that technology is used. and angela mental illness, angela kimball. later, eric and you check -- eric hanushek about educational achievement. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ michael: a three hour -- host: a3 hour washington journal is ahead and we begin with a 25-year-old piece of legislation back in the spotlight. president trump is taking aim at joe biden over the role he played in crafting me -- crafting the crime bill.

members of law enforcement can call in at 202-748-8000. if you have experience in the criminal justice system, special phone number for you, 202-748-8001. all others can call at 202-748-8002. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. the law enforcement act of 1994 known better as the crime bill. we are asking for your views. president trump believes joe biden's role in crafting that bill will be a liability for him, the 2020 presidential campaign. here is what president trump tweeted about the bill. president trump saying super predator was the term associated

with the bill sleepy joe biden was involved in passing. african-americans will not be able to vote for you. i was responsible for criminal justice reform, which helped fix the bad 1994 bill. when it comes to that 1994 law, here is what was actually in that legislation that passed and signed by president clinton. when it comes to the tough on crime components, it included the three strikes law that mandated life sentences for criminals convicted of a life penalty -- toislation included funding hire 100,000 additional police officers and funding to build more prisons. the legislation included the violence against women act, the

federal assault weapons ban and $6 million in funding for crime prevention projects. when it comes to his view today on the crime bill, joe biden talked about it earlier this month when he made his first campaign swing through new hampshire. he said in part, let's get something straight. 92 out of every 100 prisons behind bars are in state prisons, not a federal prison. joe biden saying when he was asked about the bill's role in ith incarceration rates -- did not create mass incarceration. here is more from that campaign stop in new hampshire. [video clip] >> here is the deal. i am the only guy who ever nationally beat the nra. when we did the crime bill, everybody talks about the bad things. it is the one that had assault weapons banned, limited the number of bullets in a clip.

made sure teflon bullets were not available any longer. it opened up the effort to make sure there were background checks for the first time in american history. the second amendment exists, but it doesn't say you can own any kind of weapon you want. it does not say everybody is entitled to one. host: former vice president joe biden earlier this month in new hampshire. we are asking your view on the crime bill and your review in 1994 if you remember how you felt back then. special phone lines for members of law enforcement. if you have experience in the criminal justice system, 202-748-8001. .ll others, 202-748-8002 we will start in georgia, gary in lindale, georgia. go ahead. caller: hello. thank you very much for taking my call. hello? host: go ahead, gary. what are your thoughts on the crime bill?

caller: i would like to address something about the aftermath of the bill. i constantly hear over and over again about the racial disparities that so many black colord people of cover -- are being incarcerated. i would like to make a comment on that. take the state of georgia, we have far too many and the majority of people incarcerated here are black. you have to take something into consideration that no one talks about pretty much all over the country is this way. these areas of which so many black people are being incarcerated are from areas such as atlanta, who has a black mayor, a black police chief, black district attorney.

convictedle are being simply because they do crime, mostly against their own community. host: bring us to the discussion about the crime bill, do you remember when it was passed and how you felt about it? forer: yes, i was directly it because i give an example of a place, new york city was completely out of control with the crime situation. to be done.d for example, you had atlanta, many places this way. i hate to say it was clamor returning for the death penalty. people get fed up. when you cannot carry your kids out anywhere and constantly have the police undermanned, you will demand a change and a change was there. host: this is ken in washington,

d.c. your feelings about the crime bill? caller: i am a police officer from 1992 1995 and still a police officer from -- to this day. i have seen what happened in .egards to the bill people today are asking for sympathy in relation to drug and drug uses -- usage. it was motivated to attack poor people, which the previous caller from georgia misses the point. -- white people victimize each other as well. when you are in a low income community, typically you will have a lot more problems. you don't have the economic support a lot of communities do. poverty becomes rampant and people get -- become desperate.

hello? host: go ahead, finish your thought. caller: i am sorry. it is ironic i know it is politically motivated because we are talking about it today and mandatory sentences because a lot of citizens to no longer have their rights. people want a certain amount of sympathy for certain people, primarily. ago said back years something that the young men convicted or charged at the time with rate, -- rape, i believe it was central park and i believe they were exonerated and he has yet to apologize. thank you for your time. host: this is christian in phoenix, arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i have not heard a single word about this in the media. cnbc byn was asked on john harwood a few years ago right before the 2016 election and john harwood told him bobby ofh said he was ashamed voting for that crime bill in 1994 and john howard posed the question and said, are you ashamed of that crime bill? joe biden said not at all, i am the one who drafted it. never forget, joe biden was the one who stood on the united states senate floor right before the passing of that bill and actually said with his own mouth that these individuals have not been socialized. .hey will become the predators he said out of his own mouth, .adam president

for all of the black men listening, would you rather have a president who not only helps to pass one firststep act to reduce the number of people who are incarcerated and working on a second and third step act or would you rather go back to joe biden in 1994 and have more black men who are incarcerated and never forget mazie hirono's words when she said all the men in the country need to shut up. don't forget that when you go to the polls in 2020. sanders, ais simone senior advisor for the biden presidential campaign tweeting in response to president trump's

comments about the crime bill to watch trump take credit for the first step of many criminal reforms when "other folks did the work for the bill and he is on the record disparaging the central park five." it is exhausting and disingenuous. joe biden was the senate judiciary chairman pushing for the passage of the crime bill, which he helped craft in 1994. [video clip] >> madam president, we have predators on our streets that society has, in fact, in part because of its neglect created. it does not mean because we created them that we somehow forgive them or do not take them out of society to protect your family and mine. they are beyond the pale, many of those people.

beyond the pale and it is a sad commentary on society. we have no choice but to take them out of society. the truth is we do not very well know how to rehabilitate them at that point. you are looking at one of the primary architects of the -- commission -- sentencing commission. 80was the first time in years we rejected the notion the condition of sentencing had to be related to how long it would take to rehabilitate. i am the guy who said when rehabilitation occurs, we do not understand or notice it and even then, we don't know why. you cannot make rehabilitation a system -- condition for release. i remember when it was going on and when i was making these arguments, they used to call it biden's same time for the same crime commission. it is a shame that we do not know how to rebuild --

rehabilitate. we must make the streets safer. i don't care why someone is a malefactor in society. i don't care why someone is antisocial. i don't care why they become a sociopath. a responsibility to cordon them off from society, try to help them. they are in jail. archives. the c-span joe biden from 1994. we are talking about the crime bill, asking for your view both back in 1994 and whether that view has changed today. if you are a member of law enforcement, 202-748-8000. if you have experience in the criminal justice system, 202-748-8001. all others, 202-748-8002. you can also catch up with us on

social media as charity did on twitter who writes that the crime bill was an appropriate and effective piece of legislation at the time. the negative impact on some communities were unforeseeable. a good start to help remedy the bad outcomes. both bills were necessary. one more tweet this morning saying the crime bills, the reason our jails are overcrowded, it is a bill that heard african-americans vastly more than any other race and will have repercussions in the years to come. we also want to hear from you, calling in as joe mccutchen did in georgia. good morning. caller: john, good morning. i want to say c-span, you and steve scully and all the guys at c-span i think you a great service to the american people. as far as the crime bill, i think we are getting too much

race. it does not matter to me and the majority of americans if a person is black, white, whatever race. if they submit -- commit a serious crime, they ought to be incarcerated. i think trump is doing a great job and david were due. i have more confidence in trump than joe biden. we are getting too involved in race. to kill,going to plan i would kill somebody, receive the death penalty and i think that is the main thing we ought to focus on. incarcerate those people who commit serious crimes. host: the president wrote in his tweet about the racial implications and the disparate impact of the crime bill. he said anyone associated with the 1994 crime bill will not have a chance of being elected. african-americans will not be able to vote for you. i was responsible for criminal

justice reform, which had tremendous support. the president tweeting that before he left for japan on tuesday. caller: i have tremendous confidence in trump. i think he is the -- a great leader in history. as far as crime is concerned, i have confidence in donald trump and c-span. what a great program. i will sign off on that. host: carolyn is next in virginia, good morning. carolyn, are you with us? you have to stick by your phone. i think i heard you. caller: by my phone. host: you have to turn down your phone and talk through -- your tv and talk through your phone. we will work on that and get back to you. your view on the crime bill. joe, are you with us?

we will keep going through the lines. martha is next from florida. good morning. caller: hello? can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am. caller: my bill on -- view on the crime bill is in 1994, some tragic events had all come together that because that bill to be passed. i agree with some of the bill, but some of that bill was just band-aids. we cannot just keep eldon prisons to handle crime -- building prisons to handle crime . prevention starts with teaching children the law and consequences of their actions. i know that is kind of simple, of the answerrt we can all live with. i don't agree with all that

crime bill and i felt when it was passed that some of it was just mandates. host: this is when the bill was signed into law by then president bill clinton. [video clip] >> the american people have been waiting a long time for this day . in the last 25 years, half a million americans have been killed by other americans. for 25 years, crime has been a hot political issue used too often to divide us while the system makes excuses for not punishing criminals and doing the job instead of being used to unite us to prevent crime, punish criminals, and restore a sense of safety and security to the american people. years, children have become the most likely victims of violent crime and it

is most likely perpetrators. for 6 years, washington debated a crime bill without action while more and more children died and more and more children .ecame criminals years, meganwo lost a mother she had only begun to know. holly lost her life to a felon who never should have been back on the streets. james darby wrote his president a letter because he was so afraid only to lose his life walking home before anybody could erase his fears. and still, some people in this d to keep this day from happening. it today, the waiting ends.

[applause] host: that was then president clinton back in 1994 at the signing of the crime bill. what did you think of it then and what do you think of it now? law enforcement can call in at 202-748-8000. if you have experience in the criminal justice system, 202-748-8001. all others, 202-748-8002. we will go back to that law enforcement line. clarence, myrtle beach, south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i was a police officer in washington in the 1970's and i remember marijuana busts at that time were considered nothing but teenagers on the corner, it was not given much credence. it was not until ronald reagan kicked it off in the 1980's and kicked the campaign off in mississippi. he decided he was going to pretty much go back to the old

playbook of white supremacy and use law enforcement as a nass of way to control black people in this country. tactic. to be a control it has nothing to do with law enforcement because we only make up 3/5 of the country, i believe. it is almost idiotic to think this is law enforcement at its best. system --al justice everybody knows it is a joke. brazenly biased. host: experience in the criminal justice system, jesse, go ahead. caller: yes. good morning. i am a 68-year-old black man, chemical dependent. i remember when they brought up .he crime bill and passed it

it was so bad during the 1990's black80's, how we lost neighborhoods and gangs of hoodlums were murdering and selling drugs and you could not say anything about it. black -- thehe ghetto. we lost so many good homes and communities and people because of that drug and now we are talking about opioids because it moved into the upper class. enforcement. usneed a crime bill to help

get out of the situation we are in. this is why i am calling. i was with them. i stepped over dead bodies and most of the black people and everything down in the ghetto stepped over dead bodies. they were scared to go home and moved out of those beautiful neighborhoods we had that are not there anymore. all up in detroit and chicago and mississippi and atlanta. you remember. host: let me ask you about one aspect of the crime bill that received a lot of criticism, the three strikes law, the mandatory life sentences for repeat offenders who are convicted of violent felonies after two other convictions, including drug crimes, do you think the three strikes law was needed? caller: in a way, i do. in a way, i think it is not fair

because sometimes you can run a red light or do the wrong thing and that will count. if it is going to be across the board to everybody, i would think it is fair. i think they need to take another look at the three strike bill. down in the ghetto where drugs and heroin and fentanyl and all these other different drugs are running rampant. not the drugs coming from the doctors and stuff like that. there might be a few that could put it on the doctors and everything. i am not going to say a doctor got me hooked on drugs, i did that myself. i think they need to take another look at the strikes, but we need another crime bill. is a piece from yesterday in the new york post.

