pacific. enjoy the rest of your saturday. ♪

♪ host: this is washington journal for saturday, may 4. campus protests continued this week. calling on please and clearing encampments. yesterday marked the end of the second week of former president donald trump's hush money trial. those are two stories that made headlines this week. to start the program we want to hear from you. what is your top news story of the week? democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents,, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us you can do so at (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/cspan, or on x at

@cspanwj. in addition to campus protests and the hush money trial here are some of the other headlines e been following this week. the dea recommended reclassifying marijuana. the federal reserve held interest rates at a 23-year high. rates slowed according to the april job report. marjorie taylor greene announced she is continuing her push to remove house speaker mike johnson. we will get to calls in a few minutes. first, according to the associated press when we are talking about this campus protests, 4200 plus students arrested on 46 campuses nationwide since april 17. those campuses have taken down

-- have made moves to take down those encampments. this article from the washington post talks about how universities have hope as summer nears that they will get a little bit of a break. the article talked to students in new york and washington, d.c. though students say they have no plans to stop their push at the universities. they are planning to move forward. they will not slow down much this summer. according to the article, the stakes have far-reaching consequences for students, college administrators, big-city mayors, police agencies and president biden. some democrats worry of people the summer, especially after the august convention in chicago could damage president biden's reelection campaign. speaking of the white house on thursday, biden recognized they

would be no quick end to the demonstrations as he sought to carve out a middle ground. here's what president biden said at the white house earlier this week. [video] >> there should be no place on any campus, no place in america for antisemitism or threats of violence against jewish students. there is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether it is antisemitism, islamophobia, or discrimination against arab-americans or palestinian americans. there is no place for racism in america. it is all wrong. it is un-american. i understand people have deep convictions. in america we respect the right to protect the right for them to express that. it does not mean anything goes. it needs to be done without violence, without destruction, without hate, and within the law. make no mistake. as president i will always

defend free speech. i will always be just as strong standing up for the rule of law. that is my responsibility to you, the american people, in my obligation to the constitution. thank you very much. >> have the protests forced you to reconsider any policies in the region? >> that. -- no. thank you. >> should the national guard intervene? >> no. host: at a rally in wisconsin early this week, former president trump spoke out against president biden, saying he did not do enough early enough about those campus protests. here are his comments. [video] >> think of it. he has not been heard from. when he's the president. when you have a problem like that you should go out and talk to the people. there's a big problem. of the fever in our country and he's not talking.

if he did, it would matter. it would make it worse. many are not even students. many come from foreign countries. thousands and thousands are from foreign countries. i was wondering about that. where these people come from? every college president, remove the encampments immediately, vanquish the radicals and take back our campuses for all the normal students who want a safe place from which to learn. [applause] host: this headline in the wall street journal. it is from ben sasse on another president of the university of florida. adults are still in charge of the university of florida. he writes, "parents are rightfully furious at the asinine entitlement of these activists and the embarrassing timidity of many college administration's. one parent put it bluntly. why the hell should anybody spend money to send their kids

to college? players are asking the same thing. at the university of florida we are asking -- we tell parents and future employers we are not perfect but the adults are still in charge. he goes on to say, cherish the first amendment right of speech and assembly. we draw a hard line at unlawful actions. speech is in violence. speech is not violence. violence is an violence -- is violence. we have an opportunity to keep our students safe, going for us, storing buildings, vandalizing property, hijacking the university art speech. we will go to the phones. lana from st. petersburg, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. welcome, america. i would like to make a comment. i was born in the 1960's right after the vietnam war.

my parents complained about the economy up and down, gas prices. i moved to florida 20 years ago for a better life. it was wonderful here. florida has done me no wrong. all of a sudden the economy booms, jacked up to the point i can't afford to live here anymore. i moved from california to florida because of the economy. my question is actually, our children, which are young adults, they are watching in front of the tv as they grow up. war and conflict and arguments between democrats, republicans. i don't identify with any. i have not voted since obama. i don't care for biden. i don't care for trump. why is young adults' passion

turned to anger? their parents. they have watched their parents so upset, so outraged that i don't understand where is the caucus? where is writing your congressman, your senator? that is the way we were raised to address issues. nowadays it's just war. i think it is really sad. that is what we see on tv. i would like to know where the line is for passion to anger. even some of the callers. sure, they are passionate but they are angry. they wonder why our young adults are angry. because they watch our 60, 70, 80-year-old adults. have a blessed day. host: roy in nashville, tennessee on the republican line. caller: good morning. i'm down here in nashville, tennessee. my top new story this week is

the story of these college campuses. it is crazy. my biggest question, the attack happened on october 7. why did they not start protests? that is the biggest question mark. was paying for those tents? they all look brand-new. somebody is finding them. can't say that for sure. something is not right about this. host: joel in mountain home, arkansas, republican line. caller: how are we doing? i believe you are new but not rupture -- but i'm not sure. clear nms. -- we are in a mess. that's because our administration has no bite in it anymore. we talk and talk and talk but we

don't get anything done. i will jump around a little bit because i have not had time to make all my notes. i returned from vietnam in 1968. i was at presidio 6 army headquarters. we had the freedom riders about the war in vietnam. now they are all in politics. they have got us in this mess. we did nothing back then. free speech does not allow you to go the colleges and take over. we have to redo what free speech is. you have no business going on these colleges and making headaches for people. we are closing -- the young kids today, they just follow anyone. i am jumping around a lot. i don't have my thoughts together. i'm 82 years old.

this administration got us in three wars. this war we are fighting in ukraine, we are not just fighting the russians. we are fighting north korea. how do i say this? i served in korea. i know what north korea is doing. player supplying all weapons there to ukraine, a bunch of weapons. we are fighting the chinese there. they are supplying a bunch of weapons. we are fighting the russians. they are supplying weapons and fighting this war. the same thing happened in vietnam. we just wasn't fighting the north vietnamese. we found medical supplies that was delivered there probably from the black market from germany, all these countries over there. now we have no bite anymore. we talk and talk.

you have to make an example of these people. you have to think of this liter we have in israel now. he is showing the what hell can be like. now joe biden wants to bring these people from the gaza strip into this country. host: how would you summarize your comments into this wii's top story -- week's top story? caller: we have no leader. this country is run by a senile person with the strings being pulled by obama, george soros, and all this mess. i served 22 years in the army and retired. this is terrible. take these college kids and put them in the military and let them go support their action. fight for the country. they don't care about this country. take away their scholarship. don't pay their student loan.

