on wednesday, president biden hosts a white house state dinner honoring the president of south korea. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> this morning on "washington journal," we will take your calls and comments on the air. daniella diaz gives a preview of the week ahead in congress. also, ryan hanlon talks about the adoption process in the u.s. and ways policymakers can improve it. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: it is "washington journal" for april 24. the house expected to vote on a plan to raise the debt limit this week.

speaker mccarthy is also asking for more work requirements for those who receive assistance on medicaid or receive food assistance from the supplemental nutrition assistance program commonly known as snap. republicans say the move will improve accountability, but democrats saying such changes could harm families still struggling from the pandemic. when it comes to the idea of adding more work requirements for these programs, if you oppose more requirements, call (202) 748-8001. you can text at (202) 748-8003. post on facebook and twitter if you wish. you can also follow the show on instagram. speaker mccarthy's debt ceiling limit plan is expect it for voting in the middle of the week, and part of the element to remember to raise the debt ceiling includes a line that would, if it were passed and

goes on to the senate and signed by the president, would require new work requirements for those who receive federal aid amongst other things. now, you will remember that as part of this package, there were a couple of perspectives when it comes to the idea of work requirements. one of those perspectives when it comes specifically for those getting assistance from medicaid, the measure would require medicaid recipients to work 80 hours per month. there are a number of exceptions, including for people with dependent children under the age of 19, six or over, or those enrolled in educational programs. under those who receive the snap benefits, the food assistance benefits, here is what the proposal requirements would include. it would include children with adults would lose

benefits after three months if they cannot prove they were working at least 20 hours a week or participating in a training program. those requirements currently apply to those up to 50 years old. those are some of the specific requirements when it comes to this idea of more work requirements for those who received aid from these programs. as far as direct requirements, what do you think? if you support it, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call and tell us why. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . you can tell us why on that number. you can text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. and post on our social media sites as well. it was in the last week that speaker mccarthy went to the house floor talking about the plan to raise the debt ceiling limit, specifically referencing these proposals. [video clip] >> it will also help uplift millions of americans out of poverty. right now, there are more job openings than people looking for

work in part because the biden administration has weakened some of the very work requirements that then senator joe biden previously supported. our plan ensures adults without dependents earn a paycheck and learn new skills. by restoring these commonsense measures, we can help more americans earn a paycheck, learn new skills, reduce childhood poverty, and rebuild the workforce. it will also protect and preserve medicare and social security because more people will be paid into it. host: again, the idea of more work requirements for those on certain social safety net programs, the numbers that best reflect your thinking. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . some of you already posting on our social media sites this morning.

from facebook, this is matt, who when it comes to the proposals says he supports it. too many able-bodied individuals are work phobic, he says. it has become a multigenerational way of life. it helps the politicians get reelected. continuing the fostering of dependency destroys the mind and soul. another saying the welfare reform act requires them to find work to receive benefits. and then this is jennifer on our facebook page saying also she opposes this proposal, saying we already have them for areas where there is scarce work like in the far north. the only households that don't have work requirements right now are households with kids and it should stay that way. if the parent cannot find

childcare and they cannot eat, it makes no sense. again, the lines for thoughts as far as social media is concerned. increasing some requirements for programs. on our oppose line in michigan, gordon starts us off. you oppose this idea. tell us why. caller: well, we just gave a huge tax break to the wealthy. why don't we work on that and start from there, first of all? can you hear me? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i'm sorry. this has been going on for a long time, attacking the poor in this country. got to get out of my living room. my bird wants to talk. gosh darn it. there was a bill in the 1960's about a basic living wage. everybody gets that much money

back that. this has been talked about for a long time. basic minimum wage for every american over 21. we give these huge tax breaks to the wealthy, yet the poor in america just get kicked around. i get tired of it. i think a lot of people are. i have had a lot of health issues and struggles. my family has gone through a lot . guaranteed health care would have been a major help. host: ok. that is gordon in michigan. let's hear from another michigander. this is mary on our support line. go ahead. you are next of. caller: hi. i am sort of on the fence about it. on the one hand, i agree with it to increase accountability consistently. but at the same time, we also have a position of being pro-life. it sounds like we continue to make it more difficult to

have and support children because they can really help parents bring life into this world. we are constantly being shut down. host: on our support line, that is mary in maryland. this is scott on our oppose line . caller: welfare benefits have a lot of big businesses involved. they make money through the welfare system, providing training services to people. a lot of the training will not really help them get jobs. host: how does that apply then to the idea of these work requirements? caller: hello? host: you are on. how does it apply to the idea of these work requirements? caller: well, a lot of people trying to jump through these hoops, you get payments and benefits and stuff.

a lot of employers don't want to hire these people for various reasons. host: ok. that is scott in maryland. there is an organization known for the center for budget and policy priorities. they put out a recent note taking a look at the idea of the expansion of work. they say most working age adults receiving assistance from programs like snap and medicaid are also working for pay temporarily from jobs. providing for children out of school or work because of their own health problems. over the complexity, it further increases the risk that significant numbers of people, including those meeting and who should be exempt from the requirements will lose benefits. red tape on a lack of assistance and climbing exemptions make it

hard for them to apply. the policies cannot be fixed by trying to carve out certain populations. if you want to read more of that, you can find it on their website. expanding work requirements make it harder for people to meet basic needs. john is next in new jersey on our support line. hello. caller: good morning. what is the basic requirement or qualification to claim these benefits? host: that is a good question. don't have that offhand, but i know that the republicans want to expand it from current levels. caller: ok. how many homeless people are running around doing drugs? are they getting these benefits? that is what i suspect. i am sure anyone in america can apply for the benefits. i am sure there is plenty of people doing drugs, doing nothing, and getting checks.

do you know anything about that? host: i don't have an answer, but we will go next to susan in seattle, washington, on our oppose line. hi. caller: hi. i just wanted to call and say being a democrat and republican means different things in different areas. i am a democrat in washington state and could be a republican in california state. when you vote, you need to vote your conscience. i oppose this. the reason i oppose this is human nature takes its toll. if you have something good, you want more. that is just human nature. and then we go overboard. we say, oh my gosh, what is happening? so i oppose. i oppose this mainly from the fact that you are requiring -- first of all, i am 70.

so it does not matter. it does not apply to me. for people making over $400,000 -- everybody listening, unless you make over $400,000, you will not pay the tax. host: why do you oppose the specific work requirements? caller: ok. thank you. because we already -- i mean, we have already done it. i have seen it before. it does not work. a more comprehensive act for leveling out both sides would work better. anyway -- host: ok. that is susan in seattle, washington, giving her thoughts on this idea of work requirements and the proposed expansions of work requirements for those who receive certain benefits, some from medicaid, some from the snap program as it is commonly known. to the last point, it was the agriculture secretary on a hearing taking a look at a bill

being debated, but one of the discussion points that came up was with the massachusetts democratic representative talking about the proposed work requirements that already exist for snap recipients. here is part of that discussion. [video clip] >> for congress, the national strategy calls for us to expand snap back access for certain populations, including those subject to the harsh three month time limit. secretary, can you please explain to the committee what the research shows about time limits on snap eligibility? >> there was a study done of nine states, congressman, pennsylvania, colorado, oregon, i can't member some of the other states involved in this. it basically took a look at three months and several things came out of that study. first of all, when we are talking about these adults without dependents, who are these people? they are mostly male and mostly homeless and mostly people with

educational achievements not as high as you would expect them to be, so that would include a lot of the homeless veterans we talk about a lot. the second point of this study was that in fact it did not impact positively when you try to constrain the work requirements. it did not impact the earnings or employment opportunity for those individuals. so in other words, you can talk about constraining that, but it will not do what you think it will do. plus, you will hamstring governors in terms of being able to deal with incidents and events like the ones in east palestine to result in a community by having that flexibility. there are real concerns with it. > it is important for this -- >> it is important for this committee to focus on it. republicans try to take away people's health care, increased costs, and i will stop them, one said.

do you see that it would cut snap eligibility and benefits by expanding snap's existing harsh work requirements and would push americans into poverty? >> clearly it will create some challenges, congressman. more importantly, i think we are seeing a reduction in the number of folks on snap because the employment felt i getting jobs and that is good -- employment folks are getting jobs, and that is good. training resources seems to be a more viable strategy in terms of trying to get people to move out of poverty and out of snap. >> interesting in these bills with all the new work requirements, there is no work requirement for people who receive farm subsidies to actually work on a farm, but i don't want to go down that road. host: more of that hearing last month available on every website, c-span.org. those work requirements, snap

requirements but also proposals for those who receive medicaid as well. what do you think of the idea of expanding the work requirements for those who receive those programs? by the way, snap provides nutrition benefits for low income individuals, families to purchase food. so far, one in eight americans receive that program. our facebook feed. this is from someone saying, absolutely, make it serious work. and they should pay taxes on the income. we pay double taxes on ever social security benefits. there are no requirements for many of those welfare recipients. another also strongly supporting it. when you raise children, you teach them skills that they are able to take care of themselves and their families. at least that is what people i know do. there is a measurable pride

being able to take care of yourself. stephen anderson from our twitter feed saying it is a dumb idea. it did not work in the 1980's and will not work now. sure, there are a few abusers, but you will hurt more of the innocents. that is some of the responses. if you want to post on twitter, you can do that. our facebook pages facebook.com/c-span. you can text us at (202) 748-8003 if you wish. we will hear from georgia and oklahoma on our support line. georgia, good morning. go ahead. caller: yeah. what i am thinking about is a complete overhaul on medicaid and the food stamps because there are so many people that are getting them that don't need them. there are so many people that think this is something i am entitled to for the rest of my life. there are jobs out there.

people just don't want to go out and participate or find a job. if i had a kid -- and i did and i raised a son by myself. work is the main thing, not, am i going to get my food stamps and medicaid? it doesn't seem right. host: that is georgia and oklahoma. one of the similar arguments made by one of the drivers of the particular proposal writing a recent op-ed in "the hill," i was that kid on food stamps. i know firsthand how government assistance can help and hurt. education and training provide dignity and economic opportunity. too many americans are on the sidelines while we face a record labor shortage. we have the jobs but not the people to fill them. there is no one-size-fits-all solution but there are areas where policies are hurting rather than helping americans reenter the workforce.

during the peak of the pandemic, the requirements were waived like for snap. government was right not to stand in the way of getting food benefits to those because of the pandemic, but we are three years removed from 2020 and the blanket waivers have gone on too far. welfare programs like snap had been abused before the pandemic. it is time for a form. he also makes a pitch for his bill, the america works act. that is from the republican from south dakota. let us hear from matt on our support line. hello. caller: hi. how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i would like to point out something to republicans, a statistic they might find surprising. there are more white people on food stamps then black people. host: oh he hung up -- oh, he

hung up. (202) 748-8000 for those of you who support increasing the work requirements. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose them. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. you heard from dusty johnson and the pages of his op-ed. here is a little more of what he had to say on the idea of federal programs like snap. this is from a recent hearing taking a look at the food bill. here is a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] >> the reality is that when we use words like extreme to talk about work requirements, let's review the facts. were these extreme when they were put into place with democrats and republicans working together in 1996? were those extreme when a bipartisan group of democrats and republicans stood together to renew them in farmville after farm -- in farm bill after farm bill? i the extreme -- are they extreme in your state of

georgia? were they extreme when senator joe biden said the culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work? the culture of dependence must be replaced with self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. the culture of permanence must no longer be a way of life. let us set the record straight because we are talking about millions of needy people being kicked off, so let's make sure we understand what current law and these proposals would do. no one who is pregnant would be denied benefits. no one with young dependents at home. no one who is disabled. no one who lives in an area with high-end appointment. yes, i realize there are some hard underserved populations that will be affected. and that is why this provides flexibility to states to select 12% of their caseloads to give them possibility because we want to help people who are trying to help themselves. work is not punishment.

