world bank -- did i see harold in the group? so harold is one of my heroes and he was right there helping us begin that fight against hiv-aids, and the reason i point to harold is that when i came onboard, i asked the people who are working on climate change, i said, do you have a plan that equals to the challenge? and they said, well, what do you mean? i said, let's take one example. let's take hiv-aids. so when harold was head of n.i.h., they mounted a campaign the likes we have not seen before so we discovered people living with the virus in 1981 and n.i.h. made massive investments in be h.i.v. research. . there are two kinds of people in the world, people who are researching aids now and people who will be researching in the future. they moved huge amounts of funding into this particular

area. at h.i.v. we put money into the research. then we changed the laws so it would be easier to get the promising molecule into industry. then we changed the laws around food and drug administration to get molecules that are promising from industry through the f.d.a. more quickly, and then people set up a clinical trial, network the likes of which we have never seen. and in 15 years, from 1981 to 1996 we had a treatment that basically turned a one-time completely deadly, universally deadly disease into one that was a chronic condition. so i said, that's what i mean by a plan. that you got the basic science, industry, the clinical trials, whatever that would be in terms of sustainable energy, do you have that altogether? the answer i got was a resounding no. there is nothing like that for something that is potentially the most important problem that we as a world has faced. i kept saying, what's the plan? what's the plan? the professor came to see me,

the itcc they just launched their report, i asked him the same thing, what's the plan, professor? i kept saying, we do $8 billion a year in energy funding, what do you want me to do? there was no plan. i said to them, here's what i think happens. i think what happens is when some report comes out, when some extreme weather event happens, the whole world looks to you guys, i wasn't part of that group at that time, and they are asking themselves, what are we going to do? you say things like, put solar panels on the roof, and they look at me and say this is not serious. that was my reading. we put our plan together. our plan has five parts. the first is there's got to be a reliable price on carbon. i don't know how we'll do it, it will be hard. but we have to find a way to put a price on carbon. we have to remove fuel subdies. egypt is facial many, many

different problems. one of the biggest ones they spent 8% of g.d.p. goes for subsidies of all sorts. they've got to remove fuel subsidies because it's both bad for the air, and also very bad for government. this is a huge expense. it's just very politically unpopular to remove it. we want to work with countries to remove fuel subdies. the other three, one, is cleaner cities. that's why we worked with china on this organization report, because we think there are tremendous innovations in building cleaner cities that are just not being used. cities are being built on the basis of sprawl. and the lack of planning is causing carbon output to go up. we now know that there are fantastic examples of being able to reduce carbon output from cities. new york. bloomberg said we are going to reduce our carbon footprint by 30% by 2030. they will get it done by 2017.

the examples are out there. we have to be the organization that takes the great solutions that are already out there and spread them around the world. another is access to finance for sustainable energy. we do not yet have the kind of access to finance for sustainable energy sources that people need. there is not enough financing to meet the demand for solar and wind -- wind energy, for example, in africa. we need to do that. finally, there's this thing we call cly mat agriculture. there are so many great examples of how individual countries, individual states, individual farmers, even, have brought to the table really innovative ways of not only increasing productivity, but actually putting carbon back into the ground. so i just had a great conversation with bill gates about this issue. he's very interested, of course, in agriculture and health. and he points out that

everything you need to do to increase the productivity of small local farmers in africa, for example, is exactly the same thing that you need to do to create more climate smart agriculture. so there are five things we know we can do right now. these are all win-win propositions. these are things that i think there is general agreement on. i think the most controversial one is the price on carbon, but the other four, i think we generally-agree on this. if we could make those four or five things happen, it's, in my view, the beginning of a plan. but the basic point is this. why are we not as serious about climate change as we were about h.i.v.? part of it is we had harold and others who led the charge, but another part of it is that i just -- i think we are not yet alive to the science of what the itcc is telling us. >> as you know there are criticisms of a lot of people