the headline saying biden should not apologize for the crime bill. ineffectual assault weapons ban in billions for suppose it prevention representing the blunderbuss approach typical of sweeping bipartisan legislation. the bill overall was a politically necessary response to a decades long crime wave. rather than the foundational act of the american penal state, it is part of a long-running effort to strengthen the criminal justice system that helped drive down crime. that is rich lowry. he ends that column saying no one should apologize for having worked to get dangerous people off the streets at a time when they were causing untold grief and rendered the civic fabric of america. back to your calls, getting your thoughts on the crime bill. dan in charleston, south

carolina. good morning. caller: good morning, john. it is like anything, john, you follow the money. dick cheney is involved with for-profit prisons. a crime bill is basically a political football. everybody knows it is not very wealthy and even they know it. rich and powerful people make mistakes. poor people without power have criminal tendencies, john, that is the way it is. it has always been that way. justice is a commodity. it is all for not. -- naught. the idea that politicians give anything other than -- care about anything other than getting reelected is a farce. and there is a need for crime legislation. fromu remember the people

the tobacco companies that stood in a pretty straight line and put their hands up and swore on the bible to the congressional committee that their product did not kill people? that is a crime, john. that is a federal offense to lie to a committee like that. how many of them ever went to jail? none of them, john. jails are full of poor people. the rich people walk. that is the reality. host: this is trevor in louisiana, experience in the criminal justice system. you want to talk about that experience in the criminal justice system? caller: good morning. what we are doing now with criminal justice is not working and it is evident. it is a moneymaking process, but there are ways we can help these people. when people get out of jail, they leave with a garbage bag and have nowhere to go.

he has not been educated to do a you expect at, but different result. it is our responsibility to help him and there are ways we can do that. if you work -- put him in a program that can give him job skills and training, he will not go back to jail. if you let him out and don't give him opportunity, you end up with the same result. when a man cannot get a job or support himself, he normally goes back to that same thing. the president has got it right as far as the faith-based community helping these people. i am familiar with that, we run a 12 month program. we teach men how to live and give them counseling they need and help them with job training where they can support their family and themselves and that is the thing we have to do to make a difference because right now, they are a tax burden instead of a taxpayer. we cannot just keep printing

money and spending it to put these people in jail. it is not working. host: when you talk about the need to put people on programs to help them find a way out, did you have experience with that yourself and do you mind talking about it? lostr: i had a brother i to addiction and he went in and out of prison the majority of his life and he got his first felony charge and could not get an opportunity to get a job. i watched that cycle over and over it i work with a group that teaches men the bible and teaches them the way to live and gives them the skills they need and it is successful. we are letting people out of jail in louisiana. when you let them out and give them no training and education, they end up right back in. the statistics are not telling the truth because they are not convicted yet, but they are back in jail and a lot of them have committed new crimes. host: coming up on 7:30 and we

are asking for your view of the 1994 crime bill back then and today, whether it changed over time, having this conversation after president trump injected the crime bill into the 2020 presidential campaign in a series of tweets and here is one of the headlines from the washington post. trump joining democrats taking aim at biden on the crime bill. the reference to democrats taking aim at biden goes to the criticism biden received from even his own party, some of those running against him. when asked about biden's assertion the crime bill did not generate mass incarceration, kamala harris told reporters in nashua that i disagree, sadly. i have a great deal of respect for joe biden, but i disagree with him. that crime bill did contribute to mass incarceration in our country. it encouraged and was the first time we had a federal three

strikes law that funded the building of more prisons in the state. we saw president trump's tweets on this topic. what do you remember of the crime bill when it was working its way through congress and being signed into law and has your view changed over time? bob, what do you think in leesburg, virginia. caller: i think you cannot separate the crime bill from the economic policy because we have economic policy that is squeezing more and more people .nto poverty we need a policy based on what the nation was founded on. the idea of we the people, in order to form a more perfect union, we have to have construction, infrastructure, modern trains. even in the good book, the first command god gave to man is be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth because mankind is

made in the image of god, that means he is creative. there is no way a human being can find joy without being creative and in that process, that is why we develop work skills and people work together to build up their communities rather than tear them down. there is $1 billion spent on teaching people how to enjoy pleasure, but it never satisfies you. what we need is an economic policy tied together with the crime bill because we have billionaires and all kinds of international cartels eating up oodles of money and it is like there is no money to reinvest into the future and the future is what determines the present. i just wanted to emphasize it is hard to discuss why we have crime without discussing that it is fundamentally back to

economics and there is no reason why a nation like the united states should ever run out of things to do when we have so many talented people and creativity and we have a constitutional economic principle and policy that allows us to generate the kinds of credit and finances necessary not torastructure, bailout bad debt, interest, and speculators on wall street. we should focus on building up the future, industrial-based work skills so they can think creatively and enjoy their creativity. thank you. illinois, is jesse in experience in the criminal justice system. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have experience with my son basically in the criminal

justice system. i do agree there should be a fair crime bill. i think that is the problem. when i live in the quad city areas, they have so many black men that all i see now is whites on the news and stuff. that is my take on what is going on. .ost: that is jesse in illinois president trump in his first tweet criticizing joe biden about this issue used the term super predator saying super predator with the term associated with the 1994 crime bill. president trump also using that criticism back when he was running in 2016 against hillary clinton and her stance on criminal justice back in 1996 and her views on it over the years. this is hillary clinton from

that term96 using super predator when discussing the crime bill. [video clip] >> we have finally gotten more police officers on the street, that was one of the goals the president had when he pushed the crime bill passed in 1994. he promised 100,000 police were moving in that direction, but we can see it already makes a difference. if we have more police interacting with people, having them on the streets, we can prevent petty crimes from turning into something worse. we also have to have an organized effort against gangs, just as we had an organized effort against the mob. these people are often connected to drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids, they are often the kind of kids called super predators, no conscience, no empathy. we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel and the

president asked the fbi to launch a concerted effort against gangs everywhere. in 1996llary clinton and that term, super predators, following her on the 2016 campaign trail. here is one of the more famous moments from the 2016 campaign in south carolina. [video clip] >> there is more work to be done. criminal justice reform and all the like. --hink we have got >> i am not a super predator, hillary clinton. >> okay, we will talk about it. thank you very much. there are a lot of issues in this campaign. the very spurt -- first speech i gave in april was about criminal justice report -- criminal

justice reform. this is not appropriate. i know that you called black people super predators back in 1994. black people an apology. >> if you would give me a chance to talk. before.as ever asked me you are the first person to ask me and i am happy to address it. back to the issues. host: hillary clinton back in february in 2016 when she was running for president. we are asking about your view of the 1990 four crime bill and whether it changed over time. we want to hear your phone calls on -- your views. if you have experience in the criminal justice system, 202-748-8001.

for members of law enforcement, 202-748-8000. all others can call on 202-748-8002. robert in west virginia, good morning. caller: good morning, john. listen. there is nothing wrong with the me putill as far as let it this way, all communities have crime, that is a fact. the problem in 1994 is clinton and biden did not think it through. they did not think police officers could be racist, bigoted, and prejudiced and they did not take that into consideration. 2006 fbioven by the report that said white racist were infiltrating police stations or police communities .ll over the country

i understand all communities have crime, but if you don't take into consideration the ofist or bigotry or training police officers, that's why you had those prisons fill up with a lot of black folks because that is what they put all their focus on. thanks. host: charlie is next out of new york. good morning, the line for all others. caller: good morning, john. let's go back to what president clinton said during the signing ceremony. he said the american people had been waiting 25 years for this to happen and he was absolutely correct. let's look back to the 1960's underhe supreme court, chief justice earl warren rewrote the criminal justice laws, making it easy for defense attorneys to suppress evidence.

when that happened, crime exploded. something had to be done. host: that is charlie out of new york. a viewer writing on twitter that the crime bill was a product of its time. people who had not -- should not have been so harshly punished fell through the crack's. it is good to look at it in a 20 year review. 25 years since the signing of the crime bill and the laws. giving -- getting your thoughts how your views have changed over the years. donald in texas, has experience in the criminal justice system. caller: during that time, it was sort of needed to have a crime bill during that time. of those people that passed those bills, it was not about looking out for the citizens of this country. it was about creating a system where they could build prisons

to lock up the majority of minorities. that is all that bill was about right to this day. biden, trump, none of these politicians care about what is gentlemanhere like a said earlier, the opioid epidemic now it all of a sudden it is in the white community, we have a problem and it is something to do. some other gentlemen talking about these programs. these programs are not for black people, minority people. opioids affecting white people, so now the country is in an uproar. i always ask the white people when i talk to them, where were you all win these drugs that black people did not have control of work pushed in our neighborhoods, destroying our families and neighborhoods prayed i listen to you this morning. you sit here and bring up a

subject to divide people again all over. you all don't care about what is going on. look at your prison system. you count five white boys while they are going to eat lunch. host: that is donald in texas with his thoughts. getting your thoughts. president trump injecting this into the 2020 campaign in a series of tweets and his position of the 1994 crime bill puts him at odds with rudy giuliani. rudy giuliani tweeting about the crime bill about two weeks ago after joe biden was criticized thoseat bill by some of he is running against in 2020. rudy giuliani tweeting back on may 15 that the 1994 crime bill with biden andon

schumer as leaders in the senate and house helped me and the police department reduce murder to approximately 500 and -- over 20,000 lives saved. joe, don't cave, is what rudy giuliani wrote on twitter. rudy giuliani was back on this program in 1994 talking about the crime bill. here is that interview. >> you write america has too much crime. now and in the years to come, how? >> it attacks short-term to long-term. policeides for more officers, significantly more police officers and provides $10,000 to expand prisons and jails and take care of problems .reated by violent criminals

it expands penalties, creates the death penalty in a number of areas. --re are strict enforcement on the others of it, a long-term approach to crime as well to get children, young people more hope and try to have more programs in their communities where crime is high so youngsters can learn something other than violence as a way of working their way out of difficulties. the community schools program would provide for expanding school days, keeping schools open so young people who maybe don't have a family to take care of them or help them or a family that will be able to nurture them will have schools available to try to help with things like that. sports programs to get youngsters involved in sports. arts programs, things that will give youngsters some hope. drug treatment. there is about $6.9 billion in the bill for prevention areas.