let's put them in uniform. you come here, you have two years to serve like we did in the 1959 and 1960's. we have made it too easy for everybody. host: we will go to eric in san jose, california, democrats line. caller: good morning. the top new story would be the campus riots that have been going on. i think it is kind of interesting how the other caller mentioned everyone is so angry all the time. the blt movement. you see people saying their piece but they start property destruction or whatever. it gets a little -- not weird

but interesting how i would think a lot of students, if you don't want your college or university to invest in this or that where they cannot come up with an alternative -- if you going to columbia university, where my aunt went, come up with alternatives for your campus administration where they can try to find some other way to -- or, you don't hear from the students where they will say we will take more of the hit for our tuition or whatever. you cannot go where they don't want them to invest their money in. i never hear students say what their solution is. everyone is like no, no, no. not enough of this is what is acceptable or working with students. who would like this route. take this route as opposed to that route.

i would like to mention thanks for c-span for being there. i would appreciate more point-counterpoint issues on policy. it is helpful to give everybody context on pros and cons of whatever the policy might be. good is very helpful when you guys have some of the experts on to help us understand the dynamics of all these complex issues. a lot of people like to say biden is bad or whatever. he's and institutionalist. things can go slower in that context. if i had to say overall the campus violence would be the top issue. host: eric was talking about the funding that comes from donors. according to the new york times,

calls to divest from israel put students and donors at odds. it talks about a small number of universities agreed to reconsider investments in companies that do business with israel. schools are still far from falling money. brown university, a liberal ivy league institution agreed this week only to hold a board vote this fall whether it's $6.6 billion endowment should be divested from any israeli connected holdings. northwestern and the university of minnesota have struck deals with student protesters for a clear campus and commitment to discuss the school's investment policies around israel. the move could add pressure to administrators at columbia university, the university of michigan, and the university of north carolina were protesters have made divestment from israel a central rallying cry.

the financial issue -- divestment from israel has long been untouchable both in american politics and among wall street titans who manage university endowments and make up a large source of donations. the article says even renewed talks of divestment has raised alarms among well-heeled donors whom few universities dear cross and have exerted influence on campus since the october 7 attack on israel and the subsequent invasion of gaza. we will go to ray in ohio calling on the republican line. caller: good morning. host: what is your top news story this week? caller: hi just wanted to call and say with every thing going on at the colleges, there's a lot of good children in college.

there's a lot of things going on that are running this country down. there is a song out a long time ago by admiral haggard. -- meryle haggard. you are walking on the fighting side of me. we have got to get up and do the things they are doing right now. is wrong. -- it's wrong. we should go in the cities with the fire department on a broadcasting thing and play that song over and over again until they get the message. you are walking on the fighting side of me. running down our country. let this song be a warning. you are walking on the fighting side of me. i'm proud of this country. i wish to god they would quit. when he donald trump in there very bad right now. i'm praying he gets elected.

host: donald in elk grove village, illinois, independently. -- independent line. caller: i don't know where to begin. illinois just past a thing. they are not allowed to slate anymore. if you don't run in the primary, you don't get to be on the ballot no matter what. illinois is basically a dead state. the republicans, what they were doing is run a slate. nelly made it illegal. they will take it to the court. these people have really great points calling in. remember bernadine dorn? her son is at northwestern, of professor. he's the one promoting the palestinians. he is a son of a terrorist.

this country, i'm telling you now, i have been watching politics. i remember when khrushchev slammed his shoe on the table. if people don't rid of the democrats and bring anybody else in this country is doomed to die. host: larry in knoxville, tennessee, also on the independent line. caller: good morning. someone called in and said they did not know what. they did not start heavy protests until after those five workers, theid workers were killed over there. that is when the protests really to form. i believe they have the right to protes the leadership, someone maybe

should have gone to the campus and had a speech and talk to them. let themnow what they plan to do to address their grievances. you see nothg. yoexpect them as a young person to be logical. i don't understand tha host: what would you like t message to be if somebody was to talk with the students? caller: peace. that's the message. host: rick in north carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have much to say on this.

i don't know if you know, the students that are here are on international visas. they just go back to where they came from. cancel their visa and are not allowed on these visas. does anyone know what happens to the students? host: what is your concerned with the students that have the visas? caller: if they participate, setting things on fire, breaking into buildings, committing crimes on campuses. are they allowed to stay in the country? i am unclear on that. i just don't know. host: bronny in mark -- ronnie in mooresville, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i am a retiree. i'm listening to everything going on on college campuses. it started with the hostages

that they would not release the hostages. we were seeing the brutality of the palestinians or whoever caused it. that is where it started. biden is doing everything he can to end it without putting his finger on the trigger. he is doing a good job with everything he's doing. he is a decent guy. he cares about this country. if we have trump in office there will be a policeman and a. gun on every corner of this country putting down whatever he thinks is necessary. i am terrified of trump, of what he's capable of doing. he said it. he believes it. he will do it. that is what i fear most of the

trump presidency. it will be frightening. return the hostages. that is what i want them to do. get those hostages back to their families. they did nothing. that is all i have to say. thank you c-span for being there every morning for me. -she you very much. -- i appreciate you very much. host: joe and staten island on the republican line. caller: hi. tuition. [inaudible] in 1980, it was $10,000. tuition is twice inflation. host: this week the house did approve an antisemitism bill aimed at the pro-palestinian

campus protests. before the house voted on the bill there was floor debate. here are the remarks from the gop sponsor of the antisemitism awareness act, republican michael lawler. [video] >> codifying to single definition will help the department of education and administrations identify entered schism -- antisemitism. some opponents may try to make the argument that this imposes a constant --imposes restrictions on rights to free speech. it is not true. first of all, constitutional protection is in the bill. it clearly states nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any rights protected under the first amendment to the constitution of the united states.

speech is already protected under the civil rights act. when the speech turns into harassment or other prohibited action and the action is motivated by anti-semitism, it becomes illegal conduct. without a clear definition the department of ed an collagen ministries are having trouble discerning whether conduct is anti-semitic or not. whether the activity we are seeing crosses the line to anti-semitic harassment. other opponents to the bill said he would rather see a different bill tackling this. >> gentlemen is recognized for an additional minute. >> that no reason annual political cover to vote against another measure is helpful. i ask my colleagues who would prefer other solutions, consider the good it will do for the jewish students. keep pushing for more change in the future. we need to hold these institutions accountable. my bill has bipartisan support.

