host: judiciary chair dick durbin sent a letter to justice

john roberts to come to capitol hill next month to testify on ethics reforms of the high court. the letter does not mention justice clarence thomas but it comes after recent stories about his lack of disclosure on real estate and luxury trips. this and other matters may affect your level of confidence in the supreme court and its practices. we invite you to call us and let us know your of of confidence in the court. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can post on facebook and twitter and follow show on instagram. more about the letter from senator durbin of illinois to chief justice john roberts. npr sang the chair invited the

chief justice to testify -- saying the chair invited the chief justice to testify about the role of the supreme court and potential changes to the guideline. the story adding the call for roberts' testimony comes at a turbulent time for the court and concerns about lifetime appointments involving justice parents thomas who failed to disclose 20 years of luxury trips with a billionaire republican donor. you can find it on senator durbin's website and itays, your last significant discussion on how supreme court justices discuss hical issues was in your year end report on the federal judiciary. since then, thereas been a stay stream of revelations garding justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and public servants generally. these problems were apparent in

2011 and the failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence, the status quo is no longer tenable. that is part of the letter that dick durbin sent to chief justice john roberts concerning hearing, not being subpoenaed but voluntarily being invited to come to capitol hill to testify on those issues. we will read more about that in the supreme court, but we want to get your sense of your level of confidence in the court. perhaps it is the chief justice thomas story that affects that and also on the abortion pill. call us and let us know what you think. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. an independents, (202) 748-8002.

let's hear from earlier. [video clip] >> serving as a federal judge and a supreme court justice is one of the highest honors in the nation we can confer on an individual, above all it is a public service. judges and justices are interested by the american people to serve the public interest and administer equal justice under the law. that is why taxpayers and not billionaire donors from judicial salaries and court houses -- funded judicial salaries and court houses. they have to put this above their own self interest. a reporting tells a much different story. it shows justice accepting secret, lavish luxury trips and real estate purchases from a

wealth or donor with interests affected by the court. this is conduct we cannot tolerate, whether it is from a mayor, a city councilmember, or other elected officials and we certainly shouldn't tolerate it in the highest courts in the land. the supreme court needs to clean up its act, and fast. ethics scandals and every level of government have inspired reform. congress has amended laws governing the house and senate to ensure there is transparency and disclosure from the trips we take and donations we receive. we have a code of official conduct that we must follow and ethics committees provide guidance and oversight our activities. these minis can launch investigation and -- these committees can launch investigations and penalize. it affects the judiciary, including the supreme court.

we pass appropriations bills each year to cover judges' paychecks and our court houses. we have disclosure laws like the ethics in government act and refusal laws that apply to all federal judges, including supreme court justices. we have long known their shortcomings and ethics standards from the highest court in the land, the supreme court. host: senator durbin serves as the chair and invited that invitation to chief justice to talk about ethics reforms. you can talk about your confidence. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for stem -- for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independence. this is the democrat from rhode island adding on his twitter feed, you know it is serious when a fox news analyst joins my

call for an investigation of justice thomas. bill paschal junior from new jersey saying, clarence thomas hurt election cases while his wife conspired to overthrow democracy. he should resign from the supreme court. on a twitter feed, justice, should be subjected to a full investigation with critical trust in the system and they should be held to the highest ethical standards. congresswoman madeleine dean sang in law school we were taught that justices have to be not showing impropriety, justice clarence thomas is welcome to clear his name for congress. representative mary miller adding on her twitter feed saying justice parents thomas is under attack by the left because

he believes in our constitution. he has lived the american dream and we are blessed to have his wisdom on the supreme court. a congressman saying claris -- justice clarence thomas is a patriot. that is some reaction from congress soup earning -- concerning the supreme court. we are hearing from you in the first hour. from south carolina, on there were in line on the level of confidence. duke, the morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i really don't have any confidence in any act of government, senate, state, presidency, or the courts. everybody is corrupt and making money. i think every person in congress

and the entire judicial system, fbi, everybody should be investigated for how they make money. it is the biggest corruption i have ever seen. these people in our government our just all about themselves, not about us, the regular people, people who are working. it is just a sad state of affairs. host: they ask considering the high court, you said level of corruption everywhere. what would you target the supreme court with when it comes to that level of corruption? caller: i would say that everybody is out for themselves no matter what position they are in. i don't really trust any values of anybody that is in charge. our country is going downhill. host: let's hear from ann in new york democrat line. caller: i think claris --

clarence thomas should resign or be impeached. and mitch mcconnell and donald trump put at least two justices on the supreme court that should have been appointed by a democratic president. they stole those seats. now we have right wing religious nuts on the court and if the democrats get the house, senate, and presidency, i firmly believe they should pack the court. host: vincent is in gaithersburg , maryland, independent-minded. caller: good morning, american people, c-span. as far as ethics go in regards to this question, hello see, schumer -- pelosi, shift -- sc hiff, hillary, and president

biden should be -- the only reason why the democrats are trashing judge clarence thomas is because they want that seat so they can pack the courts with their leftists , insane, marxist ideology that is tearing this country apart. that is what biden is about. host: as far as your level of confidence in the court, what would you place it as? caller: absolutely terrific. it is terrific because democrats are going after it because it is blocking their insane ideology. yes, the supreme court is what it should be and it has who should be on it. host: vincent in maryland.

let's hear from akiva in new jersey, republican line. caller: i want to make sure everyone at home understands that justice thomas and justice alito and every justice from the hard right. regardless of whether you like them, that does not matter. justice is blind. justice should be blind. that is how i view the supreme court and people in the judiciary. by the way, i do have very high confidence in the supreme court and the justices of the supreme court. host: specifically why? caller: i have confidence in

them because they were very educated on state laws for over a decade before they have been nominated by a president. so don't act as if they are done -- dumb because they are going on because should without telling the american people. host: a handful of opinion there when it comes to the level of confidence of the supreme court. you can call or text us if you wish at (202) 748-8000 and some posting on the start of the show. doug saying the court itself, yes. as long as they follow some constitutional reasoning and structure, do not play into pop culture whims. they deeply called himself into question your derek friday off

of facebook saying justice robert seems like the only conservative supreme court justice that isn't bought off and pay for by the federalist society in the heritage foundation. you can make your comments known at facebook.com/c-span. our tutor handle is @cspanwj. take a look at the question, usa today from earlier asking questions and when it comes to the court itself they found the supreme court's favorability continues to be low, 50% of americans doing court unfavorably compared to 48% of americans who view the court favorably. that is from usa today. two the washington post from earlier, -- to the washington post from earlier, say a new survey wednesday from the economist finds that the public broadly disagrees and accepting

luxury trips without disclosing them. six of 10 disapprove with a quarter of those approving that. that comes with the caveat that many americans haven't digested the views at the time. 46% say they heard a little. it seems the responses are somewhat in in the abstract and emphasizing and describing, even the republicans are more likely to disapprove, little more than three in 10 of thomas' conduct. philadelphia, pennsylvania, your confidence. caller: i have no confidence in the supreme court, i would like to put this to republicans and see how they feel. suppose you had justice kagan, justis hagan''s husband that is

involved in groups that thought the election was stolen. and she was accepting gifts from george soros, taking trips and not disclosing it. her family home and allowed her mother to stay there rent free. and then she is not disclosing it. i could imagine what lindsey graham, cancun ted, josh hawley, i can imagine what they would be saying. thomas should step down. he can't be fair and unbiased in some of his rulings. with his ethical lapses there is no way he should be on the supreme court. host: that is milton in

philadelphia. just to highlight, justice kagan never has been married according to usa today and does not have children and has two brothers. jim in michigan, independent line, you are next up. caller: hello, how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. go ahead talking about confidence in the supreme court. how are you? caller: i have no confidence in the supreme court, let alone my own government, and the banking system and when that collapses, everything is going to go haywire. host: keeping your comments to the court, why do you have no level of confidence? caller: just the rulings i have witnessed over the past 42 years that i have been alive and my question is -- when will the

patriot men and women of the armed forces and militias step in and get rid of this corruption once and for all? host: you said rulings, what rulings did you see that influenced your decision? caller: well, i will tell you what rulings that the bronson case, where everybody that violated the oath should have been charged with treason from the supreme court. that is one case. and the supreme court keeps kicking it down the road. they are corrupt as well. host: chris in grass valley, california, republican line. caller: my thoughts are mixed on

confidence about the u.s. supreme court. you know, i find the decision that was made that i think supported sandra day o'connor's decision that this archly is an -- this largely is an issue of state sovereignty. but with the abortion pill drug, confidence has to be more aligned on how scientific or is there a legitimate complaint that this drug some 20 years ago never really went through the proper protocols to begin with and never satisfied so much safety as well. i guess some 5 million women have terminated pregnancies through it. in the past i was a year with a reporting system that there is a deaths associated with it of only be not a direct cause.

my level of confidence, i think, is probably high. i just don't want to -- i think it is probably pretty high, because i think court decisions from the u.s. supreme court generally have stuck to principles of respecting state rights and respecting what administrations do to regulate drugs to the protection or medical necessities of populations. host: ok, chris there in california. this week, there was supposed to be an decision on mifepristone. justice alito pushing the deadline to today. the hill taking a look at the options the court could play

when it comes to an ultimate decision. option one it says, scotus passes the ruling while the appeal proceeds. they laboratories, pharmaceutical industry and abortion rights advocates are asking them to do that. it would be a temporary one for the biden administration. the appellate court's scheduling oral argument and the government appealed for may 17. option two, the court allows it to take effect while the pill continues this is what antiabortion challengers want the supreme court to do. it sets up a complicated legal environment with providers, manufacturers of brand-name and generic versions of the drug. those groups warned that if it stands it would create a regulatory chaos put every fda drug approval at risk, being challenged for political purposes. option three, the court passes the ruling and takes up the case on the regular docket.

experts say they see the option as least likely although they said nothing can be ruled out. the fifth circuit and other court set out -- up an expedited hearing and will look at standard issues. an expert said it is like letting the appeal play out without changing the status quo. option four, something completely different. alito extended it once impossible he does it again. the justices could send it back to dismiss it outright due to lack of standing. legal experts were hesitant to say what they would do and just because it makes sense doesn't mean it is likely. one of those four options or maybe others could play out at the high court when they make the decision on the abortion drug. let's go to donna from georgia, democrats line, your level of confidence in the supreme court? caller: oh, sir, i do not have

confidence in the court -- no, sir, i do not have confidence in the court, especially thomas when he told on his tax that his wife did not make any money. they put down zero. if i did that, i would be paying through my whatever. and also, why does the court go against the people? they go against the people. the people do not want overturn of roe v. wade after it has been allowed for years. they go against the people and why would he lie about things that we know that he has done? he should be recused and put out. and some of them i do have

confidence in, but him, i do not. and everything that the republicans are doing our against what people want in this united states. white don't they leave people alone and let them -- why don't they leave people alone and let them make their own sojourns -- decisions? host: let's go to mike on the independent line. caller: i only have faith in clarence thomas. i think the rest are corrupt. clarence thomas is only the -- is the only conservative left on the supreme court. dick durbin is a joke. they shined the light on thomas book cover up president biden's fraud. intelligence agents signed off a letter saying that hunter biden's laptop was russian dismiss -- this information --

disinformation. host: sticking to the court, what do you think the attention that has been paid to clarence thomas in recent days? caller: the what? host: the attention that has been paid to clarence thomas. caller: i believe this is flanking and diversion by the biden crime family. i think alex jones is right and we are in deep trouble. host: justin elliott was the lead story of several stories with the clarence thomas' disclosure practices and the like. you can find it at pro publica . justin elliott will be our guest tomorrow at 8:00 to talk about the reporting on clearance thomas and take your questions. that will be tomorrow if you want to call in.

