take the advanced placement u.s. government exam, our annual cram for the exam with high school government teachers andrew can mean and daniel larson. host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." first hearingits on the equal rights amendment and more than three decades. the amendment is one state with from ratifications, but there are still many legal hurdles in its path. provideme too movement a new push? we want to know what you think about the equal rights amendment. is it still needed? is it a priority?

presidentiala 2020 topic? we are going to divide our lines by gender. women, we want to hear from you. you can call in at (202) 748-8000. women only, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. men, we are not forgetting about you. we want to know your thoughts as well. you can call in at (202) 748-8001. men (202) 748-8001. we are always reading on social media. on twitter, you can find us. on facebook, you can find us. congress held its first hearing in 36 years on the equal rights amendment this week at the house judiciary subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties. one of the people who spoke during this hearing was

representative jacky spear, who is the sponsor of the bill to eliminate the you pull rights amendments ratification deadline. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> speaks of the absence of the era, it is a stain on our constitution. patients have looked around the have recognized the equality of men and women in the law. we have failed to do the same. it is an embarrassment. an amendment that was supported by republicans and democrats has been used to divide our country. it has allowed credits to claim -- itare no best critics has allowed critics to them there is no need for era.

that should send chills down the spine of each and everyone of us, that discrimination is not prevented against women in the constitution. i have already exceeded my time. need erad by saying we so we can join the rest of the industrialized countries in the world and not bringing up the rear. we need the era so we can achieve our full potential. we need the era now. one of the members of the media who covered this hearing is jacqueline thompson, who is with us to talk about the era and its future. good morning. guest: good morning. host: let's start out with some basic information.

what is the equal rights amendment? what are we talking about? guest: basically it would be an amendment to the constitution -- there would be equal rights under the constitution regardless of sex. it creates legal protections for everyone regardless of their sexual or gender identification. host: why was this not ratified? what is the holdup? what has been done by the states? what needs to be done? guest: 37 states have ratified it. we have had to the last couple of years even though the "rights amendment was passed out of congress -- the equal rights amendment was passed in 1977. there was a lot of momentum for

it in the 1980's. they thought they would ratify it. there was a push by conservatives to stop it. there were concerns that it would also expand abortion rights and abortion access. that essentially stopped the amendment in its tracks. housewhat caused the judiciary subcommittee to bring this topic up now? -- thereere have been has been this recent push in the states to do it. we saw it in nevada, illinois, and virginia. it failed in virginia by one vote in the state legislature. there is a group called the equal rights amendment coalition that has been active in trying to get this amendment ratified and added to the constitution. they were vocal at this hearing

the other day. host: what is this deadline issue? why did congress and the deadline toadd a it? guest: that deadline is not something we normally see when we are trying to ratify an amendment. one thing that came up a lot during the hearing was that there was an amendment recommended by james madison that did not get added to the constitution until the 1900s. the fact that there is a time limit put the crunch on the states to get it through. it was trying to be a motivator. some of the issue is that because there was a time limit, and it did get extended because there was believed to be momentum to get it passed. it came out of congress in 1972. they had the deadline until

1978. we have 35 states. we are going to get it done. thatsigned legislation extended it to 1982. there was that push that stopped it dead in its tracks. argument ishe legal we cannot get it added to the constitution at this point. there are some who say we can pass legislation that construct that time requirement from the language. representative jackie speier out of california has legislation that would do that. some states have pulled back their ratification of the e.r.a.. how do those states figure in? guest: that's another complication in all of this. you have to consider whether the state are currently supporting

it or if past support counts. even if we do get 38 states that ratify it overall, we have to decide do these states that have decided to no longer back it counts. what can we do to get other states to ratify it? there are going to have to be other states to say, can you also pass legislation to support this in order to cover all their bases. host: what can we look forward to to come up with next with the equal rights amendment? what states should be to be watching to see -- should we be watching to see if there will be more action on ratification? guest: i would keep an eye on

blue states that have not ratified it at all. the e.r.a. coalition has been active in trying to get this through. i don't see this legislation getting through congress at this point. i can see the house passing it because they do have a democratic majority. with conservative opposition to it over concerns about abortion access, the chances of it getting through the republican controlled senate and signed by president trump seem slim to none. that isknow how likely going to be as long as republicans hold the majority of the senate. do you see any action happening in state legislatures adding the e.r.a. to their state constitutions? guest: we are seeing some states added to their constitutions.

nevada has been taking action on this. it is not something that can only happen on the national level. it is something that is wanted on the national level because the implications it would have within the federal courts. creating this level of protection for people regardless of sex would have sweeping implications in terms of federal protections. it is fine to have it at the states, but it is not going to be the standard in the u.s. if it is just done on a state-by-state basis. that there was one particular person who was the main opponent for the e.r.a. the first time around. who are the people who are arguing against it right now? guest: we are looking at conservatives who are concerned about abortion access. during the hearing the other

day, we heard from the ranking member of the subcommittee, representative mike johnson who raised similar concerns. in favore was totally of women having equal protection under the law, but he was concerned about abortion rights access. saw some people pushing back against that and taking issue with his argument. she said his comments were divisive, but he pointed to studies by groups that said the e.r.a. would expand abortion rights access, so i think that is going to be a talking point going forward. thank you for being with us this morning and helping us figure out what is going on with the e.r.a. thank you so much. guest: thank you. host: we are going to go to our phone lines.

we want to know if you think the e.r.a. is still needed. women, we have a special line we want to hear from you on. , men we want to hear from you as well on this topic. we are always reading on social media on twitter, and on facebook. let's talk to market, who is calling from columbus, georgia. caller: good morning. my thought is equal rights should be equal rights for everyone. had white boys from the low income family who became 18 years old, he had been working for the telephone company in georgia. old, hebecame 18 years wanted to serve his country and do service for them.

service,ame out of the he was told, i cannot give you this job because you are a white man. i think that is discriminatory. host: do you think there should be protection for women against discrimination in the u.s. constitution? caller: no. i think equal rights should be equal rights for everyone, whether you are white, black, whatever your color or race or orientation, everybody should have equal rights. don't discriminate one person because they are a white man and give it to somebody else because they are a woman or minority. do you think women already have equal rights in the united states and don't need legal protection? caller: i don't see where we need it.

before, why should a not have a job when he is qualified for it just because he is a white man? maryland, goodto morning. caller: good morning. white men already get paid more than minorities for doing the same job. they just keep that a secret. white men already get paid more than a black man for doing the exact same job. thing, i don'tts know if it is necessary or not, but they need to recall that had transgender with biological

women that was born biologically a woman, and they are decimating them. host: let's go back to the e.r.a. do you think people rights amendment is needed and should be included in the constitution? caller: no. i think people should be hired by their merit. men are naturally stronger than women. if you say gender doesn't matter, you will have all these transgender women competing in sports. they are going to own the sports. carolyn in go to georgia. caller: good morning. thank you. i think it is a really important topic. i think it is way past time that everyone has equal rights. mean our representatives in

washington and the judicial and executive are also under the same laws as everyone else. equal rights across the board. i think that is something we're missing right now. people who aref career politicians who forget they are public servants. the moneyke to see put into that put into our infrastructure and into our children and education and health care. i appreciate the chance to be able to speak. let's go to the net from north carolina. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am for equal rights for every human, the matter your race or your sex.

take the abortion funding out of that. because the this abortion funding because i don't think that should be in it. that is not equal rights for the unborn. host: why do you think abortion is a part of the argument about the equal rights amendment? caller: if it becomes an amendment because right now they get a lot of federal funding. unless they have done some changes in the last three months since i have looked at it, it is supposed to make abortions available to people who don't have the money for them, which you can already get around. that's the reason. if you're going to give equal rights to everybody, given to every woman that is not born and every man that is not born. host: do you think times of

changed and it is not needed anymore. there are some who argue you don't need the e.r.a. to make sure women are equal to men. paralegals gete paid more than me. he has a family. i'm a single mom. that is the excuse i am given. i'm sure that goes on everywhere. i think it's a good bill if they will give equal rights to the unborn. and shapely spoke at the house subcommittee and explained her opposition to the e.r.a. here is what she had to say. [video clip] e.r.a.pose

time has not made it any better. e.r.a. does not put women in the constitution. it puts sex in the constitution. sex has a lot of different definitions. it will do nothing that benefits women, but it can harm women by making women and men interchangeable in every situation. e.r.a., we would lose the ability to regulate abortion. taxpayer funding of abortion would be required. any kind of sex segregation would no longer be acceptable, including prisons, women's women, and think, and children's health. lease vote no on e.r.a. host: let's look at some of our social media comments on this topic.

here is one from stephen brodie tucker. is redundant, 14th amendment covers everyone. there is no need for an equal rights amendment when the constitution already provides equal rights for all americans. until feminists and e.r.a. supporters demand women have to be registered for the draft, they can never be taken seriously. without the e.r.a., discrimination will run rampant, and there is nothing we can do about it. it is another 1% tool to subjugate the population. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to carol from indiana. good morning. caller: i was thinking about the e.r.a., and i believe everybody should have equal rights. there are cases in the divorce courts where the mail is losing the children because of favoritism towards the women. in this case i think the men are

not given a all right, especially when they have our professional men that have made all the money, and the women get to whatever they want, and they hold the child against the man, don't divorce me, or i will take the child. i think we need people rights for everyone. host: let's go to michael calling from connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i'm doing good. go ahead. caller: it seems most of these women don't want to have the equal rights amendment. that is kind of scary. the people in congress and the senate, they want to not have it so they can keep their finger on abortion. why is everything wrapped around abortion? women should have the same rights. one guy says you have to sign up for the draft.

what does that mean? women have the right to do what they want to do. why are we even talking about this right now if they already have equal rights? it seems to me all about abortion. all these crazy people that think about abortion all the time, they are the ones that are probably having the most abortions out there. there has been some discussion that the legal landscape has changed since the equal rights amendment first came up, that women are moving more towards having equal rights without the ra -- the e.r.a.. do you think this amendment is still needed? caller: the landscape has changed again. why are you even having this question? obviously something needs to happen, and it needs to be brought up to date and put into writing.

everybody is equal. thinkser guy transgendered women are going to be running the sports, that's ridiculous. that's not good to happen. have a nice derby today. host: let's go to death calling from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. we had a policy and historian expert, even a man would have done just fine. i'm surprised we are having this conversation about the e.r.a., and we are not discussing women's suffrage, and we are not discussing why women's rights were important in the 1970's and how it is just been recent when women could even have property rights. it sounds to me like after trayvon martin was murdered and we try to stand up for black

young men, and all the sudden, it was all lives matter. i want to talk about the abortion thing. that is a class thing. that is about money. they don't need to control women's bodies. we need to control your body. clinics are private. people can go there and get as many eggs done. they get the ones they want, and the other ones are medical waste. that is another form of abortion. that is not discussed because rich women can always get what they want. women should be equal. that is all we need to know. not able thing i was to tell from your comments, do you think the e.r.a. should move forward? >> my mother fought for this in the 1960's. i am 56 years old. i am appalled.

