>> coming up today, commerce sec. gina raimondo testifies on president biden's 2020 budget request and a house appropriations subcommittee hearing. that is live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. members of the facebook oversight board talk to axios about the recent decision to keep former president donald trump banned from using facebook. another hearing with energy secretary jennifer granholm testifying. coming up in an hour john dickey from the government accountability office with a report on prescription drugs in the u.s. compared to the rest of the world. at 8:30 a.m., epidemiologist from the johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health on the latest developments on covid-19

in the u.s. and around the world. at nine: 15, purdue university president mitch daniels on the requirement for undergraduates and challenges facing higher education during the pandemic. ♪ host: the u.s. house is not in session affect liz cheney's future but will define a rub of and congress loyal to -- republican congress loyal to donald trump and the backing in the 2022 races. welcome to "washington journal." we will ask republicans only, should liz cheney remain in gop leadership. if you say yes call (202) 748-8000.

if you say no, the line is (202) 748-8001. you could send us a text regardless of your party at (202) 748-8003. we welcome your tweets as well. that is at c-span wj. we look for your facebook posts. one of the many stories this morning on the future of liz cheney, this is from politico. she faces the boot in washington. wyoming is looking much better. trumps political operation is engaged in looking for her 2020 two primary as the republican congress prepares to oust her from leadership. we are joined by congressional reporter nicholas wu. good morning. this was one of those issues that seemed like it was boiling on a low simmer on the back of the stove. this week suddenly came to a

boil, what happened? guest: absolutely. the whole question of liz cheney's position and leadership was settled in february when they tried to oust her once over her impeachment vote. other republicans who voted to impeach trump or were critical of the former president, when asked about trump related issues, she would respond. she stood by and defended her impeachment vote. this is something that struck a nerve among her fellow republicans. now it is reaching this boiling point where it looks like she could lose her spy leadership as soon as next week. host: she spoke at an event in georgetown, a kind of impact could she have on the event?

guest: her support seems to be slipping away. actually going to lineup behind the new york republican who looks to be a potential successor to cheney. host: how will this come about next week? about things tell us about the position itself. she is number three in charge in the republican conference as conference chair. guest: it is an important role. it has been a steppingstone to other positions. all that being said, next week but we will likely see is very similar to what we side in february. it will be a closed-door meeting and a secret ballot among republicans. they won't necessarily have to

put themselves on a public record as to how they side on this vote. they will vote first on whether to remove cheney from leadership . they will hold another vote on who to install as a successor as conference chair. right now, there's only one person and that's congresswoman stephanie. host: a least new york -- elise stefanik from new york, she is a relatively young congresswoman. guest: she went from being a paul ryan acolyte to a stalwart defender of former president trump. her district was one that voted for obama in 2012 and drifted to the right over the trump years. she has gone from being a fairly moderate member of congress to

someone who during the impeachment inquiry emerged as a stalwart defender of the president on tv and beyond. host: back to liz cheney, if she is removed, what does the future heard -- hold for her? guest: it is not really clear. she was someone who at one point was talked about a candidate for higher office. whether that was the u.s. senate or running for president one day. will there be space for someone who is arguably to the right of trump and many other republicans. we don't know yet. host: you're writing this morning with the headline, cult of personality, house dems sees on cheney chaos. how are democrats reacting? guest: this gives them an

opportunity to bring back their favorite boogie man, that is former president trump. trump is a unique figure. this is a double-edged sword potentially. this give democrats a foil to run against. we had democrats that they definitely saw the integrity of the election and support for trump is being on the ballot. but i could carry into next year remains to be seen. host: you can follow some of that reporting a politico.com. nicholas wu, thank you so much

for the update. guest: thanks for having me. host: this first hour is republicans only, should liz cheney remain in leadership? first up this morning from georgia is joe, good morning. caller: love c-span, been calling this great network for 30 years. liz cheney should be removed. my county went about 85% for president trump. we would like to see her and mcconnell removed. we would like to see mccarthy removed and replaced by jim jordan. liz cheney is not a real conservative. she's a nice person but we have to get somebody new in there. i like the stuff on it -- stefan ik lady.

we want to have true conservatives in there. liz cheney is a nice lady but she is no conservative. host: are people paying close attention to this internal squabble of house republicans? caller: my good friend steve moore is on fox news every day. he says the republicans will take over the house and senate. i believe that to be true in 2022. republicans are really united. you come down where i live or north georgia, we are energized. we are out working for republicans. we think new leadership in the republican party with people like jim jordan. i can't wait to go vote republican in 2022. i love c-span. you do an incredible job. we love c-span in georgia. host: katie in south carolina is

-- south carolina's next, mike says liz cheney should be retained. caller: she represents some of the moderate thoughts within the republican base. unfortunately, that base has turned towards trump. if joe represents what the common republican voter is, unfortunately we are headed down that path. i believe the republicans will take over the house. i'm not convinced about the senate. if the people that are going to be running it are people like jim jordan, i don't think there's a chance that common will prevail. liz cheney, if you look she has

voted in favor of trump things far more often than stefanik did. 92% to stefankik's 78%. host: this first hour is republicans only. do you think liz cheney should remain in leadership? tamaqua, pennsylvania. caller: i don't think she should remain in office. she's not working for the american people. she needs to go. all the other new stations want to say she lies and it's not about truth, we know the truth. she needs to go. host: liz cheney spoke about the

future of the republican party. she took part in an event at georgetown university here in the nation's capital. here's what she had to say. >> when you look at the trump administration, i voted with president trump something like 94% of the time because of the policies. i represent wyoming. deregulation is very important for us. 50% of our land is owned by the federal government. policies that help to restore control at the local level and help get the federal government out of the business of trying to make land-use decisions are really important. the policies that helps bring economic growth, spring employment, ensure that we had adequate resources for the national defense, those policies

are really important. i think the way the party has to go for is focusing on policy and by very clearly rejecting what happened on january 6. by clearly rejecting the symbols that we saw on january 6 of anti-semitism. those are the things that we have to be clear. both parties have to be clear. representative bill han omar -- ilhan omar said things that were anti-semitic. when you are talking about something like anti-semitism, racism, white supremacy, those

have to be rejected out of hand by anyone who is engaged in any level of our politics or political discussion. as a party, we have to be sure that we are acting in a way that is worthy of being the party of lincoln and the party of reagan. it is an aspirational set of policy ideas and agendas that we have to present to the voters. host: that is liz cheney last month in anticipating the vote next week and the republican conference. she has a piece in the washington post that is headline the gop -- republicans must decide whether we choose truth and fidelity to the constitution. i am a republican and the most conservative of conservative

values is reverence of the rule of law. more than 60 state and federal courts including many of trump's appointments have refused to overturn the result. that is the rule of law. that is our constitutional system. the question before us now is whether we will join trump are said to delegitimize and undo the legal outcome of the 2020 election with all the consequences that might happen. read it all out washingtonpost.com. this text says she should remain in leadership. we must wait and see what the republicans do. will they follow through with the threat? there's a risk of losing moderate republican voter support. two trumpians. liz cheney is truthful about the former and republicans.

another text says the republicans could test the wood -- kiss the women's vote goodbye. a twice impeached president who drove massive turnout living in a retirement village telling the gop who to support. godspeed gop. this one says yes, liz cheney should remain in leadership. she's a solid conservative and that's what should be the important factor. to william in falls church, virginia. caller: she had a chance to get an alignment. she had a chance, she did not take it. no team could survive and prosper with its leadership without a shared vision. it is appropriate that she go now. host: here's surely in new castle pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe liz cheney needs to

go. i thoroughly believe she is a democrat posing as a republican. another one that needs to go is mitt romney. they are troublemakers and they are not good for our country. host: if you think liz cheney should remain in leadership that line is (202) 748-8000. if you think she should leave the line is (202) 748-8001. elizabeth city, north carolina, good morning. caller: hello and thank you for taking my call. i use the wrong telephone line. i used to -- i meant to say she should not be in leadership. here's why. there was evidence of voter fraud. there's no question about it. there's no question about the dominion software. also the videotapes of votes

being pulled. that is not being addressed by liz cheney at all. i agree with a lot that she says. she voted for trump's policies. we should agree on policies but the truth of what actually happened should be addressed. host: this is an opinion piece by the deputy campaign manager for donald trump in 2020. defeating socialism at the polls in 2022. if liz cheney continues to cause division i undercutting donald trump we have to consider if she wants to be held responsible for two more years of the radical socialist agenda. it is for this reason that house republicans shouldn't have to

hold a vote to change her from her position. she should step aside. making it more difficult to accomplish the goal of winning back congress. in montclair, new jersey, this is sam. caller: that is not an altogether unsound peace right here. frankly i'm kind of undecided as to whether she should stay or go. i'm not one of the decision-makers. first, she has been praised by nancy pelosi, that is the kiss of death in the republican party. my biggest issue with her now is why is she on the democrat news channels answering these talking points?

if she wants to stand out, find, send it to republican news channels. the issue i believe is that as a republican she should be advancing the republican agenda. the democratic party is very well organized. very well put together. their agenda is advancing. the republican agenda is to -- i can't see how what she is doing is working for the republicans. nobody in their right mind stands by what happened on january 6. three or 400 idiots, she is helping to that picture forward. let's put the past in the past and move forward.