we are spending the hour taking a look at the level of confidence in the supreme court. it could be clarence thomas could affect that the case on mifepristone or other cases as well as you tell us about your level of confidence. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us as well. james in kentucky -- i'm sorry your, republican line. you are next up. caller: good morning. i have no confidence in the supreme court but i have never had confidence in the supreme court. we all know they are corrupt. the real issue in the supreme court is that it represents the conservative black of taking

action -- lack of taking action. i live in new york city and i am not sure the mayor would care about violating some constitutional idea to use power as he sees fit. this is something we need to do with conservatives. host: do you think it is the supreme court's position t wheeled power -- to wield power? caller: i don't see any real method the democrats don't care. they have the majority of the supreme court if they had it, they would do whatever they want. host: west virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning. regarding the supreme court, it

is a political organization, because we see the battle's on what brand or flavor they are and it has to be political. there is no reason for it. we could get rid of that. mr. thomas is corrupt. most of our politicians are corrupt, we all know that. we should have term limits, age limits. we should have one term of any political office in the united states and you are done. why should we have career politicians? host: you said justice thomas is corrupt. in your opinion, what makes him corrupt? caller: when you take money under the table don't pay tax on it, that is called corruption, tax evasion, illegality. someone needs to dig in to all

those people, mr. trump, is to biden, -- mr. biden are all corrupt. host: john in florida, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i like aaron thomas. i think he is -- i like clearance thomas. i think he is a smart man. he is very educated. the only supreme court justices i don't care for and don't think should've been appointed is jackson. anyone who can't tell you who is a woman should not be on the supreme court. host: the numbers will be on the screen. you can text us too at (202) 748-8003. you heard from dick durbin on the issue of clearance thomas.

on the senate side, the republican minority little mitch mcconnell asked about justice thomas at a news conference here is a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] >> do you have comments on the reports of the hospitality justice clarence thomas received and the judiciary committee, do they plan to hold a hearing on the ethical standards of the supreme court? sen. mcconnell: the supreme court and system as a whole separate part of our constitution. the democrats, it seems to me, spend a lot of time criticizing individual members of the court and going after the institution. for example, my counterpart went in front of the supreme court and called out two of the supreme court justices by name and threatened them with some kind of reprisal. i don't know what kind.

if you ruled -- if they ruled the wrong way in a case he cared about. they were unconcerned with security issues in the homes of supreme court justices. i have confidence in the chief justices of the united states to deal with these court internal issues. host: chief justice voluntarily being asked by the senate judiciary committee to come to capitol hill to testify and have a discussion about ethics reform. we are talking to you about your level of confidence in the court. mlb from twitter said why should i have confidence in a court that has allowed personal religious beliefs over medical decisions? it literally has no code of ethics and members accepting awards for political activity. others say don't stop with thomas in investigated. there are other justices that need investigated.

the root cause of the judicial system is money, rich people paying politicians and judges get their way. on the twitter feed, i have confidence in the supreme court. they put their personal beliefs and follow the law, except when it comes to roe. you can post on twitter at @cspanwj. when in pennsylvania on the republican line. -- glenn in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: i think everything is fine. how come c-span said they are neutral? they lean left. when a democrat comes on, you never cut them off. the supreme court is no good because everybody is saying you lean right. your show is delayed so you can edit.

host: it is not delayed because we don't edit the show. there is a time delay with people saying inappropriate things on the air and that is why we do that. you said the court is fine, why is that? caller: it has always been left or right. now all the sudden because c-span and biden says it is no good because trump put three in. host: we are not interjecting any position. you said the court is fine, why is that? caller: you could throw the guy off the court and put a left-leaning -- the guy that obama wanted in there and was on the supreme court, then you would love it. host: viewers, we ask that while

you are waiting, if you wouldn't mind turning on your television and making sure there is not a delay when you do get on the air, we would appreciate it. al in detroit, michigan, democrats line. hello. caller: i am calling on the democrat line but am a moderate. i think there should be some investigation into the supreme court justice. we believe he should know the law and if he does not know the law he should not be a supreme court justice. the politicians should be held to a higher standard than me. that is all. i would be in trouble and lose my job if i did that. i believe we have to get back and follow the extremism on the left or the right. host: if you go to the page of the wall street journal this morning, james taranto, an

editor, talks about the pro-publica story in a piece entitled justice thomas and a plague of bad reporting. he makes this argument saying, i would never attack a journalist if only for fear of harming an endangered species. the work is a travesty of journalism and i am increasingly disinclined for them to practice journalism. they function as opposition researchers and follow fax only far enough for a plausible complaint that justice thomas did something wrong as they frame as evidence of corruption and move onto the next accusation. they were also less clear than i was in identifying the actual error, palming that off on court ethics experts and identify two so-called experts, both of whom express prejudicial views about thomas, one in a 14 page letter replete with factual errors the

day after the pro-publica piece ran. the wall street journal website is where you can find it. jay is next in new hampshire, independent line, your level of confidence in the supreme court? caller: that is kind of a tough one. warm, everyone. -- good morning, everyone. there is no rule of law but the rule of power. my concern on this mifepristone case is that they may feel it is a way to sever nosy courts from compelling adverse data and enormous harms being done by these mrna vaccinations, if that is what they are called. that is my big concern is that they want to continue with

aligning this globalist rule by emergency rules that they can declare emergencies and just shoot anything that is moving. with the pigs, they are apparently shooting up the pigs and food supply with these vaccinations without even testing them. they are just saying we have something enforceable on this segment of a virus or immunization so therefore we can put this genetic crab without testing it at all. -- crap without testing it. host: you are up next. caller: as far as confidence in the supreme court, i am ok with it. i don't have many problems with the rulings. i can live with them. maybe you covered it at the beginning of your show, but it

is my understanding that the supreme court rulings are actually unanimous 25% of the time. nobody hears about that and nobody talks about that. they are together quite a few times. of the things you might want to recommend to viewers is i just got through reading a book a while ago called an introduction to constitutional law. it is 100 supreme court cases everyone should know. it gives a pretty good understanding thoroughly and covers a case and only takes two to three pages and they go into good detail. host: you seem interested in court activities per what led to this -- activities. what led to this? caller: you pay attention to

what is going on if you are a person in the united states because you have to have input and a lot of us have opinions and they are different. i like to see what the reasoning is. the other thing is, we have the greatest country in the world. we should at least follow with the reasoning is behind it. nobody is going to be happy all the time. half of the viewers are ok and half are not ok, but it comes down to what the constitution is. we are never going to agree on everything. an abraham lincoln quote, you can please some of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time. host: that is bob in north carolina, for public in line, -- republican line, talking about his views.

some of the opinions on capitol hill concerning the status of the court and where it is, democratic senator sheldon whitehouse earlier this week calling for an independent review of the alleged misconduct by the supreme court justices. [video clip] >> whatever else you goat in government, -- go in government, you will find a conducts code and a process for investigating and enforcing the ethics rules. the executive branch hasn't office and inspectors -- has an office and inspectors general and their own ethics process. only the supreme court has none of that no designated place to submit complaints, no investigative mechanism to review complaints, no impartial panel to decide complaints, no transparency.

all of that needs to change if we are to rebuild confidence in our highest court. without investigation, it is impossible to determine if justice thomas violated still another federal law by participating in cases hitting his wife's political activities. we need investigation to find out whether he broke that law. without investigation, there is no way to evaluate the ethics of the 20 year, $30 million private judicial lobbying campaign run by right wing political activists who wined and justices justice -- dined justices. without any prospect of investigation, there is little reason for a justice to comply

with the ethics standards. when there is no ref, there is ultimately no rules. host: that is sheldon whitehouse from earlier this week. you can find that online at our website, c-span.org. for certain cases, they provide audio of these cases. we tape that and process it and give it to you as it plays out, and you can see some of these cases that the justices debate and hear questions and organs from lawyers. that is all available at our website, c-span.org. in new jersey, mike, democrats line. good morning. caller: form, pedro. -- good morning, pedro. there are three justices that committed perjury during their confirmation. if democrats did that, the republican party would impeach

them, and that is the truth. but i do not have confidence in the court. host: who were the three justices who committed perjury, and what did they say? caller: i think it was kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, and maybe alito. that is when i'm not sure about. i watched the hearings and said they wouldn't touch anything about abortion and they overturned it, didn't they? host: from clark in west virginia, republican line, good morning. caller: let's get down to the facts. absolute power does what? corrupt. ok, no i don't have confidence in them. if we did what jesus tells us to do we wouldn't worry about what is going on in washington, d.c. we would help the crackheads and

people who don't have jobs and children dropping out of school and trying to help our neighbors. these justices, i have no confidence in none of them. absolute power corrupts absolutely. host: that is the second time you said that. what is your associated -- your association between absolute power and corruption? caller: the president, congressman, these people don't answer to no one. these people off on the side threatening to do this and that, they never do anything. because, like i said, it goes on and on. you are the bait and switcher. they are using bait and switch just to keep us people, us poor,

dumb people, pacified and keep their mind of what is really going on. the world is going to pot. everything is falling apart and we are worried about a supreme court justice? we need to worry about each other and jesus coming back and collecting us. host: let's hear from fran in massachusetts, independent line. caller: i got confidence in the supreme court. this is just another hit job i the democratic party. it seems like they are going down the line, anything that they call dirt, they will bring it up and attack. that is what they have been doing for years. took what they did to the three justices that trump appointed. they want all the way back to high school, they lied, brought in a woman that said there was sexual misconduct, but they

couldn't tell when because the democrats considered -- but the democrats continued to pursue it. everyone got their pants on fire on the roe v. wade. the supreme court didn't cancel it, they sent it back to the states, which is where it should be. you may live in a state that they don't like abortion they do like abortion, i don't run my life on whether or not you can get an abortion. that is what this is all about. the democrats, every time there is a judgment that doesn't go in their favor, they go crazy. host: you said you had confidence in the supreme court. exactly where does that confidence to lie? where you have confidence in this up in court? caller: i believe they follow the constitution.

it is not their job to legislate. four years, the democratic body has tried to legislate to the court and they are still doing it. why is joe biden writing executive orders that they know are unconstitutional? they know it, and they do it anyway. host: fran in massachusetts. that's hear from kit in washington dc, democrats line. caller: i don't have any confidence in clarence thomas. and i think the supreme court has lost a lot of integrity and if they are going to be the moral standard for the country in the majority of cases for them, they should have a lot more integrity. they should not be political. they should have term limits. and i think the court should be equal. we would get better results and decisions.

i think what clarence thomas did, he came in on a scandal and slid through. i gave him the benefit of the doubt. but now what his wife does and her friends, there is no one to hold them responsible for any of the actions that she does, much less him. host: you said that the court has lost integrity. was it just justice thomas and your believes in him or other issues? caller: over the last eight or nine years, with alito, him and the other one, there were three, the quote that you played that i agree with those. it is to political now and it is not going to change anytime soon. i don't believe in stacking the court but i do believe it should be equal and they should be held to a very high moral and ethical

standard and be able to be checked by someone and it should be equal. host: that is kit in washington, d.c. the ethics standards idea and one of the things the judiciary chair durbin wants to talk to the chief justice about. an invitation to appear before senate next month. eva in mississippi, republican line. caller: we all know if the democrats had the opportunity, they would have stacked the court as they keep saying. it was under the republicans the vacancies occurred. the reason the democrats are after clarence thomas because he is a black conservative and they hate black conservatives.