would say mission creep by the world bank. if your mission is to alleviate poverty, then you're focused on climate change, as we discussed before, sometimes there's a choice to be made between the two, right? >> sure. as we look at the potential impacts of climate change, for example, one of our biggest clients is bangladesh. bangladesh, if you look at what's happening with even a small rise in the oceans and look how much land they are going to lose, this is going to be the number one poverty issue for them. if you look at the coastal cities, one of the predictions is that if we get to where we think we are going to get in terms of the temperature rise and sea rise, bang cog could be under water by 2030. we feelle it's critical to tackling extreme poverty. >> is the world bank that mechanism? >> when i came onboard i was hoping say here, we have a plan. we want you to do this part of

it. that would have been great. ok, great. i'm glad you have a plan. >> you think the world bank can execute on that mission? > we can scale climate smart agriculture, we can provide better financing, we can help people build cleaner cities. >> solar and wind don't get a lot of investment because it's not possible -- >> the profitablity is one aspect of it, but the real problem and our understanding you need long-term financing. it's very difficult to find long-term financing anywhere in the developing world. andle it the real issue, and the reason that so many developing country leaders are so worried, even with very low interest rates, it was still hard to find long-term financing such as infrastructure for energy. now that interest rates is going up, will it get harder? that's our role.

we always play a counter cyclical role. in this case it's making financing available for those things we know are both good for people anti-environment. >> back, very back row. in the purple. >> thank you. pleasure to have you here. i'm at the campaign for tobacco free kids. most of us in the public health community were delighted when you came to the world bank hoping to bring greater focus on public health. my question is given that the bank's focus is on the top five of india, china, and bangladesh, they also happen to be the number of countries with the greatest smokers in the world. the bank has not been a enthusiastic supporter of increasing tobacco taxes which has a dual function both of increasing number of revenue the governments have, but decreasing the number of smokers disproportionately poor. is there any chance the bank is willing to get onboard in terms of looking at tobacco tax increase as a revenue source and

public health fix? > yes. let me answer the question a little bit more fully. one of the most important studies that has ever been done in the world of health, and especially global health, just recently, larry summers and dean jamison did a review of 20 years of investing in health. they were responsible for the 1993 world development report called investing in health. they did a 20-year retrospective. some of the findings, this was not original research but this was just looking at the studies that had been done over that 20-year period, some of the findings are really stunning. one was that from 2000 to 2011 during that period, they estimated that 24% of economic growth in that period was related to improved health.

and so they made the case that now it's not just a question of investing in health, because it's the right thing to do, morally or ethically. investing in health is the right thing to do economically. we have never had that kind of number in the world before. this is -- it was a stunning number. in education, just to give you another example, the oecd puts out a program on international student assessment. the scores, mostly done -- testing that's given to 16-year-olds, it's amazing that the better you do on the scores, the better your economy does. now we have direct evidence that investing in education, investing in health is actually good for economic growth. we really didn't have those kinds of numbers 20 years ago. and people like me who are health activists were sort of using a moral, ethical argument to invest in health and education. now we have the economic argument. you need to invest in your people.

in that study one of the clearest no-brainers is stopping tobacco use. or slowing down tobacco use. so it's something that we simply have to look at. and what we are now trying to look at is how can we provide everyone some sort of security in health care. universal health coverage is the language we are using. so we are very involved in that. we have become much more involved in it since i took over. and the way that we work is show us the evidence and we are going to move in that direction. i think the most exciting thing for me is that 20 years ago we were argue interesting a moral, ethical basis that you should invest in people. now the evidence has caught up with our ethics and the evidence is clear, investing in people is the smartest thing you can do. every country i go to when i meet with heads of state, maybe because of my background as a doctor and head of a great institution of higher learning, maybe it's that background, but

every single one of them asks me two questions, how do i both reduce my expenditures and health in the cities and get coverage out to the people? and two, how can i build an educational system that would help us be competitive in the future? every country in the world, i would say every country in the world including this one that we are in right now, has a problem with these two issues. so because they are so important for economic growth, we are going to be very involved. >> raise taxes on cigarettes is what she wants to know. look, i have a very clear opinion, personal opinion on taxes for cigarettes. i think they are a good thing. now, whether they make sense in any given country, i'm going to make the argument it will make sense in every single country. whether this works economically for them, whether it works for

them, i'm not sure. what we can do is make very clear policy recommendations based on evidence. what happens is that we make those recommendations and the countries do make the choice, because it's a loan after all. when we provide a loan, the countries are in the driver's seat. they make the choices. i will continue to brit evidence to them this is a good idea and my hope is more and more countries will adopt it. >> question from new york. the one with the microphone sat down. go ahead. thank you very much. >> maurice tellton -- templeton. my question is prompted by this response you have just given to the question about health and education. and going back to your opening remarks which we are basically focused on the fact we live in a different age where the poor can atch the rich.

