speak. he should be allowed to roll with all of his lies. all of his followers should be

identified all the time. do not let him go away like this. let him speak. let it continue. there is a sleeping majority in this country who do not vote. they are eligible, but they do not the. we deserve the best democracy money can buy. these people need to show up. let him continue with his lies. it is somewhat boring without donald trump and some of his lies. >> facebook will not let trump back on platforms. quoting from the decision, the board found in maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, he created an environment where state -- serious risk was possible.

the board upheld the suspension but found the indefinite suspension was not appropriate. the panel is requesting that they review the decision for a proportionate response that is consistent with other users of the platform. within six months, facebook must re-examine the arbitrary penalty and decide the appropriate penalty. tom had been suspended since earlier this year on the basis of posts that he made. a spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. to jesse in hurricane, west virginia. republican line. caller: president trump should not be banned. the lies from the biden administration and facebook --

the hunter biden story was completely covered up. facebook should be banned and not donald trump. thank you. >> we say good morning to dennis. go ahead. caller: hello? is riverside, california. ok. i think it is the medium itself that is the question. he could go on any television show that he wants to go on. he could stand on the sidewalk and cameras would come at him to hear him speak. he could call in to you right now and he would answer. he is not really suppressed, but he wants that medium of the internet, twitter and facebook because then he can be a kind of

god, like the wizard of oz. he can manipulate that so easily. that is the problem. that is why they want him off of there. the guy thinks that he is being suppressed? he could get his own show anywhere. he wants to be this kind of god so he can manipulate from the sky, so to speak. >> we will keep you posted if we see any further reaction. more ahead on washington journal. we will talk about the 2020 census. we will look into the numbers and their impact on how congressional seats will be apportioned. the conversation with the center for justice is next. ♪

>> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store with a collection of products and every purchase helps support nonprofit operations. contact information for members of congress and the biden administration cabinet. browse our newest products. >> education secretary testifies this morning on president biden 's budget request for a house appropriations subcommittee. >> today, two house subcommittees hold a joint hearing on creating rules. live coverage begins at 3:00

p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org were on the free c-span radio app. >> washington journal continues. >> with us is michael lee. here with us to talk about the 2020 census results. more specifically about the congressional reapportionment of seats. made possible by the 2020 census results. welcome to washington journal. let's read -- let's remind our view is that if they did not know those numbers, the states that gained or lost seats, the 2020 census has texas gaining two seats. north carolina and oregon gained one seat. the loss of seats by one,

california, illinois, michigan, new york, ohio, pennsylvania and west virginia. with these numbers surprising to you at all? >> i think that they surprised a lot of people. there were expectations about how the reapportionment would come out. they did not get all of the seats that they were expecting to get. arizona was expected to pick up an additional seat but ended up getting no new seats. new york was widely expected to lose two seats that came within 89 people of not losing any seats. there were a few surprises. people are still trying to figure out what it means. >> remind us why those states gained and lost seats.

michael: last year the census was different than any other one that was had. the numbers that are derived were used to reallocate seats around the country. those who grew more slowly he lose seats. it is to make sure that the allocation of congressional seats matches the population revealed in the census. that is something that happens every 10 years. >> those decisions will be made by those state legislatures or the boards. how does that process get underway? michael: the numbers that came out last week was only the first

step in the process. they do not know more granular information like where people lived within a state or information about their race, ethnicity or age. all that more granular information is the information that they will need to redraw districts. not more granular information will start coming out and will finally be available to states by the end of september. the redrawing of maps and the like will take place this fall and into next year, depending on what state law finds. >> we are talking about the census and redistricting.

let us go to the map. specifically to the brennan center map. let's talk about that redistricting process. you have a map and they're called the risk for gerrymandering or unfair maps. you have a look, which states are at high risk for janet -- gerrymandering. in the high range, texas, mississippi, alabama and south carolina. in the high range, also georgia, florida and north carolina. six or seven states and either very high or high risk of gerrymandering. what is going on there? michael: the biggest risk is when one party controls the process.

when that happens, it means that decisions can be made behind closed doors in the way that they might not when there is divided government. that almost invariably happens. for those states, the population moves very fast. it was almost completely fueled by communities of color. much of it was from nonwhite communities. racially polarized voting in those state means that they support one party and white voters support another party. they become very politically volatile. it increases the incentive for gerrymandering. a lot of the protections that people used to have, which

required federal review no longer will apply. the supreme court has stepped out of policing gerrymandering. it makes it possible because of the racially polarized to make it possible to achieve a political effect. republican legislatures in the south claimed that the voting act required it. this decade, there is a risk. they will claim that they were simply targeting democrats. even if those democrats are latino, so be it. >> when will be get the specific numbers?