59 cosponsors, dozens of jewish advocacy groups including the adl, hhc. it is absurd to oppose this on the grounds that it somehow limits free speech. calling for death to jews is not protected speech. it is anti-semitic. the fact that we have some of the highest ranking jewish officials in america refusing to defend the jewish community because of politics is a disgrace. it is shameful. it is pathetic. anyone who votes against this bill because they would rather put political expediency and electoral politics ahead of anything else -- >> an additional 30 seconds. >> -- has no business being a member of congress. never again is now. we must act.

that is a responsibility. host: according to the hill the house did approve the legislation by a vote of 320-91 votes. 21 republicans and 70 democrats opposed the measure. the bill would require the department of education to use the international holocaust remembrance alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing antidiscrimination laws. one of the democrats who oppose the legislation was congressman jerrold nadler. here are his remarks on the floor speaking out against the bill. [video] >> i oppose this bill because it infringes on freedom of speech. there are jewish groups such as reconstruction judaism that oppose this bill for the same reason. they are not anti-semitic.

they support the bill. there are jewish groups that oppose the bill. i have been a supporter of israel and zionism and opponent of antisemitism all my life. i have been active in zionist organization since i was in high school. to say that anyone who votes against this bill is supporting antisemitism is a disgrace. there are differences of opinion that occur on this floor from time to time. honest differences. someone who opposes this bill may think it infringes on freedom of speech. someone who opposes this bill may know the author of the definition the bill would enshrined in law said don't codify it. the author, kenneth stern, said

this is a working definition, indicate antisemitism. so are the other two. it should not be codified into law, because that could make, depending on the circumstances, free speech illegal. the author of the definition said that. there may be legitimate differences of opinion between those who support the bill and those who oppose this bill. but to say that anyone who opposes this bill supports and my kisses -- antisemitism is a disgraceful slander. host: a couple of comments on facebook. "how bite and to stop the very protest at colleges that he caused. shays, "the continued trial in new yk that crilly shows trump and his cohorts paying off those he could have severely

damaged the campaign for 2016 is another in a long list of corrupt actions by the former president." john in archibald, pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: thank you f letting me speak my mind he. thiss for the previous caller. she was so afraid of donald trump being in office. are you absolutely happy with joe biden and the way he has turned this country upside down? you can't afford anything. everything is in turmoil. we have the most, you know, terrible border. we can have terrorists coming in left and right. we don't even know. this is insane as far as what is going on with this country. as far as democrats out there, i

don't know what it is, why you like joe biden. i think you guys better think. trump is no gray person or whatever -- great person or whatever but i think is a far better candidate than biden. host: we will go to james in tennessee on the democrats line. good morning, james. caller: my comment on the top weak story -- week's story is donald trump, the republicans and the evangelicals that support him. if a democratic president was accused of half the things donald trump was accused of all the republicans that are speaking right now for donald trump, their hair would be on fire and yelling at the top of

their voice. not only that, democrats would not support a democratic president if they were accused of half the things donald trump is accused of right now. all the ones that are supporting donald trump right now, they are supporting donald trump even with the things he's accused of. they are saying they are not supporting joe biden because of things that are beyond his control. i feel the republican party should new themselves now the hypocritical party. thank you. host: naomi in maryland on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few top issues. the focus is around a few of your podcasts i have listened to

recently. number one, david sanger and his new book "the new cold wars," and there is much the following the title. it speaks about the cold war we are facing at this time between the alliance of russia, china, and -- host: are you there? we will go to mel in new york on the independent line. caller: hello. i'm bringing up the college protest going on, especially at columbia university and what we are watching is the rotten fruit from critical race theory that was introduced at that school back in 1935. what we are seeing is cultural

marxism being academia's illogical molotov cocktail exploding on college campuses. cancel the graduation at usc and blocking traffic goers from getting to the destination. columbia, go back to your biblically derive motto. in thy light we shall see light. psalms 36:9. the faculty should be ashamed of themselves. they need to return to the words of the former president samuel johnson who said you have received a public education. the purpose has been to qualify you to serve your creator and country. the education today slams or serve our creator and our country now. return to those words of that president.

i think we will see a shift in education, which includes separating state from education. get the money out of the schools that come from taxpayers. privatize that education. get rid of the department of education which has inserted itself in ways that leads to the decline of education rather than elevating students to a place where ivy league schools truly educate youth. host: paul in edgar, arizona, democrats line. caller: good morning. it is actually pronounced eager. the amount of ignorance i hear on the phone calls about the terrible economy when it is actually great. you can find a job at any street corner in america. i don't know what these republicans want.

i called about the occurrence of america. 21% of adults in america are illiterate. 54% of adults in the united states can't read or comprehend above a six grade level. i hear that morning for the republicans when they keep repeating these conspiracy theories that like the last guy come out of nowhere and he wants the ivy league colleges to go back to their religious origins in the 1700s. this is the 21st century. these guys need to wake up. get an education, learn something. learn how our economy works. democrats are always pulling republicans out of recession. check your history. every republican president in the last 50 years has ended the presidency in a recession. it is not a lie. it is a fact. you can go look.

thank you. host: tony in weaver falls, pennsylvania, independent line. good morning tony. caller: good morning c-span. i don't know where to begin. i agree with the last caller. there is so much confusion in this country. it is so divided. my top story is about the protests and about donald trump. first with donald trump. dahlstrom should be charged with murder. anyone who died on january 6. there was a caller that talked about alleged terrorist crossing the border. he don't say anything about the terrorist that attacked the capitol on january 6. anyone that did, anyone that died, is the result of donald trump.

with the protests, there is a big difference between genocide and being anti-semitic. there is a genocide taking place in the west bank. that is what these kids are protesting. they are not anti-semitic. there are a lot of jews who support this protest. they are not anti-semitic. you cannot criticize israel without being anti-semitic. it baffles me. host: also in the news, i headline from the washington post. indicted on charges of bribery. representative henry cuellar and his wife allegedly accepted $600,000 in bribes from an oil company controlled by the azerbaijan government in a bank headquartered in mexico according to a federal indictment unsealed in texas on

friday. the congressman and his wife are accused of setting up a front company that entered into sham contracts with the bank and the azerbaijan government. they denied wrongdoing. the 54-page indictment details the corruption scheme in which cuellar allegedly promised to wield his power as a congressman to advocate for his benefactors. we will go to lori in miami on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have listened to c-span for years. i am sick and tired of them complaining. i used to listen to c-span for solutions. could you help me with solutions with a college? maybe if they had two phases

where you can protest -- stages where you can protest. after the protest you go. each side would be able to voice their opinion. give solutions and stop complaining. thank you. host: steve in gaithersburg, maryland, republican line. caller: thanks very much. i will preamble it. i'm a retired commander from the navy. 75 years old. as a midshipman first glassma -- first class i was taught to look at the distinction between what is important and what is urgent. i have got to tell you, this week c-span had exclusive coverage of these two events. the first is important to my

family. one of my nephews is there. a memorial for colonel ralph puckett, the last medal of honor awardee from the korean war. the second important to me as i deal with climate activism was the launch of the american climate corps. you know the new deal? the ccc? the civilian conservation corps. it is like the peace corps. i can elaborate if you need but those are the two important stories. thank god for c-span to cover the important. everybody else covers the urgent. host: thank you, steve. james in newark, new jersey on

the independent line. hi james. caller: hi c-span. yeah. i'm 71 years old. i have been active since i was three years old, 1956. i have a message for people protesting israel. hamas and zionists. the history of zionism. [indiscernible] i know it's happening. hamas charge the people money for full dentistry with their tools, the palestinians.