work is opportunity. there is no pathway out of poverty that does not include some mixture of work, education, and training. we want to lift up those families that need that work at education and training. host: again, as far as the proposals are concerned, reuters highlights the two that would be part of the debt ceiling bill that is expected to pass later this week in the house, at least according to speaker mccarthy over the weekend. reuters highlighting the plan would stiffen work requirements for participants in some anti-property programs, highlighting childless adults up to 56 would get health insurance through medicaid, which covers low income people, would have to work at least 80 hours a month or participate in job training or community service. likewise, childless adults up to 56 years old received food assistance through the snap program and would lose benefits after three months if they cannot prove they were working at least 20 hours a week or

participating in a job training program. those work requirements currently apply to those up to 50 years old. again, that vote expected to take place midweek, reportedly around wednesday. we will watch that play out on the house side on c-span this week as the debate takes place. joe from facebook says, i hurt my back 20 years ago, can i keep a job, hold this for several months. $900 a month to live on. $100 is not much with rent. six dollars a day to eat while we sent billions overseas. vicki mayfield saying, how about we make it easier to get employment? they can check the box on felonies. people need to support their families and give them pride in doing so. this is from kelly saying, i have used social services

to get to where i am now and most people have no idea what they are talking about. if you think one is capable of work but one, the social worker can approve their application. they will know more about the applicant than you can ever guess. you are saying they wrongfully approved someone. some of the thoughts from those posting on facebook this morning. this is a viewer in maryland on our oppose line. caller: i need a brief moment to get it all out, and i know time is limited. first of all, my father, what he was alive, was an convert -- when he was alive, was an entrepreneur and a business owner for as long as i was born. at the time, that was well over 30 years. he definitely worked, paid his taxes, everything. he had a stroke that took out his entire left side of his body. he was left-handed. his ability to produce fell through.

his. company fell through what did -- his company fell through. what did he do? he got food stamps. he did not try to defraud the system so he could get the basic necessities of food. if you were to increase the work requirements, it would hurt more people than the select few, which goes to my second point. this is all about waste fraud and abuse. we know it is an issue trying to find ways to decrease spending. the best way to do that is by putting more people in the offices to check this stuff because part two of what i was going to say is i personally was a victim of identity theft. the district of columbia, they were trying to hit me up for over $3000 worth of food stamp benefits saying i did not qualify for it. when i went down to their office and we looked at all the documentation, oh my god, the drivers license for the applicant was not me.

the address for the applicant was not the same as it was actually getting it. there were so many errors, the signature, the name. there were so many errors in the file that they said, ok, mr. washington, it was not you. host: that is a viewer in maryland. this is denise in new york city on our oppose line. hi there. caller: hi. i oppose it because people working -- and i know this for a fact because i know some people working full-time jobs five days a week, eight hours a day, and because their wages are so low, they are still eligible for snap . you know, for food. no one working a full-time job should have to be eligible for food stamps. they should be making a decent salary. they don't even want to pass the $15 an hour wage increase. $15 an hour is only $30,000 a

year. so how are you supposed to support your family? you can barely support yourself on that. there was a person that called earlier and wanted to know how many people are out there drug addicted and receiving benefits. according to the center for law and policy, social policy, they say people receiving benefits that are on drugs is less than 1%. host: ok. caller: thank you. host: denise in new york city. a look at those enrolled in snap. the state with the highest rate of participation in snap was new mexico, where 24.3% of the state's residents were enrolled as of 2022. nearly five percentage points higher than any other state.

and then the louisiana west virginia, oklahoma, and oregon among the states with the highest rates of participation. meanwhile, states in the midwest and mountain west with lower rates of recipients with utah being the lowest in the country, 4.6%. part of the disparity due to differences in eligibility requirements in part is the matter what percentage of eligible residents enroll. not everyone is able to enroll. able-bodied people can only receive three months of snap over three years. many of the recipients must meet certain work requirements that may become stricter when congress takes up the issue. we are asking about work requirements for those on certain social programs like welfare, snap, medicaid and if more work requirements are needed. let's hear from ray in texas on

our oppose line. go ahead. caller: yes. i oppose the work requirements because there is a lot of big companies such as walmart that are not paying their workers livable wages, but they are making billions. so we support big corporations like walmart. we give them tax breaks, but the poor who are already at the bottom, we don't want to give them any breaks. we have billions of dollars to give to our national defense, but when it comes to the poor, we don't have any money. we have the money for everything else, so yes, we have the money for the poor. and the bible tells us those who have the least is who we should support.

and we will be blessed as a nation for taking care of the poor. host: let's hear from caroline and virginia, our last call on this on our support line. go ahead. caller: yes, i think it should work. these days, everybody gets things for free, free food, free houses, free rent. they end up having babies. yes, they should go out and get work. i feel that if you help them out , go to work. i don't care. give them some stability. you get people in one household getting all of these food stamps. everybody getting food stamps. everybody getting food stamps. nobody is looking to see what is going on down here. everybody is up there. you got these immigrants living

with four or five families in a house and they all get food stamps. host: how do you know that for sure? caller: what did you say? host: how do you know that for sure? caller: i live around them. when you live around them, you see a lot of stuff. you have to live around them to see what is going on. host: ok. that is the last call from caroline from virginia on this topic. watch out this week for the debate over the debt ceiling expected to take place now with a proposal last week from speaker mccarthy listing a lot of proposals for a debt ceiling raise, something the senate leadership says will not pass in the senate, something the president says he will not sign, but the debt ceiling debate goes on. look for that to play out in the middle of the week. you can talk about that or other issues in the matter of politics when it comes to open forum.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to participate in open forum, give us a text if you want at (202) 748-8003. something in the pages of "the washington post," they look at what is going into the president's son, hunter biden. hunter biden takes on a higher profile as the justice department's criminal investigation continues and house leaders prepare their own probes. hunter biden has taken a far more combative posture to other accusers in recent months. a newly refashioned legal team has sent cease and desist letters and file countersuit.

the attorney for an irs agent involved in the tax case sent a letter to congress last week asserting there have been political interference in the investigation. there seeking whistleblower protection. the house oversight chair from kentucky on fox news yesterday talking about hunter biden and recent reports from the treasury department and other places he and other members of congress have been looking at concerning the biden family. [video clip] >> nearly three weeks later we walk out of treasury having pored over thousands of pages of documents, and i can tell you there were more suspicious activity reports and many more biden family members involved in the peddling scheme. we now have nine and counting biden family members zinged by

at least one bank for receiving suspicious wires from adversaries around the world. >> in other words, adversaries including china sent money directly to biden's family members, to their accounts? >> there is the key, maria. they sent money to these llc's the biden family members created. that is another aspect of this. we went in thinking there was around a dozen llc's thrower and performance and research and other investor get up reporting the past year. without there were a dozen of these created by biden family members to disguise or launder where the source of the revenue is coming from. but there are many more llc's . there are many more biden family members, many more llc's, and many more countries involved. china was probably the most reputable country that the biden family was dealing with. the question remains, what were these family members doing to receive this money?

host: again, that is the chair of the house oversight committee on the sunday show yesterday. you can bring that up during open forum. cbs first breaking the story yesterday that president biden is expected not only to announce his reelection campaign this week, but also said the name julie chavez rodriguez, a longtime democratic party activist, to manage his campaign, telling people that she serves as a senior adviser and assistant to the president and director of the white house office of intergovernmental affairs, which makes her responsible for outreach to mayors, county executives, and others regarding the implementation of the biden administration agenda for natural and other large-scale disasters. those familiar with the deliberations about the campaign have cited several key staffing and operational decisions remain to be made in the campaign is

expected to launch a video message on tuesday. the cbs story also highlighting the fact that ms. chavez rodriguez is the granddaughter of cesar chavez. mr. biden realized him in office by prominently displaying a bust of him. that is playing out on the presidential side. democrats line in illinois, you are first up on this open forum. go ahead. caller: hey, good morning, pedro. i have a question i was curious about. what is the purpose of the 501(c)? this is supposed to help the poor? what is the criteria of that, and what are they doing to benefit the poor people? thank you. that is all i want to know. host: why is it an important topic in your mind? oh, he hung up.

let's go to margaret in arkansas on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: something increasingly on the news that i would love for you to have a segment on is the book banning and censorship increasing in our country and the people that are all-pro guns say the first thing they do is take away your guns in a dictatorship. no, the first thing they do is start banning books. when you got race on your mind, that is when your freedom goes. host: do you notice those taking place in arkansas overall or in fayetteville? caller: yes. they are trying to pass a law to make it a criminal penalty for librarians that someone underage check out a book that someone deems is not proper for them to check out. host: ok.

margaret there in arkansas. linda is next in mississippi on the democrats line. hi. caller: hi. host: high. -- hi. caller: pedro, i want to know, why are these republicans picking on hunter biden? trump's children that worked in the white house. hunter biden is a private citizen. they are doing this to try to bring biden down. host: do you think it is simple to say he is a private citizen when he is also the son of a president? caller: he is a private citizen. he is not serving in the government in any way. as a private citizen just like

you or me. host: what do you make of the fact that the justice department is looking into his activities? this is a justice department under his current father, president biden. caller: that is their job. if they have not found anything yet, they are investigating trump and he is still walking around free. whatever hunter biden did, most have children that have drug addiction. $82 million for jared while working in the white house and no republicans criticized them. host: you make that point so we will keep that there. former president trump investigation case set to start this week in new york today.

this is reported by the new york times saying last year when new york lawmakers were considering making a one year window for victims to sue long ago attackers, among the supporters was ms. carol, a magazine columnist who accused former president trump of rape in a manhattan dressing room -- manhattan store dressing room. set passionate letters to a sibling members calling for the law to be passed and was quoted as saying, i stayed silent for years and after i was attacked and by staying silent, i lost my chance to hold my attacker accountable. the measure passed after midnight and took effect on tuesday. that case is set for trial in manhattan where after years of accusations and articles and interviews and social media, a jury will be charged with determining the truth. a proceeding will take place as

mr. trump is aiming to regain presidency and arguing the suits and investigations are meant to back him down. patricia is next in georgia. caller: i think donald trump should have been in jail a long time ago, years back. he is a criminal. the republicans are not going to do anything for the poor, honey. as for your previous caller, they are not going to help the poor. they are for the rich. republicans, everyone knows they are for the rich. you have a blessed day. thank you. host: richard on our independent line from malden, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i always hear the rich and the poor, right? can you hear me? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: they always say the rich

do not pay their fair share. if it was not for them, we would not have the programs for the so-called poor people that they don't want to work for. host: the washington times reporting this morning that alejandro mayorkas ordered a sprint for areas where the u.s. is most vulnerable to china. preventing china from exploiting the immigration system to insert operatives into the u.s. he announced the moves in a state of the homeland address friday, sounding new alarms of the threat that china poses. "beijing has the capability and intent to undermine our interest at home and abroad, leveraging every instrument of its national power to do so," he said in

prepared remarks. we are poised to guard against this threat today. this came after he delivered a review to congress with a document laying out the direction the department will go in the next four years. dusty from our independent line in south carolina, you are next on the open forum. hello. caller: yes. that man u had on a few minutes ago talking but all the money president biden got from china, that has been over a month now. he is just another maga republican in the little group that just wants to ruin this country and take all of your rights from you and put as back in the 1970's and 1960's. host: what exact he was wrong with what he said?

