>> spark light support c-span as a public service along with these and other television providers giving you a first row -- front row seat to democracy . coming up on c-span. federal and state supreme court judges testify before a house judiciary subcommittee about the judicial branch. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 1:00 p.m. the house administration committee holds a committee on congressional authority. in agriculture subcommittee meets at noon on c-span two to review food assistance programs. at 3:00 p.m. the senate is back to complete the nomination of the undersecretary of state for civilian security, democracy, and human rights. >> coming up this morning on washington journal, a discussion on critical race theory with bryn mawr college professor of education chanelle wilson and

american enterprise institute resident fellow ian rowe,, later stat washington correspondent lev facher on the big pharma political donations. [no audio] ♪ [washington journal theme plays] host: good morning, it's monday, july 12, 2020 one. at the white house today president biden is set to meet with law enforcement officials and elected leaders to discuss strategies for reducing gun violence in america. while that discussion is set to start early this afternoon we want to begin our conversation on that same topic. we are asking for your suggestions on how to reduce gun violence in american cities and communities. phone lines are split this way democrats can call (202) 748-8000.

republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independents can call (202) 748-8002. we want to hear from gun owners on (202) 748-8003. you can catch up with us on social media, and twitter at c-span -- @cspanwj. you can start calling him now, we are expecting that meeting with elected officials and law enforcement leaders to happen at the white house from 1:15 today, perhaps some remarks from president biden at the top of that coverage set to take those remarks if those do happen today. starting our conversation this morning, if you are in that meeting with president biden what suggestions would you have to reduce gun violence in the country? president biden just a couple weeks ago talking about a concern in the rise of violent crimes and gun violence

specifically. these are some of his comments from the white house. >> -- pres. biden: crime historically rises during the summer and as we emerge from this pandemic with the country opening back up again, the traditional summer spike may be more pronounced than it usually would be. for folks at home here's what you need to know. i've been at this a long time. there are things we know that work to reduce gun violence and violent crime and things that we don't know about. the things we know about like background checks while purchasing a firearm are important. a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, no one needs to have a weapon that can fire 30, 40, 50, or even 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing kevlar vests. community policing and programs that keep neighborhoods safe and folks out of trouble, these

efforts work and save lives. over time these policies were gutted and woefully underfunded. host: president biden from late last month. we might be hearing more from him today ahead of the meeting with law enforcement officials and elected leaders on this issue of gun violence, the white house is pushing to reduce gun violence in this country, on the issue of gun violence recent polling -- this is according to the p research center survey, that is comparable to the share that say they are concerned about the federal budget deficit, violent crime, illegal immigration, and the coronavirus outbreak. only one issue is viewed as a bigger problem by a large majority of americans, the affordability of haircare -- of health care. about three in 10 say it's either a small problem or not a problem at all in this country,

asking you how you would reduce gun violence and we have that line set aside for gun owners in the u.s.. if you are a gun owner and want to weigh in on this conversation we will get right to your calls this morning. rita is up first out of jacksonville, alabama. good morning. caller: talking about the guns, i've been around the guns all my life. a gun don't fire itself, it's the people that pull the trigger , and, this world is in such a turmoil that this is going to wind up in a war, and my son won't let me have my guns. but i might not shoot to kill someone, but i will make them think what they are doing. host: do you think gun violence is a big problem in this country? i think we lost her.

eric is in elk grove village, illinois independent. good morning. caller: there is no such thing as gun violence. i don't know why the media keeps calling it that. what we have is violence. host: why do you think it is specifically just african-americans? caller: two thirds of all the gun violence is caused by them. one third is caused by hispanics. less than 2% is caused by one p -- white people. host: according to what statistic? caller: every statistic. i've been following the news for 68 years. this is my thing, news and information. it is black man violence number one. host: that is eric. glenn from texas, good morning. caller: good to talk to you here on c-span today. host: what are your thoughts on

reducing gun violence? caller: when you defund the police gun violence has gone up. there is no way of denying that. host: if you are in the meeting with president biden what would you say? caller: i would first get rid of joe biden and get him out of office. i think he's the worst thing to happen to the country. when you defund the police all over the country you are going to have gun violence and there are going to be a lot of racial discrepancies between blacks, browns, and whites. if you do not have police control you are not going to have control of gun violence. i am an nra firearms instructor and if you know how to handle a firearm safely that is ok, but 99% of the people that have firearms are having them illegally. they do not know how to handle

them. they have short tempers and when you have that you will have violence. host: glenn from texas this morning. other calls already from illinois. one of the headlines last week from the chicago tribune, two dead and three seriously injured in a wednesday night shooting in chicago. it was the headline of that story that the congressman linked to in his tweet on this topic just yesterday, saying it's unacceptable that these kind of headlines have become normal, it's time to pass comprehensive gun reform. a couple of the tweets from your viewers this morning, tom saying the problem is violence not guns, it has taken three generations of no military -- the usa is a violent culture resulting -- resolving all conflicts with violence. john says firearms education, the draft, reducing

indoctrination and the stigma of taboo was not attached to it. andrew cuomo tweeting about gun violence, declaring yesterday -- mclaren last week a public health crisis on the issue of gun violence announcing a strategy to combat gun violence in the short-term and long-term using public health approaches and making that an issue. president biden is focusing on that issue later today, a meeting at the white house, we are focusing on the issue this morning. a special line for gun owners asking you how you would reduce gun violence. in lakewood, washington a democrat, good morning. caller: i'm certainly not a democrat, but thanks for having me on. i think that income inequality is one of the biggest issues that leads to gun violence and

also racist policing where we have police going into minority communities and basically raping them of fathers and mothers and leaving children without guidance. this is a big issue and this is an issue that has been exacerbated by white liberals who wanted to pass the crime control act of 1994. host: one of our callers brought up the issue of defunding the police, what are your thoughts on that issue? >> if we are going to have police i think it's best that we demand that they have degrees, hopefully in areas like social work and things like that, so they are less likely to use violence as well. host: this is senator ted cruz

from twitter, democrats have repeatedly called to defund the police and have done so in so many cities that crime is rising and democrat policies had deadly consequences. the issue of defunding the police talked about on the senate floor recently from earlier this spring. this is senator mitch mcconnell the minority leader in the senate on that issue. >> not only do we need to disinvest from police but completely dismantle the minneapolis police department. policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist, no more policing, incarceration, and militarization. incredulous people ask whether this nonsense was government seriously, hopefully one member of congress clarified. defunding police means defunding police.

a small set of politicians macy's selfish opportunities for fundraising if they d fame and defund the police, but american families are paying a deadly price. defunding the police is not just a terrible idea for overall public safety, it's also a uniquely awful strategy for racial justice. one study recently confirmed that larger police forces save lives and the lives saved are disproportionately black lives. i'm not sure exactly how the rantings of the far left twitter about crime and policing became official democratic party dogma in so many places across america. what i do know is that ordinary americans cannot bear much more of this and that goes double for the most vulnerable. host: senator mitch mcconnell on the senate floor.

a couple of gun reform bills awaiting action in the senate passed by the house earlier this spring. here is a wrap up of those bills from the atlanta journal-constitution. the first measure passed the democratic led house and the bill will expand background checks to those purchasing weapons over the internet, at gun shows, or in private interactions. the second bill passed to 19-to 10 with two republican supporting it it would give authorities 10 business days for federal background checks to be completed before gun sales can be licensed. currently such sales can proceed if the government cannot complete its background check for a prospective buyer within three days, expanding the timeframe. scott, with the issue of gun

violence what would be your suggestion for reducing it? caller: there's a couple of things i think we need to do. we need to go back to the days where guns were being taken out of the criminals hands by locking the criminals up by using the guns and information on the crime. the problem with people now that are killing everybody else is that they know that there is really no accountability for them. they can do what they want. i've been a gun owner since i was 16 years old. i've had a concealed carry permit for the last 40 years, i carry my gun on me all the time. host: that's the concealed carry? caller: yes sir. i'm the only one in my family that actually has guns and that has carried a gun, no one else in my family does, they are very liberal and they stay away from them. i believe that having it in my life protects me.

i'm a real estate broker. i go into houses all by myself in the middle of the afternoon and night to show people houses. i need that they as protection. friends of mine have been attacked and that is something that is there to keep it at bay. i've never had to draw my gun or shoot anybody and i don't see why the people that are shooting people in these inner cities are being allowed to just walk away without any consequences. host: why do you say they are walking away without consequences? you don't think law enforcement is doing enough to arrest them and prosecute? caller: law enforcement is trying to do the best they can and it seems to be more in the liberal run states and democratic states is where it seems to be more. the violence that is happening in the cities is going on where they are shooting each other and they are getting caught some of them, they are going to jail and

getting relief almost immediately and there are five or six years down the road before they get brought back in again. that means there have been 12 other shootings and they've been arrested three other times. it's really not the fact that they are not being caught, it's the fact that we are not locking them up and keeping them locked up. they think if you deter the crime by locking people up you will stop the gun violence, but if you allow people to sit there and shoot people it's not going to stop anything. host: to district heights, maryland on the line for democrats this is alex. what are your suggestions for reducing gun violence? caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i sympathize with scott from massachusetts, highly regarding -- they seem to take lightly for people that do commit crimes

with these guns and they seem to be back out on the streets quickly. as far as the whole defunding the police part, when you ask for defunding the police, when we have this rise in gun violence it's kind of hard to do that. there are a lot of shootings happening, i'm not in southeast d.c., but i'm near the line and there are some issues. i can't begin to describe how many as well as the deaths reported that you see on the local news. you can't have defunding the police when there is this rise in gun violence and it prevents the police from adequately doing the job. the first caller from alabama, she is right, while guns don't shoot other people themselves

it's the people doing it. i feel like there is something, i feel like it's too rampant now to really control simple legislation, i don't want to support the whole thing of everyone's guns being taken away through some sort of martial law, that sounds kind of crazy. it's to the point where the classroom, the whole classroom dynamic, that whole analogy needs to be punished. >> do you support expanding background checks whether it is these issues at gun shows or longer windows to give federal officials more time to conduct background checks? >> i do support the background checks, the problem is even that current sort -- it's too short, it's 10 days that i don't know. 10 days it doesn't seem long enough at all. the fact that you can purchase

it online, i don't know if it's mind-boggling to you. the fact that i gun costs around $2500 or 3000 depending on the type of weapon, cost less than buying the $14,000 car outside, i don't know. >> you mentioned the 10 days. the bill before the senate in the spring would give authorities 10 days, would expand it from the current effort in the current legislative timeframe that has just three days to conduct background checks and if it's not conducted the purchase can proceed. it was senator john kennedy, the republican from louisiana at a recent hearing who talked about this issue with fbi director christopher wray about the national instant criminal background second -- the national instant criminal background system if that system has all the data it needs if

these gaps appearing, it's not a lack of using the system but -- here's his conversation with christopher wray from the end of june. sen. kennedy: on the database, what do you get the information -- where do you get the information for it? dir. wray: a lot of sources, but most of the information is coming from state and local law enforcement. sen. kennedy: are they sending in all the information they should suppose -- they are supposed to? dir. wray: we are continuing to address that. a recent act has been a good help in that regard and every year we are increasing the completeness of that database. there is still room for improvement. >> the truth is for some, but my

understanding is, that for some at the state and local level it's not a priority. it's not that they are sitting around watching netflix, they just are busy doing other stuff, but that be a fair statement? dir. wray: i understand why you would describe it that way, i have to be careful to characterize our partners as distracted. i will say, i have gone there and sat with the operator and listened to the calls to hear how it works. some of these things especially when you start getting into misdemeanor domestic violence offenses it could get complicated and if the records in whatever jurisdiction it is are not ready at hand or clear it can become a real challenge and that was magnified during the pandemic because a lot of departments, local departments were not at work.