imagine if a democrat at this point broke with the party and said i didn't like a lot of things about donald trump but he was nominated for the nobel peace prize. they would be automatically ousted. something to consider. host: eric in lakeland, florida, you are next up. caller: all she said was the election was not rigged. as a black man, i wanted to vote for the republicans. i watch your show every day and i feel like they have to change their tune if they want to expand and get more black people, they have to change the way they talk. host: pennsylvania, this is

francis, republicans only this first hour. your thoughts on liz cheney? caller: liz cheney should remain in office. all she did was speak the truth. there are a lot of controversial issues. liz cheney like everyone else was elected to serve all of the citizens in her district. in this case in her state. regardless of whether or not they voted for her. she still remains a conservative republican. she is being honest and trying to work with the president even though she does not agree with his policies to get things done. host: we talked about elise stefanik, the likely successor. a bit of a profile piece on her in the washington journal this morning. one of the youngest women ever elected to congress is set to lead after raising her profile

as a prominent defender of president trump during his first impeachment trial. she would succeed ms. cheney as the only woman in the house gop leadership and would hold a position that puts her in charge of the messaging effort. she has an assignment that gives her a policy profile similar to that of ms. cheney, a military hock. she has been a vocal supporter of mr. trump. particularly over the last two years. it is the most visible difference between the two and one that highlights the way she came to congress as a moderate and renamed herself in an era where many republicans defined themselves by their loyalty or distance to the president. don leavy, director of the college research institute known for its polling in new york state says however where she has

made the most headlines as being an ardent supporter of trump. the wall street journal writes it was a gradual evolution with preferences of her district that covers the state's north country and adirondack mountains. republicans only this first hour, if you say yes, liz cheney should remain in leadership in the u.s. house and the republican conference. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. steve scalise, the number two position in the conference spoke about liz cheney. this was before the news of earlier this week that a change is likely in the works. let's listen. >> the media likes to make a lot out of some of the conversations . president trump is still a very active part of the party. he brought people off the

sidelines and 2016 that never voted for republicans or democrats that embraced his messaging. this idea to just disregard this is not where we are. he wants to help us win the house back. we have to focus on what it's going to take to get the house back conservatives to oppose this all left that we are seeing. we get outside, the press wants to focus on personal division. frankly, we are very united. but we have to do to get our country back on track and start getting back to the conservative principles that were happening under president trump that made our country great. we secured our southern border. we are also standing up to the bad guys around the world whether it is russia, iran,

china. clearly that is not happening right now with president biden. i hope he starts finally confronting some of the bad actors around the world again and secures our southern border. we are very unified on that mission. host: this first hour, the future representative -- up representative -- of representative liz cheney. the headline national pac interviewed wyoming candidates to primary cheney. the political action committee confirmed it shopped around wyoming last week for a challenger to face liz cheney in her 2022 house primary. the presence in a state may not be limited to current competitors facing cheney.

we go to alabama, joe is next. good morning. caller: good morning, i see we have another hot button issue here. this is only on the republican side. concerning liz cheney, she is already out -- he was maybe three months ago she was censored by the gop in her own state of wyoming. she knows she will not be able to get another seat. here we are now talking and getting people riled up. i must congratulate c-span. you guys have pretty much become the most divisive program on

television. it's a hot topic every day. host: south carolina, go ahead. caller: i am former marine corps drill instructor. being your public and they couldn't vote for donald trump, the issue here with liz cheney is the fact that she told the truth. she told the truth. i am african-american. the problem is that liz cheney is the only one of the republican party that has the actual fortitude and the ability to stand up to donald trump. what is going to happen is republicans will continue to lose races. they are focused on what the country is not. if you look at the polls, america is focused on the economy and the pandemic.

we are going backwards in time where everyone knows that was a problem. former president that particular incident. liz cheney deserves to keep her role in leadership. you can't count on kevin mccarthy. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm fine, good morning. caller: i do agree that cheney needs to go. i have a quick question for you. my question is, -- host: what is the question again? caller: they were there on behalf of us, the voters and the people that lived there.

when they get there they do their own thing. she's only voting for the democrats just like what's his face out of utah? he does the same thing. host: the opinion piece in usa today cover some of liz cheney's voting record. this is their lead opinion. don't choose trump's big lie over cheney's truth. they write that cheney is a staunchly conservative daughter of the former vice president and a third term congresswoman. she has also voted with trump 92.9% of the time. she broke with him after the insurrection brian and joined nine other house republicans in

voting to impeach the president for instigating violence. he summoned this mob. attack," janie said. trump talked about it as an act of heresy, but cheney never looked back. [video clip] i think about what republicanism is. there are clear tenets to it. we believe in limited government, that the family is a fundamental building block of society. when you talk about what government's role should be, we tend to think that the government, the federal government really ought to stay focused on those things only it can do. things like national defense, things like securing our border. there are basic things that the federal government must do. as republicans, you know, we believe that the government is

-- the federal government is serving its best purpose when it stays as limited as possible, and that it ought to be there for people when we need it during times, for example, that we have experienced in the last year when we have a pandemic. but that the programs the federal government institutes really ought to be measured based upon whether people get off of those programs. when you are talking about things like welfare, what do we do about poverty, we really think the very best thing for someone is opportunity, the opportunity to have a job, the opportunity to work, the opportunity to get off government programs. so, you know, limited government, low taxes -- we think the country, the economy works best when people can keep more of what they earn, invest it themselves, grow their businesses. the small business, the private sector is the engine of growth in our economy, and we ought to have policies in place that really, you know, get the government out of the way for

the most part. a strong national defense. i really believe that america is an exceptional nation, that there is no nation on earth that has ever been as great a force for good as america has been in the world, and that our freedom and the freedom of our allies around the world depends upon america playing a leading role in the world. i think those are some of the basic things we believe in. most of us as republicans tend to be much more textual lists when it comes to the constitution. and we really believe in making sure that we continually remind people the constitution doesn't -- the government doesn't give us our rights. we believe our rights come from god. the constitution protects those rights, defends those rights,

but those rights don't come from the government. [end video clip] host: liz cheney further making her case in an opinion piece in "the washington post, that says this -- this is immensely harmful, especially as we now compete on the world stage against communist future -- spending the first hour asking you about the future of liz cheney in leadership. if you say she should remain in leadership, 202-748-8000.

if no, 202-748-8001 michael in portland, oregon, says, were i republican, i would want liz cheney to step aside. she should resign gracefully and let the party show a unified front. a person should be able to vote the way they want, even when it does not go along with the majority opinion, says melissa in syracuse. in south carolina, i think elizabeth cheney should keep her position. there is nothing more beautiful than a republican who comes to their senses. and yes, if only she represents the ability of the gop to swear off mindless fealty to trump and the lost because of the stolen election. let's go back to calls and hear from jim in boca raton, florida . are you there? caller: yes. host: jim in boca raton, go

ahead. i think i have less jim. sorry about that, jim pulled them or do i have you? jim, go ahead. i didn't have the right line to begin with. caller: yeah, i think she should go, and i don't believe -- i lived in that area. stephan it is a paul ryan follower. he got her elected up there. she did not even live in the area. she worked in washington, d.c., all those years. she did defend trump during the trials. but she is the old republican party and there is a new republican party, and i think there should be a distinguished line between the old republicans and the new republican trump already. host: this is surely in mansfield, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i think liz cheney should stay.

she is the only one that has the nerve to speak out against donald trump and the ones that kiss his ring. she is a wonderful person, and i am democrat, and i have the utmost respect for anyone that tells the truth. if they are going to get rid of her just for telling the truth, they will be punished by the american people who vote for -- it is not written in stone that mcconnell is going to win in 2022. people are tired of the not doing anything. host: ok, republicans only this first hour. should liz cheney remain in leadership? if you say yes, 202-748-8000. if you say no, 202-748-8001. front page of "the washington times." facebook's oversight

committee -- there would be a final decision of how long president trump's suspension should last. a state of uncertainty that fueled the public and push for a crackdown on big tech, and writes that the board decided the social media giant was correct to suspend mr. trump after he so doubt about the presidential election and was accused of inciting the january six -- once -- once the company to reassess the punishment within six months. here is jimmy in farmington, new mexico. says she should not remain in leadership. tell us why. caller: that's eclectic right. liz cheney along with some of the other republicans who are in the camp of joe biden need to go. we have to purge them from the party. we are going to uphold the constitution, freedom for the american people, and we are going to turn the nation around.

we do not want socialism, marxism, or communism. thank you. host: lake charles, louisiana. this is melissa. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for letting me call in. i do think liz cheney should step down gracefully from her leadership position. i appreciate her past as a republican, but she needs to talk about the things in the people who are trying to do the country wrong, and to destroy our country. until she can get on board with what is right, she needs to step down. thank you. host: we read the opinion piece earlier, one of the tweets from last night about elise stefanik. a reported successor for that position, the republican conference chair. they say that elise stefanik is not a good spokesperson for the house republicans congress -- conference. sa she is a liberal with a 35%

cf fgf lifetime rating. here is roy in woodstock, georgia. roy, go ahead. caller: yes, i think she should step down. the republican party should be selling unity, but right now we are sowing too much division. there were so many trials going on in philadelphia and other places that people wrote up affidavits showing how the election was actually stolen. but nobody talked about it. it wasn't in the news, but hundreds of people filled out affidavits not only there but in georgia, saying that the election was stolen from him. but so many people want to cover it up, and some of those republicans did not support trump. and all that he tried to do with

our country. host: roy, you think after two recounts, that is still the case? caller: but the corruption, day -- host: i'm asking you, you don't believe that state officials after they twice certified the election in your state? caller: you did not hear what i said. i said they did a recount and the county that did it correctly, the county where he one of the recount, they did not touch. host: ok. to jose in falls church, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that liz cheney should stay. host: ok, hosea, we are trying

to keep it to republicans only, republicans only for this first hour on the future. the future of liz cheney in leadership in the house. kevin mccarthy, house minority leader, was on fox news earlier this weekend talked about concerns over liz cheney. [video clip] rep. mccarthy: there is no concern on impeachment. that has been made. i have heard from members about their concern about her ability to carry out the message. we need to be working as one if we are able to win the majority. majorities are not given, they are earned. that is a message going forward, combating joe biden, what he has done to the border by making it unsecure in what is coming across, just what he's doing here about small businesses, opening schools, not getting us back to work, back to health, back to normal. that's the message we should be talking about.