thank god merrick garland did not get on the supreme court thank god he will be out after the 2024 election. we need to respect our court and know they are doing the best they can. host: new york, bruce, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am ambivalent on the court and what is going on. i am fortunate enough that i can smell -- host: let's go to bruno, democrat line, the trait. -- detroit. caller: i started losing

confidence in the supreme court after they instilled george bush after the vote counting in florida. citizens united and now justice thomas behavior, i have less complete confidence in this court. host: that is bruno in michigan going back to the era of george w bush when it comes to his level of confidence in the supreme court. it was former president trump making comments lauding justice comments. [video clip] fmr. pres. trump: before election day 2024, i will release the full list of names for which i pick my appointments to the united states supreme court so i can show who i am thinking about. i did that last time and some

people said it was a difference. in the mold of justice antonin scalia, a great man. justice clarence thomas, they are after him now. they are after clarence now, but he can take care of himself very well. host: let's go to lewis in rutherford new jersey, republican line. caller: i have a few things to say. one being, justice are not said be -- supposed to be democrat or republican. they're supposed to support the constitution. abortion is political. china stopped having little girls because of population

control. host: as far as the court is concerned and it's aspect of being political, can you elaborate on that? caller: how can it be legal for 50 years abortion to not be illegal? how could it be? it is almost grandfathered in. thirdly, when president trump got into office, it was ok to send american businesses overseas. del monte was the first one to go. another gentleman suggested the book, i have a good one from brad metzler, the first conspiracy, the secret plot to kill george washington. very good book. host: who go to new york, independent line, rob. caller: i have confidence in the supreme court as an institution,

but i do not have confidence in this supreme court. as for the caller who said the current supreme court sent these issues back to the states where they belong, i want to make this statement -- i am an american first and foremost and live in the state of new york or you may live in the state of mississippi, but i am an american first and foremost and i am not going to have any state determined what my rights are going to be as an american. host: back to the court, you said you had confidence but not in this court. what is the difference? caller: i think thomas is a disgrace, absolute disgrace. host: is it just justice thomas that influences your current view? caller: i disagree with the jobs decision completely -- dobbs

decision saying they should be referred back to the states. that is what brought us the civil war, referring the matters to the states. i am an american first and foremost. host: let's go to mike in cedar grove, new jersey, democrats line. caller: i have absolutely no confidence in clarence thomas whatsoever. he took bribes. you can call it whatever you want, but he took bribes. we need to get to a place where no one is above the law, not even the supreme court. host: what makes it rise to the level of bribes in your opinion? caller: he gets on the supreme court, he gets millions of dollars in occasions. there are all these weird -- in vacations. there are all these weird things on the taxes.

his mother is living rent-free and he is doing improvements on the home. if this is not a bribe, i don't know what is. host: one more thing to show you not related to the supreme court whatsoever, a very significant moment on the senate side senator -- centering around patty murray reported that she made history on thursday by casting her 10,000 vote on the senate floor. she became the first woman to do so. axios reporting only 32 other senators have passed the same milestone in the 234 years of existence. you can find more on the c-span website. here is a little of the celebration that went on after the boat was cast. [video clip] bo schumer is a great moment because -- sen. schumer: it is a great moment, our dear friend

senator patty murray reached 10,000 votes over the course of her career in the senate, the first woman senator in american history to do so. [applause] you are not supposed to clap, but every once in a while pricking protocol is appropriate, as it is now. it is a remarkable -- breaking protocol is appropriate, as it is now. it is remarkable. her accomplishments go way beyond 10,000 votes. he was also the first woman to serve in several senate leadership positions, chairs of veterans committee, budget. at the beginning of this congress, she made history as the first woman to serve as president pro tem in the senate. she is a voice, the senate, the country relies on on some of the

biggest issues we face. when she speaks, everyone listens, democrats, republicans, liberals, they know she has studied it carefully and it comes right from the heart. seco, -- sen. mcconnell: i remember, as you did, that 1992 is to clear the year of the woman, and a number of women were elected to the senate. but you are the leader of the group and you have had an extraordinarily successful career and i wanted you to know that people on both sides of the aisle admire your service, and congratulations. >> thank you. host: you can see more of that on the website, c-span.org. tina in florida, republican line, good morning. caller: i just wanted to say that i am disappointed with the supreme court and justice thomas

has been a disgrace. the leak was not a leak. it was leaked on purpose. thank you. host: renee in florida, democrats line, go ahead. caller: thank you fort c-span and the studentcam and that information you shared about the vote. i thought people voted a lot more than that, i guess. back to the subject -- i used to have a lot of faith in the supreme court until -- and now i think them, along with our politicians, started with mitch mcconnell. i came in 30 minutes to the show so i don't know if this has been talked about, but, you know, it started with h mcconnell holding

-- with mitch mcconnell holding the nomination, obama's nomination and held it for a year and a half. i could be exaggerating, but it was a long time. then when trump got in, they pushed the justices through and did not finish the investigation on cavanaugh, -- kavanaugh. they pushed amy coney barrett through in at least a month. i have lost all confidence. i do not want the church in my government, because i do not want one religion, a far, extreme christian right in my government. i want to run by the constitution. host: renee in florida,

democrats line, finishing this hour on your calls on the supreme court. several guests joining us throughout the morning. next, we hear from independent journalists and transgender advocates erin reed. that conversation. later, republican matt rose and on other matters -- rosendale on other matters. that conversation coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> fridays at eight :00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterwards from book tv, a program were nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators and others on their latest books. tonight, law professor adam rado shares his book, a minor revolution where he argues america is failing its children

morally, socially and economically. he is interviewed by journalist and author -- watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. ♪ >> book tv returns to the los angeles times festival of books a live from the university of southern california, featuring more than 35 authors over two days. on saturday, coverage includes discussions on slavery with authors carry greenwich and kerry will. collins with beverly gage on j edgar hoover and los angeles times executive editor kevin merritt up. coverage continues with authors on gun violence and talkshow host will take your calls live on the air. watch the los angeles times festival of books live this weekend at 1:30 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. to see the full schedule, visit our website book tv.org.

♪ ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch washington today for a report of the stories on the day. listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for

word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. it is the opinion that matters most. after all, this is what democracy looks like. c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on transgender rights and the realm of politics when it comes to those rights with erin reed, independent journalist and transgender advocate who joins us now. thanks for giving us your time. guest: thank you for having me on. host: can we start with a discussion on your work as an advocate and how that came about? guest: three years ago, i started tracking clinics for transgender people to obtain gender affirming care, prior to me doing that, it was hard to obtain that care. i, myself had to drive three hours there and back. i gathered resources for people to find the nearest clinic to them and created a map of them. while doing that, i ended up engaging with many members of the community who let me law --

let me know the laws targeting these clinics. i had to learn how to read them, how to understand them, how they affect trans people. four p -- four years ago, these laws focused on transgender people in sports, now targeting aspects of lies. i learned how to read the laws, interfaced with advocates and activists throughout the united states and began tracking and breaking it down for my audience, talking about how laws affect clinics, medical clinics, schools, public places, employment and eventually i left my job and decided to start a newsletter. that newsletter has been able to reach tens of thousands of people on this topic. host: we brought you on in part to talk about what happened in the house when it comes to the passage of the bill concerning athletes. before that, could you give us a view on the state level,

generally how things approach legislation when it comes to transgender rights? guest: of course. it is really fascinating to see this move to the national level. i have been tracking this at the state level for years. i can see the arguments finally filtering from the states and the counter responses and watching it play out nationally. it is definitely something. in the united states right now, there are or hundred 71 bills targeting the transgender immunity in various ways. a good third of them band gender affirming care, puberty blockers and hormone therapy. there are some bands for transgender adults, as well. things that target things like health insurance coverage, now there is a republican in missouri essentially forcing 2d transition. we have other bills that target schools. it is everything from banning books, lgbtq characters in them to bathroom bands for

transgender students to bands on pronouns, no pronouns being used or marked in any place online. we are seeing drag bands, this is something that is common this year. we have 15 states considering bans on drag. oftentimes, they see male or female impersonators. we saw last week, some florida towns are starting to drop their pride parades this year because governor desantis is going to enforce that. this is to the national level, we are starting to see what i have been watching for years now emerge into the national stage. host: just to give you an example, the washington post highlight some of these. in iowa, legislation that would ban transgender female athletes from participating in sports with a law that enables cisgender female athletes to sue if they do not comply. in arkansas, granting

transgender adults up to 15 years to file medical malpractice lawsuits against their doctors. when you look at the state legislation, is this a part of an issue, a red or blue state issue, how would you define that? guest: looking at the state level, it is partially partisan, but not fully. i would say democrats by and large -- i think i have only seen one or two state representatives, moderate republicans do not like these bills very much in states like wyoming, states like ohio, north carolina, we have seen a bit of resistance and moderate republicans. in several states now for the last few years we have seen, we have saw a governor hutchinson in arkansas he told the gender affirming health care ban a few years ago. this has not been strictly on party lines. this year, there has been such a

fear campaign against -- that essentially some of these state -- have come under control of more right wing republican factions are now passing these bills in a way they have not been able to pass in the last three or four years. host: for the amount of legislation you have seen that would restrict rights for transgender people, how much legislation has there been that expand those rights? guest: i'm glad you asked that question. this is not a one-sided movement where all of the states are moving to pass laws that restrict rights. in 13 states i am tracking now have actually increased the protections for transgender people. many states in the northeast, we are also seeing places like new mexico, colorado, pass protective laws. what do these laws do? face tend to fall in a couple of buckets.

the first get is health care access, they require insurance to cover modern standards of care for gender affirming care. the other law -- unfortunately, we are seeing this often as a response to what some of these states are doing. states like california and minnesota, new jersey have passed regulations or laws that essentially state if you are -- they will not expedite you, they will not allow the state of texas to come in and take your kid out of minnesota, pull your kid back in two the state of texas. what we are seeing now is the leanness to target people across state lines. just this last year in texas, attorney general paxton signed a letter to greg abbott stating gender affirming care is child abuse. texas started investigating the parents of trans kids in the state, even when they were older

than 18 saying the parents abused their children younger. host: erin reed joining us to talk about pieces of legislation across the united states dealing with transgender rights, also talk about legislative efforts on capitol hill. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002, independence. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. you reference what happened in the house yesterday, legislation dealing with athletes. it was yesterday that the sponsor of the legislation, greg steube of florida talked about why he brought the bill up in the first place. i want to get your response. [video clip] >> i want to thank the speaker for bringing this bill to the floor. i want to thank the chair for shepherding it through your committee. i want to think the american

people. because of the american people putting us republicans in charge of the house, this bill was passed. not a single democrat today wants to support women in women's sports in complete violation to title ix, it was created i congress over 50 years ago to provide a level playing field for women to play and compete in collegiate activities, high school activities. it is beyond the pale with example after example we have seen and you are going to hear from some female athletes, of them losing different scholarships and opportunities. i have a constituent who lost an olympic medal to a man competing in women's sports who years before was competing on the men's swimming team. today, we stand with america. today, we stand for women's sports. god bless each and everyone of you. thank you. host: that was part of his argument. how do you respond? guest: i find it fascinating there is this idea that these laws that target transgender

people in sports are going to protect women. you see every single state where these laws have been enacted, it is only -- it has done only a few things. what it has done is, essentially when a cisgender, a person who identifies as the sex they are born as, they lose a competition and will sue or charge an investigation on another cisgender athlete, accusing them of being transgender. we saw this in multiple cases last year. in utah, we discovered that the mother of one of the students that had lost said this other student must be trans. they started this one to two year long investigation. they interrogated the student all over there gender and their assigned sex at birth. they were cisgender. they were not transgender. often, these laws only target a handful of athletes in the state. in utah, they put this panel