caller: he cannot prove it and he knows he cannot prove it. this is my point. that man knows he was on that tv on fox news and told the lie because he has a bunch of uneducated people in this country that will believe everywhere that man says and not even do any research or check. biden has done more in the past two years the republicans have done in the last 15. all they have done is make the rich richer. and they are taking our rights away from us constantly, constantly. that plan mccarthy's got, biden will not let it. as soon as it hits his desk, he will throw it in the trashcan. host: watch for that to play up on the house side concerning the

vote on the legislation looking at the debt ceiling. republican line, this is lloyd in west virginia. you are next. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: talking about the money in the house being disputed, how about the government starting up more work programs and let people go to work. if they work so many hours a week, let the government pay them something instead of handing them out to people. the ones sitting around on the street or laying around and don't want to work, they don't get anything. do things that way and do some kind of educational programs. if they go to them, they get paid for it. make them have some dignity and some pride instead of just

wanting to sit around and have babies and get money for nothing. host: why should that fall to the government to do? caller: why should it be for the government? they pay them anyway. the government is paying them anyway. so why not? host: ok. speaking of immigration, the front page of the new york times looking at the topic of the biden administration approach. president biden opening legal pathways for immigration, the headline. amid a protracted stalemate in congress over immigration, president biden opened a backdoor for hundreds of thousands of new immigrants into the country spanning the use of military and parole programs for people escaping war and political turmoil around the world. the measure offers refuge to people from ukraine, haiti, and latin america, the opportunity to fly to the u.s. and quickly secure work authorization

considering they have a private from around admitted through the u.s. refugee program the last five years. by the end of 2023, 360,000 venezuelans the cubans, nicaraguans, and haitians are expected to gain admission through a similar sponsorship to stem unauthorized crossings of the southern border. more people that were issued immigrant visas from these countries in the last 15 years combined. more of that if you want to read that in the pages of the new york times. nancy is in california, republican line. hi. caller: hi. i just am so tired and want to speak as an american, not as a republican, democrat, independent. that divides us. i want to speak common sense

with people. just think about this. did we vote these people in two transgender our kids and give them information in kindergarten through 12th grade when they don't even know how to read and write at the lower levels? did we send these people to tell us what kind of stove we can have, what kind of vehicle we can have? i did not vote them in for those reasons. americans, you got to think about what is going on in our nation. they can take away your child if you don't allow them to have transgender surgery. i just think this is sick thinking in america, and we need to get back to decency. you have d.a.'s that are not even practicing law properly. they are letting people out of jail and giving no bail when

they commit heinous crimes of murder and assault, and now you are not supporting women with title ix? did you really, america, vote all of these crazy people in office? it is time to rethink your vote. host: let's go to aaron in alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning, pedro. i am a regular caller. since the last time i have spoken to anyone from c-span, there has been at least four highly publicized mass shootings and individual shootings. one in particular is the young man going to knock on the wrong door and being shut without the resident even asking -- shot without the resident even asking who they were. i was hoping c-span might consider asking their viewers if the state created a well regulated militia in which they had to register, when they do so?

being a gun owner, would you register for being in a state run militia? also, what sort of tragedy does it take in order for gun laws to be changed? we know the killing of children does not do it, killing of elderly doesn't do it, killing of people worshiping did not do it, killing of people at concerts, gay clubs, what have you does not do it. what does it take to change any of the gun laws? i am starting to believe there is nothing that can happen in our society that will change gun laws because i think we have seen it all now that we have gun owners shooting people knocking on their door and he did not know why the child was there. host: if you are interested, yesterday on this program we had an author and someone who studied gun culture and gun related issues, and if you want

to hear what he had to say as of yesterday, you can watch that segment on our website at c-span.org. you can also watch it on c-span now. that is our free app if you want to check it out. we have about 10 minutes left in this open forum. if you want to call in, (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 furred democrats -- for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. let's hear from chris in new jersey on the republican line. caller: hello? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: yes. i don't know when the laws changed, but i hear that -- i live in an apartment and was told that because i don't have any children, i don't have the right to claim head of household. if anything happens in my apartment, i am responsible for it, whether i have children or not. what is it in the state of new

jersey i am not getting head of household privileges regarding my taxes? host: what have those in new jersey told you specifically? have you ask your legislator or anybody specifically on that question? caller: i did not ask the legislator but i asked the people who did my taxes, h&r block. they said it is because i don't have any children. i don't understand it. anything that goes on in this apartment, i am responsible for it. if i am at head of the household, who is? host: have to leave that up to the tax experts. let's go to colleen on the democrats like. caller: hey there. good morning, everybody. i just wanted to say i love c-span and wanted to let everyone know that being on ssi and ssdi is literally forced property. we have so many things and we

are tested to hell and back. we do not get free things. it is tested on us. can i have money saved up. you have to sit there and go through every little bit of paperwork, and they look through everything to tell you if you have $200 or $2000 over the limit and if you do, you cannot get medicaid or medicare. we waste more money doing that to people than giving it out. i just want to say nancy pelosi, god bless her soul, she did not care about medicare and medicaid and try to help things. she was with big business. we need to get more other people in there because socialism is when the government does stuff. i will take my call off the air. thank you. host: that is colleen in north dakota. things to watch out for today, at 10:15 a.m., the library of congress will gather to

celebrate the 75th anniversary of the pew charitable trust. you can see that live coverage at 10:15 this morning on our main channel on c-span and c-span now and c-span.org. 2:00 this afternoon, a preview of a nasa united arab emirates spacewalk to install on the international space station. live coverage at 2:00 on c-span, the app, and .org. and jack reed will talk about priorities, including challenges posed by china, support for ukraine, and the health of the industrial base this afternoon on c-span, c-span now, c-span.org. don't forget, this saturday, the white house correspondents association dinner. president biden expected to speak and others as well. you can see that on our c-span

networks. more coverage of that event this saturday. matt in maryland on the democrats line, hi. caller: not a democrat. host: you are not a democrat? caller: no. i am an independent. host: i will hold you off the air and please call in on the line that best represents you. perry in south dakota, republican line, hi. caller: good morning. i think this gun problem is really the guns. it is a condition of the people. and what they expect and why they feel they can do and be justified in it. it is a condition. people with guns have nothing to do with it. lately here, we had a number of stabbings in the news, stabbings. should we also regulate knives?

that type of thing. guns need to be handled properly. anytime you get a gun in your hand, you respect it, but it is the conditions of people that cause the problems, not the guns. thank you very much. host: up next in north carolina on the independent line, terry. caller: thank you for taking my call and being host. in response to other people who have come on prior, and in response to almost an aid, i thought it might be pertinent to explain a couple things. when people become homeless, they do not always become homeless out of want. people can be working at homeless at the same time. when it comes to aid, one of the

things that was not considered in that is if you take a household, and we are looking at going into a forced situation. single moms may not become single moms by any fault of their own. anything of income in which they have that ends up costing, they say we jacked up the prices of rent and a bunch of other things. they cannot afford it. they get booted and whatnot. and then it says hey. if you are dv, can't afford, don't have access to certain programs literally because they are too far away, i.e. city based, not having the infrastructure in a rural community, there are different ways people can become homeless even with kids, and trying to

get out of that structure and back in the workforce, human resources, several things have to occur. you have to have an actual address to get services. if you are homeless you don't necessarily have an address. if you are applying to work, have you list the address in order to get hired? there is a whole bracket of different things. host: ok, let's move onto thomas in rhode island, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. good morning. this is thomas. one of the things i hear every day on the news and every day in various sessions of the house of representatives is this constant barrage of referring to the republican party as maga.

maga. you don't hear the republican party calling the democratics party derogatory terms. i think using the word maga, it is like going back to the elementary school when the fifth-graders would gang up on the third-graders and push them around. this is the united states of america i believe, and i believe that as americans, we should look upon each other not as "maga" americans, but as americans, period. whether we are republicans, democrats, or independents. host: ok. let's hear from marcus, an

independent in canada. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to say that these housing requirements for people like her benefits is a stupid idea. that is just going to create more poverty. it is going to create more taxation on your already corrupt and brokenso i can evolve, -- sd evolve -- you cut them off. host: are you done? ok. let's go to joe in woodbridge, virginia on the republican line. caller: on the gun issue, i believe that the democrats want to take a lead guns from every american because they want to control our lives. what happens when every citizen does not have a gun or the

ability to defend themselves? it makes regular people more dependent on the government for safety and protection, so for me it is another way for the democrats to completely control every aspect of our lives. host: yesterday, that's an intelligence chair was talking about the recent news concerning the leak of intelligence documents and what the government should do in light of that. here is a portion of the interview. [video clip] >> we way over classified documents. and number two, we do not have a single entity in charge. what may be classified within the intelligence community, might be different and the dod. onc wee get to that highest level of classification we may be have too many folks looking at them, over 4 million people with clearances. >> but a computer technician? >> if this had been at another

entity or agency, like that nasa khmer where we have had leaks in the past -- you just cannot copy that many documents. we need to make sure we have similar internal controls across the whole system. we need somebody fully in charge of the classification process. and for the most classified documents, there should be a smaller universe. and this individual, he was just an i.t. tech, there is no reason that person should be able to see the full document. they can see the header, but there are ways to make it safer. we note has been a problem. we need to have congress intervene. and they have to do a better job. frankly, this individual clearly has leaked and he, needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. host: a call from rhonda on the independent line. last call.

caller: think you. -- thank you. i want to give kudos to the gentleman who talked about the maga definition. in california it was all over the public news how people have to reapply for medicare. -- medical. so many people are now recertifying themselves, that half of them will not even get through because there's so many. i want to ask you, do they hear us in washington, the congressmen, senators and even the white house? we are screaming about: control, -- gun control, poverty, homelessness. and i wonder, do they hear us? do they hear us? they are supposed to be speaking for us. but it seems like they are just going on their own agenda, that

they are not hearing us anymore. host: i do not mean to enter up, but have you tried to reach out to your own legislators, in your district or statewide on the issues you brought up? caller: i have so. i have made calls to two of them. one is a representative here in sacramento valley. i called his office several times. and then, the speaker of the house, he is from california. i called his office a couple times. but it seems like they put aside a list. and i will be honest, do you why i love you guys, because you are the ones that hear us. you let us sound off and be heard. so, thank you. have a blessed day. host: thank you for watching. and for everybody participating, we appreciate the commitment you make to us and support you show this program and network.

as you know, we have been doing this a long time, giving people invoices far as the things they are concerned about in the matters of politics. a lot going on, a lot expected over the debt limit and what might happen on the house side. joining us to talk about that is "politico" reporter daniella diaz. we'll talk about what to expect later on in the program. then ryan hanlon, president and ceo of the national council for adoption, discusses the adoption process in the u.s. and ways policymakers can improve it. that and more, coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> the very first president to

attend the correspondents dinner was, in college. i had just been elected to the u.s. senate. [laughter] >> the black-tie event is saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. watch live coverage from the washington hilton hotel, including red carpet arrivals with journalists, politicians and celebrities. president biden is expected to speak. the white house correspondents dinner will be alive, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-spanshop.or browseg through our collection of products. there is something for every fan and every purchase supports our nonprofit operation.

shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. ♪ announcer: listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and other public affairs events. and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 p.m., catch washington today further stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. c-span, powered by cable. announcer: a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are influenced, the republic thrives. get informed come on c-span. --

get informed on c-span. the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is daniella diaz. one thing that "politico" does every morning is put out a "politico" huddle. what is that? guest: everything you need to know in washington. it's a must-read. all of the beltway, specifically with what is going on on capitol hill. host: this morning, the speaker -- set up this for us. guest: we are expecting the biggest week in washington, mccarthy's biggest hurdle since he became speaker in genuine,

him trying to pass a huge package through the house that what address the debt limit for the next year. lots of things that would cap spending limits. it would either raise it for a year or until it reaches $39.2 trillion. and not even regarding that, he has to get all his republicans behind this. he only has four votes he can lose in the house. and we are not expecting any democrats to support this. we are watching his negotiations with his conference to see if he can get it over the finish line. host: were they working through the weekend to get those votes? guest: absolutely. we know that they were meeting on certain things. they want to address the reduction act, take out tax credits, and they also are addressing work requirements for

anybody who qualifies prayer medicaid or any benefits. these are things they want to address in the package. and we cannot talk about this without really talking about the fact that this will not pass the senate, because it is a democratic led senate with 51-49. so, regardless of what they pass in the house, mccarthy will have to negotiate with chuck schumer and president joe biden. but the goal is to get it over the hurdle. host: he was still upbeat yesterday about what he expects going on this week. let's play what he had to say. [video clip] >> i cannot imagine somebody in our conference that would want to go along with the joe biden's reckless spending. everybody has had input in this. it is not like everybody gets 100% of what they want, but if we send this to the senate we are showing we can raise the debt ceiling into the next year, but we are being responsible

fiscally in bringing the house back in order. it gets us on the right path. this gets us to the negotiating table just as government and america expects us to do. >> do you feel that you can hold the vote this upcoming week? >> we will pass it and we will send it to the senate. host: there is the confidence factor from speaker mccarthy, but in reality there's some who could be holdouts. guest: yes, there is a group of really conservative members, the thomas massies, the net gain -- this is the group i am talking about. they want stronger work requirements, stricter enforcement for benefits, they want it included in the proposal so we will watch whether he can reach negotiations with those members. host: have they telegraphed anything of where they are? guest: there is a small group

that's not sure where they are. i'm speaking specifically of a member, he's said he does not know where he is. another one is tony gonzales, he is holding up a separate set of bills on border security. and the debt limit proposal. he said if the other set of bills to address border security does not include a legal immigration provisions that he wants in the legislation that is currently being taken up by the house judiciary committee, he will not vote for the debt proposal. he's been meeting with mccarthy, so mccarthy is trying to get to them, but he only has a four vote margin. and i, it could pass the house, but they will continue negotiating. host: if you want to ask daniella diaz about the debt

ceiling or other matters, you can call us at 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. you can text us at 202-748-8003. on the senate side, you saw a little bit of support from joe manchin. but as far as democrats are concerned on the senate cycling no support for what is coming out of the house? guest: joe manchin has been calling on president joe biden to negotiate with mccarthy, but he will not get it over the finish line alone. they will need 60 votes in the senate to pass it. they do not have that. mccarthy is saying -- excuse me, chuck schumer says he wants to negotiate but he is leaving it to the president to do that. they only had one meeting in january.

mccarthy has been calling joe biden to come to the table but the president is waiting. host: there is nervousness, either from republicans about democrats? guest: everybody is worried. they know they cannot let the debt go into default. they need to pay back their bills and not let that happen. everybody is nervous. all the lawmakers. they want to do something, but the republicans and democrats do not want other things to raise the debt limit. they do not think it has to have additional provisions and republicans disagree. host: that is the sentiment from senator klobuchar. let me play what she had to say. [video clip] host: we will play amy klobuchar in a moment. the white house is hesitant, the houses hesitant, so remind us as far as the timeline when something has to be done.

guest: the nation will go into default between july and september, so as soon as july something needs to happen with congress to address the debt limit, that is why they are moving on this. mccarthy wants to get it done now. he knows it will be a long process to get through the senate, possibly come back to the house for another vote, then have the president signed legislation. this will not be something that happens in a month. it will probably go until july. host: this is george in kentucky on the democrats line. you are speaking with daniella diaz, a reporter from "politic " ." caller: good morning. this -- what i see is a complete -- i see this thing as a complete sham. they are completely disingenuous. they've done this since 1960 on.

the gop house reps, senders and presidents have all outspent their democratic counterparts by a dramatic amount. the annual budget deficit and the overall national debt has increased dramatically more under the gop leadership than the democratic party. but they started hauling in a social -- holding any social spending whatsoever, everything, hostage to the debt ceiling in 2012. i think that newt gingrich's ideology was behind this. they have been against public sector funding for anything for a long, long time. and when you listen to the gop it is like, joe mccarthy is running the party line but doesn't have a problem with corporate welfare and they have no problem whatsoever with the

pentagon, which has trillions upon trillions it cannot account for. host: thanks. guest: i think that that is interesting what george said. we are hearing what george is saying and democrats are saying this. they are ugly they cannot hold social spending programs hostage to address the debt. it would be a catastrophe if we do not pay our debt back. what i am hearing from george is what democrats are saying and their arguments in these negotiations, it we will continue hearing that. but there is a good new york times piece i read a couple weeks ago about who raised the debt limit more for who has spent more, republicans or democrats? the study found it was equal for both. both republicans and democrats in the white house and in congress have spent more money, raised the debt limit, so it has been a mutual problem -- they

have both contributed to the problem. host: the pentagon budget, if you hold back certain spending that means the pentagon too? guest: conservative republicans it seemed to be ok with some cuts in the pentagon, not over all. but they want to look into what the pentagon is spending. a study like that. but for the most part it is social spending they want to cut back on, or have work requirements included in social spending, so make it stricter for people to get. they want to look at that. and they want a reduction. there's tax credits i mentioned that they want to address. host: on the independent line from baltimore, zach. hello. caller: i thought the previous caller made great place about our pentagon budget. i think it is not just republicans, but democrats, that

continued authorizing the military budgets and i do not understand how they could be holding the debt limits if they continue to hold hostage these budgets. guest: we have to get you guys on capitol hill to talk about these things because you are making great points. there are democrats on these powerful committees, armed services, that are also authorizing the pentagon budget to be raised. some progressive democrats, however, are very much against it. i'm talking about bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, and others, they are against it. there's some on the committees that are raising these limits. host: why not appropriations as another avenue? guest: for those at home, basically what you are saying is they are skipping a step. it's faster. it they do not have to mark up

this bill in committee, marking it up means other people get a say as two it goes in the legislation, but they want to fast-track the process, get it through the house. the house normally is not in on fridays but it will be in this friday, so they have until friday to pass the legislation. we expect the rules committee meeting to be tomorrow afternoon so they are moving quickly. host: the reason i say that is because speaker mccarthy and others said when they took the office it would be the regular thing to move their the appropriate committees to get legislation passed. guest: i'm slightly. what i -- absolutely. what i have found is lawmakers tend to say that they want to change when they get to leadership positions. this is a question that was brought up to mccarthy,'s answer being we need to move this forward. host: let's go to our republican line, where brock is in new

jersey. hello. caller: hi, i have tons of questions in a do not have a a lot of time. congress looks like they are doing right now, but none of these people on either side know what they are doing. they are talking about spending money. we need -- we make money on taxing our people. that is the problem. we are not making nothing. i do not know how you expect to keep saving -- spending money when we are not making nothing. we need more entrepreneurs. you need to talk about how we are going to make stuff and sell stuff. stop taxing the people, you are taxing them poor. you are selling land it to all these other entities. that is a problem. our kids are failing in school. nobody cares about that. there is fentanyl and our communities. people have trauma. and you are talking about spending more money on what? there's towards popping up every

five seconds. and it's like a firefighter who have to go to this house, then that house, and we do not have the time. we need to move faster because things are moving fast and we need to be prepared. host: ok. brock, thanks. guest: the points he is making is something like marjorie taylor greene is saying to my where we addressing what is happening outside the u.s. when we need to fix what is happening in the u.s.? we are hearing this. there are lawmakers trying to address this. i mentioned the house freedom caucus. they are the ones about want work requirements for social spending. they are also really fighting for cutting taxes. they are the ones fighting for the spending problems, addressing the spending problems in congress. but there was a case to be made earlier this year when mccarthy took the speakership, he wanted

a budget, he wanted a balanced-budget. he want to negotiations with democrats on this. so, we do not know where that landed. but he has been asking for a budget. every week, they are asking, where is the budget? when should we expect this? host: he insists on keeping those things separate, so what is the justification on his part? guest: we have to move on the debt ceiling, that is his argument. because the budget will take longer. it will take so much negotiation. at the democrats will have to weigh in. the debt ceiling is something they have to deal with immediately. host: the irs is strict in the you of the proposal. what does this building? -- bill do? guest: it is similar to what was passed earlier this year that will take funding away from the

irs, to be able to really afford taxing people, especially richer people in the u.s. who might be getting away with paying lower taxes. they have a proposal to cut back on that, 87,000 -- uh, irs agents that were hired -- they want to roll that back. and if that passes, if they pass it on party lines, they want it in negotiations to remind democrats of -- host: this was part of the plan to pay for these programs. guest: absolutely. they also want to rollback spending that has not been viewed yet in the inflation reduction act. they want to save that money and put it into other things. host: this is from bernie in new york. hi. caller: good morning.

i agree that the debt ceiling should be raised. that's a given. but what i am more interested in is a survey of the american people that's been broadcast by certain media indicating that 70% of the electorate does not want him to run. they should follow that up. if he does run, will they choose him? i am one of those that do not want him to run. i do not believe it is a good idea. but if he runs, given what's in front of us on the other side, it's and no-brainer. -- a no-brainer. i'm voting for him. he's too old. because on the other side it is maga. guest: he summed up the problem

that democrats are facing pretty well. we've spoken to a number of centrist democrats who would prefer somebody younger and more diverse to run for the seat. president joe biden is 80 years old. he's served his term. there was talking may not serve again. that appears to not be the case. he'll announces reelection this week. -- announce's reelection this week. but there is a group of democrats who do not want him to run but if he runs, they are voting for him. that's the issue right now going on in the democratic party, who can keep the white house -- they want another democrat in the white house. they know that biden can trying to be donald trump again. host: some on the republican side are already keeping track of what is coming from

democrats. and some have not made the endorsement yet. on the democratic side, are their people are saying if he is in, he is in? guest: yes, i have spoken to a number of democrats, asking if they will endorse him, if they are supporting his nomination. king philip said i would prefer somebody younger, more diverse. elizabeth hawkins -- they would like to see a more diverse candidate, but i was shocked at would support joe biden if he runs again. host: we just passed the 100 day mark of the house being led by republicans, however democrats doing in response to that? i know they want to take over the house. guest: they are learning how to be in the minority. they are figuring out what it means to not have the floor. there's members of congress, i

remind myself of this, who have never been in the minority. so, we are seeing that -- we have seen in the past few months. what i have seen from jeffrey's is messaging, figuring out what to tell the american people to win back the majority in the house. so, reduce the margin republicans have. democrats are optimistic they can take back the majority in the house. they have been focusing on hot issues that are motivating voters, like abortion, like climate change. that kind of messaging we are seeing and they are getting louder on it, knowing it is motivating the base. host: daniella diaz serves as a congressional reporter from "politico." if you have a question for her, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents.

our next caller. caller: is this conversation about anything? host: anything about congress. caller: i have found out that republicans are interrupting and cutting people off that are democrat and violating free speech. it's happening all the time, every day -- ted cruz, josh hartley, they will not let people speak to her democrat. -- who are democrat in the house. host: anything specific in mind? caller: i feel like it is a violation of people's right to free speech. and fox news does it all the time. they are constantly cutting off democrats. they are not allowing them to speak. host: ok, richard in massachusetts. guest: i will say if you have ever covered the house or senate

floor, there is a lot of arguing. and on fox news and other cable networks, i cannot speak to that, but i can say that is how the game is played. politics is a game depending on who you ask, it is about who has their moment and who gets to speak out. they interrupt each other. decorum is what they want on the floor, but you saw it during the speaker's race. host: marjorie taylor greene was told she will not be able to address a certain meeting anymore, can you expand on that? guest: she has spoken out on that. we saw that during that border hearing -- sorry, the homeland security hearing, she was speaking out and she was told she was not following decorum. and i have found with the younger lawmakers, who are more about live-streaming -- there

was one time we were trying to change lauren boebert in the hallway and she said, watch my livestream. this is what we are seeing from the lawmakers. and we will continue to see more of that. host: let's focus on dianne feinstein. a lot of attention paid to her and her health, and what is happening as far as work being done in the senate. can you give an update on where she is? guest: my colleagues actually broke the news that there was talk she was not doing well, and as of now she does not have a return date to washington. that's huge considering she sits on one of the most powerful committees. she sits on the senate judiciary committee. they pass judge nominations, but because it is 51-49 in the senate, they need her vote to get things over the finish line and her absence is being felt. i found it interesting, they chairman of the judiciary

committee, dick durbin, was aske d yesterday by meet the press, where -- if he had spoken to her, how she was doing. he said he had not spoken to her. it's only been chuck schumer that has spoken to her recently, so we do not know how she is doing right now. she will not resign. she asked for her to be replaced on the judiciary committee but republicans are against it. i think that republicans -- it's really stalled right now. host: it was originally a case of shingles that was keeping her from coming back. guest: yes. she is not getting better. i want to be sensitive to this because she is an institution, she has a lot of history in the u.s. and she has been a monumental democratic senator

from california for a long time, and she represents over 50 million people. but there have been talk about her mental, um -- of where she is right now with her mental health. or her remembering things on the hill. there's been various articles written about whether she is still able to serve in the senate. she and her team have argued it she can. she's not running for reelection. she's finishing out her term through 2024. that is another issue, and she is in her 80's. host: and we saw john fetterman from pennsylvania now back on the hill after being treated for depression. how's that going? as far as returning to congress? guest: he is back in his committees. he let it committee for the first time last week. he was gone for many weeks.