michael: that data will come starting in made august -- mid august. i would say beginning of september, we will get a better sense of what the numbers show. we have some sense based on other data sense of what that looks like, but states will use the census to draw maps. if it varies from that, we will know starting mid september. >> one of the states that is gaining ac, you have them in terms of your risk of gerrymandering improved. michael: we also have michigan as an improved state.

colorado did not have terrible maps. it should make the process a lot better. michigan did have gerrymandering maps last decade. michigan would draw the maps there. >> our guest is michael li talking about the census numbers and congressional apportionment. we will go first to gary in moorefield, west virginia. caller: good morning. i am a retired employee. with the way this last census went, it cut off, awfully early.

how can everybody be looking at the numbers? i know -- i can guarantee that in west virginia. >> your confidence in the 2020 census numbers. michael: i think there are a lot of questions about that. in large part because of the pandemic. we were all supposed to fill out the census. as a result of the pandemic, the census bureau had to do a with some of the census workers in the field. in addition to that, there were efforts to interfere with the census.

many people worry. it was unsuccessful, but they worry about the efforts. it might have done damage when they announced it. i think people worry that the damage was done. this census was underfunded for about a decade. it basically told the census bureau that you could spend in 2020 what you spent in 2010 despite it being larger and more complicated. it is like having thanksgiving dinner. you have the same budget. there are a lot of concerns.

we do not know yet what the results will be. >> what is the larger demographic story from the 2020 census come in terms of the nation's growth. michael: there are a couple stories. it is really something that has been a trend line. it has been slowing. less immigration of the latter part of the decade. but you also saw a shift of power and representation to the

south west. once the ultimate numbers come out we think there will be a story. fueled by nonwhite people. there is an expectation that the white population overall will have declined. it will be a first. it will be from black, latino and asian communities. >> good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this has a little bit to do with mark twain. he had stated that anywhere

where a man had a vote, those laws were impossible. kind of a strange person. he got some negative feedback. he was a well-known man. he went from one side to the other. he went from -- i do not know. on the other end, he went -- like some of his novels like the

prince and the popper -- pauper. >> we will stick with voting for a second. michael on voting itself. how does that legislation and dress the anticipated changes that states might make an apportionment and other voting laws that might take place? michael: that is a great question. the senate is expected to pick up the summer. it is an omnibus voting and elections deal that would do a number of things. it would set a number of minimum standards for how we conduct elections.

on the redistricting front, what it would do is have a set of rules that are determined mostly in state law. that would be a strong set of four to five principles. they include stronger protections for communities of color. i mentioned earlier how the supreme court -- congress has the power to ban partisan gerrymandering. that is one of the things that they would do. it would strengthen the judicial remedies and litigate cases faster. that is something that they are expected to take out later this summer.

it depends on how the filibuster plays out. they decided that it was their big priority. from redistricting, it would be one of the biggest things to happen. it would be a big step forward. >> from the wall street journal, their opinion piece was, they said census figures were released near historic levels. they say that gop states with stricter -- black turnout was highest in maryland.

georgia had a smaller voting cap. massachusetts, wisconsin, oregon -- any thoughts on that? michael: it goes to show that they are not about. there are voting laws that need a lot of improvement. there is no question about that. it is creating a national minimum floor. they are able to do that. it does say that new york will

have two weeks for early voting. there are rules on any number of things. if they are thinking it is a pro-democratic bill, that is where they fall or fail. >> next is someone from new jersey, independent line. caller: this morning, it has been made clear to me as to why the invasion on the southern borders has been completely out of check. i was wondering why the situation does not exist.

it spelled it out in very clear language. there is no need, as far as census taking goes to restrict citizens only. they are counted legitimately as a citizen of the country, to be represented in washington. >> what does the constitution say about who should be counted? michael: it requires a whole number of persons. everyone in the u.s., whether they are a citizen or not -- for example, back in the early days, we counted women and children.

we count noncitizens. my parents immigrated in the 1960's. it did not become citizens until a couple years later. we always counted everyone. >> rhonda is next. caller: good morning, america. i have lived in new jersey my whole life. it is really a beautiful, integrated community. i have adopted my baby granddaughter. she is seven years old. her school is 78% hispanic. i know that census is under.