i raised to feminist sons. we need to catch up. we need to get women equal, and then we can talk about the nuances of transgendered and this and that. how can we start making everyone equal when in the constitution all men. we have had the amendments to bring jim crow to it and, but women have never had equality. that has to change. we need to remember why sever chapter. -- suffrage happened. host: does this mean you will need your presidential candidate to talk about the e.r.a. in 2020? caller: i will not vote for anyone who does not call for the e.r.a. host: let's go to bob from north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i want to speak about my own experiences in manufacturing and also talk about how any time i see something that someone is being treated unequal, i would always like to see the data associated with that. let's get a deep dive and find out exactly why there is an issue. the wall street journal published an article about a year ago where they did some pay disparities. in a unionok at that environment. the main reasons why women were making less than men was because they were doing things like refusing overtime, not working on the weekends, things of that nature. that is where the disparities were. guys were primarily accepting the overtime. that is my own experience.

having hired people and providing them an opportunity, i have only seen based on the pay scales they have, there are serious attempts at ensuring equality in pay. naturally there could be some concern as far as should one person make more than the other. that is up to the manager or supervisor to give people pay raises based upon their pay scale. right now with the equal rights amendment, i'm all in favor of treating people equally, but it some point we have to take a look at it. is it overkill? you think the equal rights amendment is not needed at all? caller: right now, i believe people rights is already in the constitution. take a look at the data, who is

being treated unfairly, and handle it under the constitution. danny in ohio.to good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. women have always been instrumental in american history. derek, look at lydia betsy ross, mrs. tubman. they contributed to this country even from its founding. i believe women should have an equal place. you cannot discriminate against women. race, sexual orientation, it is posted on the board. you cannot do that. fire somebody because they are injured on the job.

requirements in our workplace. i know state law in ohio. contribute in different ways than men on the workforce. not physically as strong as a man, of worse. they contribute well. e.r.a.o you think the needs to be added to the u.s. constitution? caller: i don't really see a need for that. i think in our state, you cannot discriminate against anybody. race, color, creed, sexual orientation. upside ofe what the it would be. host: do you think the state

constitutions prevent sexual discrimination from going on? >> i know in the workplace they do. you cannot say anything disparaging, or you could be fired on the spot for it. i know that. around a lot of women. i respected them. some of the jobs that i did were always very physical jobs where woman would be suited for it. you're not going to want to run a jackhammer or sling and eight all day longammer if you are nine months pregnant on the job. you just have to use common sense basically. let's look at more social media comments. we have one comment that says

the e.r.a. is just a gift to the legal profession and will create less jobs in a booming economy. i see as manysays women excelling in the high tech business as men. what with the e.r.a. do? another, says, equal pay and equal rights to promotion, it still has not happened, so yes we do. let's go back to our phones and talk to liz from california. good morning. caller: good morning. equal rights when it comes to people with disabilities. e.r.a. should be ratified

if people, but only with disability are included. liz. go ahead, caller: yes, that's all i have to say. kate callingo to from youngstown, ohio. caller: good morning. i am 67 years old. in the early 1980's, i work in a radio station. we were all selling advertising. department got paid twice as much as the women. unknown to us. hard when you are a young worker to start out at such a disadvantage. that was in the 1980's.

after we were defeated by the e.r.a. in the first round. inearly 2000, i was teaching a school system, and i was stopped by a male teacher was 6'7". my only option would have been to file a federal discrimination suit against women, sexual harassment. which would have made me unemployable. that's the problem. if you complain, you become unemployable. gentleman who said there are an equal number of women in high-tech jobs, i don't think he must watch the news. whens obviously not true you look at the statistics. host: a lot of the arguments are

that times of changed since the 1970's and 1980's, and there have been legal and employment cases that have made clear to employers that they should not do this. e.r.a.you think that the is still needed in the constitution? caller: if we really had equal rights, what would passing an amendment that states that in the law be so bad? that's the question i like to ask. why can't we get it done if there is no prejudice against women? why is it such a sticking point. the first time they defeated it, they were saying if you pass this, men are going to be in your restrooms. if we were so equal, why would putting it on paper be such a problem for so many people come

there are men and women who profit from aligning themselves against women. host: is this something you are going to vote -- base your presidential vote on in 2020? caller: i'm basing my residential vote on whoever can be donald trump. if we were equal, why would we have a man in the white house who has by his own mouth done the things the women that he has done. carol, callingto from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. you had a gentleman that called in that was a union worker. when iwas a union worker did work.

i'm retired now. the pay basis for a union worker is the same male or female. the problem is over time is an option. it is a choice. it is not mandatory. therefore we have the option to work or not, just like a man. county disparity does not when you are in a union. the only time it counts is if whatompany chooses departments or places you work to get the overtime. then you can have a problem. basically the pay is the same. host: where do you stand on the equal rights amendment? caller: i still feel as though we need it. women that do not have unions have a much more difficult time because the union affords you to speak up.on you work under a contract with a

union, whereas independence do not. i still feel it is needed. from let's go to jason washington, d.c. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. in my opinion, the equal rights amendment is needed. benjamin netanyahu was reelected as prime minister of israel. president trump helped netanyahu a lot. any day now i expect him to say if he is reelected in 2020, he will bring back jesus from the dead. host: let's go to michael, calling from new york. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i cannot think of one right that a man has that a woman does not already have. i think this whole argument is theoretical in nature and is meant to appease folks who want uaged that there is equal rights out there. when you think about it, women have many rights that men don't have because we don't think about it. i can't think about one right that a man has that a woman doesn't already have. host: do you think sexual discrimination does not exist in this does not help women who say they are being discriminated against? caller: that is a general topic. any woman who is being paid less than a man, they should run to a lawyer. they are waiting. sorts of all

protections already, federal and state. womanunlawful to pay a less than a man for doing the same job. host: you don't think that the equal rights amendment is needed? there are some states that are putting it in their state constitutions. do you think those bills are unnecessary? it to: they are doing appease people that are making noise. it is unnecessary. in new york, it was an issue about men being able to go into public topless. that was a big fight, and it went to the court of appeals in new york, and women won the right, saying they were discriminated against. in 40 years, i have not seen one woman running around topless in public.

it was a theoretical fight. it was not a realistic goal. i see the same thing with this. theoretically everyone would feel good about themselves if they got this past, but nothing would change. there are already laws to protect equal pay and discrimination in the workplace. i don't see this as changing anything. host: gop representative mike johnson, ranking member of the explains his opposition to the e.r.a. ratification and how he thinks it relates to existing abortion law. [video clip] >> today this subcommittee holds hearing on the e.r.a., which will have to be passed by the congress.

it should not become part of the constitution for a number of reasons, including this one. the bipartisan hide amendment prohibits the use of federal for abortion. the spring court upheld they hyde amendment as constitutional. the people's right to protect the unborn would be limited if pass.r.a. were to the congressional research service provided the committee with its own evaluation. 1983, the in executive summary says that under strict scrutiny, the pregnancy classification in the hyde amendment would probably be regarded to be a sex classification, meaning that if the e.r.a. were to become part of our law, restrictions on

abortion would be struck down. new york's representative disagreed, and she responded immediately. [video clip] >> first, i would like to respond to mr. johnson. with all due respect, the equal rights amendment has nothing to do with abortion. it has to do with equality of rights, most of which is economic and respect. it has nothing to do with abortion. saying so is divisive and a tool to try to defeat it. please don't ever say that again. host: let's go back to the phones. let's go to tiny from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: i'm doing fine. what do you think about the e.r.a.? caller: it's unnecessary. is to get rid of

abortion because babies should be protected. women are already protected. lgbt as fare to the as going into women's sports, women's bathrooms. we have equal rights. the equal rights is good as it is. i am against abortion. , transgendersn going into women's bathrooms. if they want to do the equal rights, it will be all right. under your gender, under your sex that you are born under. not the sex that you choose to be. tiny, what efforts do you think should be made against sexual discrimination in pay and

promotion on the worksite? do you think the laws that exist now are enough? caller: i agree with the caller, he said there are lawyers waiting. just like they want to sue about the transgender. if you feel you are being discriminated against because of your gender, get you a lawyer. to georgia.go good morning. caller: good morning. suggestion, we talk about the e.r.a. in relationship to women in hiring and promotion. stop putting all women in the same category.

all women are not the same, especially in the black community. there are more black women that graduate from college then black men. a lot of times the black women are making more money than the black men. we are talking about pay discrepancy. what about white women making more money then black women? we never address that. we always seem to generalize all women and all men. that is not the same thing. all women are not being discriminated the same way. e.r.a.ou think the should be put to the side, or do you think movement needs to be made forward? i hate putting everyone in the same category because it does not affect all women the same way. , in jobs thatpay

information should be made public. what, know who is making and you can question what are they making if that information is made public in the workforce. in some instances, you are not allowed to discuss your pay. i think that should be made public so people know who is making what. to jody, calling from columbus. caller: good morning. i believe all that? thatquity -- i believe all should beckety yack to sit down and do what's right. i just leave do what is correct.

do what is right. lc, callinggo to from arizona. good morning. good morning. are you there? caller: good morning. how are you this morning? thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: i think all people have but as you look at it, blacks are very discriminated against because if we walked down the street, we are getting harassed by the police. hites can walk down the street no problem. if we are together, the two police harass us. the ku klux klan is walking down the street openly, and killing people, and the president is

saying they did not do anything. womensaying he can grope in public. he can shoot somebody in the middle of the street, and nothing happens to him. cosby inold man bill prison for something he did 50 years ago. like theyn today feel are getting discriminated because of the way people look at them, the way they dress, the way they act. that is wrong. host: are you saying you don't think the equal rights amendment is needed? caller: if they are going to do it, do it. right now they say it is in the constitution, and we don't really have equal rights. to ned fromgo

alabama. good morning. caller: good morning to you. in our current lexicon, when we say men, that implies men and women. when the constitution was written, all men are equal, it did not include women, and it did not include black people. isreason for saying that born with the freedom. men gave women the right to vote. laws for womenn against women. there are now laws against men. you have laws about abortion. you have laws about birth control.

thingse laws about other that deal with women. there are no such laws that address men because men are the keptrs in the masters have the reins on women. the u.s. draft law that applies only to men. we talked about that last week that being drafted in the u.s. is something that can only happen to men and not women. are you for the equal rights amendment being ratified, or are you against it? caller: i tend to be for it. i don't know if it is going to completely solve the problem of discrimination against women. i tend to be for it. host: let's go to stephanie calling from north carolina. good morning.

it is so nice to talk to you. i am for it. it is a most the same arguments i heard as a child, and my mother was republican with the phyllis shipley lines. she said, you will be drafted. you will be sent to vietnam, and what if you are on the battlefield, it is your time of the month, what are you going to do? it is so silly. just past the law. please. host: how important is this to you? will you be deciding your on thential vote based e.r.a.? caller: first, defeat trump. second, pass the e.r.a. host: let's go to next scene. caller: good morning, america. thank you for taking my call.