into interrogate every student's gender. when there was only a single transgender student in the state. when we talk about protecting women's sports, trying to ensure that women have an equal playing field to men in sports and in life, we never hear about the things that would actually benefit women's sports. we never hear about the pay gap and women's sports. we never hear about how much money we spend to support allowing young girls to play sports. the reality is, transgender people have been able to compete for 25 years in the lepic's. we have yet to win any sort of high-level metal or anything like that. transgender people are not taking scholarships from people. if anything, trans people are massively underrepresented in sports, in sports scholarships. to my knowledge, i was watching the hearing for that sports bill a couple days ago. they questioned the sponsor of the bill, who if that sponsor

could name any single person who had lost a scholarship to a transgender athlete. the sponsor could not, none of the witnesses could. host: aaron read joining us for this conversation. our first call comes from david, massachusetts, democrats line. go ahead. caller: hello. i wanted to voice some support. i wanted to say, trans rights. transphobia is fascism. transphobia's are the real predators. big shout out to west point on twitch. love you c-span, eight days a week. bye. host: any reaction to that? guest: i did find it interesting the caller mentioned abortion. a lot of these protected laws that protect refugees from other states are getting subpoenaed for gender affirming care, these laws protect people who are leaving those estates for abortion access. we also see now states criminalizing abortion and from allies and going out of state for an abortion, like we saw in

idaho. they will prosecute you for facilitating an abortion over state lines. host: james in georgia, republican line. caller: top of the morning to you, sir. host: go ahead, but first, why don't you turn down your television if you can real quick, please. caller: is that good? host: go for it. caller: i just want to ask some questions. not homophobic, transphobic. as a republican and christian, i believe every adult in america should have the right to freely choose what they want to do as far as it doesn't bring any harm to a fellow citizen. my issue is, why is it necessary to force this in the school system? is it really necessary to have drag shows at elementary schools that push transgender movement in our school system? let the kids be kids. that is up to the adults, the parents to choose how they want

to raise their children. outside force like this has no place in our school system. they are crossing the line when they do that. it is to leak -- the question is, why is it necessary to be pushing this movement for our children? host: ok, james in georgia. guest: yeah, i will copper -- cover a couple of things there. the caller covered a bit of ground. one thing i find important, along with some republicans, is local control of our schools. some policies for some schools might not make a lot of sense for other schools. in some school districts, they have recognized that it is ok to have a queer person who is dressed in a full, beautiful costume, long gown and dress, read to kids. i think teaching kids how to read through any variety of means is always a good thing. the second thing, trans kids exist. lgbtq kids exist.

i knew i was trans whenever i was eight years old. the ability to see yourself represented in life, in a school system, in the media, in books, to see art, to hear music, to hear words that come from people like us and learn our history, i think is essential. not just for lgbtq kids and people who grew up lgbtq, but other people to let them know that we do exist. and, to build the tolerance i think is so essential to living in a free and fair society. if we live in a democracy where we want to uplift all people and the voice of all people, i think it is important to not squash the first amendment rights of every single individual in that society. i think that is the case i would take on that. host: this is john on our independent line, in wisconsin. caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. the gentleman before the lady

spoke very eloquently and said a lot of what i wanted to say. the one thing i wanted to say is, i consider myself very open-minded for the different sexual aspects. for sports, i think they ought to do one test. i think they ought to do a blood test for chromosomes. xx's should be women and xy's should be men. i have been to new orleans, i have been all over. there are certain bars where the different -- i cannot say it out loud -- lgbtq or whatever, they hang out. i have nothing against that. i certainly respect their rights. but, in sports, i think they ought to do the test. xx or xy. thank you. host: ok.

john in wisconsin. guest: i appreciate that. i am originally from new orleans. it is good to hear the caller had been to new orleans before. it is interesting, because in history they tried this before. the olympics in 1996 did blood tests for everyone and found something fascinating. around 10 athletes that were cisgender some -- cisgender women, they had chromosomes that were not expected. they had xy, xxy, straight up xy chromosomes. we have learned since then that human genome and that biological sex is way more complicated than people realize. these cisgender athletes developed normally. they looked and were, for all intensive purposes, assigned female at birth. biologically appeared that way.

yet, there chromosomes were not what you expect. the fact of the matter is, human biological sex is not as binary as you might imagine it to be. any sort of thing you build into keep out transgender athletes, be it chromosome tests, hormone tests, etc., they will by necessity also keep out cisgender athletes. my opinion and the way i see this handled is that for people younger than high school age where they have not on through puberty anywhere there is no biological damage, allow trans kids to compete in all sports they can compete in. whenever you get to conversation -- whenever you get to high school and college, there are different conversations for requirements to allow trans gender kids to compete. i think these allow for the most inclusive sports, while also ensuring that we do not end up

in situations where we are taking cisgender athletes out. several cisgender women prove high amounts of testosterone and they are athletes. many things we do to keep trans people out would keep them out and it has in the past like with a runner in the olympics. host: i want to ask you about a recent proposal from the biden administration on transgender athletes in sports. under the proposal that came out a few weeks ago, it would be much more difficult for schools to ban transgender girl in elementary school from playing on a girls basketball team but leave room for schools to prohibit policies -- if those policies are designed to ensure fairness or prevent sports related injury. there is more to that. as far as the proposal itself, where are you on that? guest: i think the policy fell a little short in terms of what people advocate for transgender inclusion called for. it is a step forward for what --

from what we have seen in several states. i think it is very clear that transgender elementary school, transgender middle school athletes should be able to compete. there is no massive competition around scholarships or anything like that going on. not only that, but we have seen young, transgender girls be kicked off of things like golf or gymnastics. it does not make sense when you think about the fact they have not even gone through puberty and are essentially biology accounts presenting and experiencing life as a young girl, as they would. even when you get into the high school and college level, i think it is important to ensure there is a pathway to fair competition for all athletes, including transgender athletes. i think trans athletes should be able to be successful without being shut out of sports. we have not seen much opportunity for trans athletes. we are massively

underrepresented in sports. massively underrepresented in scholarships. he would expect 100 times as many transgender athletes when you look at the population of transgender people in the united states. i think we need to protect the gender-based rights of transgender people, that include sports. we need to develop their policies around medical transitions, hormone levels, etc. and requiring trans athletes do trans and having medical transition for competition. sports have regulated themselves on this issue often. i think that is the best way to handle it moving forward. host: a conversation with erin reed, independent journalist and trans advocate. joel next in spring, texas. caller: hi, pedro. loyal viewers since 1979. this is a serious question for you, pedro. before i get to our guest.

how did you come up with this guest today? did she contact you, or you, her? host: we reached out to her for this conversation. caller: that would be interesting, to find her and be like a eureka moment. i found it, because i am well read. i have never heard of her or this organization at all. host: you have an opportunity to talk to her now. go ahead and give a question or comment, please. caller: yes. promoting or validating transgender-ism --has not done these people any favor. we have got to tell them the truth. hey, come on. if transgender men and transgender women one to compete against one another, that is great. we do not need the guys on the

female swimming team that are male swimmers. and vice versa. this is crazy. host: ok. go ahead. guest: thank you for your comments. i will say a couple of things on that. the first thing is, in terms of validating or not validating trans people, trans people exist. we have been around for a long time. we have worked on gaining legal rights and recognitions. we are not trying to target anybody, not trying to -- we want to live our lives. allowing that is important. secondarily, trans people are not dominating sports. if you look at the sports being played across the united states and the world, there are maybe two or three cases where trans people have won anything of note. the caller has mentioned specifically they were referring to a transgender swimmer this last year, who i believe they called a mediocre male athlete

and did ok. in women's sports. actually, that person was 10 seconds from behind the world record when they competed as a male in 2018. they did not ever beat the female record. her swim record she did, her school record would then the next year beat by a cisgender athlete. whenever you talk about advantages in sports and sports at the high level, athletes at the high level all have an amazing advantages. we talk about the advantages we celebrate. for instance, swimmers who have extra lung capacity and extra arm span. i think ultimately, looking at the field of competition, looking at the history of this competition, we are not seeing -- we are seeing laws meant to target trans athletes being weaponized against athletes, or

being used to force genital exams, blood tests that been determined biological sex is more complicated than expected. whenever cisgender athletes will then come up with x, y chromosomes while they have always been cisgender women. we need to look at the totality of this. who does this actually protect? who does this actually hurt? how do we actually support women's sports? this is not going to do anything to build up female competition in sports. host: in the fight for rights amongst the transgender community, do you see any parallels for those who are gay, the rights they fought ultimately leading to same-sex marriage at the supreme court. do you see parallels in what has transpired for the fight for those rights? guest: in 2002 to 2005, there were states that passed constitutional limits to gay marriage. i remember -- it looked back

then very difficult, like there would be no way to push this back. eventually, people did come out. we became -- gay people became, rather than be gay people, we became your brother, your sister, your friend. it is harder to hate somebody you know personally. we are seeing more trans people come out. people will get to know trans people. all of your listeners will get to know trans people in the coming years, because we are increasingly coming up. they are likely going to be your friends, your family. the way we move forward as a society is going to look the same way we move or it in 2002 to 2005. eventually, we did obtain rights to marry. as it stands now, we are working towards full inclusion of society. i think remembering the history and how that has moved towards the accommodation of communities

that people just did not understand -- think about that. as we move forward in this society and no, this is your time, your place to show you are willing to include and accept people, as well. host: let's hear from joe in virginia, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of points. first off, you have little boys, two years old that think they are little girls. little girls, three years old think they are boys. their parents condone and encourage this kind of behavior. it is not right, because a child's brain is not developed. once they have reached the age they want to destroy their body and mind, then, ok. when they are children, it should not be encouraged, condoned and pushed on other people. everybody knows amy male has a male's dna. a female has a female has a females dna. it is not fair for these mails to be competing with females.

never has been, never will be. you can call yourself whatever you want, but you are not fooling anyone. i am in old white guy. if i were to say i am a teenager, female of color, i am not fooling anyone. people are going to look and laugh. host: that is joe in virginia. guest: thank you for your comments. what i will say about that, i will start from -- this is something we have not been able to cover. for transgender youth, for people under the age of 12 years old, gender affirming care is nothing but a haircut, a change of clothing and a name. whenever they get to the age of 12 years old, they may start puberty blockers, which can delay puberty for a few years until they are ready to start transition. what i will say is, these decisions are not just made by a parent that brings their kid into a clinic and the clinic says, let's go into the surgery room.