motivation, all of us involved, know that there are certain countries, and certain cultures which are motivated in a different way than others. you raise some of them like education and health issues. how do you see redirecting the world bank to capitalize and to expand the motivation of the recipient countries to address the issues which your institution is trying to address? >> thanks very much for your question. i see next to you my good friend , is that john? any way, i -- here's what we hope to be able to do. what we hope to be able to do is to really bring solutions

ogether, bring the kind of approaches to improving educational systems, improving health care systems to building better roads, to building cleaner, more livable cities. we hope to bring all of those possibilities to countries directly, and then we hope that they will choose the options that make most sense. now, we are a very unique organization. we are run by 188 governors. those 188 governors are the ones who determine what most broadly the direction that we go. we have administer of finance, we have some ministers of foreign affairs. we have some ministers of development. so because we are a collective, it's very difficult for us in management to dictate what any single country does. so the principle is we provide evidence, financing, we do everything we can to increase, as you will say, the motivation

of the countries to do the right thing. at the end of the day because it is a collective, the countries have to make that decision. this is important because one of the great criticisms of the world bank in the past is that we told countries what to do. today's structural adjustment this was the biggest criticism. we land on the scene. we fly in in -- to the capital cities and basically tell countries what to do. we can't and won't do that anymore. instead what we can do is try to convince through evidence. so i hope that we can be very influential, and the better we get at providing not just sort of ideas, not sort of what to do, but the better we get at helping people with the how, here is how china solved the problem of irrigation. here is how a particular region in kenya has implemented climate smart agriculture. ere is now a particular city

put in bus transit and had a huge impact not only on carbon emission, but got people moving a toll road in senegal, consider this. the difference is we are not saying build a toll road. we are saying here's an example how it works really well. this can work four. we hope it will excite the passions and possibilities of these countries and that they will make the right choices. now i see that you are sitting, a whole dartmouth table. good to see you. > middle of the room here. woman with the blue jacket on. >> thanks. the state department. question, you have laid out this kind of broad vision for change for the bank, and spoke about the -- at the end we need to bring kind of a global community

around to that vision, around extreme poverty. and addressing climate change, including business and government. what do you see as the mechanisms to do that? right now there is a discussion of next round of global development. goals in 2015. it seems that getting the kind of world around these goals, particularly such a diverse set of actors, you need to change them will be a significant task. any thoughts on what it will take? >> what i have been saying to our team, and what i have been saying to -- now people who are very close working partners, people like the world wildlife fund, and nature conserve vancy. we are in conversation with them all the time. i think the approach is yes we need a global agreement. the opportunity for that will come up in parris in 2015. but -- paris in 2015. what can we do right now to make the likelihood of a global agreement -- to improve the

likelihood of a global agreement? i think what we have to do is tabling all the things we know we can do right now, things we know we are doing badly right now, and then begin to tackle those issues so that there's momentum leading in to cop-21. is there going to be a grand cop-21? i don't know. i sure hope so. that would be a huge boost forward. what are the promising signs? i think president obama and the u.s. have made very strong signals about willingness to move forward. china, despite the fact it's large emitter, has a huge, hugely ambitious plan for reducing their carbon footprint. the european union has always been very focused on climate change issues. if those three came forward and led the charge to having an agreement, i think we would have fun. but still it's complicated. and there are all kinds of complex issues about how pays forks adaptations, for example,

and they are in the middle of the mix. the most important thing is that any of us who can act right now, who can do things right now, to reduce our carbon footprint, we need to do it. for us it's straightforward. >> new york for another question. anybody have a question? new york thinks about it. we'll go to the front. if >> good morning. though i am now with the department of energy for 60 years i ran the private sector arm of the asian development bank n that period we increased our loans by a factor of 41 times, a rock solid transactions. michelle was absolutely right when she said the world is awash with money. you were absolutely right that there is no long-term capital. it seems the nexus there is that the reason why money doesn't go to these projects, the reason why the private sector doesn't come to these countries and