this e.r.a. situation, i am going to relate a little bit of history. company inortune 500 the country that back in 1960's had a battery factory. the women in that factory came up with a high percentage of children with birth defects. this company, being compassionate decided not to age,women of childbearing only women that had been sterilized. the women after a while filed suit, and they one against this company. as far as hiring women in the workplace, you cannot be equal because men can work 365 days a year.

a woman cannot work 365 days a year because she will be taking off during pregnancies. to hirerces the company somebody else to take her place. you have to take that in consideration. as far as the e.r.a. amendment goes. we are already equal under the law, so that you are just, it is just political. that is all this is. thank you and hope everyone has a good weekend. goodbye. bob callinggo to from michigan. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i've listened to all these people, and it seems like the same people that are for the e.r.a. are also for title ix. that is hypocrisy. is an admission that we are a people. that is why we have to have

women's sports and men sports. if it was equal, we would only have one team. ixt: explain to me how title says that, explains how women are not people? -- not equal? i don't understand your point. why do we have to split them up into men's sports and women's sports? women cannot make the team. they are not big enough, strong enough, fast enough. except for serena williams. if you look at her, she is a healthy woman. there are some women who play college football. caller: that's right. let's abolish title ix and get rid of the inequality, and when you play golf, if you want to

play basketball, there is one team, not a man seen, not a woman's team. it is a pharmacy. -- itmy understanding of is hypocrisy. host: my understanding of title ix is colleges were not giving women's sports any money at all. think there should be any equal rights? caller: felicity huffman, pay to play, there's a lot of people. i think we lost them. let's go to jim from new york. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i'm doing well. what you think about the e.r.a.? mener: women are equal to in a lot of ways. in terms of

physical strengths. , i believe they are stronger mentally as far as emergency and taking care of things that need to be taken care of, but i don't believe a woman belongs in a combat position in the military. i believe there are certain jobs they should not do unless they can prove themselves. the pay is equal. i don't see no problem. politicalis is a thing. women have just as many rights as any man in the world. if you take five jobs, five men and five women go in to apply for, four of them that get hired are women. two of them are men. women have more advantage because of affirmative action, equal rights.

it is all equal as far as i'm concerned. womaneated man and equal from the same dirt to go out and populate this world with good people. are talking hate and rhetoric. i don't believe in hate because of color. let's do away with all this crying and whining about equal rights for women, equal rights for blacks. everybody's got them. host: let's go to darlene, calling from new york. caller: good morning. enjoying the c-span conversation this morning. -- hello?nk is caller: -- host: go ahead. we hear you.

caller: if we get this past, weekend get it behind us and not have these conversations anymore. history is moving forward, and by not having it, as we know, these things just keep dragging us down. it is not equal until it is on the law books, and everybody knows that. host: let's go to francis from ohio. caller: good morning. i think we are already equal. i think we are made in god's image. i think it should be put in the constitution. host: will you be making your decision on 2020 based on whether your candidate supports the e.r.a.? to base my going

vote on a lot of different things, just not equal rights. i heard a man speak a while ago that men gave the women their rights to vote. women fought for their rights to vote. the same way it is women fighting today for different stuff. i think we are already equal. year -- 80 years old. i know what has been going on in the past. i think it should go into the constitution. coming up, we will take a look at the jobs report lease yesterday. later, it is our yearly cram for the exam segment as we help students prep for the ap government exam. c-span newsmakers,

chair of the select committee on the climate crisis. a couple candidates, beto o'rourke, elizabeth warren have put out climate plans. one of the more controversial elements is they would ban new fossil fuel development on public land. that in theine climate crisis. what scientists are telling us is we have to cut carbon pollution dramatically. if we are going to have a just transition for communities across this country that have jobs in fossil fuels, it does not make sense to expand

extraction on public lands. it is an important issue moving forward in the context of how we cut carbon pollution. >> you're going to look into it, the select committee? does that mean legislation or included as a demand in any infrastructure deal with the president? >> the charge of the select committee is to develop policy recommendation by next year. that gives us time to take a look. committees now are on the front lines of turning back damage trump administration is doing to clean air and water. i will highlight the fact that rolling back safety regulations, that would prevent another bp oil blowout, is risky, wrong and costly. ande is defense to play offense to play. >> washington journal continues.

host: we are back with heather long of the washington post, economic correspondent, to talk about april job numbers and how the u.s. economy is doing. good morning. guest: hi, jesse. host: what did the april job numbers look like? what does that mean for the economy? guest: the numbers looked incredibly strong. month, jobs added last about in every industry with the exception of manufacturing and retail, which slowed down this year. hiring in health care, i.t., business services, construction -- another great month for construction -- that is encouraging. the headline was the unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest we have seen since december, 1969. it has been a long time since we

had that rate so low. people did not forecast numbers would be quite this strong. wall street rallying, the dow soaring 200 points yesterday on the back of very good news. what is it telling us? it is a good time to get a job. it is a good time to negotiate higher salary since it is hard for employers to find people. for the economy, it is telling us there is little sign of recession. this looks like a healthy economy. host: the one place we did not see it was in manufacturing and retail. what do those numbers show us? guest: great question. on retail, the story we know. people are not going as often to brick-and-mortar stores. ongoing closures in that sector. that has been reflected for the past year, weak job hiring

retail sector. manufacturing is interesting. last year was the best year for manufacturing hiring since 1997. was looking strong last year in that sector. iss year, we think the story >> there has been a global slowdown in europe, china. those countries are not buying as much from the u.s. we have seen a slowdown in u.s. manufacturing/industrial sections as well, reflected in -- it has been flat, hiring and manufacturing since the start of the year. host: unemployment numbers. explain to us what you think unemployment is? guest: [laughter] yeah. one that economists love. when we talk 3.6% unemployment,

that includes everyone who has been actively looking for a job in the past month or so. u6 unemployment is a wider metric, including everyone who has been looking for a job for longer. callincludes people who we stuck in part-time jobs. 4.3 million people in this country are working part-time jobs. they have a job. they want to be working full-time. for whatever reason, they are unable to get that now. that is why people look at u6 rate. it is just over 7% at the moment. u6 unemployment rate is only the lowest, just around 2000. not the lowest since 1969. just another way to say how strong is this job market really. host: 3.6% unemployment rate.

how does that breakdown racially across the u.s.? to see the same unemployment rate for blacks, whites, hispanics? are they all different? how are the numbers looking? guest: there are different numbers for different races and educational levels -- that has been a key factor in this economy, who is getting the good jobs and who is not, who is struggling to get a better job -- at the moment, the white unemployment rate continues to be just around 3.6% level. the african-american unemployment rate is more than double that, 6.7%. in april, hispanic unemployment hit an all-time low of 4.3%. the lowest of all is usually the asian american unemployment rate. i cannot remember the number. they are around 3% give or take.

african-american, then white, sorry,spanic, then -- asian american, african-american, white, hispanic american. host: one more question. some people are saying the unemployment rate is down for the wrong reasons. is there a wrong reason for unemployment to be down? debatethis is an ongoing in economics. is half aw in april million people left the labor force, that is the economic speak. that means, half a million people either stopped looking for work basically. this number jumps around. one month we could see, suddenly half a million more people are looking for work, the next month it could be half a million down. when i call experts they say, it

is a yellow flag, maybe. this is not a red flag. unless we see several months where people are no longer looking for jobs -- so far, it has been a month trend, not long enough to say anything majorly changing. it was probably a factor in getting that number down to 3.6%. big picture -- we wrote this in our article on the front page today in the washington post -- the unemployment rate has been at or below 4% for over a year. we have not seen that kind of a trend as well since 1969. s.st: let's let caller get involved, if you want to talk to our heather long on the april economy, we open the line --(202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents.

we are always reading on social and ontwitter @cspanwj facebook at facebook.com/c-span. pennsylvaniag from on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. the only thing wrong with the trump administration is partisan rhetoric. in pennsylvania, i believe, the unemployment rate went below 4% for the first time. things have to change slowly. they have been changing positively, slowly, for the duration of trump administration. as far as it goes, i don't think i cannot vote against trump next

election if things continue to improve. is simply,n rhetoric i believe, because they hate him. as far as that goes, that is not good politics. the country is doing much better. continuing, in a positive direction, slowly but surely, it has been going in the right direction. economy you think this can continue in the upper trend? what do economists say? what does the federal bank say? guest: well. this is a key question. how long can good times keep going? for america, we hope we can keep going for a long time. from economics perspective, we simply don't know. we haven't seen an economy like this in many years.

what normally happens when the unemployment rate gets this love is basically the economy starts overheating. that can be a bad thing. right now, we do not see signs of overheating. we don't see those stock market bubbles building like we did in the late 1990's. we don't see inflation like we boom- remember the 1960's followed by that horrible great inflation of the 1970's? we are not seeing those problems at the moment, which gives us hope this can last for a while. the best number perhaps on the economy that came out this week -- jobs were good -- the number came out on thursday, productivity, a measure of how much output we all do per hour hit the highest level, 2.4% since 2010.

that is the most encouraging sign. if we can keep productivity high, we can continue this good and strong economy perhaps for a long time and president trump would certainly like to see that. no doubt, he would like to see that heading into 2020. even though the economy looks great, he wants to stimulate it even more. he wants to do a $2 trillion infrastructure package, more military spending and the federal reserve to do more stimulus measures. he is trying to get them to cut interest rates. i don't think they will. it is interesting president trump wants to keep juicing the economy. host: jerome powell said this week they will leave interest rates unchanged. what was his reason for doing this? we know president trump once a cut. what was jerome powell's reason for leaving it unchanged? guest: federal reserve has gone on hold this here. they are not changing interest

rates at all this year, not just this week. the key reason is the economy looks pretty darn good across most metrics. the level they have interest rates at, just shy of 2.5%, they look at that and say, that rate is the goldilocks rate. it neither spurs or hurts the economy. it is perfect. why would we change it if things are looking good? host: let's go back to the phones. gary, fletcher, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i am not buying all this. i will resist this. i don't believe in it. i think we were better off the way we were without the jobs. that is all i have to say. host: ok. rebecca, ohio, republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning. i have a problem. i am thankful our economy is growing. to the gentleman that just spoke, if you are satisfied on well for -- welfare, go for it. a lot of people in this country would rather work for what they have. i live in a rural area, there are not a lot of jobs available, really they are limited. infrastructure is blown. i don't know if they reach out to rural areas. i don't know how that works but it is not working here. ageism is another thing. i am 65. i have a masters. i am having a really hard time getting a job because of my age. they can count it off whatever they want but that is basically what it comes off to. student loans are horrific. i do not understand why student loan interest rates still have not gone down. i don't understand that.