i think you have to try this balanced approach to crime. strictng to emphasize enforcement, which this bill does, plus putting effort, time, and money into giving youngsters hope for a better future, maybe we can have an impact we did not have before. host: that was rude yet -- rudy giuliani in 1994. you can see that in our c-span archive. you will find that interview, you just have to go to 1994 to find it. curtis in maryland, good morning. caller: i don't have a problem with the crime bill because when biden made that bill, i was born in 1961 and i had seen the crack in adamic -- crack epidemic d.c. the blacks did not have enough

money to pay for good lawyers to represent them in the court system. the crime bill i think at that time was wrong, but i believe it was right. it was an epidemic and i don't think i would be here today if that bill was not there. it made me look at something to do right so i would not go out and do something wrong. what i see going on in d.c. and chicago, blacks killing blacks every day. why are we not complaining about that? ast: you said the bill was deterrent for you. what specifically was the deterrent? caller: it helped keep me out of jail and made me do the right thing because i knew if i could not afford a lawyer, it made me do the right thing, that is what i mean by that. i think biden is a good man. it is the bill he made back then. hillary clinton in so many words she said for them to get

rehabilitation and help because crime was bad at that time. that is all i have to say and people need to get off biden on that. i am a black person and look what is happening now, blacks killing blacks. we need to get out and do something about that. get out and protest about that. we need to stop complaining about the bill. host: joe biden one of the architects of the crime bill back in 1994. one of the members of the senate who was also there then and today and voted for the bill was bernie sanders. he was one of those who supported the bill who said he had serious problems with the bill at the time. he said it was urgently needed to decrease domestic violence at the time. bernie sanders has since talked more about his support for the crime bill in 1994 and this is a spring.om earlier in he was asked on a radio program

about his feelings on the crime bill today. he sat at the time if i had not voted for that, you would be saying how come you voted against the violence against women act? how come you voted against the effort to deal with gun safety legislation? that was a ban on banning assault weapons and something i believe in. it was one of those things and it happens. you may happen tomorrow -- it may happen tomorrow, there may be a bill with some bad stuff in it, you make a choice. .avid, flint, michigan has experienced in the criminal justice system. go ahead. caller: hello, yeah, good morning. i do have experience because i went through it with one of my mentorees. one of the boys i stopped mentoring when i retired. they were asking for volunteers for boys that did not have fathers. the die from maryland, that is

what you can do instead of marching -- the guy from maryland, that is what you can do instead of marching. my experience with the criminal justice system is i was really dismayed when i finally found out how the american justice system works. they treat the guys in prison like animals. godson couldmy find out about his trial dates and stuff was david, could you call and find out? they did not even tell him when he was going to court. he was in for something that was not a violent act, but it was still bad, carrying a gun without a license. my experience was it made me kind of sick to the stomach to see how the american justice system worked. a lot of people, judges. i heard the guy from georgia

saying the black cities in atlanta where the people are committing crimes, you have to take it. black inner cities have black people in the jerry's, but the counties around them are all white, so you still have majority white juries for all the trials in like my city, flint. host: do you remember in 1994 and some of the debate around the crime bill? specifically the three strikes and you are out rule, mandatory life sentences for repeat offenders? caller: yeah, i remember that. i never liked that. it was kind of violent back then. i am a biden supporter and i hope he gets in there because i will be happy to have an honest president again. i think he should apologize a little bit for that because i think it did lock up too many of our black men for so long that it has been a trend and the boys

those parents left -- it left them with nobody raising them but a woman and a lot of them got in even worse trouble, especially the problem kids like the boys i end up mentoring. they are all doing good, he is back to work after serving a year in jail and everything is looking up, so i am happy the stuff turnedt -- out. i think the president is just playing a game to get people not to vote for biden. it is not going to work. i am going to vote for and support biden. host: here is one chart showing trends in the federal prison population from 1925 to 2016 and you can see the numbers of people being locked up in this country. as joe biden pointed out in that campaign stop in new hampshire, the vast majority of those being locked up in state and local prisons as opposed to federal

prisons. you can see the sharp increase from the 1980's onward and starting to tick down after 2009, 2010 or so. robert in north carolina, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning to you. i remember the conversation 25 years ago and i agree with what giuliani said in terms of the bill was supposed to have prevented funds -- preventative funds in that bill as well as punishment for those that indulge. over the years, the preventative money went away and they double down on the punishment phase and it takes congress to pass a bill and it was compromised between congress as well as the democratic president to turn around and get something done because i remember i was a captain in the military and i had just come back home from

overseas. new york is where i lived with my mother. that crack cocaine was very devastating, especially in brooklyn. they were killing people very horrendously. they had to do something. i think the tipping point was when that ascot ballplayer from maryland died. everybody at the table was saying lock him up, lock him up and i was busy listening to the conversation and i remember saying you cannot lock up everybody. as the year went on, people were turning around and getting incarcerated three times -- never mind the three times, for a little pinch of crack cocaine for which they are probably just now getting out of jail and those living in affluent communities could go home on

bail being caught with an ounce of pure cocaine. i was like, that just does not make sense. when they try to blame this all , 25ice president biden years ago it was a different electorate that wanted something done. it was done. in and saidss came move on with the punishment phase and forget about the preventative phase. we need to prevent these measures as well as education so we don't have repeat offenders. host: what do you think about the first step act? that major criminal justice reform bill signed into law by president trump last year. one of the main authors was senator cory booker, democratic presidential candidate. bills are not locked in

.tone it is almost like, we did that 25 years ago and things have happened over 25 years you need to improve on. you do not just vote on it and say that is it and walk away. it is constant maintenance of what is going on and is it working? i remember, you made super predators in the prison system when you got rid of the ged program. i think they are coming back with that now, which one of the gentlemen said they needed training. they cut all of that out. they wanted a pound of flesh. they were like, put him -- them in jail, throw away the key. they will eventually come back out and when they do not -- know anything of decent skills, they

are learning criminal skills and getting their masters and phd's in that. i agree they need to do something. they need to constantly do maintenance and oversight as to how well these bills are working and when the bill, in its purest form in terms of prevention measures was knocked out, it was punishment phase and they always said, you need to go back to your home, go back to your home. now, everybody has -- of some sort in their family. [no audio]

hearings when oliver north told congress that when he went down plane witha on a medical supplies, when he got back on that plane, it was full marijuana and not one congressman said anything about that. cocaine,lize marijuana, and alcohol is not grown in black or depressed communities. you have to bring that stuff in from columbia across the border. host: that is robert in north carolina. in georgia on the line for all others, go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead. hello? host: go ahead with your

comment. caller: i agree with north carolina. what he was saying about the drugs and things. all the drugs came in in the 1960's and 1990's. 1960's through the 1980's through the 1990's. our young people do not have enough to do. when i woke up, all the young black men in georgia were incarcerated. i just wonder what we can do to keep those people out of jail. it is always something causing people to do things. that is why i am wondering what can we do? lies do not help, only the truth helps. host: one last call in this segment. mike is in baltimore maryland, experience with criminal justice system. caller: good morning, c-span.

that bill that was created in 1994, you have to understand the correlation between that and what i like to call privatized prison system, which is their runof letting regular folks these entities. it was a mass incarceration of black folks. if you policed the white community as much as you police to the black community, you would have the same number of people who commit crimes and do things to find themselves in prison. it was a lack of policing the white community and more so them policing black communities and sending people to prison because they make money off of it. it is a money thing and it will always be that way. host: that is mike. plenty more to talk about. coming up next, we will be joined by washington post technology reporter drew harwell to talk about how lawmakers are

trying to grapple with the legal and law enforcement implications surrounding facial recognition technology. here is a sort video released last, explaining how facial recognition software works. facial recognition is a biometric technology used to authenticate or identify an individual from a photograph or facial image. the technique makes it possible to authenticate identity, to check that in individual is who he or she claims to be. the images compared to an existing image in a database. a person can also be identified in a group, image, or database. software generates an image based on the faces -- on the face unique traits. the shapeof the ears, of the nose, eyebrows, and mouth. hair and clothing are not taken into account.

the next step is to compare the face with images in the database. to reduce the margin of error, the quality of the image must be good. the face must be well lit. the face has to be the correct distance from the lens. announcer: washington journal continues. post technology reported drew harwell joins us now for a discussion about the facial recognition technology you just saw about the legal and ethical debate surrounding it. before we get to that, first explain how this technology is being incorporated into law enforcement and the security sectors, and how widespread it is right now. policedeputies and across the country, the traditional way they would get camera or video footage of a robbery or some witness catching somebody on camera, was they would pass it around to other deputies and law enforcement and

say, anybody recognize this person? it was a very porous investigative technique. now with facial recognition, they are able to upload the photo or video, almost like a google search, and the system will spit out a couple different possibilities of identification, and they will be pulling from different databases of mugshots. it is a way for investigators to quickly identify somebody from photos that came from somewhere, and hopefully speed along the investigation. host: on the ground of washington county, oregon, you were in the sheriff's office there. take us through a typical day in a case that uses this technology. guest: yeah, this is outside of portland, oregon. they are the first to use amazon's facial recognition service. for them, a deputy on the scene will get a call about a robbery. maybe a store will have

surveillance footage of somebody who stole a bottle of wine. the deputy can get that photo or theo, upload that into computer, and in a couple seconds the system will spit out five potential matches based off of the former mugshots they have had, photos they have had from the jail. it pulls 300,000 mugshots and somebody the system thinks looks like that search, or, sorry, we cannot find anybody. host: when you say system, this is not a system that the sheriff's office built itself. explain what they are using. rekognamazon created ition, with a k. the sheriffs office uses its internal website. there is different serpents -- surveillance contractors.

they make it very quick and very easy for these deputies to really quickly identify somebody from afar without their knowledge or consent. amazone should note that founder jeff bezos, also the owner of "the washington post," that you note that disclosure when writing about amazon how many sheriff's office's, how many police department around the country are doing what is being done in washington county, oregon? guest: a couple dozen departments, may be, across the country, are using it, a couple big cities including new york. office's,r sheriff's including in washington county, oregon. the crimes are different, but use cases are similar. the other thing is, we do not have a ton of transparency into how many organizations are using

this technology. there is no real federal regulations. no stipulation that these sheriff's office's have to say we are using it or we are not. we invite you to call in a few have questions about facial recognition technology and how it is being used. the phone lines are being put up regionally. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, it is 202-748-8000. central or pacific, 202-748-8001 . you can start calling in now. drew harwell, how many federal laws currently deal with this issue and this technology? guest: zero p that is something that civil rights and privacy advocates are questioning. why don't we have a strong about a technology that dozens of law enforcement agencies are using to

investigate, identify, and arrest people? this is technology that is brought into the courtroom, brought into the jail, as part of how people get arrested, yet there are no real federal guidelines for which deputies can search, how they scan -- how they can search, the quality of the images they use. there is the potential abuse of the system, and these worries, , is thisader concerns the country we want to live in, where surveillance is heightened, or police can identify anybody from afar? all of these questions of big brother or these worries, and these worries over what we see in china, how this is an important part of social control and government surveillance. does amazon, does some of these other companies that are creating their own technologies that are going into use -- do they want a federal regulatory

scheme, or are they fine with continuing as things are right now? guest: all of the companies have different platforms, but a lot of them, including amazon, have said we need a national legislative framework. we need some rules around this because right now we are flying blind. is, what thee rules will look like and how soon they want them. a lot of agencies say we need to ban it outright or put a moratorium until we have a better understanding on what the best practices are. companies like amazon are saying this is effective for police right now. it is not an appropriate use to pull it back. we need a legislative framework as we continue to use this technology. host: there is an important discussion at a recent house oversight and government reform committee hearing on this