brothers and sisters in the movement. thank you. host: we will go to tim in alabama on the democrats line. how do you say the name of your city? caller: bolagee. the top news story is the campus demonstrations. they are trying to paraphrase it as being anti-semitic. it has nothing to do with antisemitism. they are using antisemitism today as they did with mccarthy and communism years ago. if they passed an anti-semitic bill, where were the republicans when in charlottesville the

white supremacy groups were marching down the streets saying the jews not replace us? donald trump called good people on both sides. where were these people talking about antisemitism then? the other thing is, what is going on in gaza is genocide. the palestinians are under israel military control. there's over 18,000 palestinians in prison over there. they protested about the way the government of israel is treating them on october 7. now they want to murder 35,000 people because 1000 jewish people were killed.

they have 100 hostages so we have got to continue slaughtering these people because netanyahu is a criminal, were criminal. -- war terminal and joe biden is supporting him. thank you. host: janet in arizona on the democrats line. caller: is that me? host: that is you. caller: i am calling to say thank you young students who were protesting. thank you college professors who have prepared them. thank you young college students for speaking for those of us who are so busy working and who are too tired to get out there and march with you. thank you college students for speaking up for us. our media has failed us. our politicians have failed us.

now you are coming through for us. i want these college students to understand that we the public have your back. come november, we will go with you. make sure you are registered to vote because we senior citizens and we working people will be there with you to vote in november. we don't want trump and we don't want biden. it is like a dirty joke is being played on us. we don't want either one of them because they are both supporting genocide. we know genocide when we see it. these young people have the means to get out there and speak for us. thank you young college students. host: steve in san jose, california, republican line. caller: i think the most serious problem facing this nation today

is the state of our education system. i noticed it. i'm 72 years old and i noticed it in the early 1960's. when the math program was changed to smsg. we joked about it and we gave it the words some mathematician sure goofed. it was a way of doing math but it was extremely confusing. from that point in time it has just gotten worse. our children can't read. they can't write. they can't do math. they can't do hardly anything. i asked myself why. i have come to the conclusion

that since the democrats control our education system the democrats controlled the teachers unions. it is not in the best interest of the democrats or the teachers unions to educate our children so that they can get good paying jobs such as engineers and doctors and all these good paying jobs because then they wouldn't need the handouts that the democrats rely on to buy vote. that is fact. i don't see it changing. the democrats are not for charter schools. it is a well-known fact that students and charter schools

outperform those in public education. i don't see it changing anytime soon. thank you. host: one of the other headlines we followed this week on c-span was the u.s. jobs report for april. according to cnbc, it totaled 175,000 in april, much less than expected. unemployment rose to 3.9%. the federal reserve announced they are keeping rates steady as it notes lack of further progress on inflation. fed chairman jerome powell spoke about the decision to hold interest rates where they are early this week. here are his remarks. [video] >> my colleagues and i remain focused on the mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the american people.

the economy has made considerable progress toward our dual mandate objectives. inflation has eased substantially over the past year while the labor market remains strong. that is very good news. inflation is still too high. further progress in bringing it down is not assured in the path forward is uncertain. we are committed to returning inflation to our 2% goals. restoring price stability is essential to achieve a sustainably strong labor market that benefits all. today the fomc decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged and continue to reduce our securities holdings, though at a slower pace. a restrictive monetary policy has been putting down to pressure on economic activity and inflation and the risks to achieving employment and inflation goals have moved toward a better balance over the past year. however, in recent months inflation has shown a lack of

further progress towards our 2% objective and we remain highly attentive to inflation risks. host: we will go to robert in ohio on the independent line. caller: hello. how are you doing today? i want to say that there was an incident that happened in canton, ohio, a black man got killed by two white officers. the officer even said blah blah blah. they said it was george floyd 2.0. i forgot his name. he is the attorney -- benjamin

crump. it is so ironic. a lot of people talk about palestinians and everything. i'm a black man. why don't we have a crime bill? i don't know. that is crazy to me. nobody wanted to vote for that but they are voting for that anti--- what is it? you cannot talk bad about a jewish person but you can talk a lot of stuff against black people and demean us. i am wondering why is that? host: you might want to stay with the program at 8:00. we will be talking with jillian snider with the r street institute.

she will be talking about use of force and the organization's recommendation on increasing data transparency. that might be a conversation you would be interested in. we will go to jack in georgia calling on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for having your station. i think y'all are really right in between. i think you are good people. i am a republican but i am also a human being. i understand about the college students and what they are trying to do. i think israel has a right to defend their nation. it was like a 9/11 for them. i also think they have taken it too far. also all these young people who

i know are highly educated young kids, we cannot be the world's police for any nation. i am 65 or 70 miles from atlanta, georgia. we have children, black children, white children, hispanic children that are being put out here on the street for 14 to 15 years old and are being sold to have sex with people. we have people in chicago, illinois, young black people who don't have no opportunity to look ahead so they go to gangs. i think this nation needs to take care of our children. the college students who were going to be the future leaders,

i think they should take that energy and put it back towards within. we have to be a whole nation to be able to help other people. our younger generation is fading away. i understand their outlook about the palestinians. i agree with it. but also you don't need to go into college campuses and barricade yourself because you are defeating your purpose. they need to take that energy. i know there are good people. there are a lot of outside people, not just the students. i have seen it in atlanta on tv. there are outside people being arrested causing problems. i have seen black lives matter. i believe in black lives matter

but all lives matter. this younger generation is going to be the future of this nation. we need to take care of our own people first. host: we got your point, jack. john in florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. a couple of quick corrections for most of the callers. nobody died on january 6 except her ashli babbitt who was one of the protesters and another young lady i cannot recall her name. as far as the protests for the palestinian people, i wonder why nobody protested for the uighur muslims in china. there are 2 million of them in concentration camps. nobody does anything about that or cares about that. it's amazing how outside educators and money from outside can get people to do just about anything. my main story would be the u.s.