it is more concerned about the job, the ability to do it, and what is the best step forward that we can all work together instead of attacking one another. [end video clip] host: we are just seeing this from fox news. a congressional correspondent who this this morning. the house republican congress says they could hold a cheney vote on may 12, the house returning this week to washington for legislative work. where asking you about the leadership position for liz cheney. should she remain in leadership for some if you say yes, 202-748-8000. if you say no, 202-748-8001. lake city, florida. yes. go ahead. caller: you know, in 20 i voted for john kasich in the primary. you have to understand, the low turnout that he got. now we want to kick liz cheney

out because she seems to have a brain. are we going to follow trump back into the same ditch that he drove us into? i just don't understand what the republicans are thinking. seriously. host: to noel in lafarge ville, new york. hello there. caller: thanks for taking my call. first, i miss brian lamb. secondly, liz cheney should go. the only people who support is nancy pelosi, and these liberal democrats. they love her now. i'm not crazy about cheney. i'm not crazy about elise stefanik either. but liz cheney should go. if she is supported by democrats, that is an issue. host: this is an opinion piece

this morning in the "national review," conservative publication. the headline of a piece is, "liz cheney is not the problem." i will scroll down and read a part of what they say in their opinion piece. they write that -- from "national review we hear

from ken next in woodstock -- from "national review." we hear from ken next in woodstock, connecticut. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. if you don't believe there was not election fraud, you are obviously lost. how can states have more votes than eligible voters? pure and simple. liz cheney is a traitor, just like her father was. she should he removed. she should be executed. thank you. host: bill is our next caller. orange park, florida. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wouldn't go that far. how does she square with these 160 some people still on their, that they saw voter fraud? how does she call these people liars? her and that idiot standing

beside her, scalise, ought to be gone. host: martinsburg, west virginia. william, you say yes, she should remain in office, in her leadership position, rather. caller: good morning, c-span. i'm a republican and i think liz cheney should stay in office. i'm part of the republican that, you know, donald trump was president. no, i don't believe in everything that biden is doing, but there is a split within the republican party that doesn't like the toxicity that trump brings, that he brought to the white house and his family. using social media and everything else in the manner that he did is not consistent with the values i have as a republican, and i hear a lot of the republican toxicity this morning about liz cheney. we need to remember that they are there to represent us, and, you know, is donald trump really doing that with what was going

on in the background? the way he did it was not what i agreed with. host: from "the hill" -- they write that --

and, "i think a lot of men are attacking her because she has guts and they don't." it is kind of embarrassing if you are the guy on your knees. newark, ohio. thomas, hello there. good morning. >> good morning and thanks for taking my call. nobody is discussing the over counts in detroit, philadelphia, pittsburgh, milwaukee, las vegas, arizona, and georgia. average of all of these cities together is 25,000 -- host: go ahead with your point. sorry for the interruption. caller: the average of all these is 25,000 more votes were cast for biden then they have registered voters. that's the big lie. thank you. host: lisa is in arlington, virginia.

says yes, liz cheney should remain in leadership. caller: no, actually, she should resign. she is not doing her job. i never heard anything talking about the borders, talking about small businesses, about division , about racial issues and so on. i mean, she is a huge disappointment lately, and president trump should be allowed to have the freedom of speech. she need to go. host: this is a headline from "the washington post or co--- "the washington post." the underlying question is simple. is the gop a party in which embracing lies about the united

states system of government is a prerequisite for leadership? they further write about elise stefanik, saying that elise stefanik, who is reportedly working the phones to whip up support, voting against congress' acceptance of the electoral college. she may reap the benefits, but at 36, she has perhaps decades of political lives to -- her tactical influence of trumpism has permanently stained her. arlington, texas, next up. good morning to rufus. hello there. caller: good morning. i say she should stay. with the character and the backbone that her dad gave her, she should stay. forget the rest of the republicans. once you get a backbone and stand up for the rest of the american people, then they can say something. but liz cheney should stay, bottom line.

she speaks truth to power. host: to baton rouge we go, say hello to dorothy. hey there. caller: yes, i think i'm on the wrong line. i think the -- i think she should go, definitely. it's amazing to me, the references that you are using. she doesn't really need any kind of political ads because you are giving her those. usa today and the national review and the washington post? those are liberal newspapers, and the national review magazine -- host: the national review is a conservative publication. caller: well, it was a conservative republican

organization. it has lost favor in the last few years and its editors are nothing but rhino -- rin no's. i'm glad you at least giving some other republicans a chance to voice their own opinion. i agree with the person that said president trump should have freedom of speech. and i also think that saying the election was not taken from trump is absolutely ridiculous. i mean, obviously the liberals think that the republicans don't have any sense at all, and there are millions of american people out there that voted for trump. so if all of them are as stupid as you think they are, then we are doomed. so thank you. i think she should go, and i

hope that the vote goes the way of those republicans who want this country to get back to being the american country that it needs to be. host: the issue about liz cheney, at an event president biden was attending and asked about that. >> you said earlier you don't understand republicans. what does it say about them if they oust liz cheney from leadership for telling the truth about the election? pres. biden: look, it seems as though the republican party is trying to identify what it stands for, and they are in the midst of significant -- sort of a mini revolution going on in the republican party. i have been a democrat for a long time.

we've gone through periods, we've had internal fights and disagreements, but i don't remember any like this. and so as one of you said on national television last night, we badly need a republican party. we need the two-party system. it is not healthy to have a one party system. and i think the republicans are further away from trying to figure out who they are and what they stand for than i thought they would be at this point. host: our capitol hill producer is craig kaplan. tweeting some comments from the majority leader, steny hoyer, his comments from yesterday. on the liz cheney situation --

host: let's hear from cedric in highland, texas. go ahead. cedric, highland, texas. caller: i don't believe liz cheney should go, but the house will have to make that decision because i agree with her. i believe donald trump lost the election because of some of the regulation for covid and other situations. but at the same time, i know that we are trying to win back the house, and if it is best to focus on winning back the house, then i think she should go. thank you. host: two big run, -- two big run, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. first of all, i think she should go. the people don't remember that her father was under the bush administration. there is a certain amount of republicans that want to get --

that never did want trump. and i think it is just vengeance on her part. and as far as her going -- i think 535 of them ought to go. why does it take, 5, 6 years, like lucy from ohio says, five or six years to get anything done in washington? why? you should do what is good for the people, what's good for the country, or -- forget the party, forget your own personal whatever it may be, and do what's good for the country. as far as these here politicians, we got 15% first or second generation immigrants coming into this country. somalia, south america.

we got one illegal out of new york. telling me what to do, telling -- taking away my gun rights. i think the whole damn bunch ought to go. excuse my leg which, sir. have a good day. host: howard from pennsylvania bringing up issues on the border. the story from "the wall street journal" this morning about the situation on the u.s. border. u.s. and makeshift shelters for crunch of -- over a dozen emergency shelters have been -- using convention centers, army venues, bases, and camps to address the surging unaccompanied minors, from "the wall street journal." 202-748-8000 if you think liz cheney should remain in leadership position. 202-748-8001 if you say no. this is the lead opinion piece in the commentary section of

"the washington times," by former vice president mike pence, which is headlined, "toward an agenda that will win back america." some final comments on social media. george from susanville, california, says she should go only because she has become the wrong person for the position. make in tampa, florida. she is a daughter of the swamp. president trump has shown tens of millions of americans exactly

what our government has been doing. we are not going to be the silent majority any longer, just you wait. from washington, d.c., notice the sexist hypocrisy. and from lynn in gresham, oregon, who says this. more ahead here on "washington journal." from the government accountability office, we will

be joined by john dicken, who will cost that she will talk about the cost of prescription drugs in the u.s. and how that compares with the rest of the world. and dr. chris beyrer of johns hopkins school of public health. the latest on the fight against covid-19. >> we are not only trying to do the theoretical work that we might be interested in or the esoteric work we are interested in like particle physics, but we are also trying to confront real-world problems that affect our ability should to get our real work done. so i -- i needed to fight for myself. i needed to fight to make away for myself, and i felt that in order to feel like a person of confidence in the field, i need

to make room for other people. announcer: jenna prescott weinstein, on subatomi s particles and her struggles as a black woman in the field. you can also listen to q&a as a podcast, where you get your podcasts. meet jason hershey, founder of -- where christians come together on the national mall, for worship and prayer. subscribe where you get your podcasts. there is more all about the c-span podcast, at c-span.org/podcasts. announcer: "washingon journal" continues. host: john dicken is with the

government accountability office, the director of the public health and private markets division. here with us to talk about a noose study -- a new study that was done. welcome to "washington journal. guest: good morning, thank you. host: tell our viewers and listeners of the role of the government accountability office. guest: the government accountability office, gao, is an independent nonpartisan congressional agency. often called the government watchdog. we do evaluations of federal programs, federal policies, federal spending at the request of congress, and of leadership in both parties, and so those reports become publicly available, both the congress and the general public. host: john dicken is joining us to talk about one of those

evaluations, one of those studies requested by congress. the name of the report is "prescription drugs: u.s. prices on average than prices in australia, canada, and france." who asked you to do this report? caller: -- guest: we have had a body of work on prescription drug pricing by a number of different committees, both republican and democrat. this particular report comparing u.s. with international prices was requested by senator -- and his role as chair of the budget committee. host: is this an area you had not looked into previously, gao? guest: the gao has done a lot of work on the u.s., looking at a number of different public programs -- medicaid, medicare, v.a., dod -- big payers for

prescription drugs also looking in the private sector. gao had not done for more than a decade, comparing how the u.s. prices look when looking at other -- reflecting other company -- other countries that have a high per capita income. host: give us a sense of the brand name pharmaceuticals you have compared to other countries. guest: we look at two brand-name drugs that were a large part of spending and use in the medicare script drug program, and so in the end, we had 41 drugs that represent significant spending on prescriptions and medicare and that were also available in at least one of three other countries -- australia, france, canada. 20 of those were available in all three countries as well as the u.s., and one example that

we traced through with different prices was so nor elect, a commonly prescribed drug for pulmonary obstructive disease. there were 21 drugs that we compared in at least in those countries. host: viewers can read that at gao.com. some of the findings include this. gao's analysis of 2020 data found that 20 selected brand-name prescription drugs, estimated u.s. prices paid at the retail level by consumers and other payers such as insurers were more than two to four times higher than prices in three selected comparison countries. we mentioned those comparison countries -- australia, canada, and france. is there a why behind that, john dicken? guest: there are a number of reasons to why prices might be higher in the u.s. compared to other countries.

and some of those issues are that the country is -- that is true in australia and france, not in the u.s. or canada. whether or not they have regulations that affect drug problems -- jug prices that may -- drug prices that affect the ceiling on the prices. the u.s. has individual programs, individual public programs but not a national approach to regulating drug prices. a third reason is differences in distribution and supply chain for drugs in the u.s.. there are a lot of entities between the manufacturer and the pharmacy that include wholesalers, health plans, pharmacy benefit managers, and so there is a complex supply

chain where a number of entities , each of which the money flows through and people get paid for services. two last quick reasons, manufacturers point to the u.s.'s payment for research and development and innovation, and certainly we saw that the u.s. has contributed a larger share of its economy to development for prescription drugs, but that alone does not account for the differences we saw in other countries. the last factor i would note at a high level is valuing the choice of drugs, and so often higher cost drugs may be available. they offer smaller -- strong therapeutic advantages, whereas other countries may limit the choice to those who have therapeutic advantages at a certain cause. host: we are talking with john dicken. they looked in comparing with

several other countries and we would love to hear from you. the lines are 202-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. 202-748-8001, fountain and pacific. particularly if you bought drugs in canada or whatever and had that experience or book drugs from pharmaceuticals overseas. we would love to hear your experience on that. john dicken, i want to go back this point. part of the summary of your reports is that each of the four countries use pricing strategies to limit the price of drugs, but the united states is the only country in our review that does not have the overarching pricing strategy for prescription drugs, although it is publicly funded coverage. such as medicaid. is there a why behind there is not a he u.s. pricing strategy? what do those strategies look like in other countries?