technology. this is a clip of congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez asking a person who came to testify about this very issue. [video clip] >> we saw these algorithms are effective in different degrees. are they most effective on women? >> no. >> are they most effective on people of color? >> absolutely not. >> are they effective on people of different gender discretion? who are the primary engineers and designers of the algorithms? >> definitely white men. >> so we have a technology that by oneated and designed demographic that is most effective on that demographic, and they are trying to sell it and impose it on the entirety of the country? >> we have data that is being used as something that is not

universal when it comes to representing the full spectrum of humanity. [end video clip] harwell, were you at that hearing? she is an m.i.t. researcher, well-regarded in this space. she did landmark research about the accuracy of facial recognition systems when it comes to skin color and gender per not all faces are treated the same by these systems, and a large part of that is because of the data that was set into the system to train them in the first place. a lot of images of white men. the system learned to refine those kinds of things better than others. --joint research is sort of the suggestion that these systems are not perfect, and any imperfection can lead to a false arrest. that is a dangerous scenario and a precedent that we are going to. host: drew harwell is a technology reporter with "the washington post co. a good time

to call in his right now. at can see his work washingtonpost.com. itter.on tw vicki is calling from twin falls, idaho. caller: good morning. this technology, and more importantly the systems behind theare all part of what u.s. government has built, which is a police state, a secret police state. , it surveillance technology can be a database of photos that anybody takes because the government partners with the private sector. people that are called data aggregators, that just collect information on people so that there is information in a database about them. so while they are presenting these technologies to be just

used by the police, it can be used by anybody. a very dangerous thing. in fact, the entire -- and it is a very dangerous thing. in fact, the entire infrastructure that has been built or surveilled and track and keep -- that has been built to surveilled and track and keep tabs is hugely important. of the system that all dictators in the entire world would have just loved to have. host: got your point. drew harwell? guest: those are the concerns a lot of people are sharing. before we had fingerprints, we had that level, very low technology that allowed deputies to identify people under some very specific scenarios. now this technology can identify anybody from afar, can identify people in a crowd. you do not need the person of

interest to know they are being surveilled. these are important questions. you talk about resistance. explain what is happening in san francisco? guest: san francisco became the first city in america to ban andrnment and local, city, police use of facial recognition technology. it was a change for san francisco, symbolic in that san francisco is the heart of the tech community in america. it felt like here are the people building the system, and they are also the first to say we do not want it surveilling us. and there are other cities in other communities, and california and massachusetts as well, that are suggesting that other bans can be appropriate. i think we are seeing these technologies expand quicker than the laws are responding. host: preuss is next, in

florida. good morning. -- bruce is next, in florida. good morning. caller: this is my first time calling into c-span. i watch you guys all the time. hitlers use to use -- ibm.o use -- thetoos on were from the jews that technology. it has not changed. it has just gotten more technology. host: bruce, would you be in technologynning this , the use of this technology, as we just heard about in san francisco? a heartbeat.es, in

because what is going to happen is -- like the lady before me -- it is going to be used not for good but for bad. always for bad. it is never for good use. host: take us to some of the reaction of the sheriff's sergeant deputies you talked -- the sheriff's sergeant deputies you talked to, how they use this and how they see it? guest: with every technology, there are good and bad uses. you see the deputies and people who are supportive of that community saying this is a way that our deputies cannot just have more accurate investigations, quicker arrests of the bad guys, but also potentially make them safer by knowing who they are looking at when they scan them. so there is that side of the debate. on the flipside, there is a similar amount of passion of people saying this is a step too far. as the callers have noted, this is an extremely powerful

technology that governments can use or misuse, that governments are currently using across the world to surveil populations. in the middle, is the general public that can see the benefits but are also worried about the harms. i think that is why it may be an inappropriate time that lawmakers are considering, how do we want to weigh in? host: can you talk about how it is being incorporated for personal security uses? not for the law-enforcement side, but for private citizens? guest: a lot of people know bout facial recognition is through the iphone. you can install a doorbell camera so that you can allow people access. it can also be used in schools right now. a number of schools are using this at the doorways to flag

when somebody comes in who is maybe not committed -- not permitted on the school grounds -- and expelled student or a troublesome parent. what is happening is that this , a lot of is so cheap organizations are rolling it out and only now confronting the ethical and moral questions that go along with it. host: how many schools, and where? guest: we do not have a good number, but it is growing quickly. last year it was more than a dozen, maybe two dozen. all of them used different systems, but it is rolling out quite quickly there there are private schools around the northeast, including in new york state. you are seeing it in community centers and playgrounds. this is something that anyone with a normal surveillance camera can pretty easily update the software, so a lot of administrators are saying we want the security, too. host: just about 10 or 15 minutes left with drew harwell.

the discussion about facial recognition technology. call 202-748-8000 if you're in eastern time zone, 202-748-8001 for central. reports that are you will have to renew your driver's license on saturday, get your new photo id with a star on it. does this have anything to do with photo identification? guest: i don't know about the photo id with a star on it, but i do know this is an important how they want security at the airports. numbers an increasing adding facial recognition kiosks at the gate. in some scenarios, you do not

necessarily need a ticket. you just look into the camera and get your face scanned, and then you go into the airplane. it is only at a couple of terminals right now, but within dhs wantsour years, air traveldomestic is flying out of the country. also, citizens of the u.s. can opt out of that at the gate, so you should know that. but i think they just realize that they want to be using the technology as well. they feel like it is an important way to know who is leaving the country, when looking at visa overstay issues. this is not going away. suggestions of how this should be used by lawmakers, it is being deployed now, and they are asking questions later. host: from boulder, colorado.

good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling since you mentioned there is no regulation currently, what amazon does about any self-regulation or thinking about how to limit the technology, as to who has access and who can use it. also, side question, any comment about the use of this technology in china? are there any lessons we can learn from that? guest: great questions. the first one, you hit it on the nose. it is self-regulation right now. amazon has set up their own set of rules, and their clients, like the washing county sheriffs's office, have their own set of rules as well. the sheriff's office does not want to use it for mass surveillance. they cannot use it for profiling of anybody, or for all men or all women or racial and religious groups. it is all self-regulation.

that is limited because they are the ones enforcing the rules. amazon has their own guidelines online, but what they do when are're are -- when there abuses of that -- and amazon has said there are no abuses, but that is a question for later. we do see this in china. use faciale first to recognition. -- see it in limited rays limited ways, naming and shaming jaywalkers in different parts of china. they will put your face up on effectively a tv billboard and they will say we see you doing this. it is also being used in a much more concerning way, with the muslim leader population. it is being used in what u.s. intelligence is saying reeducation camps. that is concerning because it shows that a government with

enough interest and enough money and technology can keep closer tabs on their people than ever. i think when the government has that level of power, there are all sorts of questions about the rights we have in the u.s., the first amendment rights that we have to peaceably assemble. and protections from unreasonable searches. those are quickly becoming global questions as we face this technology's rollout. host: thomas is in west springfield, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead with your comment or question, thomas. caller: i'm calling about facial recognition. i have no problem with it, the

only people who should be using it are law-enforcement agencies when dealing with criminals. guest: that is a big defense, that the only people concerned about it are those who have something to hide. the potential for misidentification, for seeing somebody who is innocent as somebody who is guilty, to be a wanted fugitive or somebody who identified asly being a criminal caught on tape, i think those are worries for everybody. thatnow, it is something some public defenders have told me, who are looking at this on the ground, saying it is all easy to think about when you are thinking it is affecting criminals, but it really affects all of us. your i am wondering about

thoughts about this comment on twitter. people do not do the easy things that they can use to protect their privacy. they get on facebook and provided daily report of everything they do, everywhere they go. said, thehave internet, lots of data about ourselves. selfies and that kind of thing. but i also think that it is impossible to totally guard against this kind of surveillance because these are our faces. these are the things we present to the world every day. unless you wear a mask day and night, this is a system that can affect you as well. host: janine in kentucky, good morning. concerneds, i am about the tsa and the new generation of identification that is being used on our driver's license, and that has been mandated by the state of kentucky last year. if you go to get a drivers license, you get a choice of a real id which gives you a gold

star. once you put that gold star on that driver's license that the new generation identification with the facial recognition, that will be used for a multitude of other issues. also i believe it is not reliable and is not valid. it stinks. it takes away our constitutional rights and our common law, biometrics does. it violates our due process, fourth amendment, of assembly. arees rights, which we sovereign states. the federal government is controlling our life over and over and over, and it has got to stop. this basically came from the idl id, from the 2005 real resolution, and they are already doing this throughout the entire world. and amazon, we have become their commodity, and for this to be based on white men only, this is a true violation of our rights as people to live free.

and if you give up some of your security for freedom, you will have neither. host: that is janine this morning on the real id, the nationwide law that everyone boarding a federally commercially regulated aircraft, will need real id or some other acceptable form of id, i october 1, 2020. -- by october 1, 2020. guest: this shows how pivotal the federal government believes this technology is, to understanding where its citizens are and when they come and go. all of those concerns are real ones. you are hearing them from a lot of people. one other frustration is that kiosks are appearing in airports without people realizing they were being rolled out in the first place. the subtleties and how quiet this technology has exploded,

really -- it has caught some people off guard. considering the real dynamics and the real power of a technology like this that can be potentially used against people -- i think people are coming to terms with that, that this is something i want to know more about. host: lots of callers for you. from south carolina, chris. caller: good morning. my question is, with walmart, they have this when you check out at the cash register -- it is taking a picture of you on camera, and it is recording your picture id and the credit card you used, and it is going into the system. and how that is linked to facebook and other stuff like that is, where is that information going, and who is allowed access to that information where they can track you and what you -- where you go and everything else. get the credit card, facial

recognition. that facial recognition that they got -- are they building it? what is happening to it? and can they connect that with you as a christian, or if you are an african-american, or whatever you are, can they use that illegally to follow you and stuff like that? guest: all good questions. i am not specifically sure what walmart is doing, but you are right. it is something you are seeing more in walmart and a lot of stores. with some of these sheriff's office is that they are getting some of these photos and videos. maybe somebody will check out, act like they are paying, and walk out. those high definition images that walmart and other stores are capturing, they send them right to the police department, which can then use facial recognition. right now we are seeing lots of deployed, not all of them with facial recognition. retail is a big market for this,

not just police, but a lot of businesses are wanting to put this in, not just for safeguarding and protecting against shoplifting, but also knowing a little bit more about the people who shop there and where they are going and what kind of demographics they are. i think we are seeing this happen a lot more, with big box stores as well. there is a huge amount of traffic coming into our store. we want to know who these people are and potentially make something -- make it into something that will give us a business advantage. host: our next caller is from illinois. caller: i was going to make the exact same walmart point. i also would question -- what are the numbers in terms of the accuracy? can you put on glasses or a fake mustache and fool this --hnology that simply echo that simply? guest: the algorithms are highly variable in how accurate they

are. sometimes glasses and a mustache will not be able to fool the system. but a lot of factors play into it. a lot of surveillance cameras sort of looked down at people, the profiles very different. a lot of cameras shoot at different quality. the quality of the image ends up being a huge determining factor in how accurate it can bp review can potentially be identified or -- it can be. you can potentially be identified differently depending on how the light was that day, whether or not you have a hat on. all of this contributes to broader worries as to, are we rolling out technology that we are confident in the search results, when really it is just as inaccurate as anything else. host: sadie, st. petersburg, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the question is, i have an hp

laptop. it goes completely by facial recognition. it had me take a bunch of , and different scenarios, like with my glasses, without my glasses. so how is hp using this, to follow up on mr. north carolina? seriously, are they selling it? specificallyt know about hp. i know a lot of companies are using this, whether a phone or a computer or something else -- they say they do not sell the data, and sometimes they do not even transmit that data to the company server. it is an image that the laptop can no. -- can know. but these images are saved somewhere. are on the laptop

or whether they are on a server of a large company -- as we have seen, in a number of cases over the last five or 10 years, the data can travel very quickly without really our knowledge, so there are worries from people saying, look at these huge databases and the things that are being created every day around the country. who can look at those photos? what can be done with those? weigheds have not truly in on that, and i think that would be a big question. host: you can see drew harwell's reporting in "the washington post." thanks so much for your time. guest: thank you. host: up next, more of your phone calls as we ask you what public policy issue you are tracking today in washington. congress may be away, but there is plenty going on. the numbers to call in are on your screen.