hence why they are poor is because the governance in these countries are so bad. there's no rule of law. there's no regulatory framework, etc. i was a bit disappointed not to hear you talk about governance because i think that's the key to the whole thing. so my question is really what is the world bank doing on this vitally important issue? >> because you acknowledge the issue when you said you try to isolate the banks to make sure you got paid back. >> you know also that the quality of governments varies dramatically across could be continue nents and the world. -- continents and the world. i think most people would be surprised at how much better governance has gotten in africa, for example, over the last 20 years. if you look at the finances of african countries and you look at their debt to g.d.p. ratios, you look at the fiscal policies, one of the things that happened over a 20-year period is that

mainly because they had to, these countries listened to groups like the world bank and i.m.f. and others and they really did watch carefully. they benefited tremendously from debt relief, but they also did institute more rational and more evidence-based as it were face cal policy. they did watch their debt to g.d.p. ratios. you see a lot of these governments, from a financial spersmective -- perspective, that the space they could take on these projects. the governance issues are real, corruption is a real issue. we continue to work in places where we know that there's corruption because there's no other group that would do it. for example, we work in afghanistan. it's critical we work in afghanistan. nobody wants to see afghanistan go back to an era before 2001. nobody wants to see that, but we also know that there's a lot of corruption there. the best thing we can do is when

we go into a particular country, we make it clear we have zero tolerance for corruption. my first day on the job my first major decision was whether to stop a bridge project because of evidence of corruption. we d we'll continue to do it. we've got to fight corruption. we've got to do everything we can to try to help specific countries improve on their governance. the good news about the bank, you know, this because we have safeguards in place, because we do auditing, we are so careful at following our money, we can at least tell our own governors where our money is going. it takes a lot to do that. so our role has been mostly to try to influence the government and influence from the way that we can. now, are there ways of putting together projects, infrastructure projects in countries like africa in which even private sector investors would feel comfortable with the risks? we think that it's definitely possible, and that's frankly our job. >> would you take on the risk.

>> we would take on a good chunk, but we would provide information and -- on the ground insight about what the real nature risk in these countries are. >> is it the judicial reform, you don't need to be there anymore because the private sector would go instead, because there's obviously the potential to make money because there's demand, need, etc., but if you're fearful you're going to get ripped off you don't go. >> there are many, many countries in the world that have a lot of work to do in terms of rule of law. there is no question about that. >> do you play a role to try to influence them? >> we don't work specifically on rule of law issues. because we are not a political organization. we are prevented by our constitution from being directly involved in politics. on the other hand, we can help countries and have done it over and over in many different areas, we have helped countries get better at being more fair in terms of how it deals with

private sector companies. we have our doing business report. we have been working on this for a long time. in countries all over africa, the leaders are telling me the same thing. they are saying, we understand, we are not going to develop our countries based on aid. we need the private sector. every single african country i go to knows this and they know there are things they need to do. again, i would say that you cannot generalize across africa. there are places in africa where governance is very strong. there are places where it's very weak. even within specific african countries there are regions where governance is strong and weak. that's the kind of information we can bring to the table, too, at the end of the day, bring in private investors. >> dr. kim, what should i have asked you? >> nobody asked me about ukraine. >> you have a minute to tell us about ukraine.

>> it we met with the prime minister when he was in town, and it's a very difficult situation. again part of it is we are not involved in -- directly in the politics of ukraine. >> you are not advising on governance? >> what they need now is help in terms of implementing their reforms. this particular government passed through its parliament a really ambitious set of reforms, they even tackle fuel subdies. one of the things we are doing is trying to help them lessen the blow on the poorest of some of these reforms that we know that they have to take. so we are in active negotiation was them to figure out what we can do to provide some sort of funding so that, for example, when and if they remove their fuel subdies -- as they do that, they now need to protect the