central command in africa thrown out of niger. 1000 troops are no living side-by-side with russian troops and they will be taking over. the american troops are being thrown out. as far as the african command -- that was a $100 million base that the russians will be taking over. if anybody wants to look into that, is pretty interesting. the french are getting kicked out all over africa and we are getting kicked out and the russians and chinese are moving in. the foreign by this administration is an abject disaster across the board. have a great saturday and sunday. host: the last call for this hour, mark in massachusetts on the independent line. caller: good morning. you pronounced groton correctly this time. welcome to c-span.

i am a long time viewer and quite often caller. my top story is an old story. the national debt. i encourage all listeners and viewers to vote against the incumbent in the house and senate. i do that every time. both parties keep running up the debt. they will completely destroy this country. it is horrible. on the protest at the college campuses, that obviously is the top story, the real top story of the week, of the month. i don't know, one of your colors

and why didn't they stop protesting -- start protesting october 7? that's the point, it's been going on for seven months or so, coming up on seven months. and, you know, how long is netanyahu going to continue to just, you know, i know they have to have security and everything. but he is you know, killed over 100, i think over 100 journalist have died in gaza. and you know, some 30,000 palestinians. so that's, for all the viewers that don't know what the protests are all about, it's about the colleges divesting, encouraging their colleges to divest from their investments. at m.i.t. in massachusetts, i heard on my local news protesters there, the local news

just said there was the professors were having a protest, an antiwar protest at harvard. but at m.i.t., right at the other end of cambridge, they are wondering if, if the israelis are using drones, mainly at m.i.t. these college students, they have a point. they are like, we don't want our university, we don't want our, you know, money that we pay for tuition and the endowment to our universities being used to kill innocent civilians so that's it. have a good day. host: thanks to mark and everyone who called in. up next, we are going to be talking with r street institute criminal justice and civil liberties policy director jillian snider. she's going to discuss a new report and recommendatns on increasing police data transparency. later in the program, it is our

annual crime for the exam -- cram for thexam review session with high school students across the country. soal science teacher sunshine cavalluzzi will join us to discuss the ap u.s. government and politics exam coming up on this monday and how students can prepare for it. will be taking calls from high school students only. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. >> ♪ strange fruit hanging from the tree ♪ >> the historical legacy of singer billie holiday's song strange fruit, her lament about the lynching of after megan's. here her stories about the -- lynching of african americans. hear her stories about the song.

this week will future the 1975 senate committee, led by idaho democratic senator frank church, which examines alleged abuses within the u.s. intelligence community. on the presidency, the atlantic staff writer on president woodrow wilson's legacy, including his efforts to persuade the u.s. to join the league of nations and the segregated federal government of his time. exploring the american story. watch american history tv every weekend. and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch onnenytime at c-span.org /history. ♪ >> is there a relationship between soft and hard money and pac and super pac's? >> can you explain the difference between dual

federalism and cooperative federalism? >> are you a student planning to take the advanced placement u.s. government and politics exam? join us for our annual cram for the exam special to get the be ts and strategies to succeed on the test. ap government teacher sunshine cavalluzzi from el dorado high school in placentia, california will take your questions on the content and structure of this year's exam. sunshine: key areas to focus on, the founding documents required, the supreme court cases required. you know part of the exam will come from those lists. >> get your test questions ready and participate by calling in or asking your questions on c-span, on x at @cspanwj or hashtag #cramfortheexam [gavel smash] >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other.

since 1979, we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered covers a government taking you to where the policy is debated and decided. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to talk about a new report and recommendations to increase police data transparency is jillian snider. she is with the r street institute. she is their criminal justice and civil liberties policy director. good morning. jillian: good morning. host: thank you so much for joining us. tell us a little bit about the report. who did you talk with? where did you get your data? jillian: so, my colleague, logan, we did a deep dive into not only qualitative interviews with former law enforcement officers who have now become private practitioners. we also conducted an email

interview with the fbi's national user force database collection office. we provided a lot of insight into how they developed their program back in 2019, how it's progressed, looking into what they mandate for participation if you are choosing to voluntarily purchase a paid in the program. but more importantly, we really wanted to focus on people who were on the job, people who did this for a career and what their thoughts were on use of force. how we can make data more readily available to the public and how officers can be more transparent. host: one of the things your report focuses on is that lack of standard data. what do we know right now about the impact not having that data is having on policing accountability, public confidence in policing? jillian: so, there is no global or even national use of force standard protocol.

all officers are similarly trained in that we start, you know, low-level interactions with verbal communications. if you need to bring it up a notch, you will then use a stronger, louder verbal commands and then so on. your behavior is, and this is really important and i think all law enforcement officers would agree, on officer's behavior is most often dictated by the behavior, the attitudes, the aggression level of the person they are encountering. so, all officers are trained similarly in that regard. we will not take it to a higher level if we are dealing with a compliant individual. but because we do not have this national standardization in the way that we use force, the way that we collect or report the force, and then the way that we make it readily available to the public, or even to the fbi, it does not allow agencies to be able to identify early on any problematic officer or even any problematic location within their jurisdiction. because as we can discuss, crime

is localized. there is hotspots of crime. and more often then not, law-enforcement agencies will deploy their officers and their resources based on that. if you are seeing a high concentration of police involved force, which is most often the result of force used against them, you will deploy, strategically, of course. but we don't have that, so it makes it really hard for researchers to help law enforcement agencies identify tactical solutions to address crime in their area. host: we will get more into the report. but something that it notes is one way to improve data collection would be setting a standard, setting standard definitions. why isn't there a consensus on what is use of force? jillian: so, every agency uses different tools. and again, most people understand that law enforcement officers are authorized to carry firearms. some agencies will carry longer rifles.