>> i read about the president and others saying that the problem is we need to expand background checks and it seems to me that a big part of our problem, nothing is perfect, but a big part of our problem is that the current system we have is only as good as the information inputted, and all the information isn't being pu inputted. host: senator john kennedy in a conversation with fbi director christopher wray at the end of last month. today at the white house president biden is set to meet with law enforcement officials with elected leaders to talk about this issue of gun violence in this country and talk about strategies to reduce it. we are having the conversation, asking you what you would tell the president if you were in that meeting. john in pennsylvania, a gun owner, what would you say? caller: i would say you

basically have to look at the areas where these democrats are running these cities and the states. i'm here in pennsylvania about 30 miles from philadelphia, and we have zero gun crime. i have to drive maybe an hour and it's a wild west showdown there. you talk about defunding the police, they want to take guns off of police on my down in philadelphia you can even not pepper spray or teargas them, it's ridiculous. you let these democrats run these cities and all you get is gun violence. there is no reason for you to be passing new gun laws when you should be getting these illegal guns out of these people's hands. you don't even talk about illegal guns. people who break the law, it's not law-abiding people who will

go out and get a gun and handed over to somebody or go out and commit a crime with it. these people carrying these guns don't have a concealed carry permit, they don't have these guns registered, a lot of the times they are either stolen or black marketed guns. and still you to -- until you start doing something the reason why these guns are getting in these urban areas i don't see why you should be hassling law-abiding gun owners with new gun laws and making them wait a month and charging them more for ammunition when they are not the ones doing the crime. just like the other caller, this is black on black stuff. host: on the illegal gun ownership from the hill newspaper this is charles marino, if you don't know charles marino, the ceo of sentinel security, a global security firm previously served as a supervisory special agent

with the u.s. secret service, wrote a column on friday in the hill newspaper about some of these issues you are talking about, and this is what he wrote in that column. we know where the guns come from and who is using them to commit crimes. statistics tell us these are primarily illegally obtained weapons being stolen, sold, and used by criminals to commit violent crimes. very rarely are illegal gun dealers selling -- action needs to be taken to recognize the true root cause of gun violence and provide law enforcement the budgets and tools to use their job as they've always intended and continue to do honorably. political leaders that continue to support the defund police movement and offer no solutions are responsible for the degradation of everyday life within their communities. that is charles marion in the hill newspaper great defunding police and skyrocketing gun crimes a national embarrassment, the headline of his column

friday. this is denise in ormond beach, florida. good morning. >> good morning, i have a couple of ideas from experience. the japanese have the right idea. before you can have a gun they give you a psychological test to make sure you can control your impulses, which many people today cannot do. i remember when president obama took office, that's when you had the right wing talk radio shows and all i do is listen to them. that's when they started to talk about stockpiling guns and ammo and the tyrannical government. another movement that should be put in place. you don't allow gun owners to hand over their guns to their children or their friends. you don't do that. as far as a lot of these

right-wingers complaining about how much violence there is, i had to police from my family, my dad who passed away and my uncle. you never saw two different people in your life. my dad was a good and honest cop, nonaggressive, he would treat everyone fairly, and my uncle believed rodney king should have been beaten more, a bully, a typical bully. i think were a lot of this comes from is their leader. when you talk about bullies donald trump is the biggest bully walking and republicans like him love it. host: that last caller was from outside of philadelphia, we are talking about guns in philadelphia. this is from the philadelphia inquirer friday. on the issue of guns in this country, an organizer for philadelphia's counsel of afl-cio and part of the pennsylvania naacp.

this is what he wrote, he said the problem is there is too many guns, the fbi estimates that nearly 40 million guns were purchased in 2020 through the -- he says it is far past time that gun violence prevention groups and legislatures and anti-gun lobbyists stop playing nice with gun owners and manufacturers. he said the potential answer is to go big and push for a blockade on production and import of firearms released the next 20 years. this will take courage, creative thinking, and relentless advocacy over a short period of time. a 20 year blockade on new firearms in this country, what do you think of that? are you still with us? we will ask joan out of myrtle beach, south carolina, a republican. caller: good morning, john.

i've been around now 79 years. my children all have legal guns. and they know where their guns are. it's the people that are going out and killing people at night or just driving by, they need to bring back the stop and frisk. get the guns out of the hands of people that are wanting to do harm. i haven't heard of any legal gun owner going out and shooting up a neighborhood. host: a national stop and frisk policy for police departments, something that allows law enforcement to do that in communities around this country. caller: yes. because the people who have the guns legal, they have no objection to them knowing they have a gun.

it's the one that have the guns that don't need them that are doing the harm. they need to stop this. host: you say people don't need guns, what's the difference between someone who needs a gun and someone who does not? host: people who need guns for protection in their home to protect their family. the ones that are out killing people are just out there to kill to gain power. have a vengeance against someone. this is crazy. host: joan in south carolina on the line for gun owners. kathy from georgia, what would you say to president biden if you were in the meeting on reducing gun violence? caller: first i would tell him to stop politicizing every time someone is killed with a gun. on both sides they need to stop politicizing it. we need to have swift and sure

punishment and reasonable bail across the board. we do not need to nationalize anything, it needs to states. if people knew there was going to be punishment regardless, i think some of it would stop and defunding the police is absolutely ridiculous. i'm 64 years old and owned a weapon since i was 22 years old. i took the son -- i took the gun safety course before i owned one en . i don't want to go in downtown atlanta because of the violence we are having. host: kathy in lawrenceville, georgia. just after 7:30 on the east coast having this conversation at the beginning of the washington journal asking you how you would reduce gun violence. president biden meeting with law enforcement officials and elected leaders today to talk about the same issue.

that meeting expected to happen at 1:15 today at the white house and we are expecting some comments from the president at the top of that, the white house pool will be there covering it, that's on the president's agenda for today. look to c-span for more on that topic, you can keep calling in this morning at (202) 748-8000 if you're a democrat and want to talk about the issue of how to reduce gun violence. republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002, and if you are a gun owner (202) 748-8003. as you are calling in more about the schedule today and this week at the white house. we are joined via zoom by dan lippmann of politico. good morning to you, white house reporter, washington reporter for politico. we talked about this meeting at the white house. who will be in attendance?

dan: he is meeting with the attorney general merrick garland who has worked on this issue and as a judge he used to deal with some of these issues and he is meeting with local leaders including law enforcement and elected officials and a community violence intervention expert. there is a recognition on the white house as part that this could spiral out of control and hurt them in the midterm elections where it is much further for the majority party to stay in control because they are getting blamed for anything that goes wrong. we have seen this increase in crime and gun violence in the last year or two. the administration --

trying to address this search. >> from one of your colleagues at politico, eric adams, the democratic nominee for new york mayor expected to be in that meeting as well. any other mayors in big cities setting up names we know about? >> they have not released as far as i can tell every person who is going to be in that meeting. i think the fact that adams is in that meeting is a sign that that is where biden wants to shift the democratic party in terms of welcoming someone who is a former cop, a longtime cop who won the democratic primary in new york city to be mayor which is essentially the general election because of how blue and democratic new york is. on a platform that was

pro-police and focused on reforming the police. at the end of the day it was new yorkers who are scared a little bit of the rising increase in violence and they want to be safe, that's one of the most core tenants of anyone in society that they expect from the government to do their best to try to tamp down on the violence. on saturday morning in logan circle where i live in washington i parked outside my apartment, -- it sometimes feels theoretical,

but when someone gets -- like those women who are stopped and i had to help women police came within a few minutes, that is an indication that this is not just something that we read about on the news, this is affecting real people. even in neighborhoods that did not use to have -- i've been living in this neighborhood for a number of years and i cannot recall this happening a few years back. it seems like this hit home for us. host: you talk about the incident in d.c., reporting from over the weekend, d.c. hits 100 homicide of the year within the past couple of days, that's a little ahead of the mark from last year and well ahead of the mark from two years ago. but specifically just in d.c.. you covered the white house, the white house on capitol hill will be focused on moving its

infrastructure package and moving its human infrastructure package, the budget reconciliation bill that will be a vehicle for that. how much room is there for a push on new gun reform measures including the background check bills that passed the house back in the sing that -- in the spring that are awaiting action in the senate. cracks in the reconciliation package which is basically who determines what's going to be in that is senator joe manchin a senator from west virginia and senator kyrsten sinema from arizona since they are the most moderate democrats that biden needs to pass that reconciliation. they will have a few -- they don't want a huge liberal package, they want something more targeted. for a senator like joe manchin,

west virginia, i have not checked the stats, but there is not that many nature -- major cities which are bearing the brunt of this type of increase in violence, it's a rural state so i'm sure he is under less pressure to put in more background check laws and try to take illegal guns off the street. i'm sure that reconciliation package will have more funding for cops and making sure that they reform as well, because you don't want the repeat of where african americans in our country feel like the police are targeting them with george floyd and countless other instances over the years. they are trying to figure out exactly what's in that infrastructure package and how much money they should spend on childcare and other soft

infrastructure because they have not finished that infrastructure framework for the overall package. they are trying to have the two things move it once even though biden has said that he wanted to sign just the hard infrastructure and having not tided as closely to the reconciliation act. host: i know you have a busy day and week ahead, can you run through the president schedule and what other highlights you are looking at this week. dan: he is meeting with angela merkel on thursday, and this is her last trip to the white house probably. something he -- there is lots to discuss including the ongoing push by this administration to get chinese influence in tech stocks

in europe. we need germany on many different issues working through the schedule right now in terms of the week ahead, on tuesday he is traveling to philadelphia to deliver remarks on the right to vote. democrats have kind of been disappointed a little bit by the white house in terms of not being able to pass those big vote for -- voter protection bills in congress to try to stop what is going on in republican space in terms of making it harder to vote and on wednesday he is meeting with a bipartisan group of mayors and governors to discuss that infrastructure package and on thursday when he meets with merkel he is giving a speech to mark the day that

millions of families will get that first monthly tax relief payment thanks to the american rescue plan. it's a pretty busy week for biden in washington. host: sounds like you have your work cut out for you this week. always appreciate your time on the washington journal. back to your phone calls, about 20 minutes left in this segment of the washington journal asking you how you would reduce gun violence in this country. mark out of northwood, new hampshire, a gun owner, what would your answer be? caller: good morning, am i on? ok. i think we are all missing the big elephant in the room. we need to change the term criminal justice system, because it is giving justice to criminals. i wanted to say this for the last year on the subject. i have been a gun owner my whole

life, i have traveled the country and grew up in new york city and lived in texas and california and arkansas and i now live in new hampshire. it's very different in new hampshire but realistically to eliminate gun violence in the cities all the law enforcement people know who the gang members are. round them all up, put them in jail where they belong and gun violence will drop very rapidly. as a youth growing up in new york there was this thing called three strikes you are out, three felony convictions and you go to jail for the rest of your life. what's wrong with that? one caller earlier specifically said that these people get arrested and are let right out, minimal bail and it takes decades sometimes for them to come to court. lock up all the violent people. we know who they are, they are gang members in l.a., san francisco, new york, even here

in new hampshire we have pockets of gang members. round them all up and lock them up and we are done with it. it's not a political situation, it's a public health emergency. host: mark out of new hampshire, this is john out of new jersey. caller: i'm a democrat but i do disagree with the gun violence of the democratic party. and the crime bill of 1984 was a joke. i think we need to start dealing with gun control, but i think where we have been dealing with gun control we've been going after gun owners too much and not dealing with the real problems like where guns are coming from. we haven't done anything like

going into the system of gun licenses. we should do what carter did -- wanted to do in 1978 to put them all in the computer. we have not done that and another thing we are not doing i think would help some of the crime problems is we have not increased the amount of probation or polo -- parole officers. we have parole officers that deal with cases, over 200 of them, and we have not dealt with that. i agree with what eric adams said, there is one other issue we are not dealing with, testing people with learning disabilities. i'm dyslexic. i think we should check it out and see what we can do with it. other things we have not done is look at other issues like a lot of issues to deal with that they deal with with the prime bill.