in reality, these decisions are made with therapists, with doctors that have been studying this for a long time. i think ultimately, when it comes to trans youth, in terms of how we handle their medical and social transition, it is important within the spectrum of parents rights -- if we are going to talk about parents rights, there is no bigger right than to be able to direct and have a say in the medical care of your own kid. the government is not the one that needs to step in between doctors and their patients. instead, this decision needs to be between the family and their doctors and their care team. nobody is telling you you have to allow your child to transition. however, we need to respect the rights of all families to take care of our own kids you're nobody's going to know their kid more than their own parent. that is what i would say to that. as far as sports, we have already covered this topic in depth. genomes, crumbs on testing does not work because of the fact

many athletes that are cisgender do not have the chromosomes you expect. we should not have to blood test and genital exam all of our athletes just to handle one or two transgender athletes. host: democrats line from maryland. emily, hello. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. i have a quick comment. this seems more of an access issue. i would like to hear erin speak on that. we have seen this happen across the country on past issues like bathroom bills. it seems to me like it is an access issue. if we push a certain group of people out of mainstream society, we end up castigating them out of society. these attempts to do this to trans people seem like a transparent attempt to do that. i just wanted to say, it seems like something we need to get right not just at the federal level, but every state going forward so we have trans

protections and -- in alabama and throughout america. host: that is emily and marilyn. go ahead. guest: thank you very much for your comments. i think that is important to recognize and raise. when i started tracking this legislation four years ago, we were talking about trans people in sports. we have seen how this has expanded, we have seen logs that -- laws that will ban drag. period. we are seeing medical bans, bans in schools. the reason why this is an access issue, we know the organization specifically focused on sports four years ago -- we have them on the record in the new york times, specifically because they wanted to get the foot in the door to pass further discriminatory practices. they said, maybe we can convince lawmakers on sports. once we have got them convinced, we can use that to ban

bathrooms, ban everything else. these were emails done four years ago, plans done four years ago. we are seeing the effects of that planning. we are seeing that start all over again, now at the national level. we are seeing the same conversation again in sports. it is an access issue like your caller just mentioned. a moment he start to accept it is ok to push transgender people out of society and into the margins, that is a dangerous road to go down. you will start to see people push that line and push that line. you will have states like missouri where transgender adults are been forced to de-transition, or being pulled off their medication. we are seeing drag bans in place where pride parades are getting canceled in florida. that is the foot in the door effect. host: camille in montana, democrats line. caller: hi there. my call is about how we are

getting censored in our own states. as you know, my town of mazzulla has got censored for speaking when she spoke out against our right as trans people. she spoke for it. they censored her. during the midst of the trans genocide, it is obscene to do of the republicans who tried to shut her up. i just want to say trans thriving, trans rights forever. i will take my call off the air. guest: i would like to thank your caller for bringing that up. this is something that happened yesterday. it is terrifying. this is the intersection of anti-trans politics and undemocratic politics we have seen from some right wing statehouses in montana. they passed state bill that erased trans people from 40 different sections of law and erased their right to 40 sections of the law. driver's license, birth certificates, every thing. immediately afterward, the one

trans woman representative in montana stood to speak and the speaker refused to acknowledge her. this -- the people did not acknowledge her the rest of the legislative session, would not allow her to speak. they would -- this went to rule, the speaker said i will acknowledge her whenever i want. i expect there will be development today. this goes to show that this is not a divorced issue, this issue overlaps with the undemocratic policies that some of these states are practicing with discriminatory policies against abortion, lgbtq people. these are all part of the same fight. i think that us transgender people are looking for a free, fair, just and democratic society moving forward. host: erin reed who follows the transgender community, and advocate for that community, an independent journalist. thanks for giving us your time today, hope you come back. guest: thank you for inviting

me. host: coming up, a discussion with montana republican matt rosendale, the pentagon intelligently, other matters, as well. later on, zoe grosz of the autism advocacy network, discusses efforts to assist those with autism. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how these issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and

completely unfiltered. c-span. your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> the very first president to attend the white house correspondents dinner with calvin coolidge in 1924. i have just been elected to the united states senate. [laughter] >> the white house correspondents dinner, washington's premier black tie event is saturday, april 29 at 8:00 p.m. eastern. watch c-span's live coverage from the washington hilton hotel including red carpet arrivals of journalists, politicians and celebrities. this year's headliner is the daily show's roy wood junior and president biden is expected to speak. the white house correspondents dinner, live saturday, april 29 on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> sunday night on q and a in

her book, untold power, a biography of first lady edith wilson, author and educator rebecca roberts talks about mrs. wilson's upbringing in southwestern virginia, her influence on the role of first lady and the extent to which she secretly covered for president wilson after he became an cap passage aided by his stroke. >> who was she to pull that off? this country bumpkin who decided she could be the executive? throughout her life, she showed she was the kind of person to barrel into a situation she might not know exactly how to handle and handled it beautifully. confident, smart, she relied on her own opinions. she was funny. she was one of those people -- she was also quick to hold a grudge. she was racist. she had a somewhat fickle regard to the truth. >> rebecca roberts and her book, untold power. sunday night at 8:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and a and our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now from capitol hill, representative matt rosendale, republican of montana. thanks for your time today. guest: good morning. thanks for having me on. host: we have seen the unveiling of the debt ceiling plan from speaker mccarthy. what is your expectation if this will pass next week? guest: i think we are just about there, pedro. i think we've got a good plan put together. it is going to do four main things. number one, it is going to fund government responsibly. that has not been done last two years under the. it is going to put caps on the spending. we all believe government is big enough we should not continue to

grow it. that is the first thing. the next thing is, it is going to claw back a lot of the irresponsible spending that has been proposed and approved by democrats the last two years. we are going to resend the $400 billion of student redistribution program they were trying to push through. we are going to resend the additional funding put forth for out-of-control, new green deal projects, try to force people to use a battery-operated car. which, i can tell you, is not going over really well in montana. we are going to resend the funding for the 87,000 irs agents going out trying to cause problems for our small businesses, which is a lot of farmers and ranchers in montana. the next thing is provide additional money to add to that bucket, to make sure we find government properly, to get us through the next several months.

finally, there is a lot of provisions in there to grow the economy. that is what we must do if we are ever going to truly address the national debt we are facing right now. at $31.6 trillion, the american people and the american economy just cannot continue to support that amount of debt. we cannot do it. we will start having problems with medicare and social security if we do not address that. we have got provisions like hr one that is going to expand our domestic energy production. it is going to streamline the process with which we can build pipelines and export facilities for natural gas to help our allies overseas. it is going to also make sure we streamline the process to mine our critical minerals domestically instead of relying upon our adversaries overseas. host: you said you were just about there. there is reporting several republicans still not on board. nancy mace being one of those,

others as well. is there potential the vote could fall short? guest: i think we are going to get a package over to the senate to responsibly fund government very soon. then, it is in the senate's lap to see if they want to politics with it or whether they can work for the american people. host: as far as the deal itself, if it does not get to the senate and it fails in the senate, what is the ultimate plan besides going back to the default date? guest: the house of representatives is going to have to be the adults in the room. we are going to send a package to the senate to make sure we, once again, responsibly fund government and that it is going to be up to them to determine whether they want to play politics or do what is right for the american people. host: a package the senate would approve, specifically. guest: i think they should. then, you're going to have have conversations with chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell to see if they actually will. host: our guest with us until

9:10. call us at (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 fior democrats -- for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the house minority leader has things to say about this package introduced. i want to play it and see your response. [video clip] >> of course we were willing to have a conversation about what future spending and investments in the house, safety and economic well-being of the american people should be. the process to do that is the budget process and the appropriations process. by the way, extreme maga republicans temporarily hold the majority. they control the process. so, it is unclear to me why we are still waiting for republicans to put their budget into the public domain.

not talking points, not speeches, a budget. once they have a budget, i think we are all willing to sit down and have a conversation about spending priorities that makes sense for the american people. host: representative rosendale, what do you think of those comments? guest: the democrats want nothing more than to see a budget, it is nothing more than a wish list. while it is important to allow the american people to see where you are going, what really matters is legislation. we have put forward hr one, the most important piece of legislation that america needs to address this congress, which is to increase our domestic energy production. it is to make sure we get our economy strong. it is to make sure our national security is strong. by reducing the cost of energy, what we will do is tackle these out-of-control -- this out of

control inflation democrats have been fueling the last two years. that is nothing more than talking points. legislation is what is governed. what you are going to see is the solution to our debt ceiling that be sent over the to the senate very soon. then, we are going to tackle the appropriation bills. the appropriation bills themselves are truly direct spending, not the budget. the budget is merely the wish list. the appropriation bills, which will be 12 bills that actually break down what the cost of government is and where we are going to spend money to fund it. that is the second part that will be followed up soon. host: representative max rosendale. your first collar is from texas, independent line. you are on with our guest, robert. go ahead. caller: to your guest, you do believe in the constitution, correct? guest: absolutely. swore an oath --

>> you all there in congress swore an oath to protect and defend that constitution, did you not? guest: absolutely, robert. caller: ok. let's get down to what the actual articles are in that constitution about congress, their purpose, their number one purpose is to have -- to pass a budget, enact the laws that govern the money that is spent in this country. that is their primary goal, their primary purpose stated out in the constitution. i do not think this whole thing about raising the debt every six months, every eight months, using it as a political tool makes any sense at all if the people in congress cannot fulfill their duty to pass a budget. that budget should be something

that, if they fail to do that, their pay is eliminated until which time they get a budget passed. host: robert in texas, thanks for the call. guest: i appreciate robert's call. i had been a strong supporter of the balanced budget a minute united states constitution for any years. that is not just the talking point that it's come around for many folks the last five to 10 years. i can go all the way back to the time when i was 20 years of age in 1980. i think it is critically important. right now what i am responsible for is making sure we pay the debts that previous congresses have already generated and looking forward to make sure the debt is reduced as much as i possibly can. i am trying to take the pieces we have right now and put this mess back together. we are trying to cure the sins

of previous congresses. that is why i like the things we have been able to put together in this debt ceiling proposal that is going to go to the senate. we are going to address right now the additional spending, claw that back, take those funds and put it into the bucket to support the treasury. looking forward, we are going to freeze those expenditures so they are going to have a ceiling on them. i think we've got the best of both worlds we can expect right now. host: in michigan, this is from brent, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. representative mays on c-span several days ago had the audacity to say the only presidents to have submitted a balanced budget were nixon and clinton. i suppose the republicans probably have some reprimands like they did for liz cheney for her audacity to say that. anyways, cutting spending and

lower taxes, that is the republican mind trickle going back to reagan, who never submitted a single allen's budget. tax cuts are comparable to a person unable to pay bills, asking their employer to cut my pay. one thing for sure, smart people do not pay their taxes because donald trump told us so. we elected him president and we know he is a stable genius because he told us that, also. host: do you have a direct question for our guest? caller: a direct question? republicans play these shenanigans. a democrat is in the white house. they never challenged -- never tried to use these tactics when trump was there. host: ok. that is brent in michigan. guest: what i will tell you is, we continue to hear about the budget. there have been so many budgets proposed by every congress that has come before may.

quite frankly, they are nothing more then plans that people would like to have lament. what we are responsible for, what we have control over each congress is, what takes place during our congress. we cannot guarantee the result of future congresses. that is why budgets that are balanced out that are five or 10 years do not really carry that much impact. they just do not. what is important are the 12 appropriation bills that will be presented this summer, that congress has not done for many years now to say, this is exactly what we are going to fund in government. this is the level with which we are going to fund them at. then, we are going to send those bills to the senate. that is what counts. i will also tell you and the listeners need to remind themselves of this, lower taxes stimulate the economy without devaluing the dollar.

that is critically important. while the democrats have tried to argue against this for quite some time, every time we see the taxes are reduced, we see revenues get increased for the federal government. when the tax cuts and jobs act were passed, what we saw is the revenue from the federal government in 2019 was at $4 trillion. now, we are going to receive probably in the neighborhood of $5 trillion, a nearly $1 trillion a year increase of revenue coming into the federal government. that is not our problem. our problem is, the current biden administration has proposed $6.8 trillion in spending, which is a void of anyone's -- $1.8 trillion a year immediately going towards the federal deficit. meanwhile in 2019, while we were collecting $4 trillion of revenue, the expenditures for

the federal government were $5.14 trillion. we were still running a deficit, but now we have increased the revenue to nearly equal what the government costs were in 2019. that is why congress is right now taking a two-pronged approach and saying, we are going to freeze spending in 22 levels and going to start allocating revenue at much closer levels to where the revenue stream coming in is at. host: there is a story in the washington times this morning, it makes the case in this process for the debt ceiling it says this. leadership set to circumvent the committee process on the proposal to slash spending the legislation to be assembled in the house rules committee rather than the appropriations are budget panels. this goes back to the idea of following regular order when it comes to these processes. guest: i am a big fan of regular

order. in january of this year, i got together with colleagues and we fought hard to make sure we could restore regular order to the house floor to make sure we could have single subject legislation -- we would have 72 hours to review the legislation. we have done much of that. you are going to see, again, this is a piece of legislation that is not going to fund all levels of government. it -- the 12 appropriations bills are going through regular order, that is where everyone will have the ability to give their input to propose amendments and say they want to increase or reduce the levels of funding for government that we are going to see the next 18 months. host: let's hear from chuck, republican line from florida. caller: hey there, how are you doing? thanks for letting me get on here. i've got a couple of questions. first, i want to state that i have been a lifelong republican.