military spending -- thank god president trump wants to spend money on the military, that he wants to make sure we are secure as a nation, militarily. the reason the democrats don't like president trump is because they were not doing as well as he was. people -- he is not looking around people, he is looking at the american people as a whole. that is why i appreciate him. host: we also have someone on twitter who wants to know about the political implications of this could economy. one person writes "will the economy be even stronger and unemployment lower by the time of the election? or will it go sideways?" can we do any predictions on how this will affect the election? -- i: perfect prediction

would be making money on wall street, not as a journalist. here is what we know. there is no signs of recession. that is probably going to be true for the next 12 months, possibly longer. if the economy, even if it "go sideways", that is pretty good. if we are sitting here a year from now at unemployment 4% or lower, gas prices at three dollars or lower, the stock market at record highs and gdp growth expanding at 2.5% give or take, that is going to feel very good, just like many have said. that is going to feel better than it did in 2016. what we do know from predictive models on the political side is, yes, that could be a big factor. someone summed it up well for me the other day, who runs the

predictive models, if that is what the economy looks like one year from now, trump will either win or be very formidable. trump knows that. what is he doing and trying to do? he wants to do even more stimulus to try to ensure the economy is in a good spot one year from now, and that critical moment before 2020 elections. host: moses from bridgeport, connecticut, democrat line, good morning. caller: good morning. -- same economic number, former president obama, simply trump,e under president i'm wondering why you're not talking about that. i remember during the 2016 campaign, the unemployment rate was 4.5%. what did president trump say?

it is not the real number. the real number was -- what changed? can you talk about that? thank you. host: we are getting a lot of that on twitter as well. who gets the credit for the booming economy? did it start during president obama, or is it president trump's claim? it?do we credit it guest: this is hotly debated in washington. i will give it as straight as i can. here are the facts. we have had job gains in this country for 103 straight months. that is a record we should all be happy about. some of this started under president obama. no doubt about that. but, president trump has come in and taken specific actions to provide extra juice and stimulus to the economy, most notably

that big tax cut, particularly for corporations. andop of that, deregulation extra government spending. he struck a deal with the democrats to boost domestic and military spending. put that together and that is a lot of juice going into the economy. that produced one of the best years for growth last year, growth around 3%. that has helped to push the unemployment rate lower. 5050? 60-40? 70-30? do you give more credit to one or the other, that is for each american to decide. there is no formula to do so. the stimulus president trump has done has helped push the economy over the top. the big debate is how long it will last? whether or not there has really been a sustained growth under

president trump? that remains to be seen. there are encouraging signs lately that what he has done is not just a sugar high, that would make a great 2018-2019, then it would fade. the white house says, we can keep growing this for years and years and years to come at 3% rate. most economists, including the federal reserve say, we see this more as a blip up and the economy will come back to growing at 2%. we will see. the verdict is still out. host: judy from indianapolis, indiana, democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning. the economy is doing well but, the lady that called in and said in rural areas, they are still suffering, this to me seems like it is doing well at the time. i mean, on the surface. underneath, where people need

help, health care -- health care is bad, schools are bad, president trump's cabinet are doing all they can to ruin the foundations of the economy, where people really are living at. i went through the great recession. nothing has changed for me. i was able to keep my job, i'm on the same even keel i was doing during the recession, it didn't touch me. things worked for me just fine. there are people who lost homes who have not recovered. there are people who have high student debt who cannot recover. it is the underlying things that really make people's lives comfortable -- they are getting worse. there is no protections for consumers. going back to the way it was before we had the great recession, as far as the laws

and protections for everyday working people -- the lady who said -- i do not know her reason for saying that democrats do not like president trump, but president trump is destroying the foundation of things. that is where the problem is. if trickle doesn't come all the way down like they say it was going to, the people are not actually being helped. i work for a company that has closed, i don't know how many restaurants, they have put a lot of people out of work. you think about people who do not have the skills to do the jobs out there -- that is because underlying things that need to be done to educate and build up people, they are not being able to get those skills to fulfill those jobs. what is the use of having a job if you are not educating the people taking care of the people to fulfill them? guest: can i jump in?

time we talk -- the most telling statistic that came out this week was from a washington post poll of americans that goes right to what she was saying. yes, most americans rate this economy as very good or excellent however, in our poll, 60% of americans say the benefits are mainly going to the rich. mainly to the top. that is where you see this dichotomy. yes, people agree it is a good economy. they do not necessarily feel they are fully reaping the benefits. that will be the critical, i think, economic debate, 2020. what president trump the white house argue is, it is getting better. for instance, wages. we have seen strong wage growth. growing above the cost of

living, in a pretty sizable way now, 3.2% wage growth on average in u.s. right now. the wage growth is higher for lower skilled folks that the caller was talking about. that is a great sign, very encouraging. however, as i always follow-up with the white house, this has been one good year of that, about one year that. that is after 20 years, if not more of stagnating incomes for people, stagnating wages for people at the bottom. it is like dieting. it is like great that we have had one good week and people are doing better but that is not a race years of poor eating -- not a race years -- that is not erasing years of poor eating. the other point i want to make, that is very important in this economy, i'm surprised no one has brought it up yet, but one

on,g ding president trump his he has been using america's credit card. he has done these tax cuts, additional spending by running up the debt more. that is the big question for a lot of people, a lot of economists -- when does that come back to bite us? it will probably not happen in the next few months but we are continuing in an ugly fiscal situation and deficit situation right now. host: some of the not positive things about the job market. you have talked to hiring managers in pennsylvania who said the job market is tough on employers. what is that about? guest: in some ways this is a good sign. think back to years ago when one in 10 americans were online. that was a great time for employers. they had their pick of who they could hire.

we have flipped that finally after 10 years. now we are at a point where employers are the ones crying saying, they cannot find enough people to hire. what they are doing -- two things. number one, you should be raising wages. we are finally seeing good evidence of that. the person i spoke to works in a logistics company, very popular in pennsylvania, mclean company, they do refrigerated trucks that take our groceries around the country. they are offering truck driving jobs that pay $70,000 a year and have you home every night so you not driving all around the country. they are having a hard time finding people. they can either raise pay a little or they are doing something else which is very smart. we would like to see more of this. they are training people in

house. instead of trying to poach from others, they have struck a deal with a local community college instructor who will come to their parking lot and train people to become truck drivers. so far, most of the people who have shown interest are working in maclean's warehouse. that tends to pay $12 per hour and now they can make more money as a trucker. this is a good sign. this is what we want to see. we want to see people who feel they have been stuck in a no end job use this economy to get into a better, higher paying, more skilled job, like a commercial truck driving license, that will set them up for years to come. ie,t: gary from bow maryland. good morning. caller: in my opinion, the

economy is doing well, of course because of president obama. i just don't understand with the young lady who is specifically giving president trump credit. the trump regime has been tied up in legal action regarding all the problems they put up on this country thus far and his administration seems like, they are dealing more with legal aspects, trying to stay out of trouble. there are so many of his people that have come on board with him, involved in their own legal issues, either legality that they have violated, some sort of petition in this country, whether dealing with trying to stay out of jail for the things they have done, regarding trump's administration. i really think we should look forward.

obamaly believe president should be the one giving -- should be the one getting the credit. you mentioned the credit card industry. president obama worked diligently on the credit card industry when he told banks they should not be charging as much interest, especially, he also got on the banking industry about charging people if they happen to make a mistake with their checking accounts, they cannot really take the people down. i think there is a lot of things president obama has accomplished that are not getting credit because he has been tied up regarding the senate not passing anything he tried to put forth in this country. he has dealt with quite a bit. with all of the things he is going through and the economy still striving off of things president obama accomplished, you have to give him credit for the economic growth we have.

host: do you want to respond? guest: sure. host: go ahead. guest: look, maybe i was misunderstood earlier. let me be crystal clear. i think both president obama and president trump deserve credit for this economy. there is no doubt president obama came into office with one of the worst financial crisis and economic periods since the great depression. by the time he left office, unemployment had come down significantly, the stock market was roaring. a number of people in this country were doing better and the obama administration made significant strides particularly with consumer financial protection bureau, doing a lot of the work that caller was speaking about to try to reign in bad actors trying to get people to take debts they should not be taking and these sorts of

practices that some banks were doing. that said, you have to understand that when we talk about how much credit president trump deserves, president trump has injected $2 trillion more or less of stimulus into this economy between the tax cuts and the additional government spending. it is hard to quantify what his deregulation policies have done but certainly there has been some impact. business and consumer spending has spiked in the last two years with president trump in office. i am not saying he deserves all the credit. if you're going to inject $2 trillion into the economy, there is going to be some impact. the question is -- was it well spent? as it exacerbated inequality? these are valid questions and economists are still debating these everyday. we will see with the american people think, whether or not president trump's policies juice

the economy in the right way. host: president trump's nomination to the senate reserve board. stephen moore has pulled out. herman cain pulled his name out. why is president trump having such a problem getting nominees, or the people he says he wants to nominate, on the federal reserve order -- or? guest: it is simple, the economy looks good. the problem for president trump is, president trump wants to spend to take actions like cutting interest rates, starting to buy u.s. government bonds again, that are usually only done in times of crisis. very few people think we are in a crisis like we were in '08. there is a very small number of people who agree with president trump right now and a handful of people that do are folks like herman cain and stephen moore

who are allies of the president, loyalists, buddies, whatever you want to call them. that is why president trump is struggling to find someone who agrees with him that interest rates should be cut and the types of people he is nominating, even his own party, the senate republicans -- i was on the hill last week putting my microphone in different senators faces and even they were saying, these are not qualified people who are going to uphold the integrity of this important institution, which is basically i can to the supreme court. -- basically akin to the supreme court. these are people that are making rational, long-term decisions for the best interest of this country. you want top-notch people at the fed. host: you think he will get anyone on the federal reserve board before the 2020 elections? you think they will wait until after the election to try again?

guest: they have had four candidates step down. herman cain, stephen moore, there were also two people last year, and both of them did not make it through process either. onis 0-4 in recent months fed nominees. there is a chance they could get somebody. it will all come down to who do they go to next? there was wild speculation going on. -- larrye somebody lindsey. he was the head of president george w. bush is council of economic advisers, very well known in d.c., highly regarded economist -- he is someone who is considered clearly a republican, clearly a believer in tax cuts, but not a radical person. if they really want to get somebody on the fed, they will

look to people like that. they would probably have a decent chance of making it onto the board. whether or not they would advocate a massive cut like what president trump wants, i don't think so but we will see. host: a question from social media -- "do you think there is a financial bubble being created in leveraged bank loans?" guest: oooh. it is one of the hottest topics right now. the leverage loan question. you to listenage to podcasts. there is a great one called macro musings that did a segment on this a month ago that goes into depth, if you want the nitty-gritty. i will give you the conclusion the experts on that podcast said -- yes, there is probably some bubble like tendencies.

issued,s been loans high yield loans, junk type bonds -- companies don't look so good on financials so they have to issue high interest rate loans to try to lure people to lend them money -- recent years, some of those loans have gotten uglier. no doubt about that. they do not look great. however, this is not something similar to the housing market that would bring the entire economy down. yes, it looks ugly. no, it would not bring the entire economy to its knees like in 2008. part of it is, it is not as big of a market. there is not as much leverage, extra money being pumped in like there was and that housing market situation.