guest: really in the u.s., as you know, the number of different payers, we rely in large part or in private health plans to offer through employers come through medicare, and so each of those programs have different statutory authorities for prices, for different buildings to negotiate with manufacturers. so certainly each plan has both strategies for how they are negotiating prices. but that is across different tiers. in australia and france and canada, there are national approaches that could do things like set ceiling prices. that would be the maximum amount that would be paid for drug limits, the rate of increase of drugs after they have been on the market for a while, and then they compare those drug prices

to other countries or other benchmarks. so those apply within individual health plans in the u.s., but it does not apply uniformly in the way it is in australia. host: i wanted to point out the chart you have in the report looking at the u.s. in three other countries and the cost per capita of a pharmaceutical -- of pharmaceutical spending. her year. age 65 -- 806 to five dollars per year in canada. 671 in france per person. australia, 651 per person, and in the u.s., 1200 -- 1229. in terms of gdp, it has the highest in the four countries compared in terms of spending. does that surprise you? guest: i think that is prominent

in the u.s., not just for prescription drugs but for health care services. not only in dollar amounts. the $1200 personal per person that individuals thank for prescription drugs, but also the economy. i think that was expected. what our report shows us is a big factor in that is just the prices of the drugs themselves. it affects both the prices and the amounts, and this report shows the actual price for the exact same drug is significantly higher for brand-name drugs that we looked at in the u.s. and other countries, which contributes to why the country is spending more. host: john dicken, talking about the cost of prescription drugs. we will hear from jim in east lansing, michigan. good morning.

go ahead. caller: thank you very much. drug prices you're talking about now? i think they are very high. there is no excuse for that. they are so darn high. my son is on this one that is like $3000 to $6,000 a month because he had a kidney replaced, so he had to get that one -- host: in the other countries, are pharmaceuticals covered by health care in australia and france? guest: yes, they are covered in two of the countries. australia tends to have universal coverage with prescription drugs. candida famously has universal coverage for physicians, for the hospitals. it does not include prescription

drugs as part of its potential universal coverage system. like the u.s., there are some people that may not have insurance coverage. many get coverage through their employers or purchase private plans, or through public programs. australia and france have the universal coverage in the u.s., and that can lead like the caller, thank you for sharing your experiences with some high cost drugs. having those people paying either the full cost or the high cost sharing of drugs. if they are not as strong as the health plan to have lower caution. host: your report looked at namebrand prescription drugs. any idea how generic drugs compare overseas to the u.s.? guest: that is an important question. part of the report is only

looking at brand-name drugs. generics are the majority of spending for prescription drugs in the u.s., even though they are only less than 20%, 10% to 20% of the number of drugs. generics play a very important role in the u.s. those prescribed in the u.s. are generic. while this report did not -- we only looked at brand-name drugs. we have lots of generic drug prices in the u.s. before, and the key issue there is if there is competition, they are very low. they may lower in the u.s. but in other countries. but we also saw some exceptions for us that may be generic that are on the markets for a long time. and there were some sterner prices with drug stripling overnight. even in the generic tread

market. those are the exceptions. very competitive as long as there is competition. host: from birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. my thing about those drugs is that we live in a capitalistic society, so you have got the government not regulating, but as far as the -- i personally have diabetes. and diabetes is an expensive disease. in all the drugs that -- they advertise. the fact that i cannot pronounce the name of a drug means they have a commercial. if they have a commercial, then

i cannot afford it. so what happens is they would get nba approval -- fda approval for the medication, and then you cannot afford it. so once you cannot afford it, then you have -- like what i did was took my formulator. since i could not the -- i could not afford the drugs they were asking me to get, i took my formulary from my insurance company and ask them -- because they have different tiers. they have them look at something that is older, that i can use in place of what they were trying to get me to get. host: i will let you go there and get some response from john dicken. guest: thank you for sharing your experience. three brief things that you

mentioned that are really important, one is insulin and diabetes. insulin is a key part of diabetes treatment. he has been a drug that has a lot to do with high pricing increases, so you're not alone in seeing that there are very high costs for diabetes. secondly, what you did and what people do is that if they have their drugs, to look at their health plan and the formularies, which is what the plan covers or prefers come and see if there are alternatives that your doctor and the pharmacy and the health plan would recommend. to the last point you mentioned, consumer advertising of drugs, which is prevalent in the united states, not used in other countries. the gao is also looking at and will be issuing a report in the

next month, looking at the extent of spending for direct contact -- direct consumer advertising in line with medicare spending for drugs. host: there was news about the administration waving supportive patents on the covid-19 -- it is the temporary waiver of international property divisions to produce the covid-19 vaccine. john dicken, what role do these intellectual patents play in terms of the cost of prescription drugs both here and how that affects cost overseas? guest: certainly intellectual property is an important aspect of pricing because research and the public sector, extensive

research in the industry could be high cost. there is a breakthrough or innovation that -- that u.s. law and international -- also other countries provide intellectual property rights. we have a section use the form of the drawer for a put two of time. encouraging that information and research, it will limit competition. what you gave, gao is continuing to look at vaccines. we also looked at remdesivir, which is a treatment that has been used as a treatment for covid. looked at the role of intellectual policy and patents in those specific areas. so a key issue both for innovation as well as competition and prices for

drugs. host: next, from staunton, virginia, we hear from david. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i've got just a couple of questions. number one, i am a retired come on medicare, so the part b helps quite a bit on the pricing. but i have noticed recently that the pricing on a few of the drugs -- in particular i will mention one -- it went from $43 to $216 for a month's supply. and the people said at the pharmacy that if they had gotten into the doughnut hole, with the cap. it was my understanding that that was supposed to be eliminated in 2020. but it is also my understanding that either congress did not act

on it or the white house did not act on it, but i don't know what happened there. the second question was that last year i think the trump administration negotiated a price of insulin for 35 a month, but yet i don't think that applies anymore. don't know why. and then i will just hang up and listen to the response. thank you. guest: the drug you mentioned was one of the 40 that we looked at, and as you noted, what we had for 2020 was that the average retail price for that includes both the cost-sharing that you and other individuals would pay as well as for medicare or other peers. it was up 760 one dollars. that was then reduced, paid by manufacturers to help plans,

notably to $386 per one month supply. in australia, or in france, up $76. drug prices for the exact same drug or much higher in the u.s.. you mentioned the doughnut hole. over time since medicare part d was implemented, manufacturers have agreed to statutorily -- agreed statutorily that they will provide some of the payment so that individuals are not paying 100% anymore. i believe it is about 70%. but there is still a doughnut hole where individuals are paying a significant cost once they have met their deductible, and before they reach a catastrophic level where the cost is mostly paid by medicare. host: i want to ask you about rebates and other price concessions.

you have a chart that looks at two drugs -- and nora, it, and elation. both of those showed this dotted area there of the estimated rebates, u.s. rebates and price concessions. that mean that if those price concessions were not there, that drug would be costing that much in the united states? guest: that's right. higher price is really what the growth price is, but that would be paid by both individuals and all payers, but that is offset, for many brain drugs, significantly offset, back from the manufacture of health plans and others, and in both examples that has reduced the per month price hundreds or thousands of dollars. we have seen in the past and medicare on average for brand drugs, rebates may be offsetting about 20% of what the cost would otherwise be.

the issue is that may help reduce the costs. may hold their premiums for lower. but it doesn't necessarily reduce the costs for individuals , paying the higher priced based on the growth price. host: what is the number one reason? we look across australia, france, and what is the number one reason those costs are lower? guest: i wish i could give a single reason. it is a combination of the regulation, the competition, and they are able to have formularies that prefer drugs where they have reached negotiations and believe there is comparative effectiveness, whereas in the u.s., that is something that is done not at this level individually, allowing more choice and

individuals to choose their health plans or different, even if they are more expensive drugs. host: typically, how long does it take you to put together a study like this? guest: we have reports that take weeks or months, others that take years. this was a fairly extensive study. the complexity of the issues, that we had not -- we started with a much larger group of countries, and then frankly, in the u.s., prices in the u.s. -- the study was longer than the other study. the actual dates of the report, i think it was roughly over more than a year, possibly two years. that is a much longer study, given the amount of data that we get from other countries. and from the u.s. to make sure we can make these

apple to apple comparisons. host: back to calls. bought in yuma, arizona. caller: good morning. i live on a border town. in mexico you can get your drugs , at least 50% less than in the united states. even the canadians when they come down here, they buy their drugs and take them back to canada with them. does that make any sense to you? thank you. host: ok, bob. guest: i certainly have heard similar stories. the experiences at the mexico border, the canadian border, able to go and see that the drugs are much lower. that may not make sense from a logical perspective, the exact same drugs that in your case may be a few miles away in the

country, costing different amounts. i think it is challenging. there are proposals that would either -- that would allow more importation of drugs for other countries. but other considerations, on the small scale that that is done now, i know for example in canada, there were studies that indicated that a larger importation of drugs in the u.s., the u.s. drug market is much bigger. that may have consequences that manufacturers may raise the prices that they have in other countries. it gets complicated, but your experience is one that we hear that many people across the border on individual level. host: here is damien in georgia. caller: yes, mr. dicken, how are you doing this morning? guest: good. caller: i have a question and i want to see if you will answer

it. first of all, they don't care what we do here, hurting people with our drug prices or whatever. we have a way of ensuring the welfare whites and jews of this country. with that being said, answer this question. aoc did a thing on capitol hill about how we do and pay for the american public -- the american public pays for the research, and whether drug comes out, we find it has been tested and it's ok, we give it to a family, and then that family controls -- or a company, whatever you want to call it -- and that family comes out and controls what happens to the drug instead of giving it to the public. you bring up australia a lot. that same drug was sent to australia for 8000 and month when we were paying 200 and month for over here. why is america the land of greed