he was getting treatment for clinical depression. you know, we do not talk to him in the hallways because as has been reported, he needs closed captions to understand, because he cannot decipher after having a horrible stroke during the campaign. he's healed from it but he does have issues with normal communication without closed captions. we are trying to be sensitive to this. so we try to shout questions at him in the hallways, but it is difficult without the closed captions. but he is voting. he was very excited to be back on capitol hill last week. he was back in his normal attire that we are used to seeing him and. -- in. it seems like he is back for good. host: let's hear from diane on the democrats line. caller: good morning.

it's more of a comment to the good people of all colors -- white, black, brown, yellow -- that joe biden's presidency, three fourths of it has been cleaning up the horrendous mess of donald trump an the republicansd. aroun the worldd, not just in the united states, but around the world. and if mccarthy would not have been castrated and his privates transplanted onto marjorie taylor greene, and some of these other senators, republican senators, that believed in the big lie, which we now know never happened, all over the country

the electorate, the whatever, this country would not be you so in the sewer. host: back to speaker mccarthy, you talked about how this is a test for him. simpl what he hady offered to get this because ship in the first place. how is he dealing with the factions, the families and the house -- how is that playing out? guest: he is still negotiating with different factions of the party to make sure they see what all of them want to see. but he keeps bringing up these conservatives that were holdouts during his speakership. the concessions he has to make the get their votes. these very conservative members and their donald trump freedom caucus. some not in the freedom caucus but are involved with matt

gaetz. they have a lot of power in these negotiations. that's why we are seeing them get what they want, because that is about 20 votes that he needs to get over the finish line. mccarthy thought that they would take back the majority in november. that would have given them a 40 point margin in the house. that didn't happen. they are plus four in the house. so he needs their votes. he may not need to have their votes in everything, but that is not going to happen. host: joe from mississippi on the line. caller: good morning. i'd like to say that -- donald trump, you can call him 45 and 47, he's just not a train. he's going back in.

i personally think that there's people out there that voted for biden before because they did not like some of the things donald trump said or did. some of his frankness, but the way that they see the country running now, they are going to go back to 45. and let me see this, we ain't got a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. thank you. guest: when we talk about donald trump and his reelection to try to become president again, there is a shadow over his campaign right now, his indictment. you cannot talk about him trying to run for reelection without talking about how he has been indicted, and dealing with a mass of felonies he'll eventually have to be on trial

for, and who knows where that will land. but that is the shadow over his campaign right now. but his base is fired up. they want to see him back in office. they want to change what is going on right now with joe biden. they want a republican. but some people are also now shifting towards ron desantis, who has not yet decided if he will run. host: justice clarence thomas has been in the news, now senator dick durbin is interested in talking with the chief justice with issues concerning the supreme court. can you tell us what they are interested in talking about? guest: that story a few weeks ago that resonated here in washington. i even had family members interested -- it really broke through the news cycle. it was reported he had an interesting relationship with a republican mega donor who had been friends with him since he

had been in the supreme court and had accepted numerous vacations from him, totaling who knows how much in the millions. so, it raises questions about his relationship with a republican mega donor, whether he had influence in any decision that clarence thomas made, whether he has insight into what is happening on the supreme court. and it is raising the question of ethics surrounding supreme court justice's, what can we regulate. clarence thomas, when he became friends with crow, he realized he wanted -- he disclosed the relationship. he never disclosed other gifts. host: so senator dick durbin, he's offering an invitation right now -- do we know the chief justice has responded yet? guest: he has not.

they will hold a hearing even if chief justice roberts does not appear. they did not call clarence thomas in, they called in roberts, he is the one that can answer questions about ethics. he has not responded. they cannot subpoena him. they need a super majority for that. and they will not get that with the republicans. but they will have a hearing anyway. dick durbin told us that. host: let's hear from joanne on the republican line. she is from florida. hi, go ahead. caller: -- host: hello? we will give her one more chance . ok, jim in mississippi on the independent line. caller: i am reading the people interparty by mr. dixon, and -- and the party by mr. dixon.

he says in china, approval ratings for local party officials are very low, but the approval ratings for the national congress are very high. it made me think about how in america, approval ratings for local congressmen are typically pretty high, but approval ratings for washington, d.c. are rather low. do you think that there is an advantage in either of those ways of looking at things, whether it is focusing on the local or national? guest: i cannot pretend to know why a local official may have a lower rating. it may be due to media attention. it could be a collective group on capitol hill that makes the decisions versus local officials. but it is incredibly interesting

that national or federal lawmakers have high ratings. host: what are the major things to watch as far as the house and senate this week? what are you watching? guest: the debt ceiling is the biggest priority i am watching this week. what is congress going to do about dianne feinstein? that is another thing. and basically, because of the split government, the house can pass bills, the senate can pass legislation, but the bigger issue here is the debt ceiling. host: one more call. this is from river in tennessee on the independent line. caller: i will bring up pornography. you can't avoid looking. tennessee you will ban books on genitalia -- host: we will leave it there.

the debt ceiling is going to rules today? guest: tomorrow, around 4:00 p.m., then it takes about 24 hours to get it on the floor. mccarthy will hold the bill if he does not have the votes. based on everything we know about what he said on the legislation, he will not put it on the floor until he has the votes. there are interesting members on the rules committee. part of his concessions to these members, when he was running for a speaker, he will put it on the floor, and we expect that to happen as late as friday but he will try to do it as quickly as possible. host: if you want to see the work of daniella diaz, you can go to politico.com. she covers congress. thank you. coming up, a discussion on adoption, and if people have

the ability to adopt in the u.s. joining us will be ryan hanlon, president and ceo of the national council for adoption, coming up next on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ announcer: two public corporations, cvs and viacom committees to be controlled by the same man, sumner redstone. this is the subject of a book called "unscripted." o guestur -- our guest is from the new york times. he and his cowriter start in this week, the drama may have unfolded at viacom and cbs, but the backstabbing, plotting and betrayal at the upper level of american business and society, has hardly been confined to one or two companies, or one

multifamily. by and cbs merged in 2013, the new company is called paramount global. announcer: james b stewart in his book on this episode of footnotes plus, available on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ announcer: c-span now is a free mobile app featuring an unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay up-to-date with the latest episodes of washington journal and find it scheduling information for c-span networks and radio. and in variety of podcasts. c-span's app, download it for

free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. announcer: if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code to receive a schedule of upcoming programs, but festivals and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online notebooktv -- at booktv.org. ♪ announcer: 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 and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided, with no commentary,

no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by ryan hanlon president and ceo of the , national council for adoption, here to talk about adoption policy. thank you for joining us. tell us what your organization does. guest: we focus on private and domestic adoption in our country, adoption from foster care, and we do that in three different ways. we focus on education, we want to train professionals in adoption agencies, adoptive parents. we do comprehensive research on adoptive households. and we do advocacy, where we work with policymakers to better understand adoption, and to put reforms in place. host: let's start with the three

categories. expand on what they actually mean. what they actually mean is different from the perception. what's adoption in the united states? guest: there are misconceptions about it. the way it works in the united states is expected parents choos e who the adoptive parents will be and they voluntarily relinquish the child. they place them with the parents of their choice. the norm for many decades has been open adoption, they have a relationship with the child and adoptive family, and this is handled by attorneys. host: how long of a process is it fair that private adoption and what is the cost? guest: it ranges in terms of the cost and timeframe, but the norm would be a process of one or two years before they place the child. it could be longer.

it's usually going to be about $30,000 to complete the adoption. it could be more of that -- be more, especially traveling to another state. host: what goes into the cost? guest: there is a cost for the adoption agency. they are a private nonprofit, but they are doing background checks on the parents, following up with the family after the adoption, attorneys' fees, and in some cases there will be fees reimbursing the birth mother for expenses like medical expenses and things of that nature. host: international adoptions, what is the difference? guest: for international adoptions, those are handled by an accredited agency. and obviously there are children coming from another country, overseen by the u.s. federal government. the u.s. department of state plays a major role. accrediting agencies, through a

private entity, and u.s. immigration services will be regulating the immigration process for the children coming. there's fewer of those they in private domestic adoptions. the cost varies, but upwards of $30,000. host: into foster care adoptions -- and foster care adoptions? guest: there are more than 50,000 every year from foster care, and those adoptions are relatively inexpensive and often free. so, compared to others, it's a very low-cost way to complete an adoption. it happens generally from the child welfare system directly. so, for those parents who are interested, they are often already serving as a foster parent or are in the foster care system. host: those are the categories. how often does adoption happen in the u.s.? guest: there are about 100,000

every year. more than half of those are the adoptions from the foster care system. and there is only a few thousand international adoptions every year. so we are really looking at the foster care system as the primary way that americans adopt, 20,000 or so that are private. host: iu thas -- is that the normal trend? what did we see during the pandemic? guest: there was a decline in adoptions during the pandemic. international adoptions, there has been a decline happening for about 15 years. there has been a huge decrease in international adoptions. private domestic adoptions, that number has been decreasing and it relatively plateaued until covid hit. it's to be determined whether it will be impacted by covid or not, or following that, but certainly adoptions from foster care declined, as well as the

number of children who enter the foster care system. host: if you want to ask questions about the adoption process, you can call the lines. for those in the eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8000 . in the mountain and pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. if you have experience with the adoption system, tell us your story at 202-748-8002. you can also text us at 202-748-8003. if i understand it, adoption is part of your story as well. guest: my wife and i are proud adoptive parents. our youngest joined our family at a year and a half. he's the joy of our lives. and the siblings are in love with him when they are not fighting with him. he's been a great addition to our family. host: you are very experienced with the system, but what should others expect?