you should do that. i think some of the anti-gun things like buying up all the assault weapons is totally stupid. host: that's john out of new jersey. he mentions eric adams, the democratic mayoral nominee, he was on cnn's state of the union yesterday and was asked about this issue of gun violence and mass shootings. here's a bit of what he had to say. >> in terms of laws, state, city, or national gun laws to stop gunmen islands -- and gun violence, what do you think will work and do you think the priority of national democrats may have been misplaced? >> i do. i believe those priorities really were misplaced and it's almost insulting what we have witnessed over the last few years, many of our presidents

saw that the inner cities were black, brown, poor people live they knew they were dealing with this real crisis and it took this president to state that it is time for us to stop ignoring what is happening in the south sides of chicago, in the browns bills, the atlanta is of our country. it is extremely important that just as we became energetic as we saw mass shootings with assault rifles in the suburban parts of our country, we should have also focused on their handguns. the number of those killed by handguns are astronomical and if we don't start having real federal legislation matched with states and cities we are never going to get this crisis under control. >> the united states is not going to ban handguns, what are you proposing be done about it? >> they should not have to. to ban handguns. let's look at those particular gun dealers where there is a

real correlation and connection with the guns used in our streets. those states with lax gun laws where you can walk into a gun shop with a license and walk out with a gun. let's look at all of the theaters of how guns are making their way into our cities. something as simple as the port authority. we should have bag checks where people are able to get on a greyhound bus and comment our city with bags full of guns with a level of comfort. we need to zero in on that hand gun and you will see the decrease in many of the shooters. we must also have long-term plans on the theaters of violence in our country because it is more than dealing with immediate shootings before that juncker -- young person gets a gun he was denied an educational opportunity somewhere in the city. that's the real crime. >> a former nypd captain likely going to be the next mayor of new york after winning the

democratic primary. we are taking your phone calls asking you how you would reduce gun violence in this country. brian is in washington, d.c. and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. eric adams is absolutely wrong when it comes to guns. i believe handguns should be banned, as you said earlier there are 40 million guns. it's easier to get a gun than it is to get an education or a job. america usually looks at the tail end of everything. this is absolutely an issue where you follow the money. guns that come into this city in d.c. where i live, i'm an african-american. they don't come from d.c., they come from gun dealers. that's the issue no one wants to address. they don't want to talk about

the gun manufacturer or the gun dealers that are selling these guns making it into our communities. you don't want to prosecute them , there was a program on 60 minutes where they said the atf was going after all the particular dealers whether in d.c., north carolina, virginia, or these other cases -- places and you can get the guns. when they are not being logged or checked and by the gun dealer the atf has a way to -- has a right to check their license. the agents are being pressured by the government to not even take their license. they give them a slap on a wrist. the guns are not manufactured in any of these inner cities, but they find their way there through gun dealers, because nobody buys directly from the gun manufacturers. it's absolutely a white and

black thing because they are probably partly if any at all black gun dealers. the white gun dealers are making sure guns are getting into the community. >> in terms of legal gun sales or gun sales that go through the national instant criminal background check system that can raise red flags about gun sales, the system that is run through the fbi post statistics for purchases of firearms on a monthly basis, in june there were some 976 checks that happened in specifically the district of columbia. the other states he had mentioned when you were talking where north carolina come some 59,000 background checks performed in the month of june in north carolina and you mentioned virginia, some 42,000, 47,000 background checks that were performed in the month in

june. all those numbers at fbi.gov available and posted by the federal bureau of investigation. about 10 minutes left of this segment as killing you how it you feel about gun violence rate in philly this is devon, a gun owner. caller: good morning. years ago i worked as a government auditor, and many times i had to go to court, and one of the things that i noticed was that a lot of guns were either destroyed or when they ran the numbers on those guns came back to law enforcement. if you want to address a lot of gun violence in these communities, these officers that have these weapons, they are supposed to secure these weapons

and keep safe these weapons, but a lot of the times they end up in these communities as well. host: this is and in greensboro, north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. some of the callers called again this morning blaming democrats, for what is going on. if you notice it's the republicans who have fought against gun control, in particular when those babies were killed in sandy hook and everyone was very alarmed and trying to do gun control, it was republicans who refused to help. now, president biden in one of his programs had money set aside to give to police departments to increase their funding to fight gun control and republicans had voted to get that as well. i think that is very important. >> how much do you think gun control and the issue of gun

violence will be an issue in campaign 2022? caller: i think the democrats need to think -- speak up and let it be known that people are trying to say that they are focusing on trying to defund the police, but it's not the democrats, it may be a few, but it's not the primary focus of the democrat party. host: from the hill newspaper, rising crime rejuvenates the gun control debate. looking ahead to 2022 and beyond to 2024, the hill.com is where that headline is. from recently on twitter for the past couple of days, this is congressman adam schiff pointing to some of the specifics coming out of the july 4 weekend about gun violence and shootings in cities around the country. gun violence never takes a

holiday, 230 three deaths, one weekend looking at july 4. he says it's time for republicans in congress to stop pretending and see the gun violence epidemic for what it is. congressman jim jordan on twitter come of the ohio republican claiming the biden administration wants to knock on your door to see if you are vaccinated. this is from a republican from kentucky, claiming gun control laws hurt the most vulnerable in society, pointing to one of our c-span segments from over the weekend, the president of the crime protection research center talking about some of his comments. he asks why democrats won't make reasonable fixes to remedy the inherent disparities in the system. talking about how gun control laws discriminate against low income minorities. other comments from members of congress on twitter. a few minutes left to hear your comments and how you would

reduce gun violence. david is in oakdale, new york, a republican. caller: good morning. i don't think it's a one size fits all situation. i think each city leader has to take a look at what is going on in their city and i think a lot of the crimes across the country are done with illegal guns. if there is a legal gun they can trace it. i believe there should be high penalties for people in possession of illegal weapons. i think people that buy ammunition and have an illegal weapon it should be marked in a book, because they have to buy ammo and less they make their own. there are going to be people that can make a gun on their own. i don't think you will ever have the opportunity to stop any type of violence. i think the penalties should be stiffer, parole, probations,

therapy, any type of program like that, because the state can maybe help private citizens start these types of businesses to help criminals, reeducation to provide them with help, sometimes it's economical, sometimes it's not. guest: -- host: you talk about the issue of people building guns on their own, is that the issue -- caller: you can get upper and lower receivers and make your own weapons, the problem is that with 3d printers as you need ammunition if you are not making ammunition you have to go somewhere to buy it. obviously if someone is buying ammo they have a weapon. other it is a legal weapon or

illegal, i think there should be tom -- some type of -- they should be investigating all this type of stuff and loving it and keeping registers. i don't think there is a one size sits -- fits all situation why people own illegal weapons, but it's not for hunting. host: david in new york, the issue of ghost gun something president biden has talked about before an executive action on curving gun violence, issued an executive order to close regulatory loopholes to stop the proliferation of ghost guns. other executive action on the gun issue clarifying statutory restrictions on stabilizing bracer's for high-powered pistols and publishing model red flag legislation for states to have as guidance. money to prevent gun violence and require annual reporting on firearms trafficking.

some executive actions from the biden administration, the president may be discussing the impacts of that at the meeting today happening at 130 -- 1:15 at the white house. how would you reduce gun violence? caller: i don't have all the answers, one that is a significant factor on gun violence is to take the same approach to gun violence that was taken toward the opioid crisis and that means going after billionaires like the sackler's, gun makers, take that whole approach, and i think he will see a dent in that gun violence. host: you say a whole of government approach, making this a national priority for every agency? caller: similar to on the same lines they did the opioid crisis. host: that is jim from north carolina. mike from new haven, indiana, a

gun owner. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to see it not called gun violence, let's look at people who are using guns to do violence. most people with a gun are not doing this stuff. secondly the assault weapon ban, i looked up fbi statistics, one half of 1% of homicides last year were committed by people using so-called assault weapons. while close people up, there's no doubt about that. be truthful in broadcasting, president biden got on their and said you can go across the line in indiana and by any assault weapon. everybody has to do a background check, and everybody is a federal licensed gun dealer must do a background check, half as many times as the local -- they don't get that information

and to get that stuff squared away so when joe blow committed a felony goes in and tries to buy a gun he can buy one then. there's a lot of stuff that could be getting done in a more efficient manner, and like i say most people are not going out and shooting up the town, it's a lot of gang bangers. i worked for juvenile probation for 28 years and saw 250 young people get killed and very often it is somebody who is a sociopathic little so-and-so and doing this. freedom issues can be part of it, but you need to go beyond that and parents need to be responsible to train their kids properly. schools could show how to do gun safety things. host: mike, we will leave it there and we want to get one more call out of new york, city -- out of new york city. caller: good morning.

i'm calling into say that new york is a cityyork is a city who be licensed to own a gun, therefore there are plenty of guns coming in, so let's ask the question, how do they get in? it has been told to me that truckloads come in, they come into communities and sell them to people on the street and whatnot for a certain amount of money, so i think money is involved in this situation. when a person kills you for no reason, they are mentally unstable and need help. and i think in the united states, we do not give enough help to people who need help in these kinds of situations and we turn our heads and say, if you do not have money, we cannot help you. i think that is one part of the problem. one of the other things is when

people shoot you for no reason the other thing could be hate. let's stop hating, let's try to love each other. host: that was our last caller. next, a roundtable on the topic of critical race theory. our guests include bryn mawr college assistant professor of education chanelle wilson and american enterprise institute resident fellow ian rowe. later, lev facher on pharmaceutical industry and political donations in campaign 2020. stick around, we will be right back. ♪ ♪

♪ announcer: the secret service was founded in the aftermath of the assassination of abraham lincoln, but it was not until the death of john f. kennedy that the service got closer attention from the american people. >> the washington post at a reporting on the secret service in 2012. in the prologue of a new book, the author says she started her coverage on the scandal in which agents brought prostitutes to their hotel rooms. we talk to her about her in-depth look in her new book, "the rise and fall of the secret service." announcer: listen at c-span.org/podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ ♪ announcer: weekends on c-span2

are an intellectual feast. every saturday, events that explore our nation's past. on sunday, but giving brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. learn, discover, explore -- the weekend on c-span2. ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: for a discussion on critical race theory we are joined by ian rowe american enterprise institute resident fellow and bryn mawr college assistant professor of education chanelle wilson. last week, critical race theory getting a lot of attention in part because of the heads of major teachers unions defending educators who teach it in the classroom.