i know that they are not registering with the census, these hispanics that are in our country. i do not have a problem with them. i love them. they are my neighbors and they have beautified our city with their culture and talent. it breaks my heart that these people are afraid to come out and register so that we can get more funds for new jersey taxes. i built this house 15 years ago. my property taxes were 4000 a year. now they are 8000 a year. >> we will go from there. michael: we do not know yet. we only know how many people this census shows are in a state.

there are under counts in some communities. they are also over counted. it is not a significant of account, but it does happen. it is really white people -- we do not know if there are differential counts. a lot of experience. it was especially hard to get.

there have always been under counts. states like new jersey, new york and california did invest millions of dollars to get people to participate in the census. that might have been the reason why new york did much better. that is probably part of the investment. it might he do to the texas legislature allocating zero dollars to get people to participate in the census. there were no advertisement or church groups telling people why it was important. it is not just about federal power.

it is federal funds that go to the states based on the census for everything from roads to education, and the number of vaccines. it was based on the 2010 census and it will be based on the census going forward. >> it will be in effect as of the 2022 election, correct? michael: that's right. they will be used for the first time in 2022. >> the new york times wrote about it. the pandemic may be accelerating the decline. births were down sharply when babies conceived at the start of the health crisis would have been born. does the census reflect the

nation's slowing birth rate? michael: it does. it does not reflect the effects of the pandemic. it does show a slowing birth rate. that is something -- the country is aging. the birth rate has fallen. >> here is jeff on the republican line. caller: your taxes are going to go up because people pay more for those who are here illegally. we are supporting them but they are not paying any taxes. of course your taxes are going to go up. illegals are proving up

everything for us who are here legally. they should not be counted in the state census. that is improper, illegal and against the law. those who are here illegally, waiting to become citizens, yes. those who are here illegally that should have no path to citizenship should not be counted. >> any response? michael: i think the general legal consensus is that there is a requirement that the people put in there. counting women and children. i do think it is important, besides the legal argument, i

think it is important that we count everyone. the federal funding goes to state that are there. whether undocumented people are counted or not impact the number of -- the amount of money that they will have. it is not as if, if you do not count them, they are not using the subway or sending kids to school. it is important that they get the money that they need to service the people that are there. >> we hear from steve in topeka, kansas, next. caller: i think this is a fascinating subject. i think it will be's -- be shortchanged. what i had is a bigger issue.

i have american indian heritage. i use the census to track indian heritage. what about the people with indian heritage? it has been a fascinating trip for me to use the actual census records to look at that. they are asking, were you a confederate veteran or a union veteran. they had a crazy history. probably, this census is not really useful from the standpoint of where it was originally meant for everybody. i know that for a fact. how are they categorized? that is all i have. i like the subject that we are talking about this morning. >> ahistorical reflection there.

any thoughts? michael: the value of the census is kept private. it becomes available to people and from a certain standpoint, it is absolutely incredible. you get to see the evolution of people who use very italian names. they change their names over time. you get to see an evolving sense of identity. there is a lot of valuable information that comes out of the census. it is an incredible resource over time. including native identity, it is

a critical thing. i will say, they are one of the communities that have been traditionally hard to count. it is something that the census bureau has tried to get right. in part because of historic implications. making sure that they are at the table, as much as they can. >> certainly, 2020 with the pandemic and some political challenges, in terms of the questions to be included in the 2020 census. how is that rib -- resolved? michael: the big challenge was that the trump administration decided very late in the process -- the development of the census takes about 10 years. a test question multiple times in different formats to make

sure that people are not getting confused by it. they do a lot of scientific testing. it would be asked of all people. it was challenged in court and was ultimately found to violate the administrative procedures, which regulate how government decisions are made. again, a lot of people were concerned that the damage was done, once it got out that they were trying to do this. it stoked a lot of fear in communities about how the data would be used despite strong privacy. >> saying trump was trying to

break what he saw blue or sanctuary states. he has done lasting damage to this country in so many ways. don is on the independent line. caller: i am actually working on an article about congressional reapportionment. there were 99 house members that shifted from the midwest to the south and the west. there were 84 since 1940. $.66 1960. it is a long-term trend due to some cagey operations to get live infrastructural investment. it was largely paid for by those