you have seen well respected economists like janet yellen -- she made the same point. once a downturn starts, this will make it worse, the fact that we have this leverage loan issue but it will not trigger the downturn. angeles,id, los republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. optimism.r on its face, the economy appears to be doing well. out quiteou have left a few relevant facts that theory the economy is doing good. let me explain. in all large cities across u.s., cost-of-living has skyrocketed. it has gone up 20%-30%.

rents in los angeles, one bedroom up the street is renting for $2700. it is fine to have a job but if that job does not sustain your living expenses, the economy is not doing so well after all. furthermore, cost of groceries has gone up, gas prices are up, homeless rate has nearly doubled in most cities across this nation. so, the picture isn't as rosy as you paint. i wanted to bring that up because i have been listening to you. you have not mentioned one time about the cost-of-living. wages have gone up approximately 3%, true. here is another important factor. i will use me as an example. seven out of the 20 people i work with have picked up second jobs because they come at to live. this skews the unemployment

number. i have not heard you mention that. thank you. host: go ahead. guest: greatcall. i hear this often. i get emails every day along these lines. that reminds me very much -- i call it pockets of pain. we have heard from rural callers, not just urban areas, that are struggling. i would make a couple points. number one, i hear this often, people having to work three jobs. there are people having to do that. the labor department statistic, i just looked it up yesterday, there are 5 million people in this country who officially have two or more jobs, so they are actually earning income, a sizable amount, getting a paycheck from an employer. that is a decently large number but it is not everybody.

that number is actually lower than it was in the 1990's. that 5 million number has stayed similar in the last decade. we see no evidence of an uptick in multiple jobs. that figure does not include people who are earning extra income because they are selling items on ebay, running a small business, side business out of their house. it is possible there could be more people doing it. we have to be careful in claiming an epidemic of people working multiple jobs. what i think this caller is highlighting, and i was trying to highlight it earlier, yes, the economy is growing but 60% of americans feel it is going mainly to the rich. they are not benefiting enough from the growing economy. that is the point the caller was making. he is absolutely right. people feel this way. there is some evidence middle and lower income people are not benefiting as much as we would like to see. i think, one of the hard things

to get your grasp on in the u.s. is, i hear from so many people who feel they are underemployed. underemployed means, yes, they have a job but it is not the job they want or they feel that they trained for. good example -- someone has a computer science degree, the coveted one, he worked as a programmer for a while. then his company got bought, he was laid off, he struggled to find another job. now he is working as a tsa security person in an airport. he makes $15 to $18 per hour. used to make $30 per hour. he still has a job. his lifestyle has changed. it has been a hit. we do not have good measures of underemployment. i certainly hear from a lot of anecdotal evidence of people writing to me and sharing similar stories, saying, i have

a job but it is not great. host: zach from harrisburg, pennsylvania, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] easy to come to a place from -- comfort. that is where trumps campaign started at. [indiscernible] -- a bad situation. he came in, the first black president, now the deal with economic woes, racial and social woes. he had people telling he would be a one term president. [indiscernible] -- feel secure. they want to know politics are

secure. he took on -- [indiscernible] -- the measures he has taken to help us to come back to where we are. [indiscernible] -- the fear it would last. -- [indiscernible] [indiscernible] if the senate was going to fight this minute every turn. getting credite for the economy is going to be something we will hear a lot about in the campaign. how big of a topic with the economy be for 2020? guest: i suppose i am biased. i am in economics reporter. at the end of the day, one year from now, people will ask these questions. am i better off or not? even if they got a tax cut, do they feel it was done for the right reasons? have they benefited enough from the policies president trump has

put in place? i get people who also email me who say, you are missing the point. these issues on immigration, social issues, the presidents personality, legal issues, are likely to play a bigger role. that could be true. historically, how the economy is doing in the spring leading into the election, literally, one year from today, we shall do the show again, that has been in the past, a critical predictor of whether or not an incumbent president is reelected. host: a year from now you and i will talk again on saturday about the economy. guest: i'm ready. host: thank you heather long, correspondent for the washington post for being with us this morning and talking us through this jobs report. guest: thank you and thank you to the callers. great calls.

host: coming up, your calls on campaign 2020 through iowa. first, this weekend, c-span cities tour travels to palo alto, california, to feature history and literary life on book tv and american history tv. noon eastern today, book tv programs from the city will air, including a tour of the overseas weekly in vietnam exhibit located in the hoover institution. [video clip] weekly was aas military tablet that earned a reputation for rabble rousing content. this was a paper that had a purpose. allowing the troops to share their own stories in their own words without fear of repercussions from the brass. these photographs are exemplary of the type of somatic areas

explored by the overseas weekly. they did not shy away from racial prejudice in the army. they tried to get the voice of the soldiers, the tension between white and black soldiers, and also prejudices amongst other racial groups. >> the c-span buses stopping at middle and high schools across the country to meet and award winners of the student video competition. we were recently in providence, rhode island and met with the second prize winners. >> it was exciting. this was our first time entering. we put in a lot of hours editing, contacting. we are excited and happy. we look forward to participating next year. >> there was something we couldn't believe. next year, we are coming for the

win. >> to think it is our first year to see how far we could go, to think we got second place on the first try blows my mind. >> to watch all the winning entries from the student contest, go to studentcam.org. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back, we will turn to 2020 in the presidential election coming up as democrats and other candidates swing through iowa. coming up later, we will show you on c-span senator bernie sanders iowa rally from this afternoon, tonight on c-span but anest we want to talk to bria about sarah sanders coming through iowa and how the other

-- about senator sanders coming through iowa and how the other candidates are doing. bernie sanders is coming to iowa this weekend. how is he doing? what can we expect? guest: bernie sanders has a swing through northwest iowa, the more conservative, rural part of the state. he is planning to lay out a big agriculture policy proposal on sunday. he is really making a play for rural voters, which he says he failed to reach out to last time. he is back in the state, last time around he was insurgent upstart candidate, now he is back as a front runner along with joe biden. in second behind the former vice president. he has a lot of enthusiasm on the ground, support from people who were with him last time. we were just talking with his campaign yesterday, they said

they have to any 4000 people in iowa volunteering to help with his campaign -- 24,000 people. he has a lot built in support he is trying to reengage. host: he has 24,000 people in iowa. is that a large staff? put that in context for us. is it good to have that many people this early? guest: it is great to have that many actual people volunteering for your campaign. he is still building out the paid staff infrastructure. 20 people now, the middle of the pack as far as the field is concerned, but he did get into the race later. elizabeth warren is leading in that respect. she has closer to 50. that is all important as candidates are coming into iowa and trying to build up support, the people who will turn out for them on caucus night. host: joe biden was in the state

earlier this week. how did his entering the race change the dynamic in iowa for democratic candidates? guest: joe biden was the last big fish people were waiting on to get into the race. there are people who are waiting, people who have followed his career, his past presidential runs and who are really eager for him to get in. that has solidified the field. we may see a few jump in. bill de blasio, steve bullock, may get in. people are looking at this as a set field. mr. biden took his first trip through the state, four events that drew healthy crowds. he benefits from the name recognition and long history and politics. people know who he is and what

he is about. his job a be convincing them he has the vision going forward. he cannot rest on his past accomplishments, this beloved former vice president, to win this thing. he and bernie sanders are leading the pack in terms of polling in iowa. host: let's take a look at what joe biden had to say in iowa earlier this week. [video clip] >> so many people in this state and across america are worried. worried the american dream is slipping from their grasp and won't even be available to their children. look at the data. look at what is happening all over the country in terms of attitude. there are things we can point to as to why it happened. what stands out to me is that there used to be a basic bargain in america. has drivenbargain the most successful economic

growth in the history of the world, literally, that bargain has been broken. it was simple. if you worked hard, you were part of a successful enterprise, you got to share in benefits. that has changed. that has changed. when an enterprise hits hard times, what happens? everyone took a hit from the ceo to the secretary. that has changed. the only people who now benefit when the country does well are the ceos and stockholders. host: we have talked about joe biden and bernie sanders. are there any other candidates getting traction in iowa now? guest: there are. there are a lot of candidates in iowa now. the first week of may, 50 different candidate events during the first 8 days of the month. a lot of people are making their case to i once. caucus goers, typically don't

make up their minds until late. there is a lot of shopping around. if you talk to people in the audience and say, who do you like? they will give you a list of the favorite three to five people. we're hearing a lot about elizabeth warren. kamala harris. pete buttigieg. amy klobuchar. there are a lot of people who are catching interest. it is a matter of sustaining that interest and growing it through caucus cycle. pete buttigieg, i went to a house party on his first visit here. his last trip through des moines drew 1600 people. there is room for candidates to grow. taken hinge on one moment that goes viral and captures national attention. host: we will open the phone lines. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans,

(202)-748-8002 for independents. we are always reading on twitter @cspanwj, facebook at facebook.com/c-span. what is the reward for democratic candidates for doing well in iowa next year? what is the cost if they don't? endd not doing well in iowa candidacy for presidential nomination? guest: the thing about iowa caucuses is, it is an expectations game. we talk about three tickets out of iowa. 3, people who do best, 1, 2, get the boost going into new hampshire and south carolina. iowa doesn't have a lot of delegates to award, especially

when you look at super tuesday states, california comes up fast with a massive truckload of delegates. what iowa has is a media boost. it boosts your narrative. this person is legitimate. they can succeed. iowa's role is winnowing the field and winnowing out candidates who cannot cut it in such a big field. a lot of time that comes down to money. that means they cannot break through in this big crowd. if you make the top three, and with such a large democratic field, there is talk that maybe you need to make the top five to be considered legitimate going into new hampshire. you really boost your narrative and your storyline. one of the dangers for someone like joe biden, who comes in as a front-runner, where the expectations are high, that he will probably win or come close to winning, if he underperforms,

that is a hazard for him. he goes in with the narrative being, he only came in third place and elizabeth warren came in second behind him. she is the hot new thing going into new hampshire. the media attention, voter attention, donor attention is on her. back in all change a candidates trajectory. more than anything, the delegates, candidates are fighting for the springboard into the early nominating states. host: wayne, bolton, mississippi, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. looks like joe is officially in. he will be a formidable contender against president trump. item.a hot recognition.tely

as a member of the republican national committee, i'm urging all people i talked to, you better wake up. you have a contender here. host: how much does the name recognition help joe biden in iowa? guest: it helps him. the point about president trump and needing to wake up, president trump has been tweeting about joe biden extensively, dozens and dozens, that have been critical. president trump has identified him as his biggest rival. there has been back and forth between them. the president has identified him as a threat. host: janice, brooklyn, new york, independent line. caller: i am a tossup. candidates are running.

platformt to hear a that addresses the needs that are a true concern. the economy is important. i know a lot of middle-class people still out of work. alll those basic issues, else is up for grabs. 2020, plenty of candidates. let me hear a platform that addresses my issues. host: will all the democratic candidates get a chance to talk about their platforms in iowa? is that why they are there? guest: they are. we are still in early rollout phases of many campaigns, where they are still introducing themselves to islands. sanders, comenie to the state with people knowing who they are and what they are about. you have people who do not have that name recognition that are trying to introduce themselves and say, this is who i am and

what i stand for. pete buttigieg, cory booker to some degree, john hickenlooper from colorado, michael bennet from colorado, the list goes on of lesser-known candidates who are really trying to establish themselves to talk about their values. we will slowly move into the more policy focused stage of this campaign. some people like elizabeth warren have been out front on that and we are starting to see other campaigns rollout major policy proposals as well. host: one last question. do you think there is anybody else out there who can jump in the race and catch hold in iowa or do we have the main candidates in the race already? guest: we have still two more potentially likely to jump in. bill de blasio and steeple look. beyond that -- steve bullock. beyond that, the stage is set.