i have misused credit cards all my life. i am now 64. i am retired and still have got all this debt that i am having trouble paying off now. it is really responsible. everything, the democrats are doing, to run our debt up. of course, i do not have six point trillion dollars in debt i am trying to add to myself. i'm trying to rein in the reckless spending i have done throughout my life. i guess my question to the guest is, do you agree people that recklessly spend not only like myself or the people in congress are kind of ruining this country? trying to make us actually broke? host: thanks, chuck. guest: i appreciate that question. i do not know if they are trying to make us broke. what i have to deal with is the

byproduct of that. that is why we have got to reduce his spending. there is a lot of people who run for office that campaign on the fact they want to fix congress, congress is broke, they want to reduce spending. when they get here, they do not take the steps that are necessary. they are tough steps, they are necessary to do so. i am trying to do that. we are not going to be able to accomplish that all in one year. that is why we proposed this plan, to freespending at these levels, to start clawing back some of this reckless spending you are talking about and make sure those funds go back into the bucket to pay our current wills. then, we have to make sure we support legislation. it is not just hr one, which is to get our energy and our mining industries back to speed, to help our national security. also, there is another provision

called the rains act. that is to make sure as different regulations are proposed by the executive -- it does not matter whether it is a republican or democrat president, these regulations start getting proposed, congress has the ability to review them and resend them immediately if they are going to have a large, financial impact on the businesses which then translate into higher costs for people across the nation. i think the spending that people have conducted means to be responsibly taken care of by those very individuals. host: in colorado, max, independent line. caller: hi, good morning, c-span. i have a comment and i have a question for our guest. first of all, i heard you blame biden for the debt that you are trying to keep from happening. when trump was in office, your

leader -- you were not complaining when he was driving up the debt more than any other president in our past, when he was giving rich people, the corporations tax cuts. i wish you could square that up, because we are still dealing with that too. i have a comment about that. my real question has to do with something about another comment you made earlier. certain democrats are playing -- want to play politics with the budget this year. i cannot think of anything more political then, look at our budget to the safety of our economy -- in fact, i would call out political terrorism. you know as much as anybody, how much it will hurt everyone if you let that debt limit by and we cannot pay our debts. i wish you would comment on how you think you would help us

after you let the debt limit not get raised. thanks. host: max in colorado. guest: when i will tell you is republicans and democrats alike have been responsible for this debt. let's clear that up right now. it has been nonpartisan overspending. i agree with that. that is why i am doing my job to represent the people of montana and across this nation to rein that spending in. it is around $31.6 trillion did not happen around one admits ration. we have to do something about changing the trajectory of our spending. the other thing is, what i said is not the democrats are playing politics. we are going to send this over to the senate. we will see if the it is going to address a lot of the problems the debt ceiling does not. we do not exceed the debt ceiling. it is going to be up to the united states senate to make sure they pay us back and bring

it back to us. host: when it comes of these document leaks out of the pentagon, would you expect the house to do in look to the matters? i want to make clear i will not support any additional legislation that is going to expand their abilities for the federal government to conduct surveillance on american citizens. i'm tired every time there is an elite -- leak of information from the federal government, the first place they look to the citizens of our country to try and increase the amount of surveillance they conduct on that. the federal government needs to get their house in order and make sure they have proper cyber security measures in place and other security measures in place so they can protect their own documents. i'm concerned with when this information was leaked out what we found out immediately was we had military special forces on

the ground in ukraine. as a member of congress, that was never approved. i do not know where the executive -- president biden it feels he can start putting's military forces on the ground -- he can start putting military forces on the ground without approval from congress. you have -- we have written a letter to demand information of how many troops are over there, why are they doing, how long have they been there, are they conducting any type of war activities, are they training. host: the white house said it was for security and training. press secretary saint yesterday saying it was not new news -- saying yesterday it was not new news. guest: it is absolutely false. we want to and verified information about exactly what is going on with the troops, are there any plans to increase the number of troops that are going

to be set there? americans people need to know and congress needs to know this and it is not been authorized. host: chuck in florida on the democrats line, go ahead. caller: two trucks from ford in the same day. you keep saying you are worried about the deficit, while so i my but let's face it the only two presidents -- so am i but let's face it the only two presidents, started this crop was democrats. that says a lot. if you want to stop the increase, do it when you have a republican president because it seems like it only matters when we have a democratic president. another thing i want to thank you guys for working on this. when you going to get around to

saudi arabia? thank you. guest: i would like to say everyone continues to try an essay is a republican versus democrat's -- try and say it trs a republican versus democrats. there is to much spending under all administrations. i'm here now and i'm trying to rein it in. they talk about tax cuts for the wealthy but they fell to acknowledge the revenue has gone up from $4 trillion to $5 trillion a year. since the tax cuts and job at. it does work and there is more tax reduction for people across the nation and we more people increasing their income and reaching the middle class that have been demonstrated in decades. bipartisan manner, we have increased spending, it is my job to rein it in and change

trajectory right now. host: from ohio, republican line. caller: i really appreciate what you are saying, the energy sector and trying to bring energy back. i'm a believer that we can never have effective manufacturing base without cheap abundant, energy and i'm worried about we try to turn the corners, how esg in the marketplace and the stock market and other investment areas are trying to make it impossible for us to have the same free energy situation we have had in previous years. what can congress do to push that esg factor outside of our energy base? guest: i appreciate that question. the environmental social government guidelines that some

financial institutions are starting to implement. fcc is trying to force upon them. i think the sec needs to say in their lane as we say. they should be making sure that the investments and information given to the investors are true and accurate and should not be dictating where it goes to. stockholders across this country need to start holding their boards accountable whether it is for bei requirements or -- dei requirements or esg requirements. you're supposed to try and make sure you increase the of this company regardless of what it is and not be looking at social governance types of criteria before they make investments. i am concerned about the impact it is having on our energy development communities. i got a large footprint for energy development in montana. we have oil, gas. a lot of these resources and

i've been talking to the people -- what we see our independent drillers are the ones that go out and do the most discovery. they do the primary work to try to identify where these resources are available and yesterday identify whether resources are available and they can get a large claim together, that's when it ends up being turned over to a larger, more known energy companies. we are down nearly 2 billion barrels a day of crude oil production here in domestically and when i talk to those producers and they say they used to be able to choose from about 12 or 15 different investors to provide capital because it costs a lot of money to drill a well and now they are down to about three. what they are doing, this administration and quite frankly, radical environmentalists are trying to choke off the capital that is

necessary for us to develop our energy and that is very dangerous. not just talking about manufacturing and the economy. we are talking about national security and how it impacts us. host: are you going to run for senate? guest: we have a lot of time to figure out when jon tester is going to be replaced. he will be replaced. he does not represent the people of montana. over the next 12 months they'll make a decision about who they want to replace him. host: as far as your own interest in the position? guest: i've always said that all i want to do is serve the people where to be the most effective for them. i am going to do my job here is kitty congress -- in the congress until i do something different. host: donna, republican line. your own with representative rosendale. caller: good morning.

i think biden the spent money like a drunken sailor and i notice he panders to a lot of different groups in the country. he hands out money and i just read that green climate fund will be $1 billion richer from thursday after president joe biden gives it a cash donation courtesy of u.s. taxpayers. he can just write and give money away like he wants? guest: i think -- i would like to say it is me to say they are spending money like a drunken sailors because drunken sailors spend their own money and unfortunately information -- the administration has been spending other people's money. it is one of the reasons we are calling back a lot of these new greendale provisions because they are nothing more than propping up industries that

otherwise would not be able to support themselves under the current economic factors. we need to allow industry to develop. we need to allow industry to innovate and to determine what is the best way to produce the energy that the nation demands. i'm a firm believer in the marketplace, identifying these areas, and trying to pursue it. host: we are having a discussion with residents of rosendale joining us for this discussion and we are appreciate this time. final segment of the day, our next guest zoe gross talking about federal and state efforts to help those with autism and their families as well. that conversation coming up on "washington journal." ♪\ ♪

>> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from house and senate fours to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat around issues debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span your unfiltered view of government. ♪ the very first president to attend the white house correspondent dinner was in and i just been elected to the united states senate. the white house correspondents dinner, washington's premier black tie event is saturday april 29 at 8 p.m. eastern.

watch c-span live coverage including red carpet arrivals of journalists, politicians, and celebrities. this year headliner roy wood junior and president biden expected to speak. the white house correspondent dinner live saturday, april 29 on c-span, c-span now are free mobile app or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a in her book untold power biography of first lady edith listen, educator rebecca roberts talks about the influence of the role of first lady and the extent to which she covered for president wilson after he became incapacitated by a stroke in 1919. >> who was she to pull this off? who is this country duncan who decided she could be the executive but throughout her life she showed she was the kind

of person to burrow into a situation she might not know exactly how to handle and handle it beautifully. confident, smart. she relied on her own opinion. funny. she was one of those people who put everyone at ease. she was also quick to hold a grudge. she had a trickle regard for the truth. >> rebecca roberts and her book sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern. you can listen to q&a and our podcast on our free c-span now app. >> how they democracy does not just look like this, it looks like -- a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this. citizens are truly informed. her public thrives. -- a republic drives -- thrives.

for the nation capital to wherever you are, the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: 20 because it is the director of argosy -- of advocacy. good morning. thank you for giving us your time. tell us about the organization and what it does. guest: the autistic self advocacy network is an organization run by and for autistic adults. we focus on policy that impacts autistic people and people with other developmental abilities. expanding medicaid and health services. we provide policy education material aimed at people with

intellectual disabilities so for example, school kids that may -- break them down into -- we run at a variety of programs including leadership training for autistic college students. that's a quick overview of what we do. host: for those who are still may be getting a sense of what it is. how is it defined these days and how would you describe it to people? guest: autism is a development of disability. it is something you are born with. it affects the way you think, move, socialize, communicate. it affects the way you plan and organize, your executive function. it can affect you in daily life we may need more assistance like caring for yourself. there are a wide variety of ways autism can manifest. there is a common saying if you know one person who is autistic you know what is a person but it is different for every person. host: for people who are diagnosed with autism and those that know them, their

misconceptions that you have to fight against or kind of educate about. what will be the misconceptions? guest: the idea that people do not -- autistic people do not care about others. i hear that one frequently. autistic people care about others as much as everyone else but we do not have an innate sense of what other people are feeling so i cannot look at you know that you are upset or bored. you would have to tell me how you are feeling. it is not that i do not care. i just do not know. that is very different from not caring about you as a person. host: how many people in u.s. have autism? guest: one in 36 children in u.s. artistic and based on 2020 data. the cdc does not take numbers for adults in the same way. we can guess that numbers are similar but fewer adults have official diagnosis because diagnoses have gone up in recent years as doctors learn more about autism and recognize the

way in manifest. host: how has it changed as far as diagnosis process? guest: many more doctors are familiar with autism so it is not be missed as many kids as previously. there are diagnostic disparities, it is harder for young girls get diagnosis. there were racial disparities and we have seen those narrow. used to be harder for children of color. host: if a doctor is going to the process of diagnosis, what signs are they looking for? what questions do they ask in determine a diagnosis? guest: some of the things they look for his symptoms of autism like not making eye contact, socializing in a different way. there different ways autistic children play in the typical children. for example, they may pretend