in the northwest. it is a significant issue. add immigration to it. a lot of them were driven by wars, attacks and death squads. it is a volatile situation. >> any thoughts? michael: he mentioned that 2010 and 2020 census. it is a good reminder. in 2020, the census -- the 2020 census reflected that the country was becoming much more diverse. italy, western europe, the population was moving from rural areas, into the cities. that scared a lot of people. states did not redistrict in the 1920's because they could not

stomach the actual results that were shown from the census. similar to what we are facing today. reaction to immigration. it was fear that the basic demographic attributes were changing. there was a lot of freak out about that. >> explained to us how many members -- how many of the population, a member of congress represents. what are the numbers that a typical representative represents in his or her district? michael: that is a great question. even the smallest state will have one, but even when you allocate it out, there is a

mathematical formula that is used. some states lose a seat. it results in some variation of the size of districts. it was up about 60,000 from a decade ago. idaho also has two states. it is -- there is quite a bit of variation. it was set in the apportionment act. that is what we have had since then. even though the country is much

larger. it does create a greater variance. some people have suggested as a way to resolve that, to make the u.s. house figure, which would allow for us to have smaller districts to be more evenly sized. >> what is your view on it? bigger house? michael: there is an argument for it. i have not decided how much bigger. he want the house to be able to function. having one person represent 760,000 people or almost a million people can be quite challenging from making sure that all of the needs are met. members do not go to washington just to vote. they handle veterans. if you are handling social security benefits or need help on this or that.

>> a couple more calls for you. we will go to thomas in wildrose, wisconsin. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. he showed the map of wisconsin and it was blue, but we are heavily republican influenced state because we are mostly republican controlled for our governor. they are fighting him tooth and nail. they want him to do the job he is supposed to do. why isn't the federal government, as far as redistricting, taking control of districting in the states, so that it can be done fairly. >> i think it is blue because that is one of the improved states you have on your map. michael: we put it as an improved state because there is a democratic governor.

courts do not draw perfect maps, but they do not tend to aggressively gerrymander the way that single party controlled legislature will tend to do. wisconsin is listed as an improved state. it would set uniform, national rules and would require the use of commissions to draw maps in the states. there is a recognition that this is an area that states have struggled to get right. it is tempting to do. >> next up is dale. caller: a couple points. one trend that is emanating a lot is the question that was

trying to be included this time around. it has definitely compromise the integrity of things. it needs to take into consideration all of the specific geographic locations. as time has gone on, the representation is definitely compromise. you mentioned quite a few things. representation, being somewhere between 700000 and 800,000 people. it is hardly a good way to note who the representative is. i think it is peculiar that the supreme court was -- it kept gerrymandering in check.

gerrymandering is not something that they will be able to think about. i think the combination of those two factors will continue to be a very big problem. i also think that we are becoming too polarized. it is clearly something that should be involved in there. >> thank you. michael. michael: i think the supreme court's decision that you could not bring federal claims into federal court about gerrymandering. i think it is very ominous. it is particularly ominous in the south. most democrats tend to be black and latino, nonwhite. georgia and texas, for example,

they get 25% to 28% of the white vote. the only way that he grabbed a disproportionate share of seats -- it is very ominous. all the more reason that there is a statutory ban -- that a statutory ban would go a long way of leveling the playing field. >> a quick call from mary. caller: i think that the basic question is not when you use the sentences to elect congress, congress is supposed to represent u.s. citizens. there should be the question, are you a u.s. citizen, or are you a noncitizen? it is taxpayer's money that is delegated to the states.

i do firmly believe that the question must be process in terf apportionment in the state? guest: the next step is that data will come out in the fall and we will be drawing maps. it could be a very different process because it will be occurring at a different time of the year. some states will try to take shortcuts and justify it on the basis of time. now is the time for people to get involved and talk about what they want the maps to look like. what is important to their communities. look at existing maps, talk about what changes should be made and get together with others. we had an election in 2020 about top political power for two years. the maps we draw starting this fall will determine political power for 10 years. this is the time for people to get involved.

host: frankly with the brennan center, senior council, talking about the 2020 census and apportionment. you can read their report on that at brennancenter.org. michael lee, thank you for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: next on c-span, live coverage of a hearing with miguel cardona, education secretary thomas -- testifying before the subcommittee on the budget request for the department of education. washington journal's back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern. we hope to see you. have a good day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: we are waiting to

hear fm