explain first exactly what critical race theory is, but also how prevalent it is in american classrooms today. guest: good morning. just thinking about what it is, i have a simple or definite fish -- definition. it is a framework to analyze and challenge racism in structures and discourses. simply put, it helps us to see the ways that systemic racism operates and the ways it's embedded in structures and processes that occur in the united states. so thinking about how prevalent it is in schools, it's an academic and legal program for students, one that people often will not encounter unless they are in graduate studies, which is how i was introduced to it. but thinking about the ways it could be implemented in k-12

schools, it is not prevalent. there could be instructors who know what the framework is, who think about the world in a way where we see that racism matters and it is something to be a paid attention to, but on of the whole, students are not necessarily being taught critical race theory. they may, be being taught about race equity and inclusion. host: do you agree, ian rowe? and when does teaching about race cross over into critical race theory? guest: good, thank you for having us back on. good morning, dr. wilson. i generally agree with that. here you have identified that i am at the american enterprise institute, but i also have run

networks of charter schools, so i am someone who deeply is committed to ensure that all of our kids have a complete understanding of american history, warts and all. the history of slavery, jim crow, as well as the incredible story of resilience and progress in the face of those atrocities. sometimes we get caught up in being distracted, which is from what the core issue is. i also wanted to come into this conversation with the clear definition of critical race theory. in these discussions, people are talking past each other, so i like to go back to the two architects of could go race theory, richard delgado and jeans to project, who wrote in their book "critical race theory, an introduction" -- "un

like traditional civil rights, which introduces step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including inequality theory, legal reasoning, enlightenment, rationalism, and principles of constitutional law." those are heavy concepts. i agree with dr. wilson, that in itself is not being taught in k-12. that would more be dialogue in higher education when you are teaching about critical race theory, alongside the principles it claims to repudiate, like equality theory and neutral printable's of constitutional law. we can talk about it more, but i think part of the controversy is how it's presumed that critical race theory is being executed in the classroom, either fortunately or unfortunately. but in terms of teaching racism,

slavery in schools, it must be done. i think the key is we want the total story, not a cherry picked narrative that either paints the country incredibly patriotically, where it is purely just wonderful, and an unblemished history, nor is it ok to have a cherry picked narrative that's all atrocities in this terrible country where literally anti-black racism is embedded in the dna of the country. that kind of teaching of american history can actually have a very negative -- very disempowering impact on the young people we are seeking to inspire. host: let me invite viewers to join the discussion. we set aside the hour to really dig into this issue. so, if you want to join the conversation, we are split as

usual with democrats at 202-748-8000. republicans at 202-748-8001. independents at 202-748-8002. dr. wilson come a chance to respond to that, but you also mentioned that it is not prevalent in k-12, do you think it should be more prevalent? where do you think the -- seeing this framework you are talking about, this lens, when should it start? guest: i started having a conversation with my niece, going onto 13, going into the eighth grade, and i think that this -- between 8th grade to 10th grade is a good time. often times, we think that these -- not just could go race theory, but in higher education

we think that students should wait until they get into higher education to begin to understand what theories are, how they help us understand the world, but i think that is something students can handle earlier. that includes many different types of theories that help with understanding and analyzing situations. if we are introducing theories and concepts as tools of understanding, as tools of analysis, then they will be better prepared to enter into higher education studies, and they will also have the wherewithal and capacity to think beyond their experience and outside of themselves. in many ways, to develop their own understanding. these are not things that students have to wait for. they are making sense of the world, they are doing that thinking. we are there to support them, and we can help them do better along. and i am thinking about curriculum and the language of cherry picking.

thinking about cherry picking, they were curriculum -- the curriculum as it is is cherry picked, unless a person belongs to a particular school that's gone out of its way to implement a curriculum that is more holistic. it is cherry picked in a way that mitigates the harm that had been done in the establishment of this country and the way it continues to operate. so even thinking about the pushback against critical race theory, this is a systematic way of quelling the idea of systemic racism. so there is a meme going around, talking about the banning of teaching systemic racism is an example of teaching systemic racism. there's no way to discuss the whole history of this country without some parts of it being uncomfortable. and without some element of that bringing some type of historical

trauma. it brings that backup. and what appears to meet, happening right now, is people are trying to continue to sweet things under the rug. so, i can agree with the idea of cherry picking on one side. it's cherry picked, that is what we are working with. in thinking about if i'm developing curriculum, i'm going to have to bring out those other things, no matter how uncomfortable they are. host: let me give ian a chance to respond to that point. guest: again, i made the point that cherry picking on either side does not work for kids. for example -- i agree with you that we should not cherry pick so we are not talking about moments of atrocity in our country that need to be learned, but that also can exist on the other side. for example, the 1619 project at

the new york times made a decision to almost just not just. pick on one side, but the falsely embellished history and claim the true founding of the country was the year 1619 and not 1776. or that the american revolution was fought for the purpose of defending slavery, when almost every credible historian says that is blatantly false. so we have to be careful that we are not cherry picking on either side based on a political ideology we are trying to achieve, and be honest with students. we do not need to embellish the american story, just tell the truth in a complete accurate way. the u.s. has a horrific history of slavery, oppression, jim crow, and yes, based on the founding principles there's an incredible story of progress and resilience. host: let me go back to cherry picking. having this conversation because last week the head of a major

teacher's union talking about this issue, talking about teachers, defending teachers who teach critical race theory. ian, we will stay with you for a moment. do you think that parents should be able to cherry pick, as it were, if a parent is uncomfortable that a school system has decided they will touch on a topic of google race theory? should a parent -- of critical race theory? should a parent be able to say, i do not want my kid taught that? guest: from a global perspective, somebody who has run charter schools and is an advocate for school choice, if the unions really want to increase opportunities for low income kids and kids of color, they would reverse other policy of standing against school choice for the very reasons you are saying. in a district in which i lead schools, only 2% of kids that

attended traditional district schools graduate from high school ready for college, yet they do not have a choice. say you are in that situation. if i had idea to launch a school, i could not do that because there is a limit on the number of charter schools created. so if you are a parent in that situation, were not only you do not want your child to experience that education because they are teaching things you do not want, but may be the academic outcomes have been horrible for so long. but the teachers unions are standing in the way of that choice. i find some of these claims honestly hypocritical. let me say, if there is a teacher that is being barred from teaching about racism and america's resilience in the face of racism, than that is un-american and we should stand against that. in a perverse way, maybe i agree with the general principle of what they are saying, because we

cannot ban teachers from teaching about american history, we just have to have a complete and accurate story. host: dr. wilson? guest: thinking about school choice and charter schools in general, they are a relatively new experiment in the education system. and research shows that oftentimes school choice harms students of color, students from marginalized backgrounds, and so, come into it or looking at charter schools and school choice from a critical perspective, we can understand that there are inequities that exist, even though no believe the system of charter schools in some ways tries to benefit students. on the average it primarily benefitsw hite parents and -- white parents and white families. but thinking beyond that to help parents should have some say so in what is being taught to their

children, i absolutely think the parents should be involved. the institution of schools in general needs to do a better job of creating the pathways of communication between parents and families. i do not think that parents should be able to say, i am going to take my child out of this particular class because this teacher is teaching about racism. it should be a community conversation where the schools are having that with parents, and with other people who are guardians of children to recognize why this is important work, and welcoming in -- them into that space to learn as well. i'm thinking historically about education systems and cherry picking, many parents have not had the opportunity, if they have gone to traditional schools, schools that are residentially segregated, they have not had the opportunity to talk about race, they also have not had the opportunity to engage in these academic discussions. so of course there will be fear and discomfort, and in general

there'll be people who disagree, that is ok. but if we open up communication, then we are all learning and participating, not just children, but families and guardians, and that is something that as a society can help us move further ahead. so i do not think that stopping the conversation is helpful. racism still exists. if we are able to participate and understanding it, we can encourage people to end racism and at that point we will be making progress as a society. host: let me welcome callers into this conversation with chanelle wilson and ian rowe of the american enterprise institute. we had a conversation in may on this same topic and many people wanted us to bring you both back this morning and take more calls on this topic. zach and leland, mississippi.

go ahead. caller: since the inception of this country, we as african-americans have given are all. the first person who died in this country was --. we've given our blood, our soul, our spirit, our language and everything. yet, we have not been considered a part of it. we cannot take off our black skin and become something else. we are always having to deal with the stigma of being black. and we have not resolved slavery in making an equitable situation and inflected -- and a black kid is asking, why is this happening to me?

a white kid is asking, what is it like this, why do they live like this? they do not understand, they see the results of systemic racism and they ask questions, but they are born into it like all of us. but there are people who know that the pie is not getting bigger. and they feel like if one person gets something, that is a little less for me. host: zach in mississippi. ian? guest: it is a very profound question and honestly why i run schools. i do not have the stigma of being a black person. nor do i want my kids do believe that there is a stigma to being black. the caller said he looks around and when -- and doesn't see black people who are successful. this is what i do not understand, we are mired in this ideology that somehow every

black person in the country is oppressed and marginalized. it's simply not true. there are lots of white people that are far inferior conditions to many black people. so we have to focus on ensuring that every single kid of all races, especially black kids, those communities with a history of oppression, know with opportunities are, know that there are millions of black kids in college today. today, we have black people who are leaders in every possible industry, policy, so i just yearn for the caller to recognize at the progress that has been made. yes, more has to be done, but we need to remove the idea that there is a stigma to being a black person. we need to eradicate that kind of thinking, especially for young people. host: chanelle wilson?

guest: i did not hear him say there were not successful black people. i interpreted his words as saying that students should be taught about systemic racism because it will help them better understand why the united states operates in the way it does. you do not have to agree that there is a stigma against being black or having darker complaint or -- darker complexion skin, but we must recognize that racism discriminates against those who are black. cannot say that you agree that there is systemic racism but that there is no stigma. people have to come back that. absolutely, there are exceptions to every rule, because that is the way that capitalism can work . but thinking about the founding of this country, the exploitation of africans who were enslaved created the capacity for this economy, for

capitalism to exist, so there will always be -- and even in those times, there were free people who are african, it existed, but that did not mean that everybody had the same opportunity. that is not true. recognizing that there are poor people, white people that are marginalized, that is also true. during times of slavery as well because the average white person could not own people because they could not afford them. race is a concept was constructed to divide people because poor white people and poor enslaved africans were beginning to unite. so reese was -- race was introduced to divide people so they would not unite in that time. so if people were actually to come together for unity, then that would be a problem for people who were in the top 1%. they do not want that. it cannot happen because unity is how we move forward. so saying that critical race

theory or talking about racism divides, that is a distraction for people to actually unify for economic justice, which is one of the bigger fights we are fighting. host: i will bring in the caller from louisiana. you are up next. caller: thank you, c-span and "washington journal." i'm an african-american and i do not know why we do not teach free enterprise in civics anymore. i'm 60 and i lived through segregated schools, then i went to integrated schools. and i do not know why these billionaire basketball players that are black will not help the black community and staff. we worry about racism. there's racism. i do not know if it is systematic, but there are racist people. i want african-americans to do -- these millionaires and billionaires need to invest in the black community, and they

can do a whole lot. host: ian rowe? guest: amen. the black community has an incredible history of entrepreneurship, free enterprise, especially in the face of systemic racism. the story of the tulsa massacre has focused on the massacre, but what happened before that led all of these black leaders to build businesses, and importantly what happened afterwards, in terms of the rebuilding. so this whole idea, again, there are so many black entrepreneurs. there's new organizations like carlin capital, founded by two black harvard business school alumni, who are now investing in changing the face of entrepreneurship. i think they are looking for about 1000 entrepreneurs, primarily black or female, who want to start businesses. organizations like netflix have

moved one hundred million dollars of capital to black-owned financial institutions, to spur more investment, more entrepreneurship within the black community. this is what young people need to know. these are the instruments for how we move from persecution to prosperity. it's not that we do not talk about racism and the challenges, but if we solely focus on that without talking about the liberating vehicles, the liberating tools that black and every kid has within their quiver, then we are miring young people in a sense of defeatism and not their ability to achieve success in their lives. host: you mentioned the tulsa race massacre, the 100th anniversary of that back in may, it was two hours on this program that we talked about it if you want to go back and watch programming on that from tulsa. chanelle wilson?