we have the largest, most diverse field of democratic candidates in history. it is hard to see where there is any daylight for someone else to jump in and still shine. in the 2016 cycle, were not talt donald trump. so, things can always change. host: we would like to think breanne for being with us here today, and taking us to the democratic field in iowa. thank you so much. it is time for the crane for the exam segment. we will take questions from students only as we help them prep for the upcoming ap government exam. we will be right back. ♪

>> on american history tv today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories. our interview of navajo code talker samuel. turkey, space, sheep. that is all it said in plain english. is thet it really meant mountain is secured. >> on 8:00 p.m., taylor university professor julianne sweet on the american military during the revolutionary war. >> this right here is a

handcrafted work of art created by a gunsmith that made lock stock and barrel, every piece of it by hand, each one individually different. p.m.,day at 6:30 astronaut michael collins on the moon landing. >> i think people want to touch and under stand wherever that may be, on the surface of the planet, above it, way above it, to the moon, beyond the moon to mars. to haveit is within us this will to explore. 8:00, author richard on the sense of humor of abraham lincoln. >> writing through the woods he met a lady on horseback. he waited for her to past and she stopped and scrutinized him before saying, well for land

sake you are the loneliest man you ever saw. yes, madam, but i cannot help it. no i cannot said the lady. but you might stay at home. >> this weekend on american history tv on speed -- c-span3. washington journal continues. host: we are back with our annual cram for the exam segment to talk about the upcoming ap you -- exam. we are joined by andrew conneen -- daniel larsen of the l. and they are here every year to get our students ready. i love this segment. i cannot wait to hear the questions from the students, what i want to remind everyone that we will take calls from students only for this segment

because we want our students ready to take this test. good morning. forwhat is the best used the time of your students getting ready to take the test. sost: it is saturday morning a lot of teachers out there are with their students now prepping for the exam. they have pancake breakfast. we know that students will be prepping sunday night. the test is monday, but you -- there is no time but -- like now. guest: my heart goes boom thinking about the exam. the exam has been redesigned. we are looking -- working off a new framework and our question should be geared towards the framework and how the exam is organized. there are 55 multiple-choice questions and you have 80 minutes to do it. the questions will look

different of last year. we also have four free response questions. it was exactly what they are. you have 100 minutes to write one concept application question, and i answer a quantitate -- and answer a quantitative analysis question. they will be a supreme court comparison, and then an argumentative essay. so excited. we will have not much time to snap our infinity gauntlet. host: so, the night before the , small you big dinner dinner, small breakfast, how do you get ready as you are getting ready. guest: a lot of carbs and vocab. load your plate with vocabulary and the redesign was in the central knowledge points. we put the words on cards and we ask our students, do i know

citizens united, we know it is a fun test. i'm reviewing two cases and essentials. nine documents and the words. then -- guest: then go back to what your kindred -- kindergarten teacher taught you, follow the directions. there are certain directives that you will be told to do, make sure to follow them. they are very detailed to maximize your points on the essay writing. host: this is one of my favorite segments because we get to hear from high schoolers and i got to hear this out -- the shout outs the teachers. being the son of the -- of two highs school's 2 -- schoolteachers i love the shout outs. we will shout out to dan and the eighth period ap government class in cleveland. let me make sure that i give the students our telephone numbers. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, we want you

to call 202-748-8000. if you are a high school student in the mountain and pacific time zones, call 202-748-8001. and you can always tweet us your at c-spanwj using the hashtag #cram4exam. students coming in now, so let us go to emma from dublin, ohio. do you have a question or would you want us to give you a question? caller: do you want to take a question? and julieis is emme -- emma and julian. caller: we were wondering how the federal bureaucracies overstep their bounds. guest: one of the words you should know is your aquatic discretion and your aquatic -- bureaucratic discretion and

rulemaking. a lot of times when they make a lot they do not know into the nitty-gritty and they allow discretion to determine the specific ways that the law can be implemented. guest: this is one of the big ideas, constitutionalism, liberty and order but this speaks to the competing interest in public policymaking. the federal bureaucracy is another player. what makes it interesting, we will have a chance to write about it and we will see multiple choice on it. it is that discretionary power that the federal bureaucracy would write regulations, enforce regulations and adjudicate those regulations. let us take a question from kaylee from pennsylvania. are you looking for a question, or do you have a question? caller: i have a question. said that the

signing of the constitution was unanimous when the deputies of only 12 states signed and delegates refused to sign? guest: i feel like i am on jeopardy. this will not be a jeopardy test. this will not be like ap u.s. history where you dive deep into historical phenomenon like how many voted for the constitution. is the constitution important, of course it is. we carry one with us wherever we go. big test will speak to the picture items, like the compromises. why was the convention held in the first place? because the articles of confederation failed. .o those key amendments down to the debate, and who voted, i do not think you need to know that. guest: you should know the great compromise was created with the

house in the senate, you should know the three faith compromises and other compromises complaint -- pertaining to slavery. the federalist and anti-federalist and the federalist papers were written centralte a stronger government and the anti-federalist governments were writing about how a stronger government could infringe on liberty. host: do you want to try a study question? caller: sure. host: which of the following would a city consider to increase the turnout from younger voters from the data in the table? can you see the data in the table? caller: i cannot. host: turnout for ages 18 through 29 in recent elections. in 2000, 40 1%. 2004, 48%. 2008, 50 2%.

2016, 50%. i will redo the question. which of the following would a state consider to increase the voter turnout of younger voters from the data? a, implement stricter voter id standards. b, increase residency requirements. c, add voting by mail and early voting options. d, reduce the hours of voting on election day. caller: i am going to go with c. guest: great job. c it is and it speaks to one of our big ideas, participation in a democratic republic. this is one of the tensions in our democracy. should our voting be more fair or have more access? those who want more access want to make voting easier. those who want to make it more fair make voting a little more difficult. guest: it speaks to the concept of separate realism -- federalism and the states and

the government have huge discretion on voting rules. so, good job. host: we are going to take another question from twitter. damien wants to know could you explain the difference between a and and a super pac -- pac a super pac. and he wants to shout out to his ap government teacher. guest: shout out to mr. patton. lawnow that there is a 1917 that established pac's and that can collect plumbing -- money, but limited money up to $5,000. they represent interest groups from the nra, the national restaurant association from the national -- to the national rifle association. there is strict limits to how much they can collect. super pac ours called -- are called expenditure groups, these are separate issue groups and

groups that support a candidacy. they can raise and spend an unlimited amount of money. thein-feingold took out unlimited money donations to political parties. no longer can you make soft money donations to a political party, but you can still donate and annd -- pacs unlimited amount of money to super pac's. guest: it is the difference between man and superman. political action committees are smaller. super pac's are much more powerful. the key distinction is limited money to pac's unlimited money to super pac's, but super pac's cannot give to the candidate. host: let us talk a little bit about the actual test. how long do students have to complete the exam, and how should they manage their time? guest: multiple choice voice should -- portion is 55 questions.

there are different styles of the questions and students have 80 minutes to complete it. it will probably not be that much of a rush to read that quickly. be careful, analyze the data carefully, analyze the text. you will see scenarios. make sure you read carefully and then double tech -- double check your work. guest: six different types of questions. look for passages, comparisons, scenarios, they will be trivia, not a lot but there will be some. you have 80 minutes to answer those 55. it is not a lot of time, but it is enough time. i think you can take your time and read carefully. it will be a brief break and then you come back for a 100 minute session, edges plenty of time to watch your four frq's. the same,m are worth so even though the short concept

question, the first one, appear ,hort and is only three points compared to the argumentative essay which has six points, but the first rfq in the fourth are worth -- and the fourth are worth the same. thank last, ink more. redundantly restate the words in the prompt. drop data down from the data sets. talk about the supreme court cases by name over and over, and when it says draw a conclusion, we are not drawing cartoons we are saying because. can be conclusion that drawn because of this is. be very redundant. i want to inform our students that we have a couple of secret questions that will bring prizes as your prize for getting them correct, you will get a copy of the u.s.

constitution signed by a supreme court justice. we have three different justices who signed them for us this year. justice kagan, justice breyer, and justice gorsuch. let us go to our next high school student. fromll talk to ian washington. good morning. caller: good morning. i give a shout out to my teacher? host: go ahead. caller: a shout out to mr. buhl's for being an awesome ap teacher and a shout out to the couple of students watching this. guest: early. host: do you have a question or do you want a study question? caller: i have a question. what is the most important thing about interest groups that we need to know? guest: it is one of my favorite topics because they become more important, and they should be they are protected by the first amendment. unlike political parties who

want to win elections, interest groups want to win issues. they find those issues that their membership is most concerned about, and it might be bipartisan. they support democrats and republicans because they want to find access into the game. they want public policy access. many times, they often write the public policy. they are often first written by interest groups, but they compete. we call this pluralism, which is a big idea. we allow many competing interests and interest groups to compete over public policy. guest: also know that time and again the courts have protected the rights of interest groups, particularly on the first amendment. and often overlook the right to assemble. guest: federalist 10 is one of the documents you need to know. we all knew the dangers of interest groups, madison and hamilton wrote about it from the

beginning, but here's the good news. they said the only way to assuage the danger is to allow more interest groups competing. pluralism. host: do you want to try a practiced question. caller: yes please. host: which of the following summarizes hamilton's argument, the house of representatives should have a four year term, four year terms in the power of judicial review help keep the judicial branch independent, u.s. senator should have four year terms. or, four year terms will help the presidents enforce the law with limits on their ability to abuse powers? caller: is it d. --b. host: sorry. this one is actually d. four year terms would help the presidents without the ability

to abuse their powers. to do on tvis hard quick, but on monday you will have much more time to read that passage, and to use critical thinking skills. students have to know nine foundational documents. documents, four of them are the federalist papers. it is fair game that you will see an excerpt, in this case it could be from a different federalist paper that is not required. and you will have a lot more time to process and read that. guest: when you see a passage on the test, and the redesigned exam, the passage will always have two questions at least. the first question you will be able to answer directly from reading the passage. the second part -- the second question will ask you to infer and apply a concept relating to what the passage is talking about.