other agencies will have every officer equipped with a taser. and some agencies, not every officer is equipped with a taser. you will see differences in the type of pepper spray or oz spray that officers use as well as differences in the type of nightsticks, batons used. because we all have somewhat different tools, and makes it a little different to create the standardization. but we can create something in which officers are reporting or agencies are reporting all types of use of force. something that logan and i discovered is that most agencies are at least internally collecting this information. if an officer uses force, it is recorded. it is, you know, then compiled internally. it is not being reported either to the state or federal government for us to understand. but agencies are also identifying different types of force differently. for example, in some agencies,

if an officer draws their weapon, which most would assume is a coercive tactic. if a regular citizen has a gun pointed at them, they will feel lucky they are to comply with a lawful order. some agencies will record that as a use of force. a lot of other agencies do not see it as a use of force because maybe that officer was able to get the suspects to subdue, handcuff, affect a lawful arrest without their actually being any physical force. i would take that pointing a weapon at someone as a use of force. but like i said, other agencies do not. not having the consistency in what is defined as use of force against what is not makes it a lot harder to even understand the differences between agencies and states. host: and you are now with the r street institute, but you are a retired new york city police department officer. you spent 14 years in the uniform. how did your experience working in law enforcement influence or

help you in putting this report together? jillian: i was really fortunate that i never had to use force in the line of duty. most officers will never use deadly physical force in the line of duty. i worked in brooklyn and the bronx over the course of my nypd career. i did a lot of really fun stuff. i got to work, in the anti-crime unit i worked in the street-level narcotics unit, i did patrols come of course. but i did what i learned from just dealing with regular folks in the communities that i served. i wanted to know, what is their biggest concern with law enforcement? and believe it or not, i worked in two of the highest crime areas of new york city. most people really appreciated the post. even when some tragedy did occur where police were involved, most of the folks that lived there, worked there, went to school there, they were grateful for the law enforcement presence. but they were really outspoken that they felt like they were not always in the know of what

was going on behind the scenes. and of course, law enforcement agencies have to protect, you know, classified information i will call it. in terms of how often an officer is using force or how often a use of force incident occurs within a locality, i think that the public would feel refreshed to be knowing that information. because not only would help kind of establish that trust that has been broken over the last several years but it gives the community members in situ that cops go out there, 50 million interactions every year. and less than 2% of them overall in the data that's readily available shows that there is a threat with an actual use of force but the public does not know that. when i engage with members of the community, whether it's just talking to someone on the street or even if it was debriefing a suspect i arrested, they were just like, we want to know what's going on. when we feel like we are in the dark, we do not trust you. host: we are talking with jillian snider, criminal justice

and civil liberties policy director for the r street institute. if you have a question or comment for her, you can start calling in now. the lines are regional. if you're in the eastern and central time zone, your line is (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. and we also want to hear from other members of the law enforcement community about your experience. your line is (202) 748-8002. what can you tell us about what data collection looks like right now? who is doing it? what kind of data are they trying to compile? what happens to it? jillian: so, quite a few states do have laws on the books that mandate they not only report the data but that they also disseminate it and they report it to the fbi. i think right now, we have about 57% of law enforcement agencies are participating in the fbi use

of force database. that would represent between 65% and 70% of sworn officers in the country. there has been a great increase over the past few years where agencies are reporting this data, again, passing it up to the state level, who would then pass it off to the state government. the fbi's reporting is very different from what some local agencies are actually recording. the fbi only really looks like when -- looks at when an officer discharges their weapon, when there's a death involved, or when there's serious physical injury. although that's very important, most of the time, that's not what happens. look at this year alone, we have reported a 369 police involved killings or incidents in which law enforcement encountered, assisted in an act of dying. we are more than performance into the calendar year.

with her the approximation of about 50,000 interactions, we can reasonably assume there's been about 16 million interactions this year thus far. that is a .002% chance that someone was killed in an interaction with police. again, i will say .00%. we see that death by police is very, very rare. more likely than not, if force is applied to your situation, it is typically a grab or a hold if you are trying to subdue a suspect with a minimal force. most law enforcement agents are trained to use an arm bar where you are wrapped someone's wrist, try to turn it behind their back to be able to put them in cups safely without any serious type of physical injury. those are the regular interactions were forces applied. even in cases of arrest we have 13 million arrests roughly per year in this country. barely 4% of them have a force involved and most of that force is grabbing or just holding, or in some agencies, they even

record handcuffing as a use of force. host: and you are talking about how, not how often use of force isn't used. in a chart that you had in your report looks at confidence that u.s. police are adequately trained to avoid the use of excess force. and around 2000, you really see a split divide, the opposite of what had been happening before. with 60% not confident in that training and less than 40% confident. what happened? why when use of force is not being used that often are we seeing this shift? jillian: so, as my colleague logan and i alluded to in our paper, there's different standards for police use of force. obviously, there's the legal standard, the constitutional standard, then there's the state standard. . some states have more strict laws than the federal government applies. some states to have laws or

codified regulations in which there is a template use of force guideline where, you know, you cannot apply a chokehold or you cannot play certain tactics or maneuvers. a lot of states in the past five years have passed legislation like that. but more importantly, we are not seeing this consistency across the states. and we are also not seeing law enforcement being forthcoming with this is how we employ force in situations in our jurisdiction or state. it comes back to the public feeling like they are knowledgeable or what abo -- knowledgeable about what their law enforcement officers are going. the last standard, the fact that departmental guidelines are very different across the board, is a community perspective. if the community feels just a perceived something is incorrect, even though it's lawful under the constitution, under the state law, and its also allowable by a department's guidelines, the public themselves might not see it as justified, might not see it as

something that should have been done. a lot of this stems from their exposure to only the police interactions on the news, on social media. we don't generally see when officers do good things. that's not on the news. that does not make the front page of the paper. and that is not what you see when you're scrolling through any type of social media. just seeing constant negativity as it relates to any police interaction where force was applied, their perception is police are using force and overusing force. that is not the case. i urge law enforcement to make their use data available. because that would essentially -- use of force data of billable. because that would essentially -- data available. because that would essentially -- why not tell the public that? why not show them, this month in this last 30 day period, we had no officers discharge their weapon we had no officers employ

serious physical force against an individual. because we are not doing that, the public would just make assumptions based on what they hear and see in the media. host: we have people waiting to talk with you. we will start with ann in bar harbor, maine. go ahead. >> thank. so, one statement the guesstimate was that -- guest made was that police use force relative to the force that they are confronting. and i would like to refute that on my own personal experience. which is that a net experience protesting ndc for decades, and in bar hop in maine. my experience is really that good policing involves de-escalating violence and a de-escalating force, not meeting force with force. and one example, so, supreme court police are really excellent at that. i have watched that for decades. now, here in maine, i was

protesting against leonard leo, and i have a chalking project which i got permission from the police before i decided to do this. i consulted with police leadership, who consulted with the hancock county d.a., and they authorize what i was doing. and i was talking on public space. my message, when a police pickup truck and a police cruiser pulled up and a man without a badge, without a uniform, but with a really big gun confronted me, got right in my face, challenged me and was very abusive and very threatening and very intimidating. and he would not even tell me who he was. i was like, you are even wearing a uniform. who are you? and later, i spoke with the

police, and the officer was claiming that he saw a violent felony in progress, he saw misconduct in progress, and that is why he did not have enough time to put on his uniform for his badge. and so i know that is anecdotal. but you know, i am a white woman, senior citizen in a small town. and i know that police don't always respond appropriately. jillian: i am sorry that you had a negative experience with the police. i will say, it sounds like you are, you know, involved in orchestrating events in which people are freedom of speech, you know, talking about what they feel is important. so, just, i always urge people to be cognizant that line