you seemed like you wanted to jump in. guest: i always want to jump in. i'm thinking about free enterprise, capitalism and the exceptions are to the rules. not just black people who go on to become millionaires. that expectation is that they will then turn around and give up their money, which is fine. i agree with it. when i become a millionaire, i too will turn around and give more. but we cannot just look at individuals to fix systemic people. in digital people -- individual people can serve as role models, but they cannot fix the social systems that have been created in order for those people actually to become a millionaire or billionaire. there is something else i am thinking about. nobody looks at jeff bezos and asks, why isn't he helping white

people? that is not a conversation i have heard. so for me it appears that people assume that people who come from minority backgrounds, once they move from persecution to prosperity that they then should give up what they have had out of this benevolence that's not expected from people who've held positions of social dominance. and also thinking about moving from persecution to prosperity, it is not that simple. those words sound great, but to move from persecution to prosperity, we have to come to terms with how and why people were persecuted and the way it still exists. how it has been transformed to look different and actually operate the same. so, if we are talking about the ways slavery existed, that has been transformed into mass incarceration. we cannot pretend that systems have been abolished, they have not. they have transformed.

moving from persecution to prosperity, we have to have checkpoints, we have to recognize how we see things happening in people have to work to put systems in place to abolish others and imagined new ways that we can operate and practice equity. guest: i would love to ask, though -- speaking about systems that are oppressive, again, i run schools in the heart of the bronx where right now only 2% of the kids that start ninth grade four years later graduate from high school ready for college. and right now, parents and that community have no ability to choose any other school other than the district schools that unfortunately have not been treating the kids well. that's a system that we have to break. and so, maybe we concur on this because to me that is one of the very first symptoms that's --

first systems that is not allowing equality for kids. guest: i agree. traditional public schools and charter schools and private schools, i think that they need to be abolished and re-created. there is no way we can pretend that schools created for rich white men can now serve everyone. now everyone is allowed to be in those spaces, but they were not created for them. host: what is the model that you would suggest? what would be the system? guest: ok, if i was in charge of doing it. you put me on the spot. i have thoughts. the way that i think about schools is perpetuating hierarchy, they mirror social inequities outside of the school buildings. i do not believe in the hierarchy of school, and i do not actually agree with the grading systems.

they put people at these levels, then hold them there. there's tracking, all types of ways the opportunities are hindered as a result of these processes that exist. so i am a fundamental believer in constructivism and inquiry. i think that people have the opportunity to guide their own instruction with the support of an educator or other people. i think that the competition that exists in school systems does not work. it does not even work for the people on top. i was one of the people always at the top of my class, who always had high grades, and i realized after that i had not learned much at school. i learned how to follow rules, i learned how to purchase a plea in systems, i learned how to do what was expected of me. but after is when i learned how to ask questions and challenge. those of the ways that i think schools can function, ones that

create community, ones not in competition, ones that do not foster hierarchy. they need spaces for people to explore at their own pace, but i do agree with college, i teach at a college level, but we think that everybody has to be prepared for higher education. again, you are saying 90% of students -- you are saying that 2% of students come out prepared for higher education. the degrees, they do not mean very much for the way that we state it will open you up to be able to pitch us up the in -- able to participate in this pool of opportunity. host: we have moved into a wider discussion, but this was a good time to do it. the topic is cripple recent theory. -- the topic is critical race

theory. if you support it being included in the curriculum, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. teresa supports it. you are next. caller: i am a 58-year-old american citizen, classed a white, but i am colored. should you tell parents the curriculum and how do you foster students who get in trouble over bad grades, over critical race theory? i'm facing this off of my own history of bad grades for english, spelling, math. it doesn't make school fun. my grades were average and i was getting in trouble just for basic school, not even critical race theory, but basic school like english, and compared to my

siblings. how do you deal with that outside of critical race theory in the k-12 or college level school system? host: i will let you take that, specifically on the question of disclosure of curriculum, ian? guest: id that schools should have transparency over -- think that schools should have transparency over curricula. it goes back to school choice. it is not just critical race theory, if they are teaching on something else that a parent feels is inappropriate for their child, they should have the power to choose. the reality is that middle and upper income people have the ability to choose by paying for private school or moving to the suburbs to access free public school. many low income kids do not have that opportunity. but there should be full transparency in the curriculum. as far as reading, i believe

grades are an important measure for teachers to understand where the kids are in order the interventions that need to be utilized to help kids move forward. i'm very pragmatic and running schools on a day-to-day basis, it's hard for me to envision a scenario without grades. there's a story in san diego that san diego decided to become an antiracist school district because they found that 80% of black kids had passing grades, yet 93% of the white kids had passing grades. instead of asking the question, what -- what are the passing kids doing to get passing grades, san diego said we will look at the failure rate, the 20% of black kids that got a d or f.

and because of that 20% of black kids that had a failing grade and the 7% of white kids that had a failing grade, because of that 13% difference it must be systemic racism, and somehow the school district decided to eliminate homework. they eliminated the requirement that you had to hand in your homework on time on the assumption that black kids were not capable of getting their homework in on time. it's that kind of thinking that takes me into a place of, how does that make sense? let's study success. what is it that 80% of the black kids were doing? what is it that the 93% of white kids -- and by the way, 94% of asian kids -- and when you look at the data the amount of time spent studying was a key factor to driving student success. ok, how do we create the

conditions so more kids can study? if you are not doing well, caller, i hope you had teachers that identified this space in your grades, and hopefully that led to more intervention to help you be successful. host: a caller in mississippi. caller: ms. wilson, thank you for the work you are doing. if we were to really talk about race theory, you would be the mother of the earth. myself, i was taught -- and you give credit to the white man. you give credit to the white man. you state abraham lincoln gave you freedom. god gave you freedom. if you're going to teach these children, you need to have a correct way of teaching them.

but i do not think that is the point we are trying to get to. ms. wilson, i propose that black people in america need a social program. you are right, the ones who become millionaires need to help others come out of poverty. just like social security, that is a great program because it helps people out. we've counted all the black people in america and are more than a million of us. everybody, if they put a dollar in a day, you could turn black people into millionaires. we can bring ourselves out of this poverty, we have enough money as black people to do it. guest: i think the absolutely people -- black people's buying power is that. are there ways it could be repurposed? yes. are there ways, depending on

their situations and different systems, processes and practices -- are there ways that money is a siphoned out? -- is siphoned out? yes. i'm thinking about people with an average job, paying taxes, they are not entre nous errors so they will pay -- they are not entrepreneurs, so they do not have the money where they can pay decreasing taxes depending on the business. there's different ways and that money is or that people's money can be used to keep them in a particular place or there are different ways that people can build wealth. i am thinking about redlining. black people were not allowed to get mortgages. a lot of white wealth comes from homeownership. but people were not allowed to get life insurance.

a a lot of of white wealth comes from life insurance policies that people can benefit from when a relative passes away. so yes, black people could, because there were so many years of discrimination. and even now, we are looking at wells fargo and others who recently were discriminating against people of color. it absolutely, the capacity exists for everyone to succeed, but we cannot pretend that there are not structures in place that impede or limit people's access, up until now, so that may be another 200 years that people will be in a better place because of processes being reversed. but things like that get in the way of the progress people can make. is it possible? yes. but are there systems that impede that, those exists as well. from a critical race

perspective, we need to recognize those policies and practices need to change in order for people to operate in their god-given freedom, in their agency and economy. what are the different things that these people have to jump over that other people know the doorway exists to just walk through. host: let's get to the comment from twitter. chanel wilson acknowledged that recent. is not really being taught muchat the k-12 level. "why are we arguing about a subject not taught in schools. at that list is endless. who loses and who wins by dividing us over crt?" guest: i think the discussion is a massive distraction to a decades long literacy crisis that's existed in our country for kids of all races.

it's true today that just over a third of all american kids read at proficiency. this is a national crisis, and often times we focus on only minority kids, but there has never been a situation since 1992 where even a majority of white kids are reading at grade level proficiency. this has enormous implications for us as a global competitor. you look at india, china, all these other countries that are far outpacing the united states in english and math, so we are wasting time focusing on critical race theory, when our children cannot read. and that is a central problem. so who loses, kids. one thing i will say is part of the reason i think critical race theory gets so much attention in k-12, that even though the

theory unto itself is not being taught, there are a number of practices that have become associated with google race -- with critical race theory and they are divisive in the sense that they divided kids and faculty by race, and these are now provisions that could be violating title vi. host: give us an example. guest: in illinois, a teacher brought a lawsuit that because this district became an antiracist district, rightly or wrongly synonymous with critical race theory, started separating teachers by white teachers go here and black teachers and nonwhite teachers go to these rooms. in the nonwhite classrooms, you had to declare your oppressive

tendencies. even with the students they did things called privileged walks, where all the students lined up and if you are white, take three steps forward, if you are black, take five steps backward, to evidence your white privilege or black oppression. those are the kinds of behaviors associated with critical race theory and people rightfully are concerned that those kinds of actions are violations of the very provisions that prohibit racial discrimination, as well as compelled speech, like saying i am an oppressor. that violates the first amendment. host: chanelle wilson, on those practices? guest: i have participated -- i do training around antiracism and i participate in professional development around racism where we talk about power and privilege and oppression.

some of those practices you named, i know of the practices, but i do not know exactly what exists in that space. i have never seen a privilege walk where somebody says if you are white, do this, if you are black, do that. i cannot speak to that particularly. i know that privilege walks, and the way i have seen them, often times try to illustrate the way that society already exists. and so -- bu that is usuallyt -- but that is usually only one piece. it is often followed with a larger conversation on practices and policies that have created the reality that exists. i hope that happened in that instance, but i do not know. and separating, with the separation of racists. in some of the professional development workshops i have facilitated, i have had people of color who have specifically asked to further own space, because there's harm the

experience when they are in a multiracial space where there are white people who may not understand or agree, and who feel empowered to make statements that are harmful to people of color. so is some of my practices, i have had people ask for their own space. i never make anyone go anywhere, but people can separate if they want. i've never had a person of color who was upset about having their own space, that is going to benefit them. i have experienced white people who feel like they are being discriminated against because they are not allowed to go into a space for people of color. maybe that happened in this instance, i do not know that person, but i recognize that there does not have to be an issue if we are learning and coming from different places or backgrounds. that's ok as long as there is reconvening where people are

working together. i do not think there is a problem to talk about power, privilege and oppression because those things are operating all the time and iffy pretend they aren't, and do not allow students to discuss that in a productive way, then we are doing this harm to -- disharm to students. so those practices occur, it depends on the facilitation and on how that discussion has opened up for people to understand. so i will never denigrate what you explained. it happens and it is ok depending on who is facilitating and on the learning that comes from that. i hope that people are better on the other side. in my expense going up the often times better on the other of the training i have done. -- experience, people are oftentimes better on the other side of the training i have done. host: michael and regina, go ahead. -- in virginia, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i especially want to thank mr. rowe, for me as a supporter of any kind of antiracism or racial discussions, i really appreciate his point of view. he's taught me a lot. i have a simple question, a lightweight question, but it is important to me. in my discussions with folks about racism, or could go race -- or critical race. , i usually get sidetracked into a discussion of what it is. you started with simple definitions. i've come up with a definition that seems to end those arguments or conversations and i wanted to get your impressions or suggestions about this. i say that statistics is hard fact. it's science and gathered

information. and one of the statistics we know is that there's discrimination in our civilization based on race, or associated with race, there is no doubt about that. there's theories about why that is and how best to address it and what we can do about it. and critical race theory is really just a discussion of open-minded -- an open-minded discussion about those theories. thank you. host: michael in virginia. here is chuck. good morning. caller: how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: i am a retired schoolteacher, and i have been

researching -- research has proven that if you come from a two-parent family, if you graduate from high school, if you do not have children until you are married, then you are going to be successful in america -- black, white, green, red, it does not matter. i taught school, i have black and white kids in my classroom and i had white kids that were racist and black kids that were racist. black kids said they would not listen to me because i was white. is that racism? host: one more call. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm a 65-year-old gentleman who grew up in segregated schools. one thing that lost me in this discussion is the disparity

between black and white and i want to look at employment. in the companies i have worked for, i have yet to have seen an all black department. and i challenge anybody to tell me if there is. so, it is not a question of is there or has there ever been discrimination, most people -- have had an opportunity to exercise, but until you live in that environment, to this day in 2021, i would love for anybody -- this is a c-span challenge -- to tell me one fortune 500 company that has an all african-american department from the manager to the c-suite.