you can start calling in right now. we will be right back. the complete guide to congress is now available. it has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contact and bio information about every senator and representative, plus information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinets. the 2019 congressional directly -- directory is a handy guide. $18.95 fromopy for the online store. >> the house will be in order. announcer: for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c., and around the country, so you can make up your own mind.

created by cable in 1970 nine, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. once, tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let 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. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. c-span plus big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. it's nongovernment coverage is

provided by your cable or satellite provider. c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: about 25 minutes to take your phone calls on what public policy issue you are most interested in today in washington. we go to phone lines. is the number for democrats to call in. republicans, 202-748-8001. ,.dependents 202-748-8002 congress is away this week for .he memorial day "the washington post" is getting attention because it is about james comey, the former deputy attorney general. the headline on his column today in the post, "lies about treason ups."o

"millions of good people believe the president of the united states -- what the president of the united states says. in normal times that is good, but not now. we must call out his lies that the fbi was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the trump campaign. we must constantly return -- james comey goes on to write, "we investigated when he was at the fbi. we did not gather information about the campaign strategy. we did not spy on anyone's campaign. we investigated to see if it was true that americans associated with the campaign had taken the russians up on their offer to help." if you want to talk about this column today, it is getting a lot of attention. just one of the stories we are tracking in washington. another story is what happened yesterday in the fallout from

some decision from some orders coming down from the supreme court. we are nearing the end of what is called the 2018 term of the supreme court, and coming up on those decision days. this from "usa today." lawreme court an indiana that requires burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion, but the justices refused to consider the effort race orbortion based on disability. a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life had been challenged in sessile -- successfully in federal appeals court by planned parenthood. the indiana law is among many challenging the timing and methods and providers of abortion that are headed toward

the high court. be 7-2 forpeared to the unsigned opinion. a couple stories we are tracking today. there are plenty more, but we want to hear from you, especially what public policy issue are you most interested in today in washington for democrats, -- in washington today. for democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 milton is calling first. a democrat. caller: you were bringing up what trump said about joe biden and the crime bill. how about why he was wishing the japanese a happy memorial day when they do not celebrate it? and also, the things that he and about joe biden, him

kim agree. that is a disgrace to our country to have a president like that. he is a pure disgrace, and i wish we did not have him in there. talking about the topic on the crime bill because the president brought it up as part of the 2016 election. who are you supporting? who would you like to see replace president trump in the oval office? caller: you should not even bring it up. i am not supporting anybody right now because there are too many people. the abortion is not for another year and a hat -- the election is not for another year and a half or more. does it matter yet? unless we get him out of office? host: you do not think we should pay any attention to any of the president's tweets? caller: no, because everything

he says is a lie. what issue are you most interested in today in washington? here is another one getting a lot of attention. we mentioned the story in the washington post, noting some of the history of the supreme court picks. when president obama nominated merrick garland, mitch mcconnell refused to consider him, blocked the nominee until after the year's residential election. but with his own policy -- with his own party in the white house, mcconnell said he would try to push through any nomination that president trump would make for the high court even when it comes in an election year. whatdent trump was asked he would do if a supreme court position becomes available next year. this was his answer. we fill it. [laughter]

it is as important as these other things we are talking about. everything else changes. agonizing whether -- i said, look, the only way it is -- people have different views. the two parties approach it differently when they get in power. with a lifetime appointment to a --ng man or woman host: the response to that, another story we are tracking today in washington. what story are you most interested in? phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independents.

philip is in henderson, tennessee, a republican. go ahead. thing where we have all these illegal aliens and tons of money being spent on these people, we just need to take them back where they came food and sendthem them back because we cannot afford to keep taking care of all these people. we have people on social security, and a lot of these people came here against the law , and the democrats keep protecting them and they are not protecting the american people. they are worried about them, not the american people. host: how do you feel about legal immigration in this country? have seen a debate over changing that system. know,: i think that, you if you want to come here to this country and go through the naturalized, but

we cannot continue to take the flood of people coming in and take care of them, too. host: philip in tennessee. tracy, leesburg, virginia, a democrat. caller: i want to make a quick comment. regarding trump, we know that he is out of control, so right now at this point the tweets and the comments, all that stuff does not bother me. what really is bothering me now more than anything is the arms sale to saudi arabia. we have to remember, the last time the united states or the last time the united states sold nila terry weapons to a foreign country, -- sold military weapons to a foreign country, sold weapons to bin laden. we saw how that worked out. about thewhen we talk sale of weapons and arms and war, at the end of the day -- and if you are a religious

person, christian or muslim or whatever your faith is -- the final wars of this world will ultimately be a religious war. when you start to give or sell arms to a foreign country, particularly when they do not share the same religious values as you, you send a -- you stand a strong chance that that will come back to haunt you. we saw that on 9/11. a majority of weapons in the middle east came from the united states. that was a very foolish move. trump does not pay attention to anything long term. when we start to look at how all of this is going to come together, i think that sale is going to hurt us in the end. host: from virginia, this is michelle, out of los angeles, california. a republican. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. i am a black american, not a person of color or an african-american. it is amazing to me how many -- i mean, i know they are not

reflective of the majority of people -- how many black americans call into "washington journal," and they are such trump haters. they are democrats still. democrats have destroyed black america in the last six decades. they have kept us poor, uneducated. the main issue is immigration. i am in los angeles. 8% or 9% of the population, yet we are 40% of the homeless. the data is clear. the criminal -- you know, reagan incarcerationss by the drug war, but president clinton put it on steroids. president clinton put more black men in prison than any other president in the history of america. democrats have criminalized black men, feminized black men.

we need black men leading our communities, leading our families. democrats have -- host: how much blame do you put on the crime bill from 1994? i know definitely, people who have gotten involved with the three strikes, you are out. these are nonviolent drug offenders. most of the black folks that call into washington journal do not do research on the internet, do not read -- host: let me ask you to respond with the president's tweet. he uses the term "african-american." associated with the crime bill will not be elected. i come on the other hand, was responsible for criminal justice reform, which will help fix the bad 1994 bill." your thoughts on that tweet? more people start

saying black american, not african-american. i think knowledgeable people who are informed and do research on the internet, and do not just watch cnn and msnbc, those black americans, which is maybe hopefully as much as 30%, but i of the most%, 30% intelligent, knowledgeable black americans will not vote democrat. president trump is right on that. host: that is michelle in california. john is next, irvine, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. that lady is confused. black is not a race, it is a color, first of all. she does not know what the heck she is talking about because she is getting her information from fox news. ,he reason i am calling here

democrats, i am angry with them. we have an attorney general who was supposed to protect the law of this country, and he has -- our country is going down the drain. our fbi is going to attack. this is what really makes me angry. i am worried about the election. -- they might not even talk about. you know what, if i am involved, the president must come after me. this is a sad day that our politicians -- especially the republicans. i think the democrats need to stand up and try to do everything to impeach him right away. i do not care what is going to happen. they need to bring him to whatever it takes. we are a country of law. while we lose everything, we

cannot lose all respect for law. host: that is john in virginia. in his column today in "the washington post," james comey references the investigations taking place when it comes to of the, the origins counterintelligence , specifically bill barr talking about possible spying that occurred. james comey writing in his piece, "go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. when those investigations are over, you will find that the work was done appropriately, investigating the truth of serious allegations. there was no treason, noah coup.n to -- no attempted they were good people trying to figure out what was true under unprecedented circumstances." that is james comey in today's "washington post co. dorothy is

next. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the negative affront that president trump brought on vice president biden. vice president biden is a man of highcharacter, and he is nobility, and he should not be talked about at a dictator's place in the far east. a dictator is what i think trump wants to be. i think he wants to be a dictator and i think he wants to spread propaganda in america to make us look bad overseas. i think that was a very low character hit, to say something negative about vice president biden on the foreign soil. i wanted to make sure -- and i am encouraging all voters to get out and let's vote trump out. he does not represent our country.

next out of minneapolis, minnesota, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple callers back, a woman was saying african-americans do not do their research, but i am a young african-american and i have been doing research lately. climate change is an important issue to me, and it is gaining steam because of how existential this threat continues to become. there is a lot of buzz from the gop claiming that this green new deal that alexandria ocasio-cortez proposed is forcing us into a socialistic society. essentially, government will not step up into the free market and try to regulate a little bit, so we will have to move into socialism. exxon mobil, the free markets, that they had their chance. what did they do when they realized how bad climate change was? they did nothing at all. thank you for taking my call,

and i think we should be talking about climate change more and focusing on how we can come up with a solution to such an existential threat. host: out of woodbridge, virginia, a republican. good morning. caller: we keep on using weaponized americans and african-americans. if anybody was born here, they just should be plain american. termdy is entitled to the american, it would be the natives. let's quit focusing on race. on the bodyocusing and make the country progress and forget about all these issues and that we are together. margaret out of alexandria, virginia, a democrat. you are next. isler: yes, my biggest issue really health and food because the u.s. spends so much on health, and yet we are only 10

with cuba for longevity -- we neck to neck with cuba for longevity. i am with -- she can move us away from the food system, and we need to get rid of all the corn and soybeans. the other morning you had a spot about farmers. withare not making money these cultures. we need to go back to diversified systems. i hope people will look up 2020.com. ,he did an excellent spot on ia npr. e or: we have about fiv six minutes left in this segment. here is one we have been tracking at c-span. it is the continued effort by

congress to move through emergency disaster aid funding. this is a story out of "the washington times, democrats pushing disaster aid through congress for a second time. meaningican objection, you will be next week before nancy pelosi can muster the vote for that legislation. the objection was the latest pickup for the $19.1 billion package which lawmakers had been debating for months. it came together only late last week after a deal was struck between misses pelosi and mitch mcconnell. the bill passed in the senate butay, but ms. is losey -- nancy pelosi was left to pass the bill during pro forma sessions. the bill can then be blocked by a single lawmaker. here is how it played out yesterday on the house floor. [video clip] >> for what purpose does the

gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table, bill 157, the appropriations disaster bill, and concur in the senate amendment. >> madame speaker? >> for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i have course will not object, and i urge my friends in this body not to object. i urge them to do so because millions of people, millions of people are at risk, and the sooner we pass this bill, which we passed in january to the senate, which we passed some three or four weeks ago, needs to be passed as soon as possible for the welfare of our people in this country who have been attacked by natural disasters. i urge my friends on the others of the aisle not to object. >> reservation is with john --

is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky wish recognition? >> the speaker of the house thought this was much passed legislation, the speaker of the house should have called a vote on this bill before sending every member of congress on research for 10 days -- on recess for 10 days, and i object. >> objection is heard. [end video clip] who objectedtleman there is representative thomas massie. kimberly is next in washington, pennsylvania, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. my biggest concern is the corruption in government, all government, from top to bottom, from d.c. down to my local courthouse.