ports. he programs that we support in the ukraine are foe kessed directly on providing direct support. we are trying to see how quickly we can move that money. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by ational captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> a number of bills including a couple with ukraine, $150 million in aid for ukraine, as well as codifying and expanding russian sanctions, and another bill they'll consider this afternoon authorizes up to $10 million for radio free europe and radio liberty to increase their broadcast into eastern

ukraine and into crimea. they are back at 2:00 and legislative work at 4:00. all of that here at c-span. also at 2:00 p.m. eastern, general motors c.e.o. testifies before the house energy and commerce committee. it's the first of a couple of days of testimony for her on capitol hill about the recall of over four million g.m. vehicles over ignition problems. that will be live this afternoon on c-span3. also at 2:00 p.m. eastern we get a preview from this morning's "washington journal." on the phone, ms. yeager. thanks for joining us. tell host: tell us a little bit about the hearing today and the rest of the week. what are the topics? covered? thehat happens today is committee on the house side. tomorrow is the senate committee that holds its hearing. it will both have the same two witnesses. the ceo of general motors and

the acting head of the highway safety administration. one thing that will be interested -- that will be interesting, she situate up provide answers about what went wrong. she has an internal investigation. she is found to be transparent hurt the company knows they have screwed up and they are trying to figure out what went wrong. there are questions about the communications between the carmaker and the regulator and the safety administration. i guess what we're looking for is how much of the focus is on the automaker and how much is on the regulator and how much of a point to each other as they try to explain why we are where we are right now with all of these recalls. host: her being relatively brand-new to the position of ceo. in january, she sat in the first lady's box during the state of the union address. here's the first female head of a big auto company, the president mentions her in his speech, everybody applauds, she

goes to congress the next day and meets with house and senate leaders from both parties and is really celebrated. that was just a few days in to her taking over the company. she has been working there since she was 18. she is a lifer, they say. she cameelebrated when in january and obviously very different circumstances when she was here this week. tone is there sense of the that these questions that will be presented to her? any sense of how the members of congress are going to treat her? an interesting question. there are some big michigan members him especially on the energy and commerce committee. you have talked about john dingell. he is brick carving after decades in congress. some people have called them the member of congress for general motors. he is a huge booster of the company. he used to run this committee. the current chairman is also from michigan. he is fred upton.

one thing i think is interesting, gm has done this great job. you think of them is a michigan company, but they have facilities in 28 states and 75 congressional districts. there really a national company with a heavy michigan presents. there is no gm facility in fred upton's district. he is tried to be very clear that he can be -- cars are important for michigan but auto safety is important for everyone is what he said to us this week. he has vowed to be tough. of whos this question screwed up. there will be some questions. fred upton was key in writing a law after another auto problem tout 14 years ago that try boost communication between carmakers and the safety administration. the came to see if his law, basically, was followed or not. there are others who think the automaker has been slow in .nforming the regulator

there were press a car company harder. some of those regulator harder. talk to bit about the fact is federal government assisted gm during the financial meltdown of the united states. how much does that overshadow these hearings this week the ipo guest: people keep saying that they don't think it will. people keep calling it government motors. biden famously said osama bin laden is dead in gm is alive. republicans didn't like the bailout. one slightly technical question that could come up with the hearings is whether gm was a little tricky when they agreed to the bailout. they basically waived -- they're off the hook on any accidents that happened before a certain.

period. they knew then that there was trouble with these cars. , they didn't share the information and sign the document that said they would be responsible for these accidents. don't be a whole other level of complication to the current situation. one more thing, today's hearing will be very different. versus image people have of the big three automakers coming to washington in 2008 when they were all looking for billions of dollars in government loans. there's a big scandal when we found out that they were all .lown on private jets it was kind of outrageous. here they are asking for government money and taking private plans. gm has learned that lesson many times over. she will be flying a private plane. host: washington post staff

yeager.olly yegor -- >> that hearing set to get under way in just under a half-hour, 2:00 p.m. eastern. it will be on c-span3. we welcome your comments on twitter, the hashtag is c-spanchat. we posted the question on facebook about whether the auto industry is doing enough to protect consumers. we'll look at that. that's at facebook.com/c-span. also at 2:00 the house is gaveling in we expect for a brief period of time. they'll begin their actual legislative work at 4:00 p.m. eastern. we'll have it live for you on c-span. until the house comes in conversation from this morning's "washington journal" on the rise in autism in the u.s. "washington journal" continues. joining us to talk about the topic of autism in light of