guest: what you articulate is exactly why i run schools. how do we expect there to be a department in a fortune 500 company if in a district in the bronx, which is predominantly black and hispanic, only 2% are graduating ready for college? we do not have equal opportunity in the earliest stages of life. i agree that that is part of the reason you do not see the visual representation of black people and other low income people who do not have the mechanisms early. the prior caller talked about the importance of family structure. what he described is the practice of finishing education, just a high school degree, full-time work of any kind, just so you learn the dignity and discipline of work. if you have children, marriage first. that series of decisions, 98% of the people who follow that a

series of decisions i that ordern -- in that order avoid poverty. it is not a guarantee, but says that there are tools within your control that if you can have an opportunity to get a great education, to get that first job, that you have an increased likelihood of avoiding poverty. these are important concepts. often we talk about systemic racism, structural racism, but i want to give you another descriptor, what about surmountable racism, where we give young people the tools to know what they can do in a society that still has racism? but they are not doomed to a defeated feature. they have within their tools of the ability to be successful. host: surmountable racism, chanelle wilson? guest: anything can be surmountable. i'm thinking about -- just the

thought that -- ok, the thought that families are to blame, that children are to blame, the thought that sometimes educators are to blame. for why people are not successful. people can overcome racism and people have, but thinking about just the presence of people of color in this country is proof that people can continue to strive through it and surmount it in different ways. it's not that people cannot overcome racism, it's that racism does not need to exist. we know that reese is a social construct, but we know that racism has a real implications for people's lives. it doesn't have to be that way. we don't have to think about, we should just train people or educate people to get over racism. how about we all try to be

antiracist? how about we eradicate those systems in people's way so they do not need to think about surmounting it? let's get rid of it. it is possible. thinking about the conversation about family structures, not having children before marriage, there are a lot of things that happen that make it so these things occur. many people are against sex education in schools. but people are still having sex, that is why we have so many children. people are against reproductive rights, ok, but why can't a person choose to do what they want with their bodies? i personally do not agree with the school choice because some people can choice out. but as you said, there will always be people left over. what about them? why can't we think about the education system as something that students can't or should not have to survive?

children are surviving the education system because they exist in the same way it did 200 years ago. that is not necessary. how about we change that instead of thinking that we need to change these people so they can figure out how to navigate the system? many people have figured out how to navigate the system, but the system does not work. we can do something about that, traditional schools, private schools and charter schools -- we can do something about it. we can train people to create spaces where students actually want to be, where they do not want to drop out. or we are creating program that responds to student needs -- you said earlier the amount of hours for people to study, but some people have to take care of their families, do childcare and people have other things that encroach on their time. we should create social programs that assist people rather than thinking that the problem is them.

the problem is not of them. they are people caught up in systems that can be changed. we can all do something about that. host: let's get to a couple more callers. anna in desoto, texas. caller: i am 72 years old. i went through segregation. we had in this little country school a gentleman named neddy williams. he was a self-taught man. the sharecropper he worked for, and his family, noticed he was so smart that they gave him books. he went on to bishop college, where he was taught. then from there to booker t. washington and george washington carver, who meant toward him -- who mentored him. we knew about black wall street

in texas. this man was born into slavery and he taught my grandfather, my mom, he was an older teacher. juneteenth -- no, we knew about it. we knew it happened in 1865. it was taught to us. it was a family affair. then you go on and if there is a man never talked about, his book, "succeeding against the odds." he always put in his magazine, "ebony," a day in history. those are things that we need to teach her children to read. we do not go to school boards. i have grandchildren. we do not attend pta. you can make a change.

the superintendent asked me, how was it about, segregation? i said it was about teaching. people teaching. host: we will take that point. ken in washington, d.c., go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the gentleman, i know that you mentioned that you run a school. that is a perspective, that is not a global issue in terms of what happens to black people in this nation because you mentioned we are losing the race to other nations. those nations do not experience the same culture issues as america, particularly with the black people in america, so that being said we need to empower black children in particular, because what happens -- i know that you mentioned reading comprehension is an issue, that now turns it into us, instead of

just individual black people. even with this initiative to improve reading skills among children, they are still teaching history about white people and white supremacy and power, which desensitizes black children to learn. i went to a historically black college and i became way more empowered being, you have to address the issue of those that have the most need. it always becomes the we issue in america when america has a global initiative. host: i want to give each guest about a minute or so to be able to respond to that in some of the previous callers. guest: i don't -- my personal opinion is i don't agree that the u.s. needs to think about itself as in competition with the rest of the world. people don't have to agree with me on that. i'm resonating with your point

about the desensitization in education. eurocentric curriculum is teaching of old, dead white people. it gets old, especially if you do it of the time. i'm thinking but antiracist training, equity training -- 80% of teachers in the u.s. are white women. from that perspective and thinking of residential segregation exists in the country, we have to recognize there is a particular population of people who are in charge of teaching a predominant amount of children in the country. there is going to be some racism that exists. because of the way the united states is structured. but we can't pretend that the people who are in school buildings all understand and

love and care about children in the same way. those are things i tried to tackle from a teacher education perspective. i want any student who comes to my classroom to understand the world as it operates and think about how they can love children to get them, the children, to move beyond the systems and navigate through rather than thinking they can save children. individuals cannot save anyone else. people have autonomy. they can do all the things they need to do. my job is to help teachers recognize the barriers that are in place to help their students and abolish them, ratted that, or figure out how they can navigate. the structures that are in place are not there to benefit all children. we can't pretend they are. but that can be changed, and part of my job is doing that. i will continue to do it until the day i know longer have

breath to live. -- i no longer have breath to live. teachers will change the world and children are going to be better because of it. that is an imagination of what we can create. guest: one area of intersection between the national literacy crisis, and we do have to think about our country in a global context, one is the opportunities you want them to have but one area is the need for more kids to have a complete understanding of american history, including the african-american experience in the united states. that is creating more content rich curriculum to refer back to. i am part of a group, black lead

, who says it is not enough. we created the 1776 curriculum that tells an and credible story of the african-american experience in the u.s. during the heart of jim crow segregation, booker t. washington joined forces to build nearly 5000 schools throughout the south educating black kids because the other option was inferior. he created choice. more of these stories need to be told. i'm thankful to say that curriculum has been downloaded more than 15,000 times by teachers in all 50 states. 1776unites.com. it's totally free. we can use this moment to

address the nation's literacy crisis, which is central to kids of all races, while simultaneously broadening the history that we teach our kids and not cherry pick on either side, but rely on the truth of the american story, which is both one of oppression and liberation. our kids need to hear both. host: that is 1776unites.com. thank you both for your time, let's do it again. guest: thank you. host: about one hour to go on the washington journal, and the next we turn to the issue of the pharmaceutical industry and campaign giving in 2020. we take a look at state legislatures and members of congress, where the money went. our washington correspondent will join us for that discussion

right after the break. >> the secret service was founded in the aftermath of the assassination of abraham lincoln. it wasn't until the death of john f. kennedy the presidential protection service begins get closer attention from the american people. carol began reporting on the secret service for the washington post in 2012. in the prologue of her new book, she writes that she started her coverage on hunter gate, the scandal in which agents brought prostitutes to hotel rooms were making arrangements for president obama to visit in columbia. we talk with her about her in-depth book. >> on this episode of book notes, listen at c-span.org/

podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. >> an intellectual feast. every saturday, american history tv. on sundays, look tv rings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. learn, discover, explore. this weekend on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: washington correspondent lev facher joins us for his deep dive into the pharmaceutical industry, the headline of prescription politics from one of the recent ones, more than two thirds of congress cashed a campaign check and 2020

according to an analysis. lev facher, is that part of the course and a campaign cycle or is it up tight -- high point when it came to pharmaceutical giving. guest: it is an indication essentially that, despite immense pressures, on several fronts -- the issue of the opioid crisis, the issue of covid vaccine making, the pharmaceutical industry is taking care to gain and preserve influence in washington, d.c. it has been a rocky several years for the industry. you will see the different versions pop up. it shows how powerful the pharmaceutical industry continues to be. they did a pretty good job weathering the storm of the

trump administration and used covid to their advantage in terms of rehabilitating the industry's reputation and showing what they can do. host: here are some of the top line numbers. prescription politics is the name. when it comes to giving by political party, we are talking about members of congress in 2020, democrats gave $6.6 million, 189 candidates got that money. among republicans, it was 2014 and received a check for $7 million. explain how you did this report. hemi companies did you look at -- how many companies did you look at and do they tax the new money in terms of their

donation? guest: for the federal investigation, we partnered for data. we asked for a readout of campaign contribution from the 25 most significant more -- pharmaceutical entities. we looked at pharma and bio which represent large drug manufacturers, ones like pfizer and johnson & johnson. they represent smaller biotech companies, but they are big players in d.c. we analyze their pack contributions in the tony 20 cycle -- 2020 cycle. most of these checks are in the amount of $5,000 or $10,000.

sometimes $1000. a lot of money for an individual, but on the perspective of a congressional election, these contributions are more indicative of being invited to a fundraiser luncheon at campaign headquarters in downtown d.c. to talk to the lobbyists, ask the lawmaker questions. as part of that event, a lot of the pharmaceutical industry would write the lawmaker a check -- that is the transactional nature of how this works. it is a symbolic gesture and one that can gain access with some lawmakers who are controlling policy that determines how the industry will fare. host: reports on campaign giving when it came to state lawmakers

-- the headline of that part of your report, pharma funded more than 2400 lawmaker campaigns in 2020. guest: i would encourage people to check out -- if you look at our prescription politics online, there is a companion to the project which i think is cool. all of these are data visualizations, interactive maps that readers can play around with. if you want to go to your state, you can type in a name of a lawmaker both at the federal and state level in ohio, florida, california -- age of the 50 states. we did a comprehensive analysis. more than 2000 -- 2400 lawmakers

in 2020. that is less than a third of all state lawmakers and the entire country. these checks are written in smaller numbers. a lot for $500, so on. that is more significant when we are talking about a race for only 10,000 people, 100 thousand people vote as opposed to a senate race or even a house race in congress. this is substantial money. it speaks to the level of access that drug companies in the drug industry at large have worked to preserve and state legislatures, because the last several years, it is not just covid. there is not a lot of impressive drug policy. in sacramento, and other capitals -- the efforts there

have been significant. happening on a smaller scale than here in d.c.. host: if you want to talk about pharma giving a look back at campaign 2020, the numbers are in. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans is (202) 748-8001. independence is (202) 748-8002. you can click on these maps, this is a lawmaker from louisiana. he is a democrat. a $500 check from the pharma pac. 84% of state lawmakers received checks from the pharmaceutical industry. why focus so much on lawmakers in louisiana? guest: they have large

percentages of lawmakers exit the drug industry money. it is much more than norm -- the norm. to an extent, louisiana -- it is a state that is worked somewhat aggressively on drug pricing legislation. the pharmaceutical industry does not like it, does not want to pass it. so groups that represent them give incentive to get favor with committees who are overseeing health policy, overseeing the medicaid program, public insurers, and seeing power over who buys drugs and introducing bills that come in some cases, may limit what they are willing to pay for those drugs. by and large, the money followed aggressive legislation.