so much corruption, you will not get anything right. nothing is going to be done right. and my second -- well it is a comment. my second deal is, i keep hearing about, you know, the black community was the only one affected by the welfare laws and all that. i come from a family of 12 children. we were dirt poor. but they do not consider that. there are just as many poor black people as there are white people. the whole thing is crazy. host: who is they, when you say they do not consider that? caller: whoever is doing these polls, these surveys, the so-called data on the question. host: kimberly in pennsylvania. this is marian, in lakewood, new jersey. good morning. good morning. first of all, as far as trump country knocking

biden -- what about obama when he went from country to country knocking america, all americans, not just one individual? these democrats are so out of control, they are hypocrites. in every sense. from worrying about the illegal baby that they claim, but they do not care about the babies they are killing every day with abortions? what is wrong with this world? and as far as the guns and stuff that president trump is selling, what about fast and furious with eric holder, that there was two of our men that were killed with those guns? and he said he would investigate himself. where did that go? host: marion in new jersey, and this is beverley, a democrat. good morning. caller: yes. right now we are in a terrible mess, and president trump -- that is what you want to call

him, but i don't want to call him president -- he is out here doing all this radical stuff, up.to keep us all scared congress, in congress, is dismantling every part of our government. most people do not realize what they are cutting out of this country. eta, you name it. go down the line -- epa. you name it, go down the line. the republicans are causing this mess. it's mcconnell will not bring a bipartisan bill of anything to the floor. he has not been for eight or nine years. wake up! host: that is beverley in missouri, this morning. two other stories about names for familiar c-span viewers who are familiar with this network. bunche, thenty

founding director of the smithsonian museum of african-american history and culture. this is the front-page story in "the washington post," introducing him as the institution's 14 secretary yesterday morning. taking over that because i federal institution of 19 museums, nine research centers, and the national zoo. it is supported by several thousand employees. and a $1.5 billion annual budget. and some sad news from the nonfiction book world. horwitz, pulitzer prize winning journalist, who wrote a nonfiction book exploring the ,ultural legacy in the south and his harrowing journeys around the world, died on may 27 in washington. he was 60 years old. he collapsed while walking near his brother's home in d.c.,

according to his wife. the resident of martha's vineyard was on tour to promote his latest book, retracing the 19th century battles of journalists and landscape architect frederick law olmsted. there is a picture of tony holmes -- of bernie horwitz. one more call for you. mark is inwashing -- columbus. what are you watching? tired of congress thinking about what they ought to do. they ought to have impeachments for american people to hear what went on, whether this man is acquitted or not. the american people have the right to know what is going on. these people in congress. these people in congress are scared of losing their seats.

well, you should be, because if you do not do the right thing, you should be put out your chair. --ther thing, my last thing i would like to know, what is an african-american? host: how would you define it? we have had a lot of callers in this segment about that term. dictionaryl, the defines ethnicity is where you were raised. was anr words, if i african man, and i was raised english, my ethnicity is english, ok? you know the only place in the world that i am an african .merican is in america everywhere else i go, i am an american, because that is where i was born. i am african-american as a term used in my opinion to keep the 22nd and 23rd amendment about

the 3/5 thing -- that is all it is, trying to keep us down. we are americans. host: that is mark, our last caller in this segment of "the washington journal." stick around in this last hour. plenty more to come. , may is mental health awareness month. we will be joined by angela kimball of the national alliance of mental illness, talking about highlighting programs designed to support those with mental illness. and later, the hoover hanushek willic talk about income inequality and its impact on educational achievement. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> once, tv was simply three giant networks and the government-supported service called pbs. in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out viewersdea -- let 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. in the 40 years since, the landscape has quickly changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. but c-span is more relevant than ever. no government money supports c-span. nonpartisan coverage of washington is a public service from cable or your satellite provider. on cable or online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up

your own mind. the house will be in order. for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white ande, the supreme court, public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country, so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span's brought to you by to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. washington -- "washington journal" continues. end ofs we come to the mental health awareness month, we are joined by angela kimball, acting ceo of the national alliance on mental illness. remind viewers who the alliance is and what the mission is. hello, thanks for having me. the national alliance on mental

illness, otherwise known as nami, is the nation's largest grassroots organization dedicated to improving the lives of those who live with mental health conditions and their families. frankly, we are a community that cares. we provide education, support, and advocacy around mental health care in this country. host: we should note our phone lines are a little bit different this morning. if you live in the eastern and central time zones, it is 202-7 48-8000. if you live in the western and mountain zones, it is 202-748- 8001. americans43.8 million experience mental illness in a given year. nearly 60% of adults with a mental illness did receive mental health services in the previous year. put those numbers in perspective. how bad or good is that, compared with previous years? actually, those

statistics have remained fairly constant through the years. is,what is really shocking when we think about a comparison to cancer, if half of all people living with cancer had no treatment in the previous year, we would be outraged as a country. and the fact that over half of our country is living with mental health conditions, going without treatment, when treatment should be available and can stop people from having a worsened condition -- that is truly outrageous. about people talk getting access to care, when federal issue that is playing out now is continued funding for what is called the certified community behavioral health clinics. explain what those are. guest: i am glad you brought that up. certified behavioral health clinics are mental health clinics that are in the community, and that model is the model that is designed to finance clinics in a way that actually pays for their costs.

the great thing about them is that they are able, because of the financing method, to actually increase the number of communities,those and they are responsible for reporting data and providing an array of services that are really meeting people's needs, particularly in rural communities. we are concerned because the funding for those community mental health clinics expires in june of this year. ofernately, senator stabenow vermont has reproduced a bill that would extend that funding and provide for more of those pilot sites. host: you think those health clinics are working? guest: absolutely. host: so why is funding running out? guest: frankly, it was a pilot project. and it has been successful. thankfully, congress is recognizing that it has been very successful. andxpect them to fully fund expand it, because really, this

oughtething nami believes to be available in every state, every part of the country. host: another issue federal lawmakers are looking at his mental health coverage, and what is being provided by insurers. this is a headline from lastmberg businessweek" week. as suicides rise, insurers find ways to deny mental health coverage. can you talk about the effort to make sure mental health is part of health coverage? is interesting because the affordable care act was one of the primary ways that this to morestarted moving coverage of mental health and substance use conditions. before that, individual and small group plans did not necessarily have to cover the hope at all. did theyaca, not only never cover mental health, but they have to cover it at parity. there is also a parity law that passed in 2008 that brought parity, mental health coverage.

while this is expanded coverage find lot of people, we that plans are still discriminating against mental health care. recently, there was a finding by a court in the case of united behavioral health that found that health plan actually was using their own criteria -- made up criteria -- to design claims for mental health care, rather criteriarally accepted for mental health. host: why wouldn't insurers want to do that? are they expensive? in other reasons they want to deny coverage? help: health care was -- insurers want to make money. denying care is one way to do that. would we accept that for a cancer patient or health care disease? -- or other disease? host: what are the folks over my shoulder doing about that issue? guest: we hope they will do

more. right now, we have parity in love. ornot have oversight enforcement. senators warren and representative joe kennedy have introduced legislation that would actually enhance oversight of the parity laws that we have in this country, and frankly, i think americans and employers need to simply demand it from health insurance plans. host: nami is the national alliance for mental illness. easy enough to find on the internet. if you have questions or comments about some of these issues during mental health awareness month, you can call in and in this segment. we will have this conversation until the bottom of the hour, 9:30, with angela kimball, the acting ceo of nami. how long have you been acting ceo? what did you do before that? guest: it has been about a month. before, i let our advocacy and public policy. host: why are you acting ceo? what happened? guest: the previous ceo resigned. she spent a strong five years

and took our organization to new heights, and i am honored to step into her shoes. she heard me twice. years ago, doing state policy work, and more recently. host: what do you plan to do as the new leader of nami? guest: i am very excited for what we have ahead. we are about to launch a new strategic them. likely, we are going to be focusing our work on three clear goals. one is we want everybody to get mental health treatment early in life. we want people to get access to possible health care. we want to make sure people in mental health conditions are kept out of our jail system. that simple. host: if you are in the eastern 748---ral time zones, call one number. josh? --ler: i am a covering

recovering addict, about for years. one of the issues i see is that mental health and addiction has a pretty big stigma around them. and i am hoping that that is one of the things that can be looked at and fixed, maybe with outreach or other things along those lines, just to help out people that have mental health issues, so they don't turn to addiction, like i did, and have to go through a vicious cycle before i figured everything out. go, doosh, before you you mind talking about figuring everything out, and how you did that? and how you did that? are you with us? caller: i am here. can you hear me? host: go ahead. i did: before the aca, not have any insurance and it was hard to get anything taking care of. after i got insurance, i went to a clinic. suboxone for a couple

of years. when you are on suboxone, you have to go through treatment and psychology and counselors. program, ing a net realize there were underlying issues i had. i weaned off the program, and it led me to realize why, and what the problems were. host: josh, thank you for sharing your story. angela kimball? guest: thank you so much. that is so powerful. sharing your story like that -- that is what is breaking down the stigma in this country. i think when we heard about the deaths of anthony bourdain and kate spade, that struck a chord with so many people. what we are realizing in this country is that so many health conditions are common. one in five adults will experience mental health conditions at some point in their lives, and some people throughout their lives. common to have a

substance use condition, in. -- co-occurring. when people do not get treatment in time, it is hard to treat. it is important to reach out. nami has a campaign that is mental health month. we are encouraging people to actually share their stories, just as you did, because sharing what has helped you, or how you have helped others in your life is so powerful. that is what is breaking down stigma. that is what is changing attitudes. and frankly, that is what is changing the halls of congress across the way. host: do you have a sense of how many people have used that hashtag, shared their stories? guest: i do not know how many, but we are encouraging as many people as as possible. that is about the power of people. host: more numbers from a fact sheet. you talk about the co-occurring

mental health and addiction disorders. approximately 10.2 million americans have that co-occurring disorder. all the spec sheet numbers available at nami. chord -- nami.org. michelle is next out of pennsylvania. caller: i am going to agree with josh. this has really gotten out of hand. my husband was in the military and had ptsd, and he committed suicide because he was not receiving the mental health treatment for his mental health that he needed. a lot of guys in the military need ofdesperately in mental health coverage. it. are not getting me myself, i did not have coverage in 2007. i the grace of god, i went to a clinic, and like josh, it was a they gotic, it was -- me covered. i am still in therapy to 10 years later, i am still in therapy and i am doing well. that still have my bad days.

and if it was not for the insurance coverage that i get my through the military when husband passed away, god rest his soul, i don't know where i would be right now, you know? and trump is talking about cutting all these programs out. we can't let that happen. yes, i'm a democrat, but it is not about being a democrat or a republican anymore. we have to stand up to -- for what is right in this country. if we do not, his country is going to fall. it is socialism and all these terms they are using. we are going to be fallen. you somichelle, thank much. i think some of the things you said resonated with me so strongly, and i am so sorry for the loss of your husband to suicide. is a crisisy, that in our country. we have well over 40,000 people a year who are dying by suicide. the vast majority have lived with mental health conditions.