play let's and play in different weight with toys like lining up toys. autistic children may have repetitive behavior like steaming. as a normal thing -- it is a normal think. it is one of the traits doctors will look for. host: zoe gross joining us for this conversation. director of autistic self advocacy network. eastern/central timezones, 202-748-8000. mountain/pacific timezones, 202-748-8001. for those with experience with autism whether you have it yourself, parent or caregiver, 202-748-8002. you can always text at 202-748-8003. we hear about those with autism but what is it like for caretakers? what do they have to do with? guest: it is different for every

family. and every caretaker. the amount of support autistic people need is different person-to-person. some think parents and children face as advocacy in school system. it can be difficult for public school system or private to get the kid the support they need and get inclusion that is best. some schools will say we offer special education services but have to be in a separate classroom away from the other children. parents have to fight to get inclusive services for their child. as people grow up, and h on the school system they are still dropped off of services and is difficult in this country to get home and community-based services is a scam is will feel pressured -- as families will feel pressured. to live in an institution, your rights are not respected as if you live in a community but to

get community services as a hard dial for many families. host: president biden on autism awareness issued in a proclamation. he said proud to sign an executive order advancing diversity, equity, inclusion to help create new jobs for americans with autism. we're helping state and local governments tap into federal funds to hire more americans with disabities like autism to implement practices, we are cracking down on employers who discriminate on the basis of disabilities and that we are fighting at the unfair use of minimum wages. what is the federal government do when it comes to dealing with autism? guest: those are great examples of ways of looking at the federal workforce, they can make a difference. under the obama administration, federal wage was largely eliminated and that was a practice far people disabilities get paid less for the same work.

we were happy to have that ended. that is an example of the kind of go work the federal government can do. there's a lot autistic people need to meet congress to act on it. expanding home a community based services under medicaid to congress to enter into something congress in the last year has not been able to do. we are pushing for that. host: we have some calls lined up for you. zoe gross of the autistic self advocacy network. chuck you're on with our guest. caller: hi. we have an experience with having difficulty keeping our child in school on a regular basis. they seem to try and punish them

for being autistic, adhd, and who have been fighting here in our county with our school board on a regular basis to try to try and make this a better situation for our child. there is no reason for them so punish and suspend children with autism for being autistic. is there any thing at the federal level that can help us? host: thank you, chuck. guest: there are few things i can recommend. it is true schools disproportionally suspend or punish kids with disabilities, especially children of color at a higher rate with case without it. there is a few things i would do. know your kids right. a resource for families of newly diagnosed children.

in this resource it is called a start here we go over your case rights -- kid's rights. and get in touch with an organization and they provide a lot of support and resources that can help you deal with your kids right in schools and what schools you need to intervene because of school affecting your child's rights. host: frank calling from connecticut. you are own. caller: good morning. i know of some efforts that are out there to help support autism is he having a live performances of theater or music that will change lighting or sound a little bit to make it more appropriate for the audience members to enjoy/ i know of theater development fund in new york city for a

special performance on broadway shows but are there other efforts out there that you know of that are helping to ultrasound and lightning so that individuals with autism can enjoy the live performances more? guest: there are no specific names but there are performances popping up both in theater and in a movie will be shown with the lights on and volume turned down or even there is some stores have light centered shopping kairos where there are fewer people in the store and they do not play music in the stores to make the environment more friendly for autistic shoppers. it is something we are seeing more and more. it is a good thing that places in public accommodation are aware of ways they can help autistic people to access services. host: a caller talked about his child education. what is a public school required

to do when it comes to an autistic student? guest: required to identify that the kid has disability and then to get the kid individualized education plan that assess their needs and what the school can provide. there services the school should have the option to provide. some school district have less funding than others and so will provide less or you will have to fight more to get the services. the school is required to abide by what is in the interval i should plan -- the individualized planning. planning for the kids life after high school. host: as far as the actual classroom situation, do autism students automatically get set aside with other autism students? how does that work? guest: it depends on what the school wants to do. we always advocate for inclusion. we know that is the best

practice for autistic and non-autistic kids to learn together and it promotes inclusion later in life. if you grow up in a classroom with autism because your heart for a job, you're more likely not to discriminate because you know autistic people and you know what they can do. that's one example of the ways inclusion is good for society but also best for learners. host: but as a for teachers to teach his students who have it in students who don't? guest: the teachers need to be aware of what is in the plan and be able to provide that but they do not either do it alone. there are teachers assistance or kids one assistant in classroom to be provided by the school district. host: in arizona on the line for those experience with autism. thank you for calling in. caller: i have two separate things. one is personal, the other is

federal. i get a little crazy sometime as a parent of an adult child with autism because people think she is going to be a little odd. she's going to have some inability when she functions at the level of a four or 10-year-old depending on her homosexual never live in dependently. i'm happy she is totally trained. the second thing is the federal issue, she is on the medicaid and medicaid weber. young man she is dating is also higher functioning and lives independently with support. at one point there were talking about possibly getting married and living together but if they do that, they lose all of their benefits. they cannot ever get -- it will save money for the federal and state support system because she will be with him in the

evenings, she will need the 24/7 care she currently has in her group home but that is never going to happen but that is nevr going to happen because if they get married they lose 90% of their financial support, they lose all their personal support system. she -- someone would need to be with her when she was not home. she would lose everything. and so would he. that is possibly one of the most frustrating things she can and will never live as close as she desires and able to for normal life. guest: thank you for bringing that up. it is something many people do not know about and we talk about quality we do not have full marriage equality. that is something that is really important for people to know. it is something many people do not realize. host: we have a follow-up. the amount or the ratio of

people who can live on their own. what is that like? guest: i do not have information for that. all need support in some way of us get by with support from family and friends. others may need to support more often. supports throughout the day or support 24/7. it is difficult to say what counts as living on your own. live in your own apartment or -- or their staff do all the time, it depends on how you measure it. host: $25 billion sent to states, do you know what the money does when it comes to research? guest: i do not have those details. host: that is ok. kevin in georgia. good morning. you are next. kevin in athens, georgia. one more time for kevin.

ok. leo in illinois. caller: good morning. thank god for fox news. i a conspiracy theorist previewed my youngest son developed autism back in 1999, 2000 and as a dad i had four healthy sons before that. i did a lot of research into what would cost us. we bought a condo in atlanta. the stars aligned and i ended up in atlanta. we bought a condo down there. ice to come home from work -- i used to come home from work and the smoke where did. i found out later that the epa standards were requiring all of this furniture, anything -- 99%

of it came from china, to have unusual, so would not burn. the standards were created for that reason. my conspiracy theory came true when there were flooring companies and i had the same floor that i found out later. host: what is the question? caller: this is more a statement form. i did not have a question. host: ok. i guess it goes back to what people think is the cause of all this. guest: there is many different things floated across, a lot of them have not panned out in research. we know that autism is genetic because we know that if you have autistic relatives who are more likely to be autistic yourself. the people have looked for --

people have looked for specific genes but have not found one. it is genetic but it is complicated and is not going to be like other were refined when jean and that is it. host: when it comes to those who advocate immunization are the cause, how do you respond? guest: it is been well studied and there is no proof. we have found the vaccines are safe and do not cause disability like autism. i understand people concerns but is been shown that it is untrue. host: nicole joins us from new jersey. thank you for calling. caller: thank you for having me. zoe, thank you for being on today. i was hoping you could touch on the conditions of autistic students when it comes to being restrained and different methods of control that are being used. i know in some states it is legal to electrocute them. i think that a lot of people know about it. guest: restraint and seclusion

in schools and use of electric shocks. restraint and seclusion is, in many states. if you google your state and restraint and seclusion you will find information about the school district in your state are using this and how restraint is when the student is held down by teachers, face down and that can be dangerous and even fatal. when it is not, it is still very traumatizing. seclusion is when a student is put in a room by themselves and their force to be there for a period of time and it is privatizing and it has killed so this before. where trying to time -- if somes going to be harmed because most of the time when he strained his use it is more in the line a punishment for behavior in teachers therewith. a band would get with bill -- a band would get rid of it.

in electric shock, there is one institution in massachusetts and in that institution autistic students are given painful electric shocks that punishment for behaviors this edition does not like. this can be from swearing to getting out of your chair without permission. people have been shocked because of screaming in pain because of the electric shock. it was condemned by united nations in 2013. they've been advocating for decades and there was a ban on the use of these electric shock devices and unfortunately the ban was overturned the d.c. circuit court on a technicality. we're working with the fda to get them to reissue a ban that will once and for all use -- and the use. host: bob is necks from oregon. -- next from oregon. caller: good morning.

we have experience in california school that our grandson has light autism and we found a soon as the child got to school and had to roll call, a phone call was placed to the house to come and get them. in our educators also undertake training in learning to how to deal with children with autism, even if it is light autism, instead of pushing them away. we found a some of the school could collect the money from the child for the day, he was sent home. that is plain wrong. that is leaving him behind. guest: absolutely. that is in essence were autistic kids are pushed out of education and it is something you will find the school would not have the right to do that, but many

schools do things that are not legal in the way they deal with students or disabilities. host: if a child close to public school, does education stop at 18 or other opportunities for him or her? guest: there are other opportunities. some students go on to a trade school or college. there are some programs, these are post secondary education for people with intellectual disabilities and these exist in many colleges across the u.s. and will help students with intellectual and developmental disabilities to access college experience. if college is not an option, there is also programs because life skills or transition programs that will help students access the community and learn things like taking public transportation or different jobs and look at what they want in

the next stage of their life. host: does autism fall under the umbrella of neurodiversity? guest: yes. neurodiversity is a large invalid term that refers to disabilities that are in your brain. neurological diversity and the refers to the idea that the variety of disabilities in people's brains is a natural part of human diversity. that is the idea of neurodiversity. that is to be reflected and it is not something we should be scared of. host: autistic self advocacy network, director of zoe gross. sally, hello. caller: hello. i am calling because my brother has an autistic child and he is not able to have speech and they

kick him out of school because he was throwing up all of the time. he still throws up all the time. i was wondering what kind of help is therefore really autistic child -- is there for really autistic child because they live at home because they believe people will take good care of him if he went to a nursing home? not a nursing home, but a home. they have been taking care of him and he is very destructive. everything in the kitchen is in the living room. everything in the bathroom. he is hard to take care of. i wonder what alternatives there are to help him. guest: one is respite care when

caregivers can get someone to come in and take over the role of caregiver for a shorter period of time so they can have a break, like a weekend getaway or anything and it helps people take a deep breath and get more unwinding time. that is critical for caregivers who often do not get time off. globally in what it is at home and not an institution, a community-based services invited to medicaid waivers. -- provided through medicaid waivers. host: you talked about congress needed to due more on medicaid. guest: many states have very long waiting list to get on waivers. there is a bias in medicaid where if you qualify for medicaid you are entitled to care in an institution but life

is not a in an institution. people do not want to go there. we are not automatically entitled to a care in your home. to be on a waiver. you waive your right to go to an institution because those are automatic entitlement in institution. the waiting list can be up to 10 years long depending on the state. we need more funding for medicaid home and community-based services so they can reduce the waiting list and states can increase pay direct support. people providing the care are underpaid. that leads to shortage in staff. all of that cause instability in lives of people who depend on the people for care. we need to increase the pay of direct workers. it is critical for us. host: a viewer ask fractionation on differences or symmetries of those with autism and those with alberta syndrome? guest: there are combined into

one diagnosis in latest diagnosis manual of the dfm. these to be different and it was found that there is not a bright line of between them and clinicians. so they were combined into one diagnosis and people who used to have a diagnosis of asperger syndrome's now fall under that autism umbrella. host: to washington dc, our viewer is alex. on the line for those who experience autism, 202-748-8002. host: hi. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i'm a speech therapist in public schools in maryland and i feel fortunate to work in public school in maryland because maryland does have solid

services for students as they transition out of high school and to adulthood. they have the department of disability administration that provides lifelong funding for students who qualify and most students i work with, two thirds of the students in high school have a diagnosis of autism, and they are set up well. i want to point out that students move for whatever reason, the services are not the same state to state and am wondering what types of effort is there to standardize the services that are available for people with autism live in across the country and not just based on luck you happen to live in a state that has good services. guest: thank you for that question. we want to improve services in every state but the standardize across states would require coordination in the way

education system works. within states we can do the most to improve them so that if you do have been to move to another state, people in that state have an advocacy to improve. i would not say there are huge efforts to standardize services. that is unfortunate because sometimes people can move and lose their services. host: the guest mentioned public school system he works in. if you are asked charter schools or school voucher program has practices that receive autism related to services? guest: i do not know a ton about this. not all charter schools are required to provide services with disabilities -- to students with disabilities but even though they get public funding, i do not believe have all the same requirements that regular public schools have. i cannot speak too much to this. host: john in minnesota.