-- law enforcement officers are often deployed in a situation where there is a community gathering, or in this case, where there is may be an organized protest that is mostly peaceful in nature, may have permits to proceed. but these situations, as i'm sure with your experience, you said you've been doing this for a very long time, sometimes these situations escalate. law enforcement officers go there for preservation of the peace. they do not go there looking to agitate the situation. but if they do see something fell, and you're are probably not involved in that, but somebody else maybe at this orchestrating event was engaged in something that could have potentially exploded into something else. so, i will err on the side of police go there to keep the peace, not provoke anything. but again, i am very sorry that your experience directly was not something that, you know, we would wish -- you would wish have happened. host: we will go to james in illinois. go ahead. >> i was reading about what was happening and protest on college

campuses such as ucla and columbia. i apologize that my voice is a little bit high-pitched. but relating to the police response to that, i was just wondering if you believed that this reinforces negative stereotypes of police officers being, provoking violence? that is what i hear from the perspective of some left-leaning people on college campuses. they say that they were provoking violence against first amendment rights. which i don't necessarily agree with. and i was wondering how this affects the perception of police and how it -- and what you know statistically about this? jillian: i actually have the honor and privilege that not only do i serve in r street and i am a retired law-enforcement officer, i am a lecturer in new york city. i have some great students and i was there yesterday during one of my last in-person classes of the semester.

being what has happened in city college in florida, columbia and other schools across the country, i teach a group of sophomores and a pair of graduating seniors will be graduating in a few weeks. we discussed at very candidly yesterday. i wanted to get their perspective. half of my students, they do want to pursue a career in law enforcement. the other half of my students are working toward getting into the criminal justice system to affect some kind of positive change. so they are not always the most favorable towards the law enforcement community. but what i was pleasantly surprised with is their ability to see situations for what they are. and they are college students, they are paying tuition to go to school. we have not seen anything like this at john j., thankfully, but city colleges only a few city blocks away. the florida university incident was that the lincoln center, which is five blocks from john j.'s college. the university seemed to really

try and not engage with nypd. they wanted to allow public safety officers on campus to deal with the situation. it was not until the situation got completely out of control, where there was vandalism, threat for even more violence that the nypd had to come in. nypd goes through all types of protests, orchestrated events, parades, marathons. we are very trained to deal with mass groups of people in a very civilized way. because again, our. going into this -- thought going into this is preservation of the peace, maintaining order and civility and making sure no one gets hurt. in this case, it had as clay to such a point where days went by, police were not brought in, public safety could no longer maintained and they had to call the police. the way it's being portrayed right now, again, things are going to come out as investigations continue and as more people come and speak about the incident. but people living in new york

city, people going to college campuses only a few blocks away, they feel like it came to a point where police intervention was necessary. and because the individuals that were on those campuses were noncompliant, were breaking into buildings, were setting up and. in the most important thing -- setting up encampments. and the most important thing, they're disrupting the life of students who are preparing to graduate, who also have a right to be there, to feel safe, finish the semester and graduate. they were not thinking about that. they were thinking about their cause and their movement at the time so law-enforcement needed to go in and rectify the situation and make it safe. but my students were very impressed with what they called, mike to law-enforcement officers that went in were very reserved, they were not going in extremely hot. they were trying to contain the situation, to keep everyone safe, and to make sure that the college campus, you know, protocols were in check. host: we will go next to ben in owing mills, maryland.

he is calling on the law-enforcement line. hi, ben. caller: good morning. i got so much i want to say but i know there is a time restriction. first of all, i want to say this. when i was a police officer in the patrol car, on any given night in the particular city i worked in, i could get 20 calls for service, just myself, and my colleagues the same. so what i am saying is, in any given night, we may handle in one shift thousands of calls for service or in the hundreds. and very rarely is there a time when someone got into a position where there was some excessive force used. it's a lot like the way we are being portrayed now, not that i go home every night and dream about coming to work and brutalizing someone, like i have some dark fantasy of torturing someone or what have you. you know, we are all members of

the community, you know. we coach kids, we got, we do things in the community, we are regular human beings. and unfortunately, even if you have an agency that is very progressive, as far as community, as far as reaching out to the community and being good members of the community, there can always be that one time. i mean, if you get five or 600,000 calls for service and there is one issue that comes on and it's being looped in youtube, it's looped in the media. and whatever progress you had made it to gain inroads into the community, it's all lost on one incident. and now you are back at square one again, you got people throwing bottles at your officers, just having total disrespect, and you are back at square one again. and i think the agencies don't do a good enough job of showing the public, like she said, the

numbers. it's like, there's so many encounters law enforcement have with citizens that go right. you know? and no one wants to cover that, of course. but someone has to get in front of this narrative that we all, you know, just have some dark fantasy of ruining someone's life or killing someone or beating someone half to death. it's just ridiculous. jillian: i am really glad you pointed that out. like i said earlier, i worked in east new york, brooklyn and i worked in the south bronx. very busy command. when i did patrol, i typically worked the makeshift, the 4:00 to midnight shift. we got so many calls for service, i averaged regularly 27 to 32 calls for service per shift. and regularly, nothing happened. at tech reports, i took a person to the hospital, i took a domestic incident report, a

vehicle accident report, i issued a summons or something, but no force was applied. no one is going to talk about that. that's the regular life of most officers. we respond to calls for service and satisfy the public's needs in that given moment and there's no melee and there's no incident and there's no force applied. and then we go about our day to the next call for service. that is not something that spoken about. that's not something that agencies are coming out and saying, look, my officers responded to 5000 calls in the last week, not one of them had excessive force applied. as you noted, if you take one step forward, something happens, we are going two steps back. the unfortunate reality is if your agency is doing great things, wonderful things, your community is really happy with you, but someone across the country, some other officer does something else and is perceived in a bad way, it is still going to impact you. it was not even your state

or locality or agency but that one officer that did one bad thing really does jeopardize the integrity of the profession for the rest of us as well as our reputation. host: as both of you and ben noted, it can impact officers when use of force is reported or viewed on the news. but what happens after a use is reported? what happens to the officer -- use of force is reported? what happens to the officer? what is kind of the follow-up? when we do not see the data that's out there, what impact does that then have on officer'' ability to maybe do something differently next time? jillian: so, every agency varies in the way in which they handle use of force incidents. simple uses of force where i had to strike a suspect with mike expandable baton, i did in the department guideline way, i struck them down in the shi i wasn able to affect my lawful