a recent report from the cdc, good morning. guest: good morning, pedro. thank you for this opportunity. autism speaks was founded in 2005 by bob and suzanne wright. bob was a chairman at nbc universal and a vice chairman of ge. he and his wife for grandparents to a child he was diagnosed at age two. normal and perfectly over time he started to withdraw into himself and have g.i. issues and other typical behavior for someone on the autism spectrum. he was diagnosed. what they recognized was that there was raise awareness of autism. we could get answers from their own doctors. they had resources available to them. they went everywhere and they were rejected or ignored or told to go home and take care of it. they said to themselves, if this is happening to us it is got to

be happening to many other families around this country and around the world. company withthis bernie marcus. a number of other ceos brought to bear all of the ceo experience to the urgency of the autism crisis. the term autism a lot these days. how would you define it? guest: autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder. it is a spectrum. he sees people at one end of the spectrum who have severe intellectual disabilities. other challenges, behavioral challenges. a third of the population is nonverbal. they have people at the other end who are very verbal, who can function at a very different and thena higher-level everything in between. we know is that autism is a lifespan disorder. the needs of someone with autism involves as a person grows up.

we often hear autism talked about in the context of children or childhood disorder because we're so focused on early diagnosis and detection. the fact is, there are 3 million people in the united states who are living with autism. they age from two all the way to the 80's. we've got to develop a national strategy to address the community across the lifespan. there is no national strategy. that is what we are what asking for. we were at a press conference last week when the cdc released its numbers. a staggering 160 eight individuals being diagnosed every year on the autism spectrum. we had a press conference to draw attention to the fact that we have mechanisms to deal with research and programs and services. we need to come together and develop a strategy that addresses research, but all the priorities that come with the needs of someone with autism. number oneu said the

in 68. tell us on the details as far as where this one in 68 number comes in. guest: the cdc has adam sites. the study reflects 11 different sites. it is not a general population study, but a comparison of apples to apples. what we have seen is a staggering doubling of the firstence since the cdc started doing the studies back in 2000 and 2002. 2010.numbers reflect what we see, is we are not making enough progress on it comes to the age of diagnosis. we know from research that we can diagnose children as early as two. in fact, many symptoms start months tovident at 18

a year. at this point, 4.5 to five years old is the average age of diagnosis. the hispanic and african-american communities are being diagnosed as late as eight years old. we are losing precious bible time in the six years on the skids be getting services and behavioral therapies. they can make a meaningful difference in their progress. the age of diagnosis is too late . a terrible disparity between the different populations in the , and again this 32% rise in the last few years. if you look at a chart, ribbing going in the wrong direction since it started counting. host: is a possibility that more cases -- that there's better diagnoses going on rather than more cases being discovered? guest: of course there's better diagnoses. many organizations

around the country that are better diagnostic tools. that doesn't begin to address the doubling of prevalence. we have a very incomplete pitcher about what is causing this increase. the numbers are real. can all get statistics. it is so important that everybody understand that behind every one of those numbers is a person living with autism. today in this country, 3 million people woke up and are living somewhere on the autism spectrum. they have needs, as i said, across the lifespan. many of those individuals have seizure disorders heard one third of them are nonverbal. they have g.i. issues. many one employment opportunities or they want an independent living a housing opportunity. not enough of that is available to them right now, given the of the programs and services and research that we are doing in this country. we have got to do better. liz felt joining us.

if you want to ask your questions, we divide our questions by region. also, if you or your family have been impacted by autism in any you canr experiences, talk about them as well with our guest. ms. felt, about $1.7 million are dedicated to the organizations for resorts -- for research. go?e did this money what type of research is being done? is genetic research and environmental research. speaks has invested $200 million of private funding since