guest: all of us need training and support. we need support from our community and from professionals. we need training before we enter into it, but then after we need ongoing support and resources. working with a licensed agency to receive that training, then continuing to educate ourselves, learning from other families -- if we are pursuing an adoption with an older child it is important to go with another family that can better understand what to expect and how to meet those needs that will be present. host: when it comes to cost, you talked about the dollar figure, but kim most families afford that -- can most families afford that? guest: it can be a barrier to families and that is something that we have looked to address. we want to make the tax credit refundable so lower income families can receive the same

benefits other families received. if congress can put some reforms in place on private domestic adoptions, to get through these online brokers, that will decrease the cost. so, they are not working with these online brokers and working with licensed professionals. there's currently a tax credit, high income families at the earned over $250,000 will not be eligible, but other families will be eligible. about 15,000 this year. but low income families will not get it if they do not have tax reform. it's been taken seriously but has not come across the finish line yet, so we are hoping this year it will so lower income families that adopt can receive the same benefits as middle income families. host: you said reforms were needed. what would you call on congress to do? guest: what congress needs to

do, congresswoman custard has really looked at this, we need reforms to stop unlicensed and regulated brokers from advertising and making matches between expectant parents and adoptive parents. it should only be handled by agencies who are licensed in those states where they operate, and they should not allow unlicensed brokers to take advantage of a vulnerable pollution. host: -- a vulnerable population. host: some say why go that route when there is adoptions available for families, abortion -- but what do you make of that argument? guest: that is not how i would phrase things. you cannot say somebody should just lease a child for adoption. there's a lot of emotions involved, it is a lifelong decision these people are making. so what we need to do is ensure

that for all women making a consideration about their pregnancy that they have accurate information about adoption and they can make a free decision, is adoption right for me and the child? host: justice alito said states have increasingly adopted safe haven laws, allowing women to drop off babies anonymously. a woman who puts her baby up has no reason to fear it will not find a suitable home. guest: there are plenty of parents waiting to adopt from private domestic adoptions, so that aspect is true, but i would phrase it when we are thinking about the considerations with unplanned pregnancy, we want them to have an informed decision about the option to place a child for adoption, and we wanted to be a non-coerced decision. we have done focus groups, research, and a very large survey of birthparents, and

there is a strong correlation between when women are given accurate information, not coerced, they look back on the decision they made and they are satisfied. host: our first call is from warren. you are on with our guest. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. this is an intriguing topic. my question is more on the side of people that have been adopted. i'm close to a person that was adopted through the closed adoption. and i'm curious about what legislation is available for a person to be able to reconnect with her birthparents? i know in many cases the parents may not want that to be available but in situations where a person has been adopted, there is medical history they should be privy to, so what

legislation is available to allow that adopted child to have that information? guest: great question. that's handled at the state level so there will be a different answer depending on the state the adoption happened in or where the individual was born. they have been changing laws on access to unaltered birth records. from one state to another, the answer will be different. what i would encourage the individual to do is get in contact with the adoption agency they were working with. there's no closed adoption now , with dna testing individuals are able to find their birthparents or where the child has been placed for adoption. so it is rare for an adoption to stay closed now if somebody is looking to not have it that way. and the caller made a good point, we often need medical information for important

reasons. so being able to work through a mediator or some counselor to help support these individuals who are looking to exchange information about health records can happen. host: are their clear terms set between the parents -- are there terms as far as what can be done visit-wise? guest: there are. there should be a meeting of the minds before the placement where they agree what happens. in some states they do allow post adoption contact agreements. but for the most part this is a relationship, and relationship maintained like other relationships do. it can be important. there is benefits for everyone involved with that adoption or adopted individual, the adopted family and birth family. host: let's hear from barbara in

new york city. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, mr. hanlon. from your research, have any black family ever been adopted -- been able to adopt a white child? you discussed the two women who murdered the six black children they brought to adopt, even though they were a hard-working, grand daughter who wanted to adopt her biological grandchildren? guest: i will address the first question. there are families of every race, including back fleming's, who adopt children of every race, including white children. that is the case. the u.s. federal government tracks this through reporting that states give to the department of health and human services. they have good statistics about all types of adoption and adoptive and foster families. i am not mill your with case she is referring to -- familiar with

the case she is referring to. host: the back on check, what is involved? guest: it depends on the type of adoption. for private domestic adoption or adoption from foster care, that happens through state level and will often run through federal -- and background checks. host: home visits and the like? guest: of course. home visits, interviews with the couple adopting or the individual adopting with the children in the home with relatives, neighbors, references, employers. they do an extensive background check. host: do most people pass that process? guest: most do but there are boundaries put in place. during the home study process, the social worker says, you are approved to adopt but you are only going to adopt one child or in this age range, you are approved but there are certain, special needs you may not be the right fit for your family because the other children currently in your home.

he role of the homestudy, social workers should be evaluating that family saying, is this going to be a good placement. and helping educate and prepare them, this is a good fit, here are good ways to be parenting. yes, the majority passed that but there can be boundaries put in place. in terms of red flags, look at the parents motivations. why are they interested in adoption? if there have been allegations in the past about abuse or neglect, that would be a huge red flag for us. while we want to look to say, do they have a strong marriage if it is a married couple? do they have financial support, family and friend support? if this is a couple that is estranged from their adult children and cannot maintain and ships, they travel from place to place, those would be red flags. host: let's hear from lloyd in california. good morning. caller: good morning. i hear a lot of language like not coheirs.

sounds an awful like not allowed to get an abortion. are there equal language given to potential women who might be putting children up for adoption about abortion access if they are able to get it in their state? if they are not, if there is some way to ask for one? guest: let me say in terms of language, we would not want to say a woman puts up her child for an adoption. she places for -- per child out of adoption for respect in the loving decision she has made in that regard. that is something that happens at the state level or by the different pregnancy counselors in terms of how comprehensive the options are that are given. when it comes to adoption, what is important is birth parents or expectant parents are fully informed of the options they

have to place a child up for adoption. they know what that means. they have an ability to choose who the adoptive parents are going to be. understanding there is no coercion or inducement or inappropriate financial means that would encourage her to make a placement or not naked placement. host: you recently did a survey. 1400 birth parents. what were you looking for? guest: we want to hear, learn and understand from birth parents what their experiences are during, before and after placement. we did three focus groups of birthmothers to figure out what their experiences are and why they choose adoption. it was fascinating. of those 1400 that responded, over 1100 were birthmothers. we found overtime, many of the practices they experience in terms of being able to choose these parents, their experiences in terms of this last caller, was it a free decision or a

coerced decision -- that has changed over time. when we heard from women who placed in the 1970's and earlier, they often said they did not get accurate information . whereas those who responded later, this upward trend of now in the last since 2010, have since the year 2000 significant majority are saying, i did get good information. i am satisfied with my decision. i was not coheirs. this was a decision i made out of love for my child. this is the best decision for me and my child. host: a discussion on the adoption policy in the united states with ryan hanlon, joining us for discussion. you can call and ask him questions. (202) 748-8000 for the mountain and pacific time zones. -- i am cite, eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the non-pacific time zones.

let's go to matt in alexandria, virginia. good morning. caller: i had a question from state harbor. can you talk more about how that works and if the child is placed through the safe harbor provisions, do they enter into the foster care system or is that done through private adoption? guest: i think he means the safe haven law. that is operated at the state level. that will be different from place to place. typically, that would mean the child is going to be entering the house -- the foster care system. the laws were designed to be a way that a mother could place her child in an anonymous fashion and without legal -- legal repercussions for doing so. in a situation where a child is abandoned or left in an unsafe area, this is a way to ensure the child's safety. it is not a practice we would want. if that has happened, we have failed in the since it would nice to have given support services earlier. and to maintain that connection.

we had an earlier caller who mentioned with a closed adoption, there might not be access to medical records. that is going to happen when we have a safe haven placement. we are not going to have an ability to know who the birth parents are or reestablish a relationship later. even though these laws are intended for the health and safety of a child, our hope is we could reach that family super, provide services -- sooner, provide sooner, even if the child ends up for adoption, there might be an ability to remain in contact with the family. host: in the foster care system, does that favor younger children, older, who does it favor? guest: all children of all ages are in the system and placed for adoption from the system. the adoptions happen to be children who tend to be younger. the adoption still in process or children that are waiting on adoption is over 100,000 children currently waiting on adoption in our country. those tend to be children who are older, part of larger

sibling groups, perhaps have a trauma history that might make it so we need to do more work to find the right family. host: how old do you have to be before you age out of the system? guest: different states handle that different. most states is 21 with the option for a child to emancipate at age 18. some states ends at 18. we call on those states to change their laws and allow a child to receive benefits and services until 21. there have been a number of studies on the spear the child welfare outcomes are vastly better the longer we can maintain or -- maintain services for any child, especially one in the system and has fewer role models. we need to ensure we are able to get the support needed. host: let's hear from ron in indiana. hello. caller: hello. i hear the adoption system is really overwhelmed. can you talk about how many children enter the adoption

system each day or maybe month? and how many are adopted out over the same period of time? can you talk about the likelihood that children between the ages of 12 and 18 are or are not likely to become adopted? guest: sure. i assume your question is more about the foster care system or child welfare system. if that is the case, there is over 600,000 children served through the child welfare system in our country every year. any given day, there are 400,000 children or more part of that system. daily, there is children entering that system. this is hard work these systems have and they do a good job. more funding is needed at the federal and state level to support these caseworkers that have a hard job of supporting foster families and the needs these children have. working towards relocation of these children to going their families.

we -- when reunification is not possible, to be looking for adoptive families for the children. host: i was reading surveys about post adoption services you recommend or should be recommended for those who go through the process. what is the top of the list? guest: what i would ask is states treat post adoption services the same for all adoptive families. right now, most states only offer post adoption services to families that are not from the child welfare system. what we want to see is that would be offered to all families, more funding would be available for counseling for birth parents, the adopted individual, adoptive families and support services, therapeutic services, all of us know that in the public school system, children are getting services through an iep plan. that is the type of services children need even in a private context. host: talk about the counseling aspect. guest: sometimes, it is not just

what we went through but years later, processing the adoption that happened. perhaps, the adoption that happened when we were an infant or young age, experiences we had prior to adoption. maybe adverse childhood experiences, past traumas. there can be a lot that comes up especially in the teen years and early 20's where individuals benefit from having a counselor that can talk through these issues in a safe way. often, support groups where adopted individuals can interact with another adopted individuals. they can share their own expenses without -- with one another. they can say, this person has a similar experience to me. their family was similar to my family. host: this is kathy in washington, texting us. she said, we have adopted from -- 20 years ago. the cost was $40,000. the emotional strain on the family dealing with children that have experienced early childhood trauma, many from orphanages and foster care have difficult attachment issues.

families need to be informed on what this means to be a whole family. has spoken to 100 families asking if this can be addressed. guest: this is a great follow-up with post adoption. we need adoption competent counselors to be interacting with families after placement for a long period of time to be supporting them. we need to be training medical professionals to understand what it is like when we are working within an adopted family or individuals, birth parents. the same is going to be true with our school system. you can train our teachers and special education workers to better understand adoption, issues that could come up with adoption or foster care and how we could be supporting these families. host: for older children, this may not manifest right away. guest: that is right. it could be when a child is in their teen years, they are thinking about their identity and who am i, they are reflecting back on past experiences. that can be where coming in,

somebody maybe not your parents but a trained professional, can offer support, offer a sounding board. help process those feelings. host: carol in florida. thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: i would like to know with the increasing number of gay marriages, how likely is it that those gay parents one who adopt a child and have a family like others, how possible is it for them to be able to adopt? is there a bias against them, or are they welcomed into the adoption group? what is going on with that? host: thanks for the question. guest: in terms of same-sex adoption that is legal in all 50 states that changed after oberg fell, there have been more prohibitions in some states. it is available in all 50 states for adoption from foster care to

private, domestic adoption. intercountry doctrine, there are no prohibitions from our government. some foreign countries could put prohibitions in place. it is important to work with adoption agencies to better understand what countries would be prohibiting or restricting that. host: how open are adoption agencies to working with same-sex couples? guest: that is different from one agency to the next. a majority do work with same-sex couples. there are faith-based agencies that choose not to and refer them to other agencies. host: shell in maryland. good morning. caller: i am a grandmother in maryland. i have had full custody and guardianship of my grandson since 2019. he is currently eight years old. i wanted to know what it would take for me to adopt him as opposed to him just being my ward. guest: that is a great question, something we encourage you to

do. when you complete that adoption, it will be a level of permanency you will be able to give to your child. i encourage you to contact an attorney in maryland. there is a number of good adoption attorneys in maryland. find a good attorney who can walk you through that process. host: if you are asked, if i gave up a child through a closed adoption, what gives anyone the right to come looking for me? as a person who does not know my father, to know him, there is a reason he does not want to be in my life. guest: there are birth parents who say they chose a confidential or close adoption for a reason and do not want to have contact later. there are others who would really love that contact. if we find ourselves in this situation where we want a relationship and someone is not offering that, i would encourage this person to be respectful. to not be pushy, but communicate