take your time, read the passage and do not panic. the answer is in the passage and you will get it from that point. host: another question from social media. do we need to know a lot about judiciary restraint versus activism? my government teacher loves to talk about that. guest: he is doing a great job. onren's name will not appear this exam, but restraint and activism will. the fourth time that he has predicted that it is not on the exam, but every time it appears on the exam. restraint and activism are fair game. this is the idea that with the power of judicial review that the federalists hinted at in courtlist 78, that the has tremendous power to review

the constitutionality of laws and the constant tuition nullity -- the constitutionality of presidential actions. doing so the court has to make a choice. are they going to actively go out and overturn laws or show restraint and allow that state legislature or congressional legislation to stand? guest: it is a reminder of the is oneker v. carr, which of the 15 we need to know, dealing with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. the supreme court enters into the political thicket. the justices were willing to recognize the constitution as a living document and they needed to go into correct something that was wrong if our desmond craddick -- democratic process. this is activism. and it speaks to one of our big ideas. liberty versus order. do we just take the first amendment for what it says, or do we apply it to a post 9/11 world where order may somehow

complex -- conflict with our civil liberties. , fromlet us go to robbie ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good. do you have a question or do you want a study question, or both? caller: i will do both. my question refers to the high school that i go to. it is a private catholic high school and during football games sometimes we will do prayer over the public address system. the public address system that we use is part of a public school district because we do not have our own field. i was wondering, under the santa fe independent school district, how would that case and up applying to what happens when we are doing our football games? guest: a good question. i will go all in on it. we know one of the 15 court

cases that will be on the test, they said these 15 are essential. it is in the early 60's where the supreme court using the precedent straight wall of separation between church and state using the establishment clause of the first amendment now apply to the states selective incorporation. thatupreme court said public schools can no longer advocate for a prayer in their hallways, classrooms, or events. however, because you attend a catholic school, the catholic school is not bound under the precedent. i think it is possible that we could see a case like that in the skoda -- scotus comparison effort where they give a school scenario where prayer is allowed, and say how does that scenario compared to ingles versus eitel. you might have hit the jackpot. guest: you are guaranteed on

that effort that you will be questioned about a supreme court case that you probably have not studied. as mr. larson just said, ingles versus eitel is one of the core 15 cases. if you know that is in establishing -- and establish cause case and connects to fromer case, that excerpt santa fe might be on the exam, but you have prepared yourself to make that connection, which is a great critical thinking skill. guest: i know our hall of fame teacher out there has already done this, but on those 15 essential supreme court cases you should know two things. principle,utional also the context in which the case was decided. study those. constitutional principle, and context. host: are you ready for your question? caller: in a scenario in which

the president -- yes. host: in a scenario in which the theident is a democrat and republicans have control of the house and senate what is most likely to occur. a, an amendment would be passed to prevent this from occurring. b, leaders of the two major parties we need to compromise. pass anyss would not legislation during that term. legislativedent's priorities would likely become law. caller: i would have to go with compromise. host: you got it. you got it right. those great work using keywords. we did not even use the word divided government, that question is about divided government and you know that to get policies passed, there has to be some element of compromise between the parties. guest: we are seeing that right

now with the president and a different party congress talking about infrastructure this weekend. this is an example, why was not the infrastructure bill passed when there was unified government. we know that both sides need to claim some victory and compromises calming. it looks like they will be roadsides this summer. host: let us talk to terry from california. you have a question or do you want a study question? or both? caller: i will take a question. you have a question or you want a question? caller: i have a question. host: go ahead. are thewhat you think most important checks and balances on the legislature, executive, and judicial branch? guest: we love this question because we tell our students that going into the exam the greatest thing you can do is come up with that list of checks and balances.

knowingot go wrong with those constitutional principles and about how the different branches check themselves. some of the core checks and balances would be the idea that congress, which is article one, is given responsibility for writing law. the executive branch, article two, is given responsibility for implementing laws. three, isary, article given responsibility for interpreting laws, or with judicial review, the idea that the courts can establish the constitutionality of laws. i am sure sorry -- mr. larson can give you 25 more. guest: congress has the budget. the power of the purse is an incredible check. the president, and one we do not talk about, and it is not something unique to this president, is that presidents love to enforce priorities and enforcement of laws and the idea

that presidents may not enforce some laws is a real check on the legislative branch, but for me the biggest check on all three branches is we the people, it is the first three words of the constitution and the most sacred bond that we have in a representative democracy. people still and continue to have the power over both the congress, the president, and the courts. host: do you want to take a study question? caller: can i also shout out a teacher? i would like to shout out my government teacher, brian. host: here is your study question. what precedent was established in the supreme court case of mcculloch v maryland in 1819. -- the states cannot tax the national government. statecases of conflict law would be supreme over national law.

c, states could tax the national government. d, only state courts had to decide -- had the power to decide these types of cases. caller: is it c? host: unfortunately no. guest: it is a, and this is tricky. we know mcculloch v maryland is about the supremacy of the national government. this is how to study the principal and the context. the principle of mcculloch is the supremacy clause that the national government is supreme over the states, also that, in this case, it was the city of maryland, the state of maryland and the city of baltimore wanted to tax the next and no in the supreme court under the power of john marshall says not going to do it. the supremacy clause is what supreme in this case. host: that was one of our special questions, so we are

going to send you one of our constitutions signed by one of our justices. by neil gorsuch. stay on the line and give your information, ok? caller: thank you. from let us go to grace powell, ohio. in morning. caller: hello. can i shout out my teacher? host: go ahead. caller: a shout out to mr. -- missus glover's ap government class. i have a question. i was -- i know that soft money was banned, but can you explain the difference between soft money and hard money? guest: this is tough, but let me try and make it simple. is directly given to the candidates, and it is severely limited.

it is regulated by the ftc. soft money is kind of a loophole. you can circumnavigate those limits by giving unlimited moneys to independent groups. there is the catch. ,ard money to the candidate soft money cannot go to the candidates. soft money groups, those big super pac's make ads or send out flyers or higher paper to go door-to-door to advocate for issues and candidates, they cannot just be in tandem. soft money, not candidates. hard money, to the candidates. guest: it is the core of one of 15 supreme cases that connects with finance is citizens united versus fec which is a 2010 case where a geordie of the supreme court says that corporation and labor unions can -- where a majority of the supreme court and labor unions -- said that

corporations and labor unions can give a majority of soft money. it was a pivotal decision that you should know. host: let us take a question from our social media follows -- followers. points ofhe key monetary policy across the three branches that we should know. wants to shout out to his teacher. i have always said that fiscal and monetary policy are not always covered, so i am geared up for this. speaking of which we have loaded and content on the framework. .apgov. we go through all of the essentials, and this is one of them. knowing the difference between monetary and fiscal policy. fiscal policy is what governments do. they tax and spend. monetary policy, which has been

in the news a lot as donald trump is trying to fill spots in the federal reserve. dealing witheserve interest rates and money supply. effects all of the branches, the supreme court's makes decision -- the supreme court makes decision on the federal reserve. the president trying to be independent, but good economic news is good for presidential reelection bids. the congress rights laws about it. guest: the president has indirect control of monetary policy by appointing members of the reserve board and the members get to make decisions on interest rates and they are approved by the u.s. senate. host: let us take another question from the social media, because i think this is one that we needed to get to. sidney wants to know how will the multiple choice and frq sections be graded? if i do better on one will my

score from the other section hurt the overall grade. she wants to shout out from -- to mr. for kari -- mr. vicari. guest: the mechanics are important. the multiple-choice section and the essay section are 50-50. that you can do a little bit less on the multiple-choice, but if you cross your -- pressure frq's you will do better. in some fashion some exams they cross reference. exam, do as best as you can in the multiple-choice, but you have a section to pick up your scores or vice versa. take youre fine, time, read carefully. your teacher has done a great job. guest: one strategy is that on are eachortion, they worth 12.5% of the total grade

and there has been a lot of attention paid to the argumentative essay and it is worth six rubric points, but do not forget about question number one, the concept application will you be -- where you will be given an excerpt and apply that to three different questions. it is worth three points, but even though it is worth three rubric points it is still worth 12.5%. really maximize all of your points on the fbar queue. just because a question look shorter does not mean you should spend less time problem-solving. guest: this may sound silly, but check that you have doubled in carefully. make sure you have answered. thousands of students leave questions blank, not sure why. there is no penalty for wrong information. it is a good cut -- practice for voting. host: i can tell you about c-span in the classroom. we want you to remember that you can always go to

c-span.org/classroom you can find resources for teachers, social studies, and other studies -- and other subjects. you can create and save betty at -- video clips and membership is free. for more information and to register your account visit c-span.org and look for c-span.org/classroom. guest: that is a great resource particularly for the 15 required supreme court cases, the nine historical documents. they spent a lot of time filling out film clips to help teachers and students. it is a terrific resource for the exam. host: let us talk to cedric from tennessee. you have a question for us? and do you want a practice question? caller: can i get a practice question? host: we will go to a practice question then. which of the following best describes a message from dr. martin luther king jr. "letter

from a birmingham jail?" a, the goals of segregation protest upheld the ideals expressed in the declaration of independence. b, the civil rights act of 1964 was inadequate legislation. c, the war in vietnam was unjust and disproportionally impacted african-americans. d, americans of all races and ethnicities deserve fair wages and work benefits. what is your answer? caller: could you repeat them. host: i will repeat the question and the options. best of the following describes a message from dr. martin luther king's 'letter from a birmingham jail?" goals of anti-segregation protest upheld the ideals expressed in the declaration of independence. b, the civil rights act of act

-- 1964 was an adequate legislation that needed strengthening. c, the war in vietnam was unjust and disproportionately impacted african-americans. d, americans of all race and ethnicities deserve fair rages -- wages and work benefits. caller: i will go with a. isst: remind us again how it -- it reminds us that it is one of the nine fundamental documents. in thet see a passage concept application. "letter from a birmingham jail" is a big idea document that speaks to participation in a democratic republic. martin luther king said let us not wait, civil rights is now. guest: he really did work to correct -- connect those ideas with the founding ideals. host: let us take another question from our social media

followers. the clause ofn the 14th amendment? shout out to mr. squirrel and mr. not. that wene of the key were just talking about with the -- one of the key things is the equal protection clause. it is particularly connected with one of those poor supreme court cases, brown v. board of d racialn which ende segregation in public schools, and you should really know that that cases connected with the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, which is used in many of the civil rights court cases. guest: and other clauses the due process clause. 14th amendment the second constitutional cons pension. -- convention.

it recalibrated the note -- power of the national government. the national government would be the arbiter of this power. the bills, remember, of rights did not apply to the states. until the due process clause of the 14th amendment was 1925 that the fundamental privileges of citizens should be applied to all through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. call this selective incorporation. 15 cases we have an example the court used due process because to apply the sixth amendment right to an attorney, a lawyer to the state. what a great question, and we will see a number of due process and equal protection applications on monday. guest: the due process clause

was renewed in mcdonald versus chicago in the second amendment case. host: what does it take to get a perfect score? guest: shazam! guest: we are not looking for perfection. let us make the enemy -- let us not make good the enemy of the great. do your best. you have 300,000 students taking the exam. is notend, in the end it the score that is the winner, it is the student who is the winner. we know that students taking the test on monday are disproportionately more likely to finish college, which means you will be disproportionately more likely to get into the middle class, and have a bright future. just standing in line on monday to get ready to take this test, that is a perfect score. guest: it is the perfect civics lesson that all of our students

can learn is that this is more than a course or a civics course, it is a lifestyle. those perfect lessons are those moments when our students go out of the classroom to be engaged citizens, learn how to think critically and read news critically, and go to different sources. learn how to develop arguments and support those arguments with evidence, learn what the other side is saying and be able to respond to counter arguments. those lessons of citizenship are the perfect lessons. from let us talk to keira virginia beach, virginia. do you have a question and you want a question? caller: hello. i have a question, quick shout out to my teachers. is, when would a pocket veto be used and is it considered an informal or formal power of the executive branch? guest: i will let mr. larson answer.