2005, since your organization was started. they gelato partnering with the nih. it is critically important. part of the value of a national strategy is to bring all the stakeholders together in a coordinated way. as a vehiclesm act to provide the funding. we did a lot of work with other organizations to lobby to get that first bill passed in 2006. president bush signed it. in 2000 --thorized it was reauthorized by president obama. we are lobbying for passage and we have a president -- unprecedented bipartisan support. the able act, which is a 529 account, tax-free so that individuals can say for all the problems that come with a disability. we have been fighting very hard to make sure that our veterans

who get the same kind of autism benefits, that the federal civilian workforce gets. general population gets. showed,ers you just they are a drop in the bucket compared to what you need when you look at what the prevalence is right now. we're going to continue fighting very hard. just for more research funding, but for a very coordinated strategy to identify what we want to fund, what needs to be done, and to make sure there's enough accountability for it. right now we are just not making enough progress and we are not making it fast enough. are: back to the research, we any closer to finding out causes? guest: pedro, evidence points to a combination of genetic factors and environmental triggers. that is really what we know. read, whether it

is effects of air pollution or toxins or certain gene mutations that indicate that perhaps paternal age. again, nothing conclusive, but we know a little more. what we're really know is there are treatments available that can help someone who is diagnosed with autism. we are very focused on making sure that they are available to those who need them right away. the research is a long way off. there's no question about it. we look at the prevalence numbers and you see that we now have another generation of children who grow up with autism the nextning us for half hour to talk about the ups of the united states. again, the lines -- from california, on our independent line.

go ahead. i am a teacher in riverside county and i teach kindergarten. whoe children coming in display behaviors under the umbrella of autism. we try to take care of our students and help them. but the whole system is working against us. beginning with the insurance and the school districts that are not able to take care of the needs of these children. it is a crime to me. >> when you say the whole system is working against you, what do you specifically mean? caller: the insurance companies do not want to help the student so they ignored. they do not inform parents of behaviors that are abnormal. when the children come in with these behaviors, they deny it,

-- sendl send it back them back. a test was written for adhd which was not autism in children and the children are deftly displaying behaviors of autism. guest: i hear this every day. integratedack to the approach. if child is i graced it -- diagnosed at age two. the reason we need to invest in , whether insurance coverage or a private insurance company or other mechanism, the business you work for, we know between ages of two and five, we can make a dramatic difference in the development of a child. if that child is not eligible for insurance coverage, here she will have entered kindergarten with no therapy. public schools inherit the -- with, some widths

significant special needs. the school does not want to deal with them but they will not release the kids because they get reimbursed by the state government. people in the system are actually working against each other. she is exactly right. the parents end up being the child's only advocate. they have to go back year after year to their school district to fight for the right kind of for services they deserve. if we had a strategy that brings together policymakers, the research community, educators, parents, and individuals with autism, we could address the problem. in the meantime, the parents are on their own. on twitter --

question relates to dsm five, which essentially broadens the definition of autism. the new criteria was not applied in the latest round of prevalence estimates. we do not know. what we do know is there are 3 million people living with autism today. that is more than what we were living with two years ago. the criteria will be applied in the next round of surveillance. we are also doing our own study in south carolina that replicates a study we did in south korea that estimates it is actually one in 38 and the prevalence is actually one in 38 individuals living with autism. the study is considered the gold standard because it is a population study. we went into the communities and interviewed and thought to individuals. we do not just rely on school and medical records. that is the most effective and the most accurate to determine

the true prevalence. in the cdc, we are doing that in carolina. i think that will help answer the question. we will take the new criteria and apply them. host: give examples. guest: disorders would fall under the autism spectrum. asperger's,s of more high functioning socialctually with interaction problems, that label would go way. that has been quite controversial. social communication skills and behaviors will be part of that diagnosis. let's not get off point. the increase cannot be explained aay by better diagnosis or

change in criteria. we are using the same criteria we used two years ago and two years before that. we see a real rise in this number without answers for it. missouri, a line we set aside for families living with autism. good morning. in 1965, i have had this since i was a little boy if they go back and read their law, kennedy said in 1962, i have been on medicaid all my life. passed in 62, i have been in the program all my life. talk, i learned how to do everything. it is not the law.

sign it in law and put a specially -- special education kids by ourselves. in the state of missouri. out of states to not want to obey the law. that is all i've got to say. it really falls under the diagnostic criteria. for people to advocate for , it is very tricky. often times, parents are not aware of it. it is very hard. to benefits get beaten down on a regular basis.