in a clear and kind way. sometimes going through a mediator, perhaps the adoption agency or counselor can help mediate some communication. it could be instead their relationship, there is an exchange of medical information that would be valuable to that adopted individual or member of the family. host: has the biden administration put any emphasis on adoption in the u.s.? guest: one of the things we are excited about is the biden administration did add that adoption tax credit refund ability to the president's budget. we are calling on congress to bring that to the finish line. it is a bipartisan effort on congress. we need more members to get on board and help us complete that. host: jane in ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i am retired for some years. when i was working, i did counseling with children who had been traumatized and was

involved in several placements of children. in those days, i think it is still the same. you did not mention before that many children are in the child welfare system that are african-american. many, many more than white children. what i am wondering is, what are the resources now to allow black families to have subsidized options, because that was always a problem. a lot of people did not want to adopt children -- did want to adopt children, but there were not enough subsidized options and people could not just afford to pay those high fees. i am wondering now what the

status of all that -- you did not mention before how many black children are there waiting to be adopted. that needs to be brought out. guest: thank you. let me jump in with a quick fraction. thank you for your work in the past with children. things have changed dramatically. it is not true black children are the predominant number of children in the foster care system. they are disproportionately represented in the foster care system. the highest percentage of children in the foster care system would be white children. there is children of every race that are part of the system. i agree with you on the importance of subsidies. this is an area that has changed a lot. the majority of adoptions from foster care are subsidized, many -- meaning families get ongoing support after their adoption. about 90% of adoptions from foster care, there is adoption assistance given. it is given in recognition of the need that we have to be

supporting these families after their placement. host: eric from new york. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. hanlon. i was wondering if you could share your thoughts with the relationship of divorce rate on adoption and conversely, what has been going on vis-a-vis abortion and what affect those might have on the adoption rate and availability of children? guest: i have not seen research on the impacts of adoption in terms of divorce. i cannot address that directly. i can say one of the social as one of the things a social worker should be looking at as part of the process, is this a healthy marriage, is it going to be able to handle the challenges that come? all children are challenging. if a child has had traumatic experiences, there might be more of an ability we have to be

therapeutic to meet those needs. that can be a stressor on everyone in the family, including that marriage. if that is where you are going, you are right how important it is for us to be focusing on that. i, in terms of that second question you asked, there is not enough data to say what the impact is. it is an area we call on congress to bring changes. we track the number of adoptions from foster care, the number of intercountry adoptions. we do not track the number of private -- adoptions. it would not be hard to aggregate those numbers of the federal government mandated states do that fund these court systems and we ought to ask the states to report to the federal level like we do for adoptions from foster care. host: you formerly worked as the head of an adoption agency. what did you learn? guest: we did international placements primarily. we did domestic placements.

there is a lot to do because of the diversity of families we work with. the rigors of going through state licensing and the accreditation process. what i learned, i learned from my colleagues and other agencies the importance of supporting families. the importance of doing due diligence upfront to make sure we are training families, screening them, not doing placements where the families are not going to be able to meet those children's means not just in short-term but long-term. host: wayne in virginia, hello. you are on with our guest. caller: yes. i was adopted, myself. i have always been upset by the foster care system. it seems like it has been in peril and disarray for many years. what level of funding would you need in order to make a significant difference in

adoption in america? how can one support the work of the national council for adoption? guest: thanks for that question. in terms of the first part, what we want for impacting adoptions from foster care's policy changes. we do not want children to stay in this system. there is over 100,000 children waiting on adoption. we need to be doing more to promote the ability to find families for those children. we partner with a group called the dave thomas foundation, they have a program where they do work to include families for children that are waiting. it is an excellent program. they have done research to show how effective it is. we need to be supporting more programs like that. in terms of support for national -- for adoption, you can find us on our website and we appreciate support any viewers have. host: he is the president and ceo of the national council for adoption. there website is adoption

council.org if you want to learn more about their work. to finish up the program until 10:00, we won learn about your top public policy issue and maybe foreign, social, whatever. let us know. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. your top public policy issue. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> live sunday, may 7. attorney and author philip howard will be our guest on in-depth to take your calls on government and legal reform in america. mr. howard has written six books including the collapse of the common good, and his bestseller, the death of common sense. his latest book is the chief of public sector unions. join the conversation sunday, may 7 at noon eastern on book tv, on c-span2. ♪

>> c-span's campaign 2020 for coverages your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now, our free, mobile video app or any time online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ ♪ >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current, nonfiction book releases plus test seller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on the span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> your copy of the 118th

congressional directory available at c-spanshop.org. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member and important information on congressional committees. the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scanned the code on the right to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. it is $29 $.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase help support our nonprofit operations. >> "washington journal" continues. host: your top public policy issue if you want to tell us during the remainder of our show today until 10:00. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us as well at (202) 748-8003.

several things you can watch for on the c-span networks today. 10:15 at the library of congress, it will feature the library and congress and others and the gathering on the 75th anniversary of the pew charitable trust, also a discussion on the state of democracy in the united states. on our main network, c-span, c-span app and our c-span.org website. if you want to learn more about a planned spacewalk between united states and united, writz, that will be hosted by johnson space center in houston, texas. watch that on c-span, the app and the.org 2:00 is when you can see that. later this day, senate arms services and committee chair jack reed about the defense department's priorities including challenges by china, support for ukraine and the help of the defense industrial base. 3:00 is when you can see that. the main network and our app and

the.org. if you want to let us know about your top public policy issue, call in and let us know. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. one of the things our previous to guest top about was to watch out -- talked about on the house floor when it comes to the debate that will take place on the debt ceiling, speaker mccarthy will face a moment of truth and the debt ceiling battle this week. he brings a bill to lift the borrowing limit to the floor. the bill with chan felt last week marks the gop conference's first legislative attempt at bringing president biden to the negotiating table after the sides made no progress in the past three months. republicans are looking to pair spending cuts with debt ceiling increase. white house said it once a clean hike of the borrowing limit, not clear as our previous guest

indicated the gop bill has enough support heading to the boat. that is set to go to the rules committee tomorrow. we may see a vote on the actual legislation this week going to our guest from earlier. your top public policy issues. from georgia, independent line starting us off. thank you for calling, go ahead. caller: hi there, pedro. as a descendant of the enslaved and not from an immigrant, i have two comments. one is to mistake, one is international. the domestic concern is about reparations for the descendants of the enslaved. my voting is going to be based on who was for it. if you are not or it, you are not getting my vote rate secondly, the international as far as what is going on with the

-- country. i am glad to see there is going to be another block. also, my concern about kamala harris going to africa, especially ghana, trying to push the lgbt whatever their common norms on african country. america does not respect any other countries cultural norms. i'm glad the african countries are speaking up for themselves. i am glad they are choosing to read all the rights themselves so america will not be able to have this hold on them to try to force them to do things that is not in their best interest. host: ok. your top public policy issue. the caller bringing up international, as well as other issues. domestic, international, foreign

relations, could be a variety of topics. tim in new jersey, independent line. you are next. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i know there is a lot talk about the whole -- let me make sure i am saying it correctly. i do not understand why we are not even looking at the same thing with viagra for men. abortion starts with the man. because the way we treat women puts them in such a bad position, i do not think women really honestly get the same choice as men do. if we really want to end abortion, i think we need to stop things like viagra, fornication, adultery, sexual, predatory behavior, and we need

to start doing this with jail services. host: ok. clifton in maryland, republican line. clifton in maryland. hello? caller: missouri. host: sorry about that. go ahead. caller: yes. we should not increase the debt limit one penny. every time you increase the debt limit, our interest rates are going up, inflation is going to go up. this country is not in the mind of making ridiculous debt limit race. host: previous administrations including the trump administration raised the debt limit. why not this time around? caller: because this time, it is going to end the dollar. when the dollar ends, this

country is going to ends. you better wake up, because -- and not raise the debt limit. host: when you say it is going to end the dollar, how did you come to that conclusion? caller: we've got too much inflation and you much interest rates and all the companies, all the countries are -- the dollar right now. host: ok. ray in fremont, california. democrats line. caller: good morning. what i wanted to talk about was how apparently if the republicans have a tremendous disdain for people who work for a living or they think we are stupid. during the trump administration, very wealthy people got huge tax breaks. the corporations got a big tax break. it used to be corporations provided about 10% of the national revenue, now they can

only provide 5%. because of the tax breaks, our revenue is down. now, if both tax breaks could be reversed, then our collective tax dollars could be used more towards the public good like roads, bridges, clean water. we still have cities that have littered water. also, things that make the quality of life better here, like making health care available to everybody and not just the people who work have medicare, medicaid or in the military. it just does not make sense. it does not make sense. we breathe the same air. the republicans need to stop pulling this scam on us and stop promoting this line about

democrats just want to spend, spend, spend. no, when you cut the budget back , you do not get to say all you guys want to do is spend. host: just to point you to a recent article in the wall street journal, the headline the biden administration seeking an extension on one of the aspects of the tax cuts imposed under former president trump saying president biden wants to extend those four households making under $400,000 a year beyond their extended expiration of 2025. mr. biden's budget calls for extending tax cuts in a fiscally responsible manner bind using -- using new tax cuts to offset the increase. the cuts expand in the standard deduction and lower tax rates for all income groups and will lapse after 2025 unless congress acts. the budget provides the white house clear statements on one of

the largest fiscal choices facing the country enlarging -- in coming years. you can see more in the wall street journal. the president expected to make an announcement sometime this week on another run for office of the presidency of the united states. i will look to play that out in washington. let's hear from ruth in maryland. your top priority when it comes to politics. caller: thank you for c-span. my top priority is affordable housing, specifically housing choice vouchers, no section eight and specifically, i work on reunified families who have been separated simply because they do not have affordable housing. every year, about 10,000 kids get placed in the foster system because they do not have affordable housing. if we give that family a section eight voucher, we could save millions of dollars in the

country and expenditures. i have a question for you as a host your day notice sometimes, u.s. people how they came to that conclusion -- you ask people how they came to that conclusion and sometimes you do not. i am wondering how you discern when you are going to ask somebody to back up a fact? host: it is no science, it is more random and something that piques my interest to follow up with a question to be honest with you. let's go to richard in nebraska, independent line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am fine, go ahead. caller: my comment has to do with the issue of abortion. my thoughts are not universal. without pregnancy, you have no abortion. why are these people that want abortions getting pregnant in the first place? that is it, thank you. host: your top public policy issue for the remainder of our

time. peter in michigan. caller: my question -- my point is regarding the national debt. $32 trillion and climbing. the president is asking for a clean passage of the debt ceiling. my question is, why does it have to be increased so much if -- why does this debt ceiling have to be increased and what assurances do we have that it will not be increased again and again and again? host: ok. brandon in san francisco, republican line. hello. caller: hello. my main issue is, i am calling in regards to why both sides, republican and democrats, do not seem to go to the extreme about everything. it is like they cannot meet,

there is no middle ground like they are kids or something. when it come to debt, human rights, it is like it is always the extreme. people that want to be gay, they can be gay, but they go to the extreme and make the world gay. the rich want to be so rich they want to make everybody poor. it do not make no sense. why i got to be the extreme? why people can't meet in the gray area? host: that is brandon. wall street journal picking up a story taking a look at how states are differing when it comes to programs that would support transgender medicaid coverage. writing, republican-led states including mississippi and tennessee where the republican-controlled both legislative chambers and the governorship have introduced legislation to restrict some