and that is just not something we should accept. i am so glad you brought up our nation's service members and veterans and their families. those who are serving our country are not only entering at a time when the majority of mental health conditions begin naturally in life -- 75 percent of all lifetime mental health conditions occur by age 24. and our military is young, and our servicemembers are very naturally getting mental health conditions, or they are arising. in addition, the very fact of service to our country can also create mental health conditions, ptsd. when people undergo things in their life that they cannot un-see, the impact is profound, and we need to do more. we are losing too many of our

nation's service members and our veterans to suicide and mental health conditions that are not treated. i am very grateful, michelle, that you have gotten the .reatment that has helped you it is so important, as you said, for our nation to recognize that this is not a partisan issue. this is a bipartisan issue that affects virtually every american. host: michelle said she was concerned about trump cutting all these programs. fundinge specific streams or mental health programs that are on the chopping block right now? guest: there have been some programs on the chopping block. i am grateful for the fact that congress is actually seem the value of mental health and substance abuse care. we have actually been seeing some good increases. there are areas of the administration that are very much focused on improving mental health care, and that is very gratifying. at the same time, we know that last year the administration put

forth a rule that would expand health care plans that actually don't have to offer any mental health or substance use coverage at all, short-term limited duration insurance plans. nami strongly opposes and would harm our country. , and wein a courtroom will see what happens. wisconsin isee, next. caller: good morning. i just wanted to bring up a point that i worked for an insurance company for almost 40 wass, and in 2007 i diagnosed with being bipolar. the disability coverage that i , only covered for two years, because it was a mental nervous disorder, and my employer had me resign and gave me insurance for six months. but i was hospitalized for seven

months and was disabled for -- or in a manic state -- for almost a year. it was very difficult. i was to the point that i was out of my disability coverage, and i was applying for social security. i got it a month before my disability coverage ended. i was lucky to at least get social security disability. but it was kind of disheartening to realize, working for an insurance company for all those years, that their disability program only paid for mental nervous disorder for two years. i thought that was terrible. they pay for low back pain for life, cancer for life. they pay for everything else, but they don't understand the importance of mental disorders. host: mark, thanks for the call. guest: mark, you bring up such a great point, and really, it is talking to me.

the disparity we see in this country around mental health conditions is actually shocking. the fact that lower back pain can be covered by disability for life, and a two-year limit for a lasting mental health condition that is very profound in its effects on many, many people? that is just unconscionable. it is one of the reasons we are working to change social security practices and insurance practices. these disparities need to end. and really, i feel like they are affected byat are centuries of discrimination and misunderstanding about the very nature of mental health conditions. host: jim has a question on twitter. what are important treatments for mental illness? which are making a difference and are most useful? guest: that is a great question. the interesting thing, jim, is that treatments vary according to the person. so what we are finding is that

certain therapies, particularly there appears like cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, have a strong evidence base, helping people with a range of mental health conditions. at the same time, some people respond very well to medication, and oftentimes a combination. to go even a bit further, oftentimes people really get a findingupport by peers, other people like them, learning more about their condition, learning how to manage it themselves. as for what works best, that is often something that is very unique to the individual. we all have different brains. one of the things we are working on is better diagnostics, more precision medicine, so we can actually get the right treatment to the right person at the right time. host: as we end mental health awareness month, a discussion on mental health in the united states. angela kimball is our guest,

from the national alliance on mental illness. about 10 minutes or so left for your questions and comments. garmin is waiting in riverside, california. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is -- i was raised in a large family, such as i was --hen i expressed a mental like a mental distress of some kind, like at school or fatherng, my strong-will would often just respond with "go suffer quietly." what, in general terms -- how do you respond to what i think is -- that term is brushing the problem off the table. they don't know how to handle it, so they respond to the child

or the young adult, "suffer quietly." what do you think? that isuffer quietly -- just heartbreaking. you know, i grew up in a time that mental health conditions just were not talked about, when people were afraid. and if you think about it, that also was true of cancer. there was a time when it was andrred to as "the c word," people did not talk about it out loud. people thought it was a death sentence and did not really want to acknowledge it. today, we have braces for the cure. we talk about breast cancer, every form of cancer, and we believe that treatment is possible and that people can recover. fortunately, the same is starting to happen with mental health. people are starting to acknowledgment mental health conditions are real. they are conditions of the brain just like anything else. sometimes, it is easy for people

to start to think about the fact that epilepsy is a health condition of the brain. parkinson's is a -- is a condition of the brain, dementia is. there is a multitude of conditions of the brain, including traditional mental illnesses. the more we understand about them, the easier it is for us to acknowledge the pain, and acknowledge the gifts as well, and to help people by simply saying "i care." from shirley is next, hopkins, south carolina. good morning. go ahead, shirley. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. what is your question or comment? caller: i want to say that this country has never had a great health care system, but has fallen way below par now. worry -- the only way

they seem to address mental health is by putting them in jail, locking them up, or letting people role on the street. they closed all the major mental health care facilities, especially in south carolina, where i live. there were small institutions that cannot accommodate the amount of mental health care patients that we have. i have a brother that is bipolar. a grandson that is bipolar. daughter was an officer with nami because of percent. i am just -- because of her son. i am just wondering when they are going to wake up. a lot of the problems we have in this country, criminal wise, otherwise, is because of mental health issues. not just want to get high. there are mental health problems. but you can't seem to get the health care that they need,

because it is always not enough money, or they cannot go through the complete and total treatment that they need. i myself have suffered from depression since i was nine years old. get -- you could not have to go through the system of health care for a period of time in order to get the results you need to get. you have to change medicines here and there, have somebody follow you up. this country is willing to spend $5 billion to keep drugs out of the country, that they are doing nothing to curtail the demand for the drugs with health care. for sharing your story. a lot there. i want to give angela kimball a chance to respond. guest: shirley, thanks so much. i think you bring up incredibly important points. the fact that our jails and

prisons have become the new mental health institutions in our country -- it is atrocious. that is not something we should accept. host: is that new? guest: that is not new. that has been going on for decades, and is woefully unfair. we need mental health providers in this country, and we need access to treatment. the reality is half the counties in our country do not have mental health professionals. years ago, there was a program, america," to bring up the number of teachers in this country, with the recognition that education is so important. likely, i feel like congress needs to have that same impetus to increase the number of mental health providers in this country, and to ensure that everybody has access to that mental health care. no family should have to suffer like shirley's. host: arlington, virginia is next. good morning. caller: i am feeling everything

everybody is saying. sheaughter is actually -- is 23. she is a registered nurse, very brave. last july, she had a psychotic reaction to prednisone. we had kaiser permanente, and despite the fact that we have kaiser, the mental health treatment that they were allowed was not appropriate for her, so she precipitously got worse and worse, and sadly, she has been on long-term disability for almost a year now, and it got so bad that it affected her what -- her health. she is physically sick. she is not taking care of herself. she is down to nothing. borrowto literally money, borrow money from credit cards, borrow money from family to put her into the actual treatment that was appropriate for her. sadly, it was only through kaiser permanente medical

coverage. they deny -- they do not cover the type of treatment that she means. because of the type of treatments they were willing to cover did not work, and she just got worse and worse and worse, it was like they actually did more harm than good in some ways, because they were not appropriate. it is said to feel like even inadequatence, it is . we need to -- the proper care needs to be available to each patient. like you were saying, it is not one-size-fits-all. all the medicines they threw at her were not right. she really needed different types of therapy. we are payingid, out of pocket. she is actually doing well now, but like i said, we are -- [laughter] debt,: we are really in credit card debt, paying for all of it. it is worth it.

she is our daughter and we love her. her life is worth it. other families, they do not have that option. host: thank you for sharing your story. guest: thank you for sharing that. i just admire so much your dedication to your daughter. i think one of the things it points out is -- look how much not only families are losing when people do not get the right treatment at the right time, but society. here your daughter had a bright future in front of her, and she is on disability and struggling in her recovery because an insurance plan denied the right care at the right time. was not able to give you what you needed. that needs toing change. and frankly, i think everybody listening to this must understand that throughout our some ofwe are wasting our nation's greatest resources -- our people -- because we are not helping them get the help they need. host: nami is the national alliance on mental illness, and

if you want to check them out online. angela kimball, acting ceo. appreciate the time. of next, we will shift gears. we will be joined next by the hoover institute's eric hanushek , to talk about his recent study on income inequality and its impact on educational achievement. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ the complete guide to congress is now available. it has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contact and bio information about every senator and representative and information about congressional committees. state governor and the cabinet. ae congressional directory is handy, spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span online store for $18.95.

>> the house will be in order. c-span has been providing unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country. you can make up your own mind. in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. once, tv was simply three giant networks and e-government-supported service called ebs. then, in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea -- let viewers decide all on their own what is important to them. c-span open the doors for 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. in the 40 years since, the landscape has clearly changed. there is no monolithic media. broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting. youtube stars are a thing. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. ofis not artisan coverage washington. it is a public service provided by your cable or satellite provider. or online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind. >> washington journal continues. host: eric hanushek is an economist and senior fellow at the hoover institution at stanford university, and recently helped author a study analyzing educational inequality across the half-century in the united states. first, some terms to get us on the same page here. what do we mean by the term "opportunity gap" and "achievement gap"?

guest: achievement gap is what we studied, and that is how well are kids doing -- from different kinds of families. what we were particularly worried about is whether kids from poverty families today are likely to be poverty families toorrow, and they are likely be poverty families tomorrow if they don't get the skills in schools. so we are looking at the achievements that they have. host: how do you measure that? guest: we had a number of tests over a long period of time that allow us to actually judge how well we are doing. we have something called the national assessment of iscational progress, and it a sample of kids in the u.s. since the early 1970's. more recently, we have a couple international tests that allow us to not only know how our students are doing overtime -- over time, but to compare our

students to german students or british students or what have you. so we can follow these tests over time and see what has been happening. hear fromant to students, parents, and educators in this segment, if you want to call in. the phone lines are open. parents, it is 202-748-8000. students, 202-748-8001. educators, 202-748-8002. all others, 202-748-8003. we will take us until the top of the hour at 10:00 a.m. what did you find studying that data? guest: the remarkable thing -- nothing has changed. that is surprising, because for some of us, remember, lyndon johnson proclaimed the war on poverty, which was in large part trying to improve the education ,f poor kids, and through that through their future lives.