i will give him time to think about that. a pocket veto which is not mentioned in the constitution in the power to reject legislation that was passed at the end of a congressional term. isthe constitution, congress able to pass laws and it says clearly that the president has 10 days to sign the law. you know that if a president does not sign that legislation it automatically becomes a law. however congress works like a second semester senior, they push their work off to the very end. a lot of times the legislation is passed with less than 10 days left. arehose cases, if the bills passed with less than 10 days, if a president does not sign that legislation it is considered to be a pocket veto. that legislation never becomes law. itike an ordinary veto where would go back to both chambers of congress and they could

override the presidential veto. a pocket veto cannot be -- it just does not become law. guest: i am glad you brought up this question because i think the argumentative essay, i did not write it, but if i did i would talk about formal and informal powers. it is not in the constitution. it is an informal power. what a great pension we have in today's government wrestling between the formal powers versus the informal. no branch has done this more than the presidential branch. the president's, most of his powers today or through the informal powers. executive orders, they have the power of law, no congressional vote. think about executive agreements, the power of a treaty but no senate approval. think about the president

choosing whether or not to enforce a law or those signing statements where a president can sign into law, but as he is signing the bill says i'm going to enforce this part a little bit differently than this part. these informal powers have made our presidents so much more powerful in the public policymaking process, and it has become different. host: do you want a practice question? caller: yes. host: which of these are the most accurate description of federalist 51 and federalist 70? advocated for51 the independence of judges, and odorless 70 explain how large republics should balance action. b, federalist 51 summarize how checks and balances would work in the constitution. federalist 70 expressed a need for an executive branch that was energetic. federalist 51 explained the

need for an egg electoral college. federalist 70 describe the powers of the house of representatives. theederalist 51 promoted appointment of u.s. senators by state legislatures and federalist 70 summarize the formal powers of a president. which one do you think is correct? caller: b. guest: correct. it is one of the essential documents, it is checks and balances. federalist 70 is an essential document and it is tricky because hamilton uses the word energetic president. ais is not a president using workout plan, this is a president who can act unilaterally, with energy. there is a crisis, you've got to do something. is it any wonder that presidents are looking for emergencies because they can act without congress and act boldly. guest: you will see several questions that are formatted like that, they are called comparison questions.

and they will be formatted like a grid and they become a true false question where you are looking for the rail that has two true statement. host: felix from the, maryland. good morning. caller: hello. i want to say thank you so much for my teachers for preparing us so well for the exam. my question is, how did the usa freedom act changed the law from the patriot act? guest: great question. in addition to that you might be asked about pfizer. we know there is a series of laws when it comes to liberty and order where most of which were passed after september 11, 2001. phiza act were passed in the 1970's. no the common purpose rather than the differences. theof these laws gave

national government increasing power and murkiness to be able to conduct investigations. wasusa patriot act controversial after 9/11 because it gave the fbi and some intelligence agencies more power to do investigations without notifying people of search warrants and of the investigation. and then you are right. thatsa freedom act changes because a lot of these legislations, because they are controversial and kind of going into liberty or reducing liberty, congress puts sunset provisions on that legislation. a sunset provision means that parts of that bill or that bill will expire after a certain amount of time, to be five or 10 years, and it gives congress a chance to go back, look at that legislation, look at how it has been implemented because it was controversial to make amendments. the usa freedom act was

essentially part of that review process. guest: i know there are a lot of students panicking over, i have to know the names of legislation? this is going to be trouble. relax, the essential knowledge points point out what those laws that we should know. there are not a lot, there are a few. two we have not mentioned, but make sure you know these laws by name, they will be on multiple choice. i would not be -- i would not be surprised if they were in the frq's. the civil rights act of 1964, and voting rights act of 1965. i am expecting those. took downrights act the jim crow laws, the ability for some areas to segregate based on race. the voting rights act, making voting more welcoming to marginalized minority groups. those laws we should know. guest: another law that could

likely be on the test's title ix, which is part of the 1972 law that ends gender in public schools. you might know that from equal funding of high school sports between boys and girls sports, that a huge part of title ix was saying that you had to take down those requirements that your grandmothers might have had that they had to take a homeric course or a type -- home e course or typing course. that is invalidated because of title ix. host: are you ready for a practice question? which of these federalist papers is best matched to a description. a, federalist 10 describe the powers of the house of representatives. b, federalist 51 explained how large republics could balance factions. c, federalist 70 implies the

need for judicial review. advocated for78 the independence of judges. guest: not to put pressure on you, if you get this correct, you get not one, but two pocket constitutions. one for yourself and one for your teachers. the question is -- the pressure is on. caller: i going to go with d. guest: good job. is one of the essential documents that we need to know for monday's test. my students struggle with the word independent judiciary. it is a political science term, but what does it mean? it means that the judiciary should be independent from politics. we see this through life terms of our justices. our justices are not elected, they are chosen by the president , and confirmed by the senate

and we hope they are independent of the political process. as we witnessed in the brett kavanaugh confirmations, it seems a little bit more political than the framers thought. dangerous- that least branch may be a bit more dangerous. guest: justice kagan and justice breyer signed these, and she added the note, read this well. you have been reading well, the federalist papers in the constitution. host: stay on the line so we can get your contact information, ok. caller: thank you. host: alright, let us take another caller. let us go to grace from ohio. good morning. can you hear me? caller: yes i can, can you hear me? host: i can, do you have a question. caller: i would like to shout

out mr. shannon, and my question is how do iron triangles create -- relate to that current state of bureaucracy. guest: first of all, another call from ohio. goes cram4theso exam. an ironso your 11 for triangle question. no better place to look at iron triangles and food regulation. -- mr. larsonrson makes fun of me because of my examples. there was a recent news story about food regulation involving the regulation of cherry pies. and the idea that the food and drug administration, which has bureaucratic discretion over food regulations have said that they will change a 1977 standard that said that every cherry pie, or frozen cherry pie had to be

sold with -- had to be made with at least 25% cherries by weight and 85% of those cherries had to be unblemished. that it is notd going to regulate cherry pies like that. that decision was made relatively quickly. it got some attention but it was not controversial. we assume that in the iron triangle you had the fda as the executive ranch implementing law. we know that congress for 100 years has passed different food regulation laws, so that is the other part of the iron triangle, congress passing the law, and the third part was interest groups. in this case the american bakers' association was working with members of congress along with the fda to say, can we not ease up these regulations on cherry pies? that contrasts with issue

networks. issue networks are more controversial. i do not know if you drink soy milk, almond milk, or regular milk. there is a big debate on whether soy milk and almond milk should be called milk. we know that interest groups like the american dairy association are upset with the idea of soymilk being labeled milk. that is controversial. that is much more of an example of an issue network because you have a lot of different groups in there and it is a more controversial decision. it is interesting that the fda is not handling the milk issue. we know that issue networks take more time to go through the policymaking process because there are more voices. iron triangles tend not to be controversial, we tend not to read about it, but it was one of the recent news stories. guest: i do not know much about

pie but i can make the question cake on monday. the three points of the triangle are, congressional committee, executive agency, and an interest group. it speaks to competing interests in public policy. host: do you want question? can you hear me? she was -- guest: she was driven to sleep by the pie response. host: now to tristen. good morning. oryou have a question for us do you want a question? caller: can i shout out my ap teacher? host: go ahead. caller: i would like to shout out mrs. gable. she is the best. do have a question for you guys. i am just wondering, how does logrolling apply to government and everything else?

guest: logrolling is one of the essential words. it is in my deck of cards. logrolling is in all political -- an old political science term dealing with vote trading. the idea of if you vote for me, i will vote for you. it speaks the issue of bargaining and compromise, back when the political process was more efficient and worked a little bit better than we see it now, but it still goes on. as much as we read about gridlock, our congress and president still work. our budgets pass, money is being spent, and to a great extent it is because of logrolling. trading in favors and compromising. guest: it is a metaphor connected with a different metaphor, and that is porkbarrel spending, or federal earmarks. this is the idea that is kind of going out of date and i think it will return with an infrastructure bill. the idea that when congress is trying to pass legislation, one

of the ways that they can grease up legislation and get it through easier is with pork, these local spending projects that a representative might want to attach to a bill, and if they all have an incentive to vote for the bill it makes it more likely to pass if it is filled with porkbarrel projects. that would be an example of logrolling. sometimes the latin phrases used , quid pro quo, and sometimes they use a mathematical phrase, reciprocity. host: let us see if we can get one quick question. let us talk to mckenzie. are you there? caller: hello. i shout out my ap government teacher? host: go right ahead. caller: shout out to mr. heyman. couldestion was, if you

explain how interest groups affect legislation and policy implementation and then talk a little bit about grassroots lobbying. guest: i love the turn grassroots -- the term grassroots. it is a word you will see on the test. it speaks to the big idea participation in a representative democracy. the grassroots are different from interest groups which tend to be formalized, professional, and big-budget. interest groups are more corporate. grassroots is when you and i, everyday citizens pick up our bootstraps and go to the streets and knock on doors, send out mailers, call our congressman, grassroots. some of the most effective intergroup -- interest group activity there is. guest: one of the most effective interest group activities happens on capitol hill every business day, that is testifying before committees. group activities happens on capitol hill and at that is testifying before committees.

upy will have experts go before a hearing on a specific committee and testified. that makes a difference because members of congress want to hear from experts, that is what interest groups do when they are doing at best, they of information that avails knows about that policy or legislation and they provide that information to members of congress, through a personal contact, a lot of times their testimony, to help shape opinion. host: this has been a great segment. i have loved this. we want to thank daniel larson and andrew in illinois for a skip thehelping students ready for the high school advanced placement u.s. exam on monday. thank you also much. and good luck to all of the students taking the exam. join us again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. for another episode of "washington journal."

good luck on the tests, students. and everybody have a good weekend. ♪ announcer: here is some of the c-span programs schedule today. next, the deputy defense secretary for the middle east talks about u.s. policy in the region, particularly syria, iran and iraq. after that, the attorney general's testimony before the senate judiciary committee on the mueller report. . then senate debate to override president trump's veto of a resolution calling for an end to u.s. involvement in the war in human. they -- in yemen.

the fell shorty -- they fell short of the veto. and a hearing on the humanitarian crisis in syria. announcer: sunday night, lincoln sharing hisld hofer perspective on the new book, "the presidents." the best and worst chief executives. sunday night on c-span. once tv was three networks and a government supported service. then in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let the viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. inhe