caller: good morning. i've heard of autism spectrum. can you explain what that is and what different symptoms may be for mild is to most severe? thank you. guest: it is quite a spectrum because there are different ways autism can manifest. i would not say it is a simple as one and mild and on the other end severe. i think of autism as more as a sunday where you have more of this trade a list of that trait. everyone has different levels of each different trait so you might have greater sensory sensitivity or you might need more support or you might need that speak fluently or need help with the speech or using a

speech to text device so there are different levels of different traits in different people. i would not say it is a simple as someone has little bit of very trait or all the trays are maxed out. it is not a volume bar in that way. it is different in each person. host: if i were a parent, or any advice you would give to parents that there were signs they are experiencing with their children that might suggest the child may have autism? what would you look for? guest: i would say how's the kid reacting to their environment. do they have sensory sensitivities? are they sensitive to loud noises? are the adverse to certain textures when they touch them? are they having trouble with eating and exploring different kinds of foods? i would look for those repetitive behaviors, stemming as i talked about and look at how the kid is socializing, whether they are very outgoing

or overwhelmed by opportunities to socialize with other kids. not every artistic person will have every trait of autism. so because you say my kid to eat anything or my kid of socialize easily, it does not mean your kid is definitely not artistic but those are signs people look out for. host: gary joins us from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. pedro i would like to thank you. my grandson -- he is autistic. my grandson is autistic. i'm trying to explain to the people that all of us for sick have trouble -- all autistic

people do not have trouble. he's one of the top academic students in his class. this summer, he is in seventh grade now, he is going to go to penn university and study engineering. some of the people, sent how poorly -- some of the people, tenant how poorly -- some of the people made comments of how poorly their kids are but my expectation is they are very good and i think it will be a productive person of society. thank you. guest: thank you for saying that it created i want to push back a little bit on this idea that some people are productive members of society and some aren't. everyone we have heard about today whether they need 24 hour care or study engineering in eighth grade as a productive member of society. that is the raw society to take

care of every person in a society. it is not just about are you going to go about a job that results in money, it is about everyone works as a person and all autistic people deserve to get the care they need regardless of what that is, whether someone care every hour the day. host: a story from associated press saying first of a kind study taking a look at the rate of those diagnosed with autism saying that the amount serious system slowing down and more moderate cases rising. in reaction to that study? -- any reaction to that study? guest: we heard different things about this. for example, in women and girls they are behind their rated diagnosis of what is referred to severe autism. in many more cases with what people will call mild.

if refers to the need for doctors and clinicians to recognize the different ways it manifests. so not just when every trait is present on every trait is happening to a high degree but also when people have some of the trays of autism or our -- traits of autism or have learned to hide the traits because it is something that can happen as they grow up it is pressure in our society to act in a certain way people learn to hide the disabilities. host: mike from arkansas for a guest zoe gross. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. my wife and my daughter are both special educators dealing with children from kindergarten through fourth grade and most of the children are loved dearly but they have one child who ways in excess of 200 pounds and repeatedly has violent outbursts.

he blocked my daughter's eye. he pulls hair. he bites. they are not allowed to discipline the child. everybody is scared of him. when does the safety of the teachers and the safety of the other students take precedent over the rights of someone like ms. sciacca -- of someone like this? guest: i'm not sure what the question is what you would like to have with this one kid in school. people who are dealing with issues with aggression are often because of an underlying issue like a medical issue or a need that is not been recognize. san francisco has a checklist and the goes through different symptoms of what is medical issue someone may be experiencing they have a sudden change in behavior and it could be aggression or self injury. this is something to consider when someone is having these

violent outbursts. what is causing it? is the health of the person ok? we do still need to include in the school. i'm not saying anyone should be subjected to something that is not safe. it may be some ways having an aggression issue, other people need to leave the room and that can be disruptive to people's education. the answer is not to take someone out of school because of their disability. host: is that connected to the restraining issue? guest: yes. the better practice is just to give the person space but unfortunately, people will often move to restraint. not only in cases where there is danger but in cases where the student has done something a teacher does not like or breaks a role -- rule. lucy restraint use in those cases. something that is not cause harm or danger we will see it anyway. host: from california, we hear from holley. caller: here i am.

i have a very important thing to say. i think we should not say that this is inherited until we have proven that. we should not cross off any calls until we have absolutely found out what causes autism and autism spectrum problem. i think the vaccines have not been properly studied. maybe because they are being studied by the drug companies that make them. we should absolutely check out who's doing the research and what their motives are. in addition, the vaccines may be safe, but you're getting a dose of preservatives every time you have one. most children get something like 100 shots of vaccines before they are five years old. the variability -- the variability between sexes and how all to the onset comes on will be found out once we get closer to what is causing this. thank you. guest: i hear that is your point

of view but i want to say it has been studied a lot and not just by drug companies but many governments across the world. we have top-of-the-line science same vaccine does not cause autism. it is a question that has been solved. host: another californian joins us, ryan in san bernardino. caller: hello. thank you for this program because -- it is hard to explain. it is been a long journey. when i was very young i could not even look at the chalkboard, i had to look at the back of the room and use my hearing. fast-forward years and have dealt with a lot of things with being severely autistic, at

least according to the idr lab tests. i want to ask zoe what she thought maybe there could be intersection with the disabilities because i've had a terrible time trying to get on and obviously, have given up. i could barely be in the courtroom and handle myself and i have great evidence but i did not get it. i get no services besides food stamps. maybe -- i want to know what is going on in advocacy on that end. host: thank you for giving us your story. guest: trying to get on disability is difficult for many people. there's a lot of paperwork.

like going to the courthouse, there is a lack of support in navigating the system. there are some places where you can get help dealing with that but is variable depending on what services are available in your area. in some places as well they restrict who can qualify for services. in washington dc, it used to be that to get any services you also have to have intellectual disabilities and at all -- not autistic people have intellectual disabilities. that was just changed and was a good policy change that happened but in other places that are still these needless restrictions on who qualifies for services. host: when it comes to employment, what factors determined someone with autism can make it into the job world? guest: it depends on the person, job, the people who are hiring. for many people, there something they can do -- there something

they can do and it takes an employer who will say i'm interested in working with disabled employees. and it may be overlooked someone's -- if you look at a job interview for my job interview will require normative social behavior -- a job interview will require normative social behavior. it is about how they make the job interview or feel and it is making people feel at ease and it is not something that autistic people are really skilled at doing but does not mean we cannot do the job. it is about changing the way we look at hiring to get autistic people into jobs. sometimes changing the way we look at jobs. there is something called job carving looking at everything that needs to be done in an organization and taking out a particular part of it and saying i think this person can do this work and create the job around them rather than saying these are the 10 jobs we have and who will do its job. there are different services

that can customize employment to make it possible for people who otherwise cannot access it. host: do antidiscrimination laws help to protect against the scrimmage in the workplace? guest: they do and they do not. there is no law that says you cannot hire someone because you -- they gave you a weird feeling in an interview. someone says, i want -- i'm autistic and i need accommodations and you do not hire them because of that, it is not legal. discrimination because autism is not allowed. discrimination that happens because a trace of autism is a blurred line. you're not going to say it is because they autistic i did not hire them, usa we do not click in the interview and there's not -- you say we did not click in the interview and there's not much you can do about that. host: virginia.

caller: hi. my name is carrie and i have autism spectrum disorder and i was wondering if our guest knows about the crossover between adhd and autism spectrum disorder. just because it seems that there's a possibility for what my husband has noted that there could be a crossover between the two. has she any experience with that diagnosis type situation? guest: adhd is a commonly co-current condition with autism. i have those. i do not know how commonly they intersect but it is a really common thing. some of the trace of adhd and autism are similar. to get diagnosis is a process of exploring do you have all the

trace autism and adhd there are not really traits top -- typically trace it to autism. executive dysfunction, planning and organizing, and prioritizing that is a core trait of both autism and adhd and many people do not know this is a trait of autism but it is. but you can have adhd as well and autism. host: when will you diagnosed? -- when were you diagnosed? guest: autism as a young childhood and adhd, later. host:-- what you found most beneficial to bring you to the point you are today? guest: for me, accommodations in schools have been crucial. as you go on in school there more challenges and you might need more support. i struggled a lot in college and i was very fortunate my college had a good student disability services program that provided

academic coaching, helped me speak to professors with accommodations i would need and those were helpful. sub pharmacy is also important -- self advocacy is really important. we moved to high school to college to work, in high school, school has a response ability to provide accommodations to you, but in college or the workforce you are in the driver seat of your accommodations and you are the one to say this is my disability and it is what i need and here's what you can provide. that is something that many people are not taught. having these skills is just a critical skill for any person with a disability at any age. host: as far as the work of advocacy you do, what do you look for in the future? what is important as far as an advocacy position? guest: so many things. i've talked about community-based services. that is critical and it allows people to live life the way they

want in their communities and not an institution. we have a crisis in the direct care workforce, as i mentioned earlier. the pain needs to be increased. we also need to see an end to abuse with people of disability. we need to end the electric shocks at the center that caller asked about. we need to see more customized employment and more services that will help people with that. we need less discrimination in health care. there's many, many aspects to advocacy that i think are really vital. host: andrea in ohio, we are just about out of time, but go ahead with your comment or question, please. caller: i just have a comment. i am from ohio. i want to say that ohio is one of the worst states to have a child with autism, one of the worst. i also want to tell you that my

son is 32 years old. he was diagnosed at 2 years old. it has always been a struggle to find education. to be very honest with you, they were talking about -- they only talked about asperger's syndrome and no other when it came to autism. and also the fact that when my son was diagnosed, it was 1 in 10,000 the amount of kids diagnosed with autism. now, it is incredible. it is 1 in 86 or less than that now. i have a hard time believing that it is genetic, because if it was genetic, how is it that they are not able to identify the gene?

host: got you. thank you, andrea. zoe. guest: things can be caused by genes and it's not as simple as one gene turning it on or off. i know i'm not the best person to explain this, but genes can be affected by things in the environment, the way they interact with each other, so there are several genes they found that correlate with autism, but there is not one that turns it on or off. host: so we gross with the autism advocacy group. thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is the end of our chauffeur today. we are taking you to bipartisan policy center. that program is already in process. >> on a shortage of mental health care professionals, how telehealth can help in treatment and the