and out of controlness that we have in this country? host: if you would like to respond to the caller, that is fine. guest: thank you. you know, i think there are a range of thoughts. certainly, in the u.s., the fda is responsible for the safety and efficacy of drugs. that's a big challenge, but that is their primary mission, proving drugs are available on the market -- approving drugs available on the market. there is some collaboration between fda and other countries to make sure that given drugs are a global market, that the drugs are available and safe and effective. certainly the drug prices reflect that the u.s. has paid a significant amount for research and development, and having the

choice of drugs leads to where we are, which is our drug prices are significantly higher, two to four times higher and in other countries. host: in the report can be read at gao.gov. john dicken is--john dicken, the update. guest: thank you, appreciate your interest. host: coming up, we will be joined by epidemiologist dr. chris beyrer with johns hopkins school of public health. he will be talking with us about the fight against covid-19. later, purdue university president mitch daniels will be telling us about his school's new civic literacy requirement for undergraduates. ♪ [video clip] >> book tv on c-span two has top

nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 8 p.m. eastern, susan, linda, nina, cokie, the extraordinary story of the founding mothers of npr. the author profiles four journalists whose reporting helped establish national. sunday at 9 p.m. eastern on "afterwards," a "new yorker" staff writer talks about his book, "empire of pain," looking at the wealth coming from -- coming to the family of a pharmaceutical company. sunday, george book talks of -- george bush talks about his book , "out of many, one." watch "book tv," this weekend on

c-span two. >> c-span shop.org is the online c-span store with a collection of c-span products and every purchase helps to support nonprofit organizations. go there to order a copy of the congressional directory with contact information for the bike mid ministry mission cabinet and browse our newest products at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: dr. chris beyrer is the professor of epidemiology at the johns hopkins school of public health and joins us this morning. good to have you back here on "washington journal." guest: thank you, bill. good to be with you. host: let's start with a couple of things that are in the news this week. starting with "the new york

times," herd immunity, they had a piece saying that reaching herd immunity is unlikely in the u.s. and at some .6 months ago or more, the entire concept was the goal. getting to herd immunity in the u.s. tell us what has changed in our thinking on that. guest: we tend to think of it and prefer to think of it as community immunity, it's more people centered, but absolutely, this has been a part of our thinking for the endgame of the covid epidemic in the u.s., the pandemic. the fundamental issue is that we really are turning a corner and principally that is because of the three covid-19 vaccines that we have emergency use authorization for. what is that immunization supply for the first time really is

exceeding demand and uptake is very getting quite a bit across the country. there are a number of states that are lagging behind the national average. texas we are concerned about. mississippi, louisiana. and there continue to be outbreaks in places like oregon and the recent one in michigan suggesting that what we are going to be seeing are places where there is insufficient vaccine uptake and use, local outbreaks, and a need to handle restrictions. so, it's a challenging moment. but i think the most important thing to say is that we really are moving into a new phase and that's really good news, where hospitalizations have plateaued at about 40,000 people. that's way down. we are seeing around 700 deaths per day. remember, in january we were seeing 3000 deaths per day.

that's really a decline. the warmer weather means people can be outside more. we know that this is primarily an indoor virus. that change to outdoor activities is heartening. we saw that before, of course, last summer when people went outside. but the big difference is of course now so many americans have been immunized. 148 million people have had at least one dose, that's going to be a game changer. host: going back to the pace of vaccines, the areas that are lagging, is there evidence or correlation that in the under vaccinated areas we are seeing more breakouts and cases on the rise? looking down the road, is that something we could see more of, if those areas stay unvaccinated, could they be more susceptible to outbreaks?

guest: you know, this is a very infectious virus. if there are more susceptible people in the population because fewer have been immunized, spread a variant likely. that's part of the race we are in. that is certainly the case. if you look globally and take a bigger picture of our world, we are seeing this very quickly. places with low or no immunization coverage are on a totally different trajectory from the u.s. and the u.k. brazil, india, having severe cases of hospitalization and death. no question that the countries that are ahead on immunization like the u.s. and the u.k. are really seeing these declines. but the global pandemic is worsening. host: how concerned should we

be, as we improve in the united states, when we see horrific case numbers in india, parts of south america, how concerned should we be that the virus from those countries could still pose a threat to us? guest: well, we have to have that basic human solidarity that we are all concerned about each other in the world. certainly, that is a core tenant of global health. but certainly from an epidemiological perspective, we have to be very concerned. the emergence of variants of concern, and they are a big part of why things are going so badly in brazil and other parts of south america and india and its neighboring countries, nepal and others, it's very clear that these are spreading because they are more infectious and they may

be able, over time, you may see variants that undermine the current generation of vaccines. for example, the virus that was used for the genetic sequence for the moderna and pfizer vaccines was from a variance from a case picked up in washington state early last year. it's already a year old, that virus, and what we are seeing with covid-19 is that these variants are emerging regularly. host: our guest is dr. chris beyrer, johns hopkins university. we welcome your calls and comments (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001, mountain and pacific. medical professionals, use (202) 748-8002. i wanted to play the comments of president biden, who reset the

goals they had for immunization earlier this week and get your thoughts on this new goal. let's listen. [video clip] >> too many -- so many families are going to celebrate the fourth of july. our goal is to have 70% of adult americans with at least one shot and 160 americans fully vaccinated, meaning giving close to 160 million shots, some first, some second, over the next 60 days. of course americans will still get shots after july 4, but no one should wait. let's try to hit that 70% mark with one shot before that day. it's another huge goal. as you may remember, we were initially focused on getting enough vaccines for every adult. we did that, we have enough vaccines. now that we have vaccine supply we are focused on convincing even more americans to show up

and get the vaccine available to them. if we succeed in this effort as we did with the last, americans will have taken a serious step towards returning to normal. host: dr. chris beyrer, do you think that goal is reachable by july 4? guest: it's absolutely reachable , given as the president said, we now have sufficient supplies. we are back using the johnson & johnson, a single-dose vaccine. people are fully protected two weeks after that single-dose, adding to the three vaccines that we have, supply of pfizer and moderna, sufficient to achieve the goal. the question really is are people going to be willing to step up and get immunized? that's the hard part. vaccine hesitancy is real and is variable. it's not the same across communities or the country.

some of it is grounded in divisive politics. some of it is coming from people's concerns about the side effects. and there are very legitimate concerns, for example, after the pause of j&j, we have seen a decline in immunizations and we haven't bounced back to the level from before the pause that was in response to the rare but nevertheless real small number of people immunized with j&j who were found to have blood clots and bleeding. that rate is about two per million and the fda made the decision, as did the cdc, that the risks were far outweighed by the benefits and we have gone back to using j&j. the pause definitely costs us. encouragingly, we are seeing increasing rates of immunization in some communities like african-americans and latin

americans who were hesitant early on, but we are seeing worrying levels of vaccine resistance and white evangelical christians, for example. -- in white evangelical christians, for example. a group that will take particular kinds of outreach, likely. the president is working at the local level to try to get to the next goal, the fourth goal that he articulated and i think that's right, i think that is very much needed. now it is really up to the american people. it has been amazing how many have been willing to get immunized and that's right, we will have to get higher rates to get back to normal. host: after adults, how quickly do you think school-age kids will be able to be vaccinated? how important is that? guest: well, it's very important. right now with the pfizer

vaccine, it's 16 and up. johnson and moderna, 18 and older. right now the fda will probably be deliberating tomorrow on pfizer having made an application for the next age group down, 12 to 15-year-olds. kind of early teens. those data have been remarkable. we have seen them in the covid vaccine prevention network that i'm a part of. these 12 to 15-year-old's immune responses look better than adults. certainly equivalent. this is with pfizer, a very safe vaccine where we haven't seen these blood clot issues. these immunizations may start next week. that's great. there are trials underway with both pfizer and moderna in children under 12, but we will

have to wait to see what the data shows. in each case we are going down steadily in age. we have to do the trial and have the data before we make a decision. host: let's go to our callers, jeff is in nebraska. thanks for waiting. caller: yes, sir. i'd like to get three quick questions in. if you have already had the virus, what's the point of the government insisting that you get the shot when you don't need it? or at least that's what we have been told. the second part, if they have these people coming across the border that have the virus but are infected, why are they dispersing these people all over the united states, not telling anybody or keeping track? last -- last night i heard on the fox news tucker channel they had 3500 people die after they got the shot.

is there a problem that we don't know about? guest: well, let me, thanks for your questions, jeff. let me start with the first one, which is a very important question. should people who have already had covid, confirmed covid infection or illness still consider immunization? the guidelines from the cdc are yes, you should. the reason why, the guidance is to wait 90 days until basically your immune system has had the ability to respond, is that the vaccine-induced immunity is more robust, stronger, and longer lasting than natural immunity. we are very much encouraging it. there is no mandate for vaccination. sounded like you said the government was insisting. there's no mandate now but remember the vaccines are still

under emergency use authorization. it's unlikely that there will be any kind of mandate. that said, the pfizer vaccine is almost certainly the first one going forward for full fda approval. it has been made clear that that will happen fairly soon and we may be moving into a time where we have a fully approved vaccine in the coming months and that will definitely be a change. to your question about vaccine mortality or deaths associated with the vaccine, with the j&j there were initially six cases of the hemorrhage, there's actually a formal word for this. typical medical speak, i'm afraid to say, vaccine induced thrombotic inside a pdf -- thrombotic [indiscernible] and we picked up initially six

cases after 12 million doses were used. that's the kind of thing, a very rare complication, that you will only see after several million people have been immunized. we did not see it in the trials. since then, a handful of more cases were picked up. there have been fewer than five deaths, but definitely some associated. again, this is after many millions have been immunized. the estimated rate of that complication is about two per million immunizations and that is why the decision was made to go forward. host: in your experience, how is the safety record of covid vaccines compared to other vaccines we have out there? guest: pfizer and moderna have been remarkably safe. we have seen very few complications, except for the kind of 48 hours after the second dose, where people have

malaise, muscle pain, some low-grade fevers. the complications, this very rare complication of clotting and bleeding have been associated with the two vaccines that have adenovirus in them. based on the adenovirus platform . that's the johnson & johnson and astrazeneca. still, extraordinarily rare complications, as i said. about two per million with johnson & johnson. astrazeneca has of course not been approved for emergency use in the u.s., we aren't using it yet. host: this is carl calling from moscow hills, missouri. go ahead. caller: i was calling about the fact that people going to businesses and stores and everything, they should be required to be vaccinated and produce a car to because of the fact that you take a chance on infecting somebody and you don't know if the person that you are going to infect is going to be