and we have had consistent policies at the federal government, at the state government, and local governments to try to infect lift the poor kids up and close the gaps between richer kids and poor kids. host: what does that mean? does that mean that nothing is working, or that some things are working but things are also getting worse? guest: as far as we can tell, nothing is working. modifyingways have forces, but if we think of education as coming from two sources -- one is parents, which are extraordinarily important -- ands learning schools, as best as we can tell, the parents have gotten somewhat better. educated parents, smaller families. there are some negatives. we have more single-parent families and so forth. but on net, it is hard to say

that parents and the families have gotten worse. so then you ask, what is going on? if we are doing all of this to try to improve our schools, shouldn't we be seeing something? host: where does the achievement gap start? basically as early as you can measure it, you have the achievement gap, because we know that parents are so influential in the early years. the differences -- there is a huge difference between a breakfast on saturday morning in palo alto, california, parents drilling their two-year-old's on colors and how many objects are on their plate -- you see that there are these differences that are not being duplicated elsewhere. so kids come with different skills. what we have always thought is

that the schools can take a role in compensating for less education in the home. that is the surprising and discouraging part of our study. when you look back at all the different programs, from head start to no child left behind, do you see it moving the are at all, and that there forces pushing against that during those times to keep that gap the same? guest: there is a funny thing. and you can say if the gap is constant over this period, that might be ok if a rising tide is lifting all boats -- if everybody is getting better. what we found when we looked at seem to bet kids getting better up to middle school over time, but if we look at kids at the end of schooling, at the end of secondary

schooling, we see the same flat story for at least the last quarter century. ask kids are going out into careers and college, and out of schools, they look the same as they did a quarter century ago. host: the headline from "forbes," talking about your study -- the achievement gap has not budge in 50 years. now what? how do you answer that? guest: now what is the key thing. we have to start looking and seeing whether programs are working. historically, we have just taken the view "if we just get more money into the schools for these purposes, things will get better." unfortunately, that has been something that has not happened. we have to look at which parts of our system are really being effective, and when are they effective, and which are not. we have to be ready to reroute programs that are not working,

toward ones that are. host: eric hanushek is a senior fellow at the hoover institute, taking your calls and questions until 10:00 a.m. parents, 202-748-8000. students, 202-748-8001. 202-7 48-8002. 3.l others on 202-748-800 from maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment about the study that started in the 1970's here. when i was back in high school in the 1960's, i was part of a group that took children out from different economic classes to see what their hopes and dreams were, and how education will affect them. the long and short of it is, these students from the poorest oneomic class, when i asked

of the poor girls what she wanted to be when she grew up, she said "i can't be nothing. my dad says i can't be nothing." and i think that the parental input, if we don't pay attention when these students are younger than kindergarten, and look at what is happening with the families, we lose them way before they get into the later high school or elementary school ages. guest: barbara, i couldn't agree more. what we know is, from study after study, that parents have a children,t on their on their motivation, on their dreams, and on their actual learning. what we have to do is intervene early to try to boost these kids

outside, and we have to have a continuous program of school improvement that makes up for poor family backgrounds. whereif you got to pick the dollars go, all the federal dollars that get spent on education in the united states, where would you put the money? i think right now we are putting a chunk into headstart for preschool. the problem there is that we don't follow up. whenever we study headstart, which is every five years, when congress -- we are sitting in the shadow of congress here -- when they reauthorize the head start program, they call for another study of "is it effective." every five years, we are told it is not working, but we put more money into it as a way of doing things. i think we do, as barbara has

to pay attention to kids early in life, but we have to make sure that they are getting quality programs, and right now, we don't follow up on that. is federal government actually a minor player in the education business, because the states provide 90% of the money still from localities. but they do a lot of the same attempts to have early childhood programs in many places. again, nobody actually is trying to assess which ones are working and which are not, and to say -- and just say, "we did that yesterday. we might as well do that again today." host: let's chat with a parent in grand rapids, michigan. cannot say that you keep throwing money at it, yet nobody is evaluating. i question that, because it is continuing.

number two, here in michigan, and i am sure throughout the country -- you mentioned states our primary funders of education. michigan, funding from .he state has dropped it used to be students paid 20%. it kicked in 80%. now the state chips in 20%. the student has to come up with 80% for college. the funding education. funding education. so to say that throwing money at education is not working, you are not throwing money and education. you are taking money away from education, both at the federal level and the state level. guest: you are bringing up interesting points, but they are a little bit to the side of what i was trying to talk about, michael, because i am really talking about the k-12 system that prepares kids for the higher education that you are --aking about, and they are

that is fully funded by state, local, and federal dollars. drops in been some k-12 funding after the 2008 recession, that has mostly been made up for now. and if we look back over the long period, which we try to do in our study, there have been increasesery dramatic in the funding of schools since the war on poverty began with lyndon johnson. we spend four times as much per pupil today as we did then, in real dollars, after we at adjust inflation. you would hope with additional resources going into schools that we would get some take up in the performance, particularly trying to close these achievement gaps. host: another parent, from

montgomery, alabama. andrew, good morning. are you with us? go ahead. caller: thank you for having me on this program. what i am going to say is that we don't need educational equality. -- we need military expansion to prove we are the boss of all the universe. we do not care about educational equality. parents waste too much money for other countries. host: this is john in tampa, florida. good morning. caller: one of the best predictors of the outcome of a child is whether or not they come from an intact family, a mother and father married to each other through the course of their lifetime. basically from 1948 to 1965, only 5% of white children were born to unwed mothers, and only

25% of blacks were born to unwed mothers. you had that, and there was busing. busing, the supreme court ruling of the mid to late or 1960's, forced children away from the parents being involved with the schools, both black and white. if i am a black student in a black neighborhood, my parent could be involved with my school. now i am far away. my parents can't be involved. that ruined the public school system forever. you saw that the grades, the scoring that american public school students did in math, reading, and science started plummeting in the 1970's. now it is very poor. to 1965,gh from 1948 relative to other industrialized countries. you had supreme court rulings that big money in political campaigns amounted to freedom of speech, first amendment. the reagan tax cuts, no strings

attached, 1982. and you have bill clinton, the first president to be all in the pocket of wealthy bad actors who make big contributions -- guest: well, education is amplex, and it is obviously political game in many places. there is all kinds of pressures in various ways. --point is a very simple 1 that the future of the u.s. really depends upon improving our schools. our schools, as you point out john, are not as competitive as they should be internationally. we are just slightly below the israge of the oecd, which composed of rich nations. we need to bring that up, because it is going to affect our future. the: as we talk about opportunity gap, the achievement gap, i wonder your thoughts of the possibility of including an adversity score in current tests.

"the washington post" writing about it recently. when students sit for the s.a.t., the admissions office might also get a number that rates the level of adversity the applicant faced, based on crime and poverty data and other demographic information about the neighborhood and high school. guest: i don't see any reason for doing that, frankly. colleges today get lots of information on students, and they know who has had adverse background. this is providing new information to most -- no information to most colleges, that are trying to open their colleges up to bright kids from all different backgrounds. so i don't think that that is going to do anything, other than maybe heighten the political debates. host: 10 minutes left with eric hanushek of the hoover institute, a senior fellow there. .t is hoover.org for folks that are not familiar, what is the hoover institute? guest: the hoover institution is

in the common vernacular, but it is part of stanford university. the position of the hoover institution is that scholarship can in fact be used to improve public policies. so it is aimed at public domestic policies and international and security policies. it is a group of scholars who do research, such as what we presented here, in the hopes of informing decision-makers on how to improve things. when you say "we," who else joins you in this study? is a hooverpeterson institution senior fellow and a professor of government at harvard university. laura toby is a researcher, a young researcher at stanford. ussman is aw

professor of economics at the university of munich. host: we will get as many calls as we can. russell is in houston, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i grew up in the foster system in ohio, and i noticed -- i am in my 70's now, but i notice there has been a large increase in foster children. i wonder, is the institution doing anything to look at the problems that foster children have? frankly, that has not entered into much of the education research. that is in different areas and that is a little outside of my area. backgrounds,mily written large, are extraordinarily important to the future of children. host: that line for parents, mark is in norfolk, virginia. good morning.

caller: good morning. i agree with a lot of your callers. sometimes, i think we overthink the obvious. the couple calls for me -- when he was talking about busing -- a lot of people think that may be racial intent. african in america, i think he is absolutely right. now, we are in a situation socially where we are about to wonerations gone -- t generations gone that really know anything about solid parenting, because a lot of the issues the previous caller had mentioned. i think the 800 pound gorilla in the room that we are not bold enough and courageous enough to talk about is we do have a strong need for boarding schools. so for those parents who are not quite equipped right now, there should be systems all across this country to where we can have at risk children in boarding schools, to where they

can have an environment 24 hours around the clock, 5, 6 days a week, where they can come and be secured and be acclimated to emulatesne environment and looks like, so they can learn. guest: we do have some experience with boarding schools, and they have in many instances proved to be successful, but they also proved to be very expensive. and in all of these decisions about education, we are always faced with trade-offs. we can find things that might be better that are very expensive. do we want to put our resources in those things, versus other programs? that is what is behind our work here, to try to suggest that we actually evaluate which programs are working, and which programs are getting the most for the dollars that are spent. host: on that, this is a story

from last year from "education week." a program funded by the bill and melinda gates foundation, and awarding bonuses for good performance to specific teachers -- for student performance. it showed no gains for the students overall. i wonder what your thoughts are on that program. in the idea of measuring effectiveness in general. aest: this has become controversial area, but when we look at differences across schools, one thing stands out. the effectiveness of the teacher drives the quality of the school. effective teachers are found in schools, andnded in poor, less-funded schools, and we don't pay attention to that. the gates foundation attempted one particular way of doing this.

washington, d.c. has an alternative way which pays some attention to the learning games gainsdents, -- learning of students, but also outside evaluators who come in and rate teachers. the difference between washington, d.c. and most other districts in the country is not that there is evaluation going on. it is that they use that information to make actual decisions. so they give very large bonuses to the best teachers, to try to keep them in the classroom longer. poorest help the teachers find other jobs instead of being in the classroom. that has shown, in washington, d.c., to lead to substantial learning gains for the city of washington, d.c. unfortunately, not many school systems in the country do things like that. alternatives has an that has just started.

the other large school districts in the country do not actually use the information that we have about which are the effective teachers and which are not. host: time for a couple more calls. kagan is in annapolis, maryland, a parent. good morning. caller: hi there. both my parents are also educators, so this is interesting to me. there --n is, so -- is are there lessons we are not learning from examining these programs? what i mean is, like, are there things that might occur when --iewing them that are just i don't know how exactly to say this, but that we are incapable of noticing, or just that are too unpalatable to act on? guest: all of these programs that we look at, particularly the long trends from the federal

government, are complicated. they are very heterogenous in the way they are used across districts. there has been a lot of work trying to uncover which ones are working and which are not. when it comes down to making decisions about these programs, we often find ourselves in a morass, where some people like the program, regardless of what we find, and others don't. so we have to deal with the politics. host: why not you get a drink of water as we take one more call from lauren in gaithersburg, maryland, a parent. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i would like to bring to light the fact that most parents , both parents have to work these days. i know my husband has his phd. i as well. and we both have student loans that we are paying off. childcare with the

system in maryland, but how do you feel that students -- i mean, my daughter is in kindergarten, and even in pre-k, she was doing mass shooting drills in her school. at this point, she knows better what to do in a mass shooting than i do. how do you feel that affects children and their learning? parents who -- we feel that we have to be with our children, or somebody -- am adult has to be with our children at all times. guest: there are some obvious things in society that we are not happy with. the mass shootings that we see are so, so unfortunate. they are so unbelievable, at least from the past. ,ut we have to deal with them and try to do it in a way that does not itself in flip harm on

the kids. but i think that is possible. frankly, we know that there are some very, very well functioning schools in this country. we just have to have more of them. host: the study we have been talking about today available at hoover.org. one of the authors of that study, we thank you for your time. guest: thanks. host: that is going to do it for our program today. c-span viewers that i expected a little later this morning. coming up at 11 a.m. eastern, we are expecting a statement by special counsel robert mueller on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. we will be airing that live on c-span at 11 a.m. eastern. will, of course, see you tomorrow morning on the washington journal at 7 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m.