campaign-finance law varies from state to state. in some states, it is legal for corporations to give money to candidates directly. that is not legal in congress. you to give money through a pac, which is employee money. at the state level, they can get money directly. they have no campaign contribution limits whatsoever. i think there is a variety of explanations for which states all the most thorough check on the drug industry in general. i would sit follows legislation where it felts the heaviest. it is helpful on that front. host: all of this happens during the height of the covid pandemic. we have heard so much about --

they are giving several candidates, pfizer, someone .3 million dollars during the course of 2020 election -- $1.3. johnson & johnson a total of $67,000 over the entire campaign. astrazeneca, another company at $55,000 over the course of a pandemic. you can click on the various industry and company. several colors for you already. -- callers. caller: right after the two other people talking about the issues of race relations, but i was going to say --

host: hold that thought. if you want to talk about critical race theory, we have time left in the segment to about pharmaceutical giving. we are coming back to critical race theory. de have a question on the pharmaceutical industry? caller: no, i don't. host: that's fine. call back during one of the other segments we talk about those issues. a call from new york, democrat. caller: good morning. my questions are two. one is there a way to find out the percentage of profits that companies are making? the percentage of profit that pharma companies are making? i meant is to to know which

companies make obscene kinds of profit and which make lesser. the other is, how do these decisions get company levels about what money they are going to give for lobbying? who makes them and how in these companies? host: thanks. lev facher. guest: i don't have numbers to site for you in terms of how profitable they are. a lot of drug companies do very well, and they argue there are huge profit margins. we are talking about revenues in the billions and billions of dollars. continuing to foster innovation, spending money on research, as pfizer would say there is no better example than the development of the covid vaccine that so many of us have received in the last several months. of course, they push back hard and say that money -- the

innovation goes to marketing, executive compensation, that kind of thing. a lot of the figures are public, and you won't be surprised that companies do immensely well and turn a huge profit margin. on the decision-making front, it varies from company to company. when we talk about a pac, a political action committee, let's take the example of pfizer. they have a pac, it raises money . if you looked up the campaign-finance records, you'd see the ceo and senior vice president are giving to the pac regularly. in a sense, is private money, but it is also money for highly paid executives. it is put together in this pot

to be restricted in the company's interest. in terms of how it is decided, a lot of companies -- they make these decisions jointly. they file lower-level employees on the board, sometimes as a senior vice president, someone whose job is corporate or government affairs. they chair that committee and have a huge role in making the decision. it varies from company to company. in general, this is money i would say high-level executives often have a role in deciding how to spend. that is why we see it so strategically used in terms of giving to members of particular congressional committees that are overseeing health policy, giving to maybe an endangered member of state legislature who is facing a tough reelection race. that would go a long way. i would say those are the broad outlines.

host: what should viewers know about the congressman of north carolina? $139,500. guest: he is a great example and that he represents the district in north carolina that has a biotech presence, pharmaceutical manufacturing presence. he is someone who had interest in constituency. at least hearing the pharmaceutical industry is concerned. he falls into much broader pattern of a focus on influential committees receiving a lot of money. the congress committee, the health committee of that larger panel. it has a very influential role in determining. as a republican, he is in the minority. there are other lawmakers, many republicans and some democrats, on the senate finance committee,

on the senate health committee. other committees that oversee and regulate and pay a lot of attention to the pharmaceutical industry. if we do see legislation, as a speaker pelosi continue to push for, those are many cases where they play the biggest role. that is why members are the lawmakers who get the most attention from the drug industry. host: this is joan, democrat. good morning. caller: i do know a person who sells drugs at the drugstore's around the country. they make very nice salaries. the main thing i want to say is that the donation is a travesty. i think the right word is bribery. i think his pharmaceutical companies use their money to influence the government and

make you and me, the people that need help, that need drugs to get well, pay through the teeth to help them get the money they need. i think bribery is a better word for the practice of what goes on in this country. host: we should make the point it is not just the pharmaceutical industry. our numbers from that report -- comparing the pharmaceutical industry to other industries. this is just for the election of 2019 and 2020. the total amount given to federal congressional candidates . public-sector unions gave $19.2 million. the oil and gas industry 14.2 million. pharmaceutical manufacturers at about $9.5 million. another industry we talk about, some $2.9 million in the airline

industry giving to congressional candidates. i will let you jump in. guest: it is a good point. people assume that the pharmaceutical industry is alone and that lobbying washington as part of an influence campaign. simply writing checks to the campaigns of various lawmakers, they are part of a much broader system. in fairness, it is true that the drug industry is more powerful than most others. i think it is important to distinguish between campaign contribution and lobbying. banker divisions are giving money to the reelection campaign and lobbying is paying an outside firm organization to go to capitol hill, the white house, and argue policies. they are related, because sometimes the campaign check can get you in the door. there are members of congress

who sat on the record that they would not meet with lobbyists who hadn't contributed to their campaign. certainly, the pharmaceutical industry is powerful. for pharma, i believe their revenue comes close to $500 million. they are very powerful. i don't know the drug industry specific giving indicates are more powerful than other industries. we want to illustrate that is interesting for the drug industry on the open air freight and pricing front, the covid front -- opioid front, pricing front, and covid front. they were pulling as one of the least popular industries in the country, if not the least popular just a couple of years ago. now, americans broadly viewed drug companies much more favorably because they acted so

quickly and impressively at developing a covid vaccine. without the federal government -- with the help of the federal government and funded by taxpayers. lawmakers had one reason in the last year to target that. there is a reason they are powerful and makes a much money. host: a democrat in pittsburgh. good morning. caller: thank you. wow. that was a whole mouthful that was just said by him. i think it was all garbage, ok? big pharma makes more money per pill than any other industries do. gas does not cost $75 or hundred dollars or $1000. big pharma can charge that for one pill. the reason for calling his medical marijuana, it piggybacks

into this. why is it that only certain ailments are covered under medical marijuana? if they cover other ailments, like arthritis and things like that, that would make a big cut into big pharma's profit margin because it is a natural born product and big pharma can't get into that industry and manipulate it as easily as they do with politicians who are the ones who decide what ailments can be covered under the medical marijuana. thank you. host: sounds like not one of those folks that industry is going over the past year. guest: he is not alone in that. i am not trained to pair the pharmaceutical industry's blight , i am underscoring the reality that the drug industry has a new tool for arguing about the

merits of their power and immense revenue here in d.c. it is reflected and they are more popular now than two years ago. now, you are far from alone in the outrage over high drug prices. we have seen major controversy just over the last couple weeks over all timers drug manufactured by biogen. it has very limited evidence for efficacy coming at the list price is well over $50,000 per patient, per year. there is a reason there is outrage. there are americans who can't afford it and are dying because they can't afford it. in some cases, the policy is more complex than a drug company charging a lot of money. like landscape with pharmacy benefit managers and insurance plans. we see a lot of these discussions the last couple of

years about how to fix the problem, but not much action. house speaker nancy pelosi really wants to pass a bill they call to lower drug prices now act. cummings, who was skeptical of these pharmaceutical industry arguments. we will see what happens on that front. it is not clear they have the votes in the house, especially in the senate. remind me of the other question? host: we are running short on time, so let me get to loretta on twitter. is it true that the pharma companies got ppp loans? if so, how much, and doesn't this turn into a kickback scandal, if true? guest: i don't know which companies off the top of my head got any ppp loans. i think it was to prevent companies from laying folks off, so if that is the case, i would

imagine the program is working as intended. i'm sorry, i don't have that about the ppp loans, drug companies pacifically. host: john is waiting. on the line for independents. caller: i have a question for you. i think it is the thousand pound gorilla in the room. i often hear the vaccines are free. you can go anywhere and get the vaccine. one doesn't have to pay for it. the pharmaceutical companies must be making billions but i'm not hearing any investigative reporting of that issue. do you know who pays, who is paying for the vaccine? is that the federal government? guest: absolutely. i would point you to my outlet stat, stat.com.

we have been covering the vaccine thoroughly over the last year and a half, debate about whether there should be a vaccine booster for those that have received two shots of pfizer or moderna. your instants are correct, the federal government is paying, in many cases, immense amounts of money to pfizer, moderna, johnson & johnson, the vaccines the food and drug administration has authorized on an emergency basis. they are being given to folks free of charge. i actually know a couple of public health experts who think the federal government has not done a sufficiently good job messaging that the vaccine is free. there are folks who maybe don't have health insurance who have not been vaccinated because they assume they will have to pay, even though that is not the case. unfortunately, a couple

instances where things were supposed to be free, testing, for example, getting billed to patients. we have seen that disputed in the press. the bottom line is the vaccines in the u.s. are free for anyone who wants them. the federal government is picking up the tab. if you want to be vaccinated and you should not have been, you should not consider money as an obstacle. host: john in cleveland, ohio. an independent. good morning. caller: you talk about the contributions by congressman. i was in the industry for 30 years. i used to audit prescriptions from major companies. most of the research is funded through the universities. the same thing with r&d.

they treat the public, and then the american indians. host: did you get the question there about research funding? guest: i think what john was articulating was actually a quite common complaint i hear in washington on the drug pricing front. american taxpayers -- we spent about $40 billion a year on the national institutes of health, the federal biomedical emergency health industry. people just kind of broadly love the nih, and they do a lot of the basic science research that, down the line, leads to the development of drugs. they will discover a particular compound that could hypothetically be effective but needs work to be commercialized.

that technology will be transferred sometimes to a drug company. the drug company will take the drug the rest of the way. but there are a lot of advocates in d.c. who have argued, and in many cases have won a lot of lawmakers to their side, that that is not fair. we cannot pay on the front and and then be price takers once we help the industry to develop. that is one of the most common arguments you hear in favor of medicare directly negotiating drug prices with manufacturers, which does not currently happen. essentially the idea, if the public helps drug companies to create these products, miraculous as they are, the public cannot just pay whatever price drug manufacturer picks once they successfully commercialize the medicine. host: bill in albany, new york.

republican, good morning. caller: good morning. it is my understanding that with pharmaceuticals, 97% of the ingredients and raw materials are made in china. most of the drug companies have offices out of the united states. the united states does not make the actual pills. so, therefore, we are really beholden to china. even for our dearly pills. -- daily pills. president trump was trying to get the jobs back to america but he was not reelected. now we are back in that position, if china does not sell to us, we cannot do anything about that. host: lev facher on china and the pharmaceutical supply chain. guest: i am not familiar with the 97% figure.

it is absolutely true, in the u.s., there is a broad reliance on the international market, china and india in particular, for raw materials for these drugs. this was a focus of president trump's, but not alone. congress was working on this issue last year and continues this year. we have seen legislation advanced to essentially bring a lot of that supply chain, bring those steps in the supply chain, back to the united states. there is bipartisan agreement to an extent that there is an over reliance on foreign markets, china in particular. we saw this with covid, not necessarily with drugs, but with other medical products. there were a lot of things we needed, that american doctors wanted, that we found that would have to wait on manufacturers

and governments in other countries. it is certainly a common complaint, one that congress would like to address. host: lev facher is stat news' correspondent. thank you for coming out to talk to us. 20 minutes left in "the washington journal." we returned to the question that we began the program on resident biden today, set to meet with elected leaders to discuss strategies to reduce gun violence in america. if you are meeting with the president on that issue, what recommendations would you make? phone lines are on your screen. a special line for gun owners. start calling in now. we will be right back. ♪

>> c-span's shop.org. your crusades will support our nonprofit operations -- proceeds will support our nonprofit operations. go to cspanshop.org. host: just about 20 mins left in the program.

our question for you in the final 20 minutes, how would you reduce gun violence in this country? just a few hours before president biden is set to meet with the attorney general, local law enforcement officials and leaders on this issue on gun violence in america. that meeting happening at 1:15 at the white house. expected to be perhaps some comments from president biden before hand. the white house pool is covering it. look for coverage on c-span, if the president makes any comments ahead of that meeting. if you were in the room, what would you tell president biden about gun violence in this country? what recommendations would you have on reducing gun violence? alex is first out of las vegas, a republican. good morning. caller: lad to be on c-span. hello? --glad to be on c-span.