the person that dies from it. so, i mean, you are subjecting people if you don't get the vaccine. the guy i was talking -- the guy that was talking about fox news, if you are watching fox news, you need to get up and change the channel. that's what i'd like to say. host: have we gotten better at contact tracing throughout the course of the pandemic and secondarily, what will the role be of covid testing once we have done all the vaccines and such, how important will covid testing continue to be? guest: yeah, your callers point is an important one, one of the real reasons to get immunized, particularly for younger, healthy people, is indeed to help be a part of reducing the likelihood of spread and protecting the more vulnerable in our communities and families. he's right about that. that is important motivation and

we hope that people will hear it and respond to that. the issue of contact tracing really was important very early on and then community transmission reached such levels of spread that it is essentially became impossible to do. i think that both contact tracing and testing are going to come back into play as we get to a place where there are enough people who are immunized that we really have community immunity or herd immunity in many races. where we don't, where immunization rates are too low, there will still be a role for contact tracing and testing to put out those small fires, as it were. that certainly is the case in other countries that have low rates of transmission, where they are still able to use those tools, places like taiwan, australia, new zealand, where they are very vigilant and they don't have levels of community

spread to. we are still seeing 40,000 cases a day in this country. it's very hard to do contact tracing with that level of spread. host: this is james, fredericksburg, virginia, hello there. caller: good morning, dr. p. -- doctor. thanks for your work and all you have done. the word is that chinese communist officials had already been inoculated before the first case. that this was true and is biological warfare that has perfectly worked for china as their gdp is 19% where ours is probably 3%. being that that is a possibility and that copycat from nations like iran, who have claimed to be saying that the death toll in their country is what it is, but it is from a new strain, that

their officials have also been vaccinated from it as well. while this seems a terrible conspiracy theory, if true and in fact a portion of it i think may be, what can we do in order to turn the tide so that being inoculated would even work in the future, as the possibility that our medicines will no longer function against these combatants who are trying to take us and are taking us down. host: ok, dr. beyrer. guest: two things to say to james. there was a who mission to china group of experts to try to investigate the origins and early emergence of the virus that is causing the covid-19

pandemic. i think the general scientific consensus is that the chinese were not forthcoming enough, that the team that was there did not get to see much of the original data on the first patients and there is still a concern that we don't really understand the early emergence of this virus and that is of course very important to the long-term implications. to your second question about what we can do, the answer to any virus, whatever the origin, is always that you have to try to use public health measures, as we have been, and develop vaccines. we have developed at least three and have several more in the pipeline as well. i will tell you, i think that what you are referring to with the new and different strains, we are watching that in real

time. anyone out there who doubts evolutionary theory, watch what the virus is doing. it is mutating and evolving as we track it. what that means is that pfizer, moderna, others, the nih, people are already working on what we would think of as booster vaccines against those varian ts. lots of virus do this. influenza does this, there's no human agency behind it. we always need flu shots because the virus keeps changing. it may be that an annual or every two year covid vaccine becomes part of american life the way influenza vaccine has. host: i have this from twitter, "i want to ask that, is it true that the unvaccinated are those spreading the virus? if the vaccinated get covid, can

they spread it to other people? guest: this is an important question that is under intense investigation right now. all the science that we have suggest that immunized people can get exposure and probably do have some brief infection, but are probably much less likely to transmit it. it is the unending and eyes -- not immunized who are vulnerable into are likely to continue to spread this very infectious virus. the study underway as among young people. it started on college campuses but is now broader than that. immunizing, delaying immunization, everyone will get immunized. doing daily testing, that is a transmission study to answer precisely your russian. what is the protective effect of these vaccines on transmission?

as i said, the science we have right now suggests that you are not likely to transmit and that the vaccine is to protect against that, but it is under intensive study right now in that trial is underway. host: next is alex in virginia. you are on with dr. chris but i -- doctor chris beyrer. caller: i have a good question. why does the health professional not offer antibody tests? for vaccine. like, if i have a natural immunity, it may be enough for me to fight this coronavirus. we don't know for sure if it's enough alone, but i think it's better to have natural immunity. why are we not offering to have antibody tests before we consider vaccination?

thank you. guest: a very important question. let me just say that when we did the trials for these vaccines, and they were large trials with 30,000 people each, one hundred 80,000 americans volunteered to be in these trials. really quite extraordinary. we never did antibody testing because we wanted to know if these vaccines would work in people who had covid and you have to remember that a significant proportion of people who had had a covid-19 infection were asymptomatic and didn't know it. it would add an in or miss amount of costs and operational challenges if you had to screen first everybody getting immunized for antibodies. it is hard enough to get mass immunization going. it's a practical matter, but also important to say that

people who have had covid, and we have good data on this from brazil, can get it again with the new variance. there have been places where there have been second covid outbreaks. natural immunity is not as protective as the vaccine -induced immunity with the vaccines that we have in this country. that is why the cdc strongly recommends that people who have had covid or antibody evidence from past exposure, even if they were not sick, should still get it. host: we will go to hawaii, next, to hear from mike. guest: mike handed -- caller: mike actually handed it over to me. he's on call. i have a few questions and i'm sure that dr. buyer will recognize the names. dr. gandhi, michael minna, dr. monica gandhi brought up a few

things in her grand rounds about using masks early on, studies showing that the inoculum from small doses, if you take it exposed with the mask, you would get a small inoculum, meaning a symptom -- host: mike question mark hawaii, you still there? sorry about that -- mike, hawaii? are you still there? sorry about that, we lost the line. chris says this in a tweet, "if one is vaccinated and wants to play basketball with 10 others who are vaccinated, is there any reason for each of the 11 people to wear masks, isn't it removing the need for masks if you are in a group of other vaccinated people? guest: first of all, i want to say that monica caller was referring to, i was a co-author on that paper.

it is absolutely right. what we put forward is that the amount of virus that you are exposed to has a big impact on whether you have a cinematic or a serious case of covid. massacring dexter where in addition to others. the cdc guns is clear, that people who are fully immunized, that means two weeks after either the j&j or your second dose of pfizer and moderna can engage in outdoor activities, unmasked with either small groups, other immunized people. different from going to a concert or a sports event with 40,000 people wear our mask where is required. your caller who if he has a group of friends were all immunized can play basketball outside. host: maybe jumping the gun, how do you feel about broadway?

new york's mayor announcing that broadway would resume in september with full theaters. guest: this is going to raise an important question. new york state is doing well with immunizations, and of the states with higher up takes, that is great. it has been doing mass immunizations. it is encouraging. broadway brings tourists, a lot of people who are not from high immunization states. that said, the issue will likely emerge that people are going to start, for example the broadway theater mate required immunization -- may require

immunization or proof of immunization. we are seeing that for all kinds of the fence. that is emerging as an issue for international travel. the europeans will welcome american travelers with proof of immunization. this will also be in our future, in some ways what we are seeing already is that the number of companies are developing applications that are fun based, they will be able to be scanned easily and fast. this is going to be a part of our new normal. host: let's hear from angela in franklin, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am 56 years old, i have been self isolated and wearing a mask when i go to my doctor. i have been blessed over the

outbreak of this mess to not have contracted it. i have had one covid test that has been negative. i have been very careful. the vaccines that they have out right now, they were pushed out hastily for my liking. i have health issues going on and i decided to wait, see what happened with everybody. i figured, they put them out to hasty. people are having side effects, there's that and the other. -- this, that and the other. host: if it was accessible to

you would you get a shot? caller: it is accessible to me, i want to make sure that it is better researched before i get any vaccine. host: let's get a response. guest: i want to congratulate you on following the guidelines of mass wearing and being careful. it is wonderful to hear that you have avoided covid. certainly folks in your age group with other health issues are vulnerable. and if you acquire this infection can lead to serious medical issues. that said, i think many people felt the weight do that they want to wait and see, there were concerns about how fast these vaccines were developed. i would say 148 million americans have been immunized,

worldwide with the pfizer and moderna vaccine's we have vaccinated over 200 million people. we have not seen significant side effects. we have rarely with the johnson and johnson and astrazeneca in europe. but not with the pfizer and moderna. it is reasonable to wait, but for me, two hundred million people being immunized is a lot different from the 30,000 people in the trials or with pfizer 44,000. that ought way into your thinking -- to weigh into your thinking. if you're one of those folks who think that is not enough information, follow what is happening and we will see if we can meet this national goal the president has set by the fourth of july.

it is great that you were able to self-isolate, but for many americans, this is not a choice. we have a lot of front-line workers, health-care workers, working checkouts in the supermarkets, essential industries like meatpacking and food processing who were commanded to continue working. for many, staying at home is not an option. promising protection for those folks who do not have the choice to work-at-home. host: let's hear from larry in minnesota. caller: i want to know why the medical community does not point out the donald trump and his entire family have been vaccinated against covid-19. if you like that right wing media you would never know that. if it is good enough for donald

trump, it should be good for his followers. guest: grade-point. -- great point. president trump has publicly spoken up about being immunized and encouraged other americans to get immunized. his direct quote was it is a good shot. that is important to note. if you recall, last october, when the president himself became ill with covid, he got the broadly neutralizing antibody therapy and got the regeneron antiviral. those were not approved drugs at the time. they were in development, early on, we had good data. he was prioritized because he was the commander-in-chief. you cannot know for sure, but it

seems he was having hypoxia. he did recover quickly for a man his age. from a medical perspective, we think those interventions made a difference for him. he is an example of somebody who recovered from covid and got immunized. the point is well taken. host: our guest is the professor of health and human rights at the john hopkins school of public health. we talked about india, what about the variance in south africa -- variant in south africa? guest: that is very challenging. it is variant that we think is widespread in southern africa, the reason it was picked up in south africa is because that one of the most advanced medical systems in the region and they have good viral surveillance.

it was picked up initially by a nurse, who noticed that hospitalizations were up in her community and reached out to a scientist. and i think something is different with these patients. she was right. that variant, did show an ability to reduce the vaccine efficacy of the astrazeneca vaccine. it reduced from 78% efficacy to about 50% efficacy. that was the vaccine that vaccine -- without south africa it was using at the time. they had to stop and pivoted to johnson & johnson, it turns out that the johnson & johnson vaccine is robust against a variance. it appears that -- against that variant.