we have got to do a much better people.mpowering there are 50,000 kids, students, who are about to age out of school-based services. of 22.p over the next 10 years, that as half a million individuals living with autism who need lifeyment opportunities, skills, transition support, and housing opportunities. there is no mechanism right now to do that. is employed.hat educating and incentivizing employers to understand and appreciate the skills and abilities for people in the autism community. they can contribute in a meaningful way in business. , on a biglike walmart

scale, or at a small scale, like a mom-and-pop shop. there are people with plenty of ability who want to be integrated and meaningful contributors. joyce from silver spring, maryland. issue withave an more controversy. we have been discussing the possibility of a link between authors and -- autism, and we recently attended a conference where a doctor said every autism child he treated had a drug using mother during pregnancy. i wondered if i do something there look into. isticularly given today election day in the district of columbia and they are talking about legalizing marijuana to add more problems to our situations.

guest: i have seen research on it and i will tell you there is general brain research will help all of these communities. i applaud the president and the white house for their initiatives on brain research. presidentn from the and millions from leader cantor, they are very important steps. we have got to do more brain research because we will benefit from it. david, goods morning. say it i would like to needs to come from the federal government. my son has autism in south

carolina. it has been a fight. because my wife and i are adamant about hitting what he needs, one thing we are running into is the teachers. we have teachers not qualified and don't have the training to autism. son with the not only my son but other kids. it needs to be that are really installed and will force teachers to get training. put in ar, they are classroom and do not have any idea how to teach them. that needs to be done. whenever you come to south carolina, please call me. is your son in a special class or mainstream with other students? caller: in a class with autistic

children and then mainstream with other classes. those teachers he is mainstream, all of them do not have the training to teach my son. choiceld not be their whether they want to teach an autistic kid. it should be mandatory. tohey need to be forced00 get the training to keep -- teach kids with autism. it gets back to prevalence. system ischool inheriting a generation of kids they were not trained to take care of. we do not have enough special ed teachers given the rising prevalence. kids from the age of 2-5, they can be mainstreamed or mainstreamed within aid.

that would go a long way. school needs to stand up and demand that reimbursements are therapistshavioral who go into this line of work area this is a whole other kids issue. there is a short -- a shortage of therapists. the reimbursement rate is different from state to state. we have got to come together. we just had a tragedy in new york with an accident, which i'm sure you heard about, pedro. the security guards and people in the school were not trained adequately and were not aware of individual, ais nonverbal an autistic teenager. it happens all over the country. responsible for the well-being of a child or in the course of the day has got to have a certain amount of training to address the issues and needs of the child. solve some of

these problems in the absence of that. you talk about education and you talk about resources that have to be applied throughout the school and not just a sec. sect. guest: you are talking about funding. we have to set our priorities. pay now or pay a lot more later. the kids will go through school, as i just said, and without those kinds of services and support, speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, without those, they will age out at 22. then whose problem are they? they want to pay taxes, get a job, things everyone wants. financial independence. they are a lot less capable of doing that if they have no support on the front end of the school system.

they do not have the life skills and then he opportunities or housing options either. this gets back to the national strategy. sit down and identify what the real problem is and what it needs, not just today, but down to the next generation. we have my grandkids, your if nothing is done about this, we'll have the same conversation 10 years from now. the school has a responsibility. they have always kids. best askede of the one of the biggest if not the biggest. -- probably one of the biggest if not the biggest. this is kent from la >> you can watchnc uple of this onnine at c-span.org. "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 eastern. the house is gaveling in moment yarl, they'll come until for short speeches and gavel back out until 4:00 p.m. eastern.

at that time they'll begin their legislative work. among the seven bills they are considering today, a bill authorizing $150 million in aid to ukraine and codifying and expanding sanctions against russia. live now to the house floor. the speaker: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. the chair: let us pray. -- the chaplain: let us pray. dear lord, we give you thanks for another day we use this moment to be reminded of your presence and to tap the resources needed by the men and women of this assembly to do their work as well as it can be done. may they be led by your spirit in the decisions they make. amidhey possess your power the pressures