coverage for care of gender transitioning patients. state led democrats defend medicaid coverage of what supporters call gender affirming care. treatment based on the patient's self identified gender regardless of the sex on the birth certificate. maryland lawmakers in march voted to expand treatment to include therapies such as voice modification surgery and fertility preservation services. that is the wall street journal if you want to that story. bill in maryland, democrats story. your top public policy issue. caller: good morning, thank you. my question is concerning abortion. the latest poll i have been looking at is indicating that the majority of american citizens whether they are democrats, republicans or independents are not in favor of an all-out abortion ban. my question is, it seemed to me if that is the case, then the

congress regardless of what party or people you are representing, you are not representing the people when you are not addressing the issues that the people have at hand. that is the polls saying that the majority of people are not against an all-out ban on abortion. thank you. host: from robert in texas, houston, texas. independent line. caller: good morning. top public policy issue for me that i really believe our government should be working right now is cannabis, which is inclusive of hemp and marijuana. in addition to the safe making act, which seemed to have i guess been on hold for a while. host: why is that a top issue? caller: because, again, cannabis

really is not the negative label that they have been talking about since 1937 with harry yang's linger. the cannabis plant itself has been an issue, not only for america, but the world. so far, we have not been educated on that. host: several states have taken their own approach to this. do you think it should stay at the state level, why does it have to enter the federal level do you think? caller: cannabis has worldwide benefits. it affects the world more positively than it does simply at state or local. host: how so? caller: again, the utility that cannabis actually has come of the products that can be made from it has worldwide benefits. host: ok. that is robert, independent line from texas. he is making cannabis a top

public priority for him as far as initiative is concerned -- an issue is concerned, you can add that to the mix. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. and dependents bang, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. on that front, there was an axios -- take a look at colorado's treatment of cannabis, one of the first states to -- highlights the fatal crashes that involve thc impairment in colorado, showing you the number stemming from 2016 to 2021. colorado is partnering with the marijuana industry to combat cannabis impaired driving 10 years after weed was first legalized in the state, fatal crashes involving the drug appears to be rising, that is part of the 420 safe driving

campaign. industry members met on wednesday to discuss how budtenders can act to prevent people from driving high. call in and add yours to the mix. joe in pensacola, florida. republican line. caller: first, i've got a suggestion. instead of having democrats and republicans call in, you should do it like people that pay income tax and people that do not pay income tax. the person that called earlier about trump's tax plan, for their information, his tax plan brought in another trillion dollars. congress raised everything they spent it.

when he passed his tax plan, i got a $60 a week raise. the exemptions for married people went up to $35,000. when biden came into office, he eliminated that. it went back down to $25,000. right then and there, the $10,000 tax increase on me. that is my opinion. host: that is joe in florida. earlier on the washington post, the various investigation undergoing the president's son, hunter biden. one of the lines from the story saying, complicating matters of the attorney from irs agent involved in the tax case sent a letter to congress asserting their were improper clinical interference of the hunter biden investigation. the agency is seeking whistleblower protection, one of the key questions asked on cbs

face the nation was chris coons -- here's a portion of what he had to say. [video clip] >> cbs interviewed earlier this week and attorney for an irs agent who is seeking whistleblower status from congress to share information he said would contradict sworn testimony to congress by senior political appointee regarding the investigation into hunter biden. do you think it is worth looking into the possibility of undue influence? >> anyone who comes forward and seeks whistleblower protection status should be given that status. that is part of what we put in place over many years, a system that allows career folks who work in different federal agencies the chance to load the whistle when they see something wrong. nothing has been presented yet, this person has not come forward in any detail. if and when they do, if there is substance to it, i expect the

chairman of the judiciary committee and the ranking member will ensure they are failure -- fairly treated. >> are you confident in the conduct of merrick garland when it comes to this case? >> i am. from the days president biden was campaigning to his first day as president made it clear he thought was during the independence of the department of justice, removing any political influence for potential investigations with a core value he brought to this service as president, i am confident that is in no small part why he chose a seasoned circuit court judge, someone with deep experience with the doj. i'm confident merrick garland has conducted himself appropriately. host: the hill reporting a lawyer for hunter biden and the son of the president on monday called for the office of congressional ethics to review representative marjorie taylor greene for unhinged rhetoric, also violations of house ethics

rules following a number of statements and accusations by the georgia lawmaker. representative greens conduct arise from defamatory statements, and promotion of conspiracy theories about and against hunter biden. that was obtained by politico. robin in pennsylvania, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question to ask you. all of the politicians and people in d.c., are there any background checks before they get into office? if you work at mcdonald's or burger king, you have to have a background check. does not seem like they are background checking anybody running for office. when they get into office, you always find out things then. are there background checks on these people? donald trump --nobody backtrack that. i want to know about background

checks, thank you. host: wayne is up next. montana, republican line. caller: hey, hi. i have tried many times to get through and never was able to. [laughter] this is crazy. host: you are on now. go ahead. caller: my comment is, i am very astute concerning the constitution. i cannot find anywhere in the constitution there is a right to either an abortion or homosexuality. that is all i wanted to say, that does not exist in our constitution. host: how does that apply today? caller: pardon? host: how does that apply today? caller: why are we accepting marriage license being granted to homosexuals and both --

actually in the scriptures, referred to as abomination. host: as far as the marriage license, the supreme court decided on this several years ago concerning same-sex marriage. and -- caller: the constitution is written off of the bible. host: where did you come up with that? how did you conclude that? caller: it is historical fact. host: ok. that is duane in montana. richard in indiana -- washington state is up next. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am in 84-year-old man. i am concerned why social security tax stops after a

worker or an employer pays $166,000 -- receives checks for $166,000. they do not have to pay social security tax for the rest of the year. why is that? host: you are calling for raising the cap on that? is that what you would like to advocate for? caller: i am calling for eliminating the cap. as long as you get a paycheck, whether you are an employer or employee, you should have a social security tax taken out. host: what do you think it will do if that happens? caller: i think it will fund social security so we do not have saying we will not have social security in five or six years from now. that will fund social security. host: that is richard in washington.

we have done in recent weeks, several segments taking a look at the social security program, its fiscal health. if you want to go to our website , c-span.org. several questions posed on potential changes, one of those ideas raised on the cap part of the discussions we have had on this program. go to the website to find out more. karen in north carolina, democrats line. caller: hi. i am calling you about the right for women to get medical care if they do need an abortion. since we are looking at everything on a women's responsibility, i do not understand it took two to tango to produce a child and nobody is talking about the male's responsibility. thank you. host: that is karen and washington state. one of the people on the sunday show yesterday with senator lindsey graham talking about, amongst other things, with

feinstein who has not returned due to medical issues, talks about the idea of what would happen should the senator from california decides to resign. here is part of that discussion. [video clip] >> as to senator feinstein, she is a wonderful person. she has been a very effective senator. i hope she comes back. we have marked her out for watch romans. no republican asked that seem to be temporarily filled. this is four or five judges that cannot get out of the can he. i voted for seven or nine judges a couple of days ago. i am capable of supporting democratic nominees, but four or five on the mainstream one to replace diane -- diane feinstein's seat. she does resign, i would be in the camp of following the president of the senate replacing the person consistent with what we have done in the past. i hope she comes back. host: you can see more on the sunday show.

some of us texting us, this is james saying improving education should be the top policy issue. the national sentiment of education progress often -- shows 26% of eighth-graders perform math proficiently. only 31% were reading at a proficient level. this is jim in indiana, america is broke. taxpayer cannot afford to pay for government handouts, free college, free rent, etc. everything is a big problem. a few were from north carolina, bob, when it comes to his public policy issues, it is gun-control which he would say, ban assault style weapons. reproductive freedom. mark in massachusetts saying for him, the top issue is the amount of the world -- the amount of money the world is spending on weapons systems if made will be used including nuclear weapons. those are some comments you can do and send us. text us at (202) 748-8003.

maryland, that is where anna is, independent line. caller: hi, good morning. i am calling in response to a caller before that mentioned how the bible was an influence on the constitution. i am not american. i am portuguese and canadian. isn't the first amendment of your constitution the separation of church and state? why are so many laws in america based on the bible if the constitution, the foundation of your constitution, is a separation of church and state? host: as soon as i push the right button -- florida, republican line, hi. caller: hi. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i am sorry. i think we should allow our children to study history, all the children to study history. not just one set of children, but the truth of history. host: such as what? caller: all history.

black history, all history. not improved history. host: i missed that last part. caller: not exclude history. host: do you think certain parts of history are excluded in the education system? caller: yes, sir. all the children deserve to hear all history. host: ok. that is pat in florida. let's hear from johnny -- joanne in chicago, democrats line. caller: good warning. the lady from maryland stole my thunder. she called in to say about the constitution not being written out of the bible, that man was wrong. the other thing i would like to say is, to the democrats -- stick with biden. the republicans stick with their man whether he is good or bad. the democrats should stick with

biden, he is good. host: when you say he is good, what do you mean? caller: what he has done, the bills that he has passed, the progression he has made for americans, not just democrats, but for americans, that we have gotten all those bills passed. i'm sorry, my mind is going blank right now. all the things he has done since he has been in office. there is a list, i know you have it on your c-span website. host: as far as the second term is concerned, why would you want -- if you gave him a second term, what would you want him to accomplish? caller: i would want him to get the voters bill -- the other man that tried to put through his bill, his voting rights bill.

they -- he should get that pas sed. i would like to see -- i know this is probably going to get a lot of flak. we have a department, where public schools had a foundation to work from. it seems like the department of education has disappeared, they've got rules in this state and rules in that state for different things for the public school education when it should be all the same. they should all be funded. when i was growing up, i do not remember the public schools having such a problem as far as teachers getting paid. they did not strike. the kids at least getting a better education than they are getting now and not getting the education they should. host: let's hear from brandon in

virginia, independent line. caller: i wanted to, one, thank you for your program. something you said earlier about colorado and their actions report for thc -- accidents report for thc going up, you cannot rely on those numbers. how thc works and how it sticks in your system. i could smoke a joint saturday night, get into an accident wednesday. if you pull a toxicology report, i am going to have thc in my system. it does not necessarily mean i was smoking a joint at the time of the accident. those numbers need to be looked at and scrutinized. while everybody is talking about the constitution, i am sad to see our second amendment is dwindling away year by year with the rise of crime. how do we protect ourselves when these no good criminals are going to have more access to

guns and we see both sides of the aisle make it harder for us to have our weapons that we need to defend ourselves for everyday life? host: are you saying -- the second amendment dwindling away, what leads to that conclusion? caller: i sell firearms for battlefield technical. i sell weapons to people with different states, some into maryland, d.c., and there are so many -- in d.c., you can have nar, but it has to have a modified handle. you have to have a fixed exiting. in virginia, you do not need any of that and it makes it harder for you to have that weapon. in d.c., you cannot carry a weapon within 1000 feet of a federal building. they are everywhere. d.c. is just as bad as the republicans in chicago.

there are shootings and carjackings and so much crime. citizen host: there is a story recently on the hill website which conducted a survey about firearm purchases and came to the conclusion that almost 60 million guns were purchased during the pandemic. you can check out that story at the hill.com. that's it for the program today, another issue of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. see you then. why [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] >> in about 15 minutes, the

librarian of congress and ken burns and others will gather to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the pew charitable trust and reflect on democracy in america live when it gets underway here on c-span. we will have more light covers this afternoon at 2 p.m. eastern with a preview of an asset in united arab emirates spacewalk. the briefing is at the johnson space center in houston at 2 p.m. eastern. then the chair of the senate armed services committee, jack reed talks about the events department priorities including challenges posed by china, support for ukraine and the health of the industrial base and that's live at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also watch on c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by these television companies and more including

comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 committee centers to create wi-fi enabled areas so students from lower income families to get prepared to learn what they need to know. comcast supports c-span along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span shop.org is our online store. browse through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decor. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase of support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime on c-span shop.org. mccarthy's debt ceiling limit plan is