as well as pfizer and moderna. it is a variant of concern. i lost two colleagues in the so bob roy -- in zimbabwe who died of very aggressive covid and most certainly from that variant. this is real. the loss-of-life israel. -- is real. it is about 1% immunization for the continent and it is a human tragedy. host: we will go next to donald in alexandria, virginia. caller: thanks for c-span. i got the madera vaccine march 1 and the follow-up on the 31st and i had a physical with my

doctor on april 8 which was prescheduled. i asked for a test to see how my antibody was entered came back, it wasn't antiaging -- was an antigen test that came back negative. does that mean the vaccination did not work? or does that not work on antibodies. caller: antigen is actually the virus, if you had one that means you do not have covid or any of the virus in your system. that would suggest for the vaccine is working. if you had an antibody test, it should be reactive because you have been immunized. it can take time. usually we say that people are not fully protected until two weeks post second dose.

april 8 was early. the vaccine uptake, the efficacy with moderna was another 4% in the clinical trials. there were about 6% of people who were not as fully protected. nevertheless, when you look at serious disease, people who had pneumonia or hospitalization, protection was 100%. the vaccines were enormously effective. you should feel confident in two doses and congratulations. host: next up is dave in colorado, go ahead. caller: i have a question. a previous caller mentioned the -- that there were 3000 deaths

reported on the cdc system, you did not answer the question. is anybody looking into those deaths that were reported? guest: the bear system for those who do not know, is the vaccine adverse events reporting system, it is a passive system where people report what has happened. one thing to be mindful about because several thousand people have died -- when you have 148 million people immunized you are going to see deaths. there is a death rate in the population. the big question, is there any evidence that any of those fatalities are causally caused by the vaccine.

that number cannot tell you. when we look at national mortality for 2020, at least the data for the first six months, there was an enormous increase in the death rate. the largest sense 1918. there was -- since 1918. there was an enormous increase because of covid, but there were other issues some people who needed medical care did not seek it or get it because they were reluctant to go to health care because of the pandemic. there are multiple reasons that there would be loss-of-life and to say because 3000 people were reported to have died after immunization is not to say that immunization was the cause of death.

to the question of whether they are being investigated, absolutely. we have seen and think there is causal relationship between rare blood clotting and the johnson & johnson vaccine. the rate is roughly two per million million -- per one million. that is extremely rare but real. there happen several people who have died. most of those cases of the clotting have been in women under 50. there has only been one man. it appears to be more common in women. it is less common than those associated with oral contraception, 1000 for lower than the boycotts associated with smoking -- blood clots

associated with the smoking. host: we always appreciate your input and speaking with our viewers, thank you for being here. guest: it was a pleasure and text for all you are doing to get out the word. it is immense. host: see you soon. we are joined by duke university president mitch daniels who will tell us about his new pacific's literacy graduation requirement for undergraduates. ♪ -- school's civics literacy graduation requirement for undergraduates. ♪ >> saturday and 2:00 eastern, on oral histories, our guest remembers his time as a swiftboat veteran. on lectures in history, american

car culture and films of the 1970's with university of dayton professors, at 2:00 eastern on sunday, -- as a dog handler with the u.s. air force during the vietnam war. the 1972 film, a time for peace documenting president nixon's trip to china and at 6:00 eastern we visit san francisco to hear the story of the chinese in america and toward the streets of chinatown. explain the american story, watch american history tv this weekend. ♪

>> washington journal continues. host: we are joined from indiana by the former governor of that state, now president of purdue university, mitch daniels. welcome to washington journal. guest: thanks bill. host: here to talk to us about the civics literacy program you will be introducing for purdue undergraduates. what is the genesis of this? why do you think they need this? guest: hardly a new idea. people across the political spectrum have noted and lamented the abysmal lack of

understanding of our institutions. usually in young people but it is across the whole population the data would be comical if it was not so alarming. only a quarter of an american -- of american adults can identify the three branches of government. almost two thirds belief that a defendant can be compelled to testify against him or herself. ideally this would happen solved before the student gets to college. today's college students know measurably less about our history and civics tradition than high school graduates in 1950. the k-12 system is not delivering for the country. a public university like ours,

we feel we have a duty. host: this is not a purdue or indiana problem, it is a national problem. what do you expect that students will get out of the program? is this the start of the programs that they get a great upcoming -- out of taking this? guest: it would not be a great but a requirement of graduation. they can fulfill it at a lower burden. they will get a certification, civic certified so that when they leave, they understand the rudiments of their rights and responsibilities as a citizen of a free society. we think that this is this responsibility we have.

that we should not send out adults if they're not ready to be participated -- participating and informed citizens. it gives them a slight advantage against some of their peers, that are not part of this -- that are a part of this phenomenon of ignorance. host: when you say the word civics, for viewers and listeners, what does that range of topics that the literacy program will cover? guest: it should not suffice to simply know the facts. that is where it has to start, the facts of american history, the fact that this country has represented a steady progress of freedom. it should not be limited to simply understanding the

mechanics of our system, the three branches of government and the roles. the y is just as important-- why is just as important. what is this a personal power supposed to accomplish? why are the powers enumerated given to the citizens by the government, not graciously handed down by eight to radical government -- by -- handed down to them by a radical hour to radical government? the 50 states have their own role, why? what does it do to protect our freedom and the diversity of values in the country? that is what we hope will come of it. not simply a factual understanding which is the starting point, but a sense of how the system operates their

favor to protect the personal dignity and their chance to have a successful life on a basis that they determine, not dictated by a higher power. host: our guest, president of purdue university, talking about the civics literacy program being introduced and more broadly the area of civic spirit we welcome your calls and comments for those of you in eastern or central (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001 mountain or pacific, college students and parents (202) 748-8002. the headline from the exponent, the purdue student paper, the requirement is optional for current students, voted on by your board of trustees on june 10 parent i understand that it

was rejected by the faculty senate. what was the pushback? guest: timing and discussion about how it should be put together. there are three pathways a student can choose among, this was devised by a faculty group, there has been lots of inputs. the senate represents one point of view on our campus but hardly the only. some of the concerns were taken into account. the board of trustees believes that this is a responsibility we have as a public university. having heard all of the pros and cons. host: this network has been involved in this civics literacy issue with high schoolers with our annual cram for the exam, we bring in teachers to help prepare students for the ap

government, ap history tests. we did that a week ago or so on this program. the kids that come -- the students that come into purdue, do you think they are prepped by those classes? do those civics classes give them a leg up? guest: better than their peers, we have measured the spirit our students do substantially better -- we have measured this. arsons do substantially better on the sample test we give them thought is not enough. 100% of our graduates should know the fundamentals of our system. that will be our goal. there is scarcely an institution that i can think of that has done more to help americans understand their system of government than c-span.

your pet may be to take pride thought it was founded by a member of our alumni. we house the c-span archives here. a tool that any citizen can access. i am tempted to say if every american watched a little c-span we would not need courses like this. we would not see the distressing data about what we do annually about the lack of understanding and knowledge of american civics. host: the podcast associated with this c program is being produced there at the c-span scholarship and engagement center at purdue university and the school of committed occasions, correct? guest: absolutely. there are three pathways, one is to take a course in history and civics. one semester, an alternative is

to attend six events that we will designate that count. the third is to go through a series of a dozen podcasts put together by c-span archivists. they are excellent, available to the general public or will be. followed by passing a fairly straightforward exam. c-span, we have taken advantage of the wonderful assets and relationship we have their and incorporated it into this proficiency. host: colleges have multiple requirements, math requirements, english requirements, do you know if any other college or university that has introduced a similar requirement? guest: no but this is a coming phenomenon, we see state

legislatures getting into the motion to require it of their public schools. perhaps at long last, we are going to see some vigorous action on this. there have been traditions of living americans, justice o'connor as soon as she left the supreme court began an organization to deal with this. president obama has spoken about it eloquently. not much action until recently. host: we have plenty of calls waiting period governor mitch daniels, president of purdue university. let's hear first from centralia, washington, peggy. caller: hello. speaking of the three branches of government, i met a foreigner one time who is getting ready to take her test for citizenship.

she asked me what the three branches of government work and i could be darned if i could not remember all three of them, i was ashamed. i was watching a video overnight on michael flynn doing a qanon rather anti-forgot the words to the pledge of allegiance. he was a high-ranking military official. shameful. host: has that made you study up? we lost peggy. any comments? guest: let's think her for her -- thank her for her candor and honesty. it is no surprise that all of us forget something that we learned early. it is evidence of the need to remain attentive. something that she said, it moves me to make this appointment one of the questions we looked at, should international students, who

represent under 10% of our student body, should they be involved? the answer became two is yes -- we came to is yes. many of them will stay here, some of the best americans i know came here for the freedom that we too often take for granted. if they are going back to a country of origin, i hope they will go home as knowledgeable friends of america. some of our faculty have said that they are willing to bet that our international students will score more highly. host: here is jerry in watertown, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: one of the things that this raises for me, i have a son and grandson who graduated from public universities in pennsylvania.

both of them say that part of their education was liberal indoctrination boot camp. the question i have, what is going to be done to make sure that this is not another weight to codify liberal bias -- way to codify liberal bias? guest: i hope we will guard against indoctrination of any kind keeping into this, taking every precaution we know. i will say, i think we have strong consensus among those who have put the program together and designed it and on those who choose the test questions, they need to be factual, objective and probe for knowledge of the way our system is set up and why. the point will be, if you think

that there is something about our system and constitution to change, that is a separate subject. the issue is, to understand the system you are about to become a citizen in? we will do everything we can to make sure that remains a focus. host: how can the events of the pandemic and the election and attack on the capitol bolstered or informed your decision to move ahead with this? guest: they have not weakened it. i suggested this before any of those events, whatever else can we set about the design. it cannot be said to have been hastily assembled, it has been going on for two years. the need for better understanding among

americans of all ages has been going on for years. this was not a reaction to recent events, it is an attempt to deal with a problem that has been there, in front of the country. and we are belatedly going to fix. host: let's go to ohio, kate, hello there. caller: how are you? host: fine thanks. caller: i want to thank c-span for all you do and for mitch daniels for making us aware of the problem. my question is, what can we do as citizens of america? to make sure that we get this into public schools? we put millions of dollars into primary and secondary education and to have this happen is not right. i have two daughter-in-law who

are nationalized citizens, one from china and another from ira n. when i walked through the naturalization program, i thought i school student should have to go through the program. the things they do, said during the process was amazing. i will take reactions off the air. thank you for all you do. do not drop the ball. host: okay. guest: thank you very much. you put your finger on a couple of things. the problem should be solved at lower levels. 1950's high school graduates knew substantially more about the subjects than college graduates do. i see and in fact my home state, there is new legislation requiring that k-12 schools deal

with this issue. i think we'll see that spread. nothing will make me happier than people one day terminate this program because every student who arise already knew what we believe that they should know. with regard to your daughters-in-law, i bet they are two of those people i mentioned who are better americans than many americans who appreciate what this nation is, provides. on the day i first suggested that we do this project, i said, why do we not just borrow the naturalization test? why do we not tell us at every purdue graduate knows at least what some of the coming to this country from also where from somewhere else has to now -- country from somewhere else has to know.