arrest go about my business. if that person required any medical attention, medical attention will be given and that personal progress to the system. there is generally no repercussions for me as long as i applied the force reasonably, justifiably and within state and department guidelines. if there is an incident in which there is questionable use of force, which most often revolves around when an officer uses deadly physical force, that is where we will start to see, you know, outside units come in. nypd, i can speak to it the best, if we have a use of force where an officer discharges a weapon in the line of duty, we have a unit within the department that is separate from the precinct which the officer works who will do the investigation of the use of force incident. they will make the determination on their own if that officer used the appropriate level of force, what is justified. did the situation necessitate that? but concurrently, of course, the district attorney's office is

most likely conducting their own investigation. and then, of course, the nypd is also monitored by the civilian complaint review board, which is an outside agency that looks in and sees if a complaint is filed, what the come -- was the complaint justified? was it founded or unfounded or unsubstantiated? in a case where an officer discharges their weapon, many agencies will take the firearm away from the individual at the time. if you have to use deadly physical force, you need to go talk to someone. that is a very traumatic experience. and most of us will thankfully, as i said earlier, never discharge our weapon in the line of duty. but if it did happen, it is something that you need to go see counseling, talk to someone about because it's traumatic. they will take your weapon, they would place you most likely on a modified duty or administrative duty. they would also be forced to check your blood alcohol level, they would maybe test your screen you for narcotics use.

they want to make sure you are in your right state of mind, everything was done the way it was supposed to, protocol was in place and you have fulfilled that. once it's determined by booker the agency and also the district attorney's office and any outside agencies that are monitoring the department, if everything was justified, the person used force against the officer, the person had a weaponize shot, that officer would eventually go back to regular duty status. there would be no department penalties nor criminal liability. in a situation where it could be deemed the officer used excessive force, broke the law, violated department guidelines, they could be terminated from the department, suspended pending prosecution. . those other things would unfold. so it really varies based on the stage. if the state itself has lost printer place where an officer is not allowed to use force in a given situation, then obviously those rules would apply to that officer but it would not be streamlined across the entire nation. host: we will go to jeff in

columbus, ohio. go ahead, jeff. caller: i was just wondering, would you support the death penalty for police who lie on police reports or perjury themselves in court? jillian: honestly, we don't take a position on the death penalty. i actually would probably differ that question to another think tank who does work specifically on death penalty cases. host: gary in greenville, texas. go ahead. caller: good morning. my thing is with the george floyd case, i would encourage everyone to watch the movie "the fall of minneapolis." i was persuaded that he actually killed george floyd. but the way the media portrayed it and then the way that that everybody lied on the stand against him saying that it was not a trained move that he did. anyways, i was just, and i am

not trying to persuade anybody's mind about how it goes or whatever. but i would encourage, instead of the media bombarding all of these police officers, and i mean, the cops get a bad rap in a lot of cases, just take it easy, you know, and watch the facts. and look who is, look who brings on other facts. because a lot of things can come out after, you know, like six or seven months after the case. but i would encourage everybody to at least watch the movie "the fall of minneapolis." thanks. but anyways. thank you. bye. jillian: one of my students actually recommended that as well. what's important to note is that when a situation like this happens where police are involved with a citizen and someone is hurt or someone dies, we will not find out all the answers instantaneously, so

people are often making, drawing opinions on what they just saw on the news. which could be a little tiny sneak peek into what actually happened. it takes weeks, months for investigations to go on, and then you learn as we go. i always ask people to just give the benefit of the doubt where it's due. don't go in and make a rash judgment. because most times, if there is, especially today, if there is an incident where an officer used force, their interaction was most likely recorded on body worn camera. additionally, most of your areas now, especially major natural part in areas, they have cameras everywhere -- major metropolitan areas, they have cameras everywhere. there's going to be some sort of surveillance which is going to corroborate or refute the statement that was given at the time. i always say be patient, let the investigation go on, let people find out of the facts before drawing an unreasonable conclusion. host: jillian, something your report talks about is

recommendations for both of the law enforcement agencies and state and federal policy makers. what are some of those recommendations? jillian: so we did, we look at law enforcement and then we look also at legislators who have the power to put these things into play. i am always going to be supportive of my fellow law enforcement officers because most people pick this job because it is a noble profession and they wanted to go sign up to help someone. we are not trying to place an unreasonable burden on law enforcement by having them, you know, do this reporting if use of force is conducted, and then ultimately, at least compiling and analyzing it and making strategic recommendations based on what the data shows. we are trying to encourage law enforcement to create more streamlined and systematic use of force reporting, if they don't already do it, they should initiate. but of course, a lot of agencies are, like i said earlier,

internally collecting use of force data. in a time use of force is applied, they are filling out a report. generally, they are talking about the situational variables. was dark? was it day? what kind of job are they going to? because that plays into it as well and no one really talks about the. you go into a domestic violence call or you go to a call with a barricaded suspect or a man with a gun, you're approaching those situations so much differently as a law-enforcement officer because you are trained to do so. if you're just going to a routine call that there is no gun, there's no weapon, there no threats or possible threats or force being hurt, you're going to approach that a little more leisurely i would say. we want to law-enforcement enforcement agencies to try to counter -- categorize the use of force consistently. a lot of agencies say verbal force or verbal commands is use of force. i do not necessarily agree with

that. if i am asking you to do something, i am giving you a lawful order, i am not using any force against you, i am just talking to you. once there is force, maybe i have to put my hands on you, maybe i have to defer to one of the weapons on my belt, whether my baton or spray or firearm, that needs to be recorded. i do think all agencies should be reporting consistently. maybe starting with, you know, the hand-to-hand combat. that is force, it is physical force which generally does not ever result in serious physical injury but still force was applied. if we can get agencies to have consistency within their reporting, we can then track it better. but what we really want ultimately is more participation to the fbi's national use of force database. anything with the fbi is voluntary. we have seen big upticks in national incident-based reporting system. it's only been out a few years. the first year, we do not really see how levels of participation. this past year, we saw a great

increase. we are really hopeful that we'll continue and carry on as with the use of force database. because that is a way for the, you know, law enforcement to make a holistic recommendation like maybe create some kind of standardized protocol for use of force. again, we need to recognize the fluidity and how organic situations unfold. there is no every situation goes exactly the same. as i said earlier, we are often led by the person we are encountering, how they respond, how they act with us, their level of compliance or resistance. so maybe having some kind of rule in place where officers should elevate to this level of force based on this behavior of a suspect would make it a little easier for officers to comply accordingly, but then report that, collected that, and then make that publicly available. in terms of policymakers and legislators, a lot of states

have already put stuff into place. i think we have our rout -