the only way that you will get rid of gun violence is better education. better education in the urban cities. you know, the government should get together and do something for the young kids in those cities. reach out, get more actively involved. there is no sense taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens because they need their protection and their rights, but it is a mess the way the country is in right now. host: nevada looking to pass a senate bill, did not come to fruition, but it would have allowed casinos to become gun-free zones similar to schools and library buildings. did you hear much about that debate in your state? caller: yes, i did. even on the strip, it has gotten really bad in the last 5, 6

years. there is a lot of crime going on there. do not defund the police, give them more money, get more police on the streets. that is what i think. that is the only way that you are going to be able to end this epidemic. that is what it is with people shooting and killing one another. we have to get more involved with the youth of american society. we cannot forget about them. host: it was the las vegas sun in a sunday editorial talking about this piece of legislation in nevada. the editorial board saying the threat of gun violence in casinos is a public health crisis that leaves every nevada and at risk, even those who don't work in the gaming industry. they say that is why it is "

beyond disappointing that lawmakers rejected the bill that would have given resorts new tools to address gun violence." among those bills, senate bill 452 that would have allowed casinos to become gun free zones. steve is on the phone next. caller: it is interesting that we have to reinvent the wheel. we actually had a successful model of how to control this situation. rudy giuliani was the architect. 1970's, new york was a disaster. he cleaned it up with his techniques. strict sentencing for any violent gun crime, stop and frisk. we can do this, it's been done. we don't have to reinvent the wheel. we don't have to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. this can be done. host: why do you think we keep

trying to reinvent the wheel on this issue? why do you think we keep trying to do it? why do you think it keeps happening? caller: i think it is partly because there is a large group of leftists who want to do away with the second amendment, they want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, and then they want to have all the guns and then dictate to us how to live our lives. that is exactly what is going on. it is good all politics. host: this is cindy in fort lauderdale. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i was the architect of gun free zones, such as libraries, with the exception of the bailiff. it will not stop there, and i agree education is necessary. let me finish.

stepping on the constitution is never the answer. rico is the answer. when i was younger, i remember a news report where the fbi arrested over 110 people in one night, claiming they were part of some gang. i think they use the term mafia. that is what this has become. you cannot educate someone until they want the education. rico not only gives you a tougher prison term, but four to one on all the damage that you caused. let's say one of your bullets it's a wall and the wall have to be rebuilt. it costs $100,000. you have to pay $400,000. applyrico to this gun violence. host: you say you are the architect of gun free school zones.

what you mean by that? caller: it is my original idea. i live in the county where it happens. our sheriff department should never get their accreditation back, not because of that, but it is impossible to work with them sometimes. it is ridiculous. i don't know about other police departments. i can only go by what mine does and does not do. giving them more money is absolutely out of the question. putting them in our schools around kids, armed, is absolutely out of the question. keeping those guns out of the schools, out of the libraries, out of certain places, means that other departments are free to do their patrols in other areas. host: what would you say to the folks who say criminals don't care about a gun free school zone sign? caller: i am one of those people. i am not putting up a sign.

i am putting up a camera and electric hide -- electrified fence. it would be like tazing you. not electric you to you but you will drop. host: this is pam in michigan, independent. caller: good morning. i think they need stronger prison sentences instead of letting these criminals out. my reason is, i don't think the people that are out here shooting and killing each other, hitting people with innocent bullets, are going to a gunshot to get their guns. they are buying them on the black market. we need to use a little wisdom. why go after the people that are doing it right, taking their guns, making it harder for them to protect themselves, when the criminals -- they are not going

to gun shops to get their guns. they are buying them off the streets. host: this is jerome in california. a gun owner. if you were in that meeting with president biden on gone violence, what would you tell him? caller: one of the things that we have done with ever gun ownership is getting out of hand. we let almost anyone buy a gun. when i go to the range, there are some people out there who i just know are just waiting. they are going to break into someone's house. the responsibility of gun ownership to be like a driver's license. host: that is jerome in california. wilhelm in warrensburg, new jersey. you are next. caller: good morning, c-span. i don't have no guns at all.

guns are dangerous, unless you have a license. i don't have a license. people should have a license if they want to buy a gun. that is what i think. that is all i have. bye. host: about 10 minutes left in the washington journal. in 10 minutes or so, we expect to go to the house judiciary committee, subcommittee hearing on expanding diversity in the judicial branch. among the witnesses who will testify, judges appointed by both democrats and republicans over the years. stick around if you are interested in that conversation, and about 10 minutes or so here on c-span. nate on this question of gun violence in this country, efforts to reduce this. tallahassee, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you doing?

the reason i called, i am for guns, i think people should own guns. but i think people should be able to register guns and purchase liability insurance. if my gun is stolen or lost -- can you hear me? host: i am. caller: i have to be responsible for my gun. many of these guns on the street are actually stolen, someone breaking into someone's home. make sure there is a liability. everyone should have a registration, just like your automobile, just like insurance. if my gun harms a person, those persons have to bear all of the costs. i bear none. if somebody steals my gun or if my family members use it -- host: you are not one of those books were written about a federal database where the

government knows all of the gun owners, where the guns are in this country? caller: that doesn't bother me. they can do the same thing for automobiles. every gun should have a serial number. if i kill someone, my gun should be able to allow that person to recover some damages caused by my efforts and actions. host: nate in tallahassee. a lot of calls from florida in this segment. melvin in fort pierce. caller: good morning. i believe a lot of the gun violence that actually occurs is due to psychological issues. many of those individuals are actually students of the schools. those statistics are not being put out. host: you are saying more investment into mental health, trying to identify people who have mental health issues?

caller: i would agree with that. host: don, pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. caller: i would like to say that i think they need to do more extensive background checks. i understand there are laws on the books, but they don't really follow them. crackdown on the criminals. my god, if you are keep doing the wrong thing with no repercussions, where is the incentive to stop? sometimes government makes it too hard. it is pretty simple. host: there are certainly laws on the books although democrats are trying to expand some of those laws. back in march, the house passed two measures, one, a bill that would expand background checks to those purchasing over the internet, at gun shows, certain

private transactions. that bill passing 227-203. eight republicans joint democrats in backing that bill. the second bill passed 219-210 with two republican supporting it. it would give authorities 10 business days for a background check to be completed before a gun sale can be licensed. some of the bills that are awaiting action in the senate right now. president biden meeting with law enforcement officials, elected leaders, and others to talk about reducing gun violence. we will see what he says in that meeting. ed in pleasant valley, new york. a republican. what would you tell the president? caller: good morning. i am in the new york area.

we have had some of the strictest gun laws out of all of the states. i can remember when i was a young 14, 15-year-old kid, i had ammo for my little gun. it was no problem. we used it to go hunting and stuff like that. currently, president of a local gun club. we have local children that are 10 and up became members through family. we teach them how to use the equipment properly. i think anymore laws come anything like that puts the burden on the law-abiding citizen. it is not right. you knew to deal with the criminals. you have to do what new york did but for some reason we are not doing it anymore. host: what new york is doing right now -- a headline from last week -- cuomo declaring a gun violence emergency in the state. the governor allocating $139

million to address shootings rising, even as the pandemic receipts. -- recedes. did you hear about that announcement, what did you think about it? caller: yes, i did. just one more thing to try to get rid of our second amendment in the state. the bottom line is, you deal with the criminals. do not make the legal, law-abiding people criminals. that is where we are heading. believe me, if mr. biden's son can get a gun and lie on his paperwork, he should be prosecuted. start in the white house, and then we may see action in this country. host: just about one minute from governor cuomo from that announcement last week. >> treat gun violence as it is, which is really a public health emergency. that is what it is.

that is how we are going to treat it. today, first in the nation will declare a disaster emergency on gun violence. [applause] this is a national problem, i get it. but somebody has to step up and address it. the place that you step up and address it is the state of new york. we should do it comprehensively and honestly and creative, and that is what today is all about. because this is the state, when it sees an injustice, we don't look the other way. we stand up and we fight it. that is what we will do with gun violence. host: andrew cuomo last week in the empire state. this is tony back in florida, a gun owner. go ahead. caller: how are you doing, brother? two things we need to do is, number one, pay attention to thomas jefferson. he was the smartest man that ever lived.

number two, we need to pay attention to the american people. number three, we need to stop guns coming from mexico, china, and south america. everybody talks about the drugs coming over the south border. nobody talks about the weapons. there are at least $10,000 worth of weapons a week coming into this country illegally. there are illegal weapons, and they are killing our kids, they are killing our people. america needs to wake up and realize, we are the government. elected officials are not the government. we are the government. it is time to take our country back and be smart about it. host: tony in florida. this is sharon in minnesota. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. happy monday from northern minnesota. i have a couple of things that i never hear anyone talk about. one is that the male brain never

fully developed until the age of 25. that is a proven fact. i don't understand why we put guns in the hands of anyone under the age of 25. that is one thing i would change. that would also mean that until you're 25, you cannot get a weapon and go into the military either. one more thing. how about having everyone take an eight grade equivalency test? if you can pass the test, that you can own a gun, if you want one. if you cannot, we should not let the young and the reckless own guns. that simple. what do you think? host: that is sharon in the land of 10,000 lakes. bill in safety harbor, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think we are approaching the wrong thing. the problem with the country is the lawyers and the laws. first of all, we are too easy on the criminals.

third offense, we put you out in a field in texas someplace like our troops and let them stay there. we have to enforce the law. the jails are overloaded because it is like a holiday inn. gun violence can be stopped if we treat the people who are doing it harshly. shortly, i think china will take care of all of that with us. thank you, c-span. host: jason out of san diego. good morning. caller: good morning. it seems like we are talking about two different subjects. when i think about gun violence, i think about sandy hook, the guy that went in with that machine gun and chopped up all of those kitties. i think about aurora, when a guy got up on stage and shot all of those people having a good time.

i think about walmart, fools going in and shooting people. you are talking about the inner cities. those people have beef, they need to do conflict resolution. somebody pulls a chain off of a guy, he is going to try to get them back. i am talking about aurora and the sandy hook. that is what we should be talking about, getting rid of these machine guns. host: rich in marion, ohio. you are next. caller: this is such an important topic. if we can say one life, it would be worth it. it seems like we want people in the united states to go by the laws. we will have problems in communities like everything. if we start out that way versus like a communist country where people don't want the laws, we can start there. don't have sanctuary cities where criminals can hide.

take care of our border. people want to be in the united states for a good reason. they want to support, they like our background. we should be working like heck to make it a good country. the people that step over that border, you don't want to give more giveaways before they get in here or otherwise you get a lot of people that want to come in because of the big -- giveaways, health care or whatever, well everyone else can barely pay. it is so important that we stop this nonsense on the killing. host: we are waiting for the start of the house judiciary committee hearing on the judicial ranch, expected to get started any moment. you can listen to it on the free c-span radio app. we will go there when it gets underway.

i also want to note at 1:00, a house administration committee hearing on congressional authority over elections, you can watch that hearing live at 1:00. some of our coverage today as the senate returns later today and gets underway with work on an infrastructure package and the effort to move a budget reconciliation, all of that happening in the coming weeks and we will see how it plays out here. time for more of your phone calls on this issue of what you would do to reduce gun violence in the country, having this conversation ahead of the meeting that is expected at the white house, elected leaders to be in attendance. this is billy from arkansas.

if you are at that meeting, what would you tell the president? caller: i would ask about the laws that we already have. [indiscernible] host: i think we are losing you. can we try you again? caller: right. the 33 strikes, you are out, kind of thing, why don't we start making them more enforced? host: this is the last caller fort washington journal. we will be back tomorrow morning it we will now take you over to a house judiciary subcommittee hearing on expanding diversity in the digital branch that begins right now here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ap