i was trained to illustrate that point, surely as americans we can know as much and as appreciative as those who joined us by choice. host: next up is lee in maryland, go ahead. caller: good morning. enjoying the conversation. i would like to make two points. i was a community college professor at three american -- maryland community colleges. you hit the net on the head, the kids know very little about civics. i posed the question, which president signed the civil rights act of 1964. out of 25 kids, you are lucky to get to work three to know that lbj did it. --two or three to know that lbj

did it. the principal reason is they went to their computers, personal devices, they know every application that you can use for electronic devices. when it comes to civics, they are out to lunch. if you could try to get them away from their electronic devices, that would be a wonderful thing. to actually read a book, pamphlet that would read the constitution of the united states. that would be a great idea. this problem extends to people other than college students. there is a united states senator from alabama by the name of tuberville who was asked what

the three branches of government are, his response was the house, senate and presidency. it extends to adults. host: we will hear from mitch daniels. guest: he is correct. we could broaden his point about the downsides of the marvelous technologies that predominate society. civics is not of that incoming students, even some of the brightest have not mastered. i will give you a closely related problem, they do not write well at all, there's not write much -- they have not read much. it is hard to write well if you have not read any excellent writing.

they have not been asked to write much, so they do not express themselves well. even though they have all of the intelligence that it would take. i cautioned other students many times about the many risks involved with this marvelous technology. you put your finger on that. host: students have the option to take the entire course by podcast, correct? guest: they do and can access this content, whatever route they take, if they take one of these courses as an alternative

to this, they may take part of that online. there is nothing wrong with that. it is the content that they are accessing, but they might be missing if they're spending all of that online time on other things. host: this is a tweet from sam adams, will the civics course be available online so we can all start studying and improving our knowledge? guest: that is our intention, certainly the podcast will be available. some of the individuals that our courses take will probably not, the events that we certify as eligible to be counted as the requirement will be available. we have a speaker series here at

purdue, a marvelous parade of talent dealing with government and politics, all of those will be available, watch our website for coming events. host: you mentioned commencement a moment ago, as the spring semester ends here and what you anticipate with the incoming freshman class, returning students in the fall as well? guest: we remain open all year long, we work more open and closer to normal than any school our size that i am aware of. it took incredibly effort -- incredible effort from everybody , starting with our students who are magnificent in dealing with the inconveniences and restrictions that enabled us to keep them on track.

we are hoping to continue that fear. looks like we are going to have another record freshman class coming. for various reasons, purdue is thriving right now. we are very excited. we are a land-grant school. we were put here by abraham lincoln and his allies after the civil war. the land-grant schools were created to democratize higher education, spread it beyond the elites. we take that seriously. we are at a record size not intimate get bigger. commencement, we will have one, we will have it outdoors for the first time because that is the safeway to have in person commencement. i look for to getting back to what we have always done.

nobody does commencement like purdue, it takes six or mondays because we believed in honoring every single graduates. i hope we can be back in our magnificent elliott all year -- hall next year. every suit will be on screen, one by one. host: if the board of trustees approves your proposal, this requirement will begin this fall? guest: the certificate will be optional for those already here. i hope most will decide to get it, and one more badge to their transcript. for the entering class and all that, after, they will be expected to take care of this, sometime during their four years. host: more calls for mitch daniels, virginia is next in nebraska. caller: good morning. i might be off course, i

graduated high school in 1980. my civics teacher, all he wanted to talk about was nebraska football so i put my head on the desk and took a nap. i do not know if that starts in high school or junior high school. there needs to be some kind of improvement. host: we will go to larry in indiana, go ahead. caller: governor daniel, i graduated in 1966 in knox county, we were required our senior year to take civics. and economics. can you hear me? guest: yup. host: just turn off your doorbell. caller: that is my clock. i would assume that the majority of students from purdue are from india, do they take civics out

of high school in indiana? i was in ucla hospital in 1999, i had five nurses that came from europe and they are waited five years, took the test internet we have this influx of mexicans and central american people coming across the border -- we do not understand how we can let all of these people in this country but people in europe have to wait five years, take a written test to become citizens. how about the influx all of these spanish people? host: any response? guest: as far as i know there are high schools who have been offering civics, i hope it is the real thing and not about football like virginia who

called. it is not widespread and not has -- and has not been effective. and what people large in the country seem to know these days. i will leave immigration policy to other people. a wise immigration policy -- we are a nation of immigrants, it has been so important that those who join us do so legally and learn about and embrace their responsibility as well as taking advantage of the freedoms that brought them here. i will not be surprised -- some of us will not be surprised if our international sins do not do as well as some of our american students do. host: in humble, texas, thomases

next. good morning. caller: good morning. i have this on going to stanford , one of these little scores. it is not necessary without there being liberal, more things are about recent history and things like that. some of the kids who marched in the summer and thought, i talked to them, they know a whole lot about civics, current law, repealing voting rights, especially in texas. we do not know where and when to vote in texas. they are having pushback and learning a lot and using it to affect their causes. host: thanks tomas. guest: that is all good.

we've done all we can to promote registration, that is what you hope to see in the young people that leave our schools. it is important that they know the system that they are taking part and and perhaps change. if they have no concept of individual freedom, concept of consent of the governed. the might come to different conclusions if there aren't without historical and civic knowledge. host: you strike and optimistic and pride pose -- proud pose of your presidency into student body and optimistic and a piece we are seeing the deep end in the washington post. published this morning. i would like your thoughts. "the post-pandemic era needs a

return to breathtaking creativity, not lingering fear." guest: a dynamic society that progresses and offers upward mobility to all, has always relied on people taking risks. originally, go to the frontier and develop new possibilities for themselves and others. and to innovate, invent, take the chance of failure and get ahead. there is plenty of evidence, and there was before covid that we were losing that. business formations are down, new startups, it may be the best indicator, the biggest bet on the future is to have children. the concern was there is

evidence that people will draw the wrong conclusion from covid. too many of our public leaders will be judged harshly by history. they took a tunnel vision view, acting as if you could reduce to zero, the risk that will never be eliminated in life and bike doing so creating enormous collateral damage. the other deaths that happened because of attempting to take a zero risk approach to one very serious problem. the dimmest young children who've lost a year or more of schooling. the column was a way of saying that risk is part of life. progress depends on not rash rick scott -- risk in taking but bolt risk-taking by people who

calculated probabilities. willing to take an extra chance. we cannot lose that if you want to continue to grow and offer hope. host: what kind of risktakers were the founding fathers? guest: enormously, our life, liberty and sacred honor. we either hang together or hung separately? they risk their lives to advance freedom and make loose from tyrannical, monarchical control. nobody today has to do anything like that. i hope we will remain a nation that encourages people to try the new, different and arouse them to be rewarded if they happen to be right. and in doing so create a new

business, good or service. or a new approach to life that makes things better. host: we will go next to chris from illinois. caller: as a lifelong democrat i find myself disagreeing with the governor on a lot of things but on the civics education, i fully agree. i am a great admirer of ruth bader ginsburg but i am reading the first biography of justice o'connor because when she left the bench, she devoted her time and energy to civics education. that is really important. it is great that the university is doing something to heighten it among the student body. not just national issues but we are talking about state issues. look at the recount or what is going on with voter

registration. in arizona where the site pregnant as -- cyberninjas have been hired by the republicans to recount the votes, there are questions on how that got out and will be processed. it is good to be involved on a national level at local and state level. i appreciate the governor going and that direction -- in that direction. guest: there is so much that you said that is valuable. it is important that we make progress on one of these issues. they are too rare where people who see other questions differently, different parties with different viewpoints, come together. as you mentioned, this is one matter where people across the continuum of politics have great that where we are is not a good place.

one thing that could be good about a study of our constitution. beyond the obvious, the constitution was an exercise and compromise. nobody got everything they wanted. if 70 of the demanded outdoor tribe, we would not have a country. we really struggled to accept that. there are a lot of people demanding that they win 100% and everybody else will have to accept that. that is not a formula for a peaceful and successful country. an ancillary benefit of better understanding of our system, how it came together and what it is about might help people to reflect on that.

and to be more willing to work together towards outcomes that are not 100%, not exactly what any party wanted but good for some. host: question on you -- for you on twitter, "well the requirement covered the historical -- "will the requirement covered the historical context of our republic or only the structure?" guest: we cannot understand where we are without understanding where we started. historical context is fundamental. i think i mentioned earlier, that is what we will expect students to grasp. you're not qualified to go around prescribing what should change if you do not understand why things are set up the way they are. our system has been in a

constant state of change. it was designed to accommodate that in a peaceful and illiterate way -- deliberate way. we would not get there by just talk about current events, you can talk about current events and we will. through the lens and context of our system as it came to be. host: this is a question from dave in caramel valley, please reenter politics and run for president. any thoughts? guest: it is amazing how often people say things like that, very nice. at this stage in life, i am not going to take the demotion. which is my sarcastic way of saying that i love this place, it is very fulfilling to work with young people. we all have to try to contribute

to a better country. host: keith in palm bay, florida, hello there. caller: good morning and thank you governor for ringing this up. i thought for a long time that the education system is taking life skills, especially financial literacy in the civics literacy out of the program -- and civics literacy out of the program. immigration proves to me that there are three branches that need to brush up on sovereignty over the nation, and what it needs to do, ignoring touch. just not know what a sovereign country means. on the education part, when it dives into the historical facts, it bothers me that a lot of young people do not know cursive and cannot read the original writing. my biggest fear is the way our society is changing the meaning of words.

the words at the time meant different things. i hope you use a dictionary. to my understanding, justice scalia used the dictionary when he went to do a decision on the law. he read the words in the historical meaning and content of what the words meant. host: keith? guest: he's putting his finger on something important. it is related to our caller: -- guest: values and preferences. be harshly critical of people who were living in very different times and facing very different challenges than we do. this is sometimes referred to as

presentism. as pernicious as a lot of other isms we could talk about and i happen to teach history course. i'll just tell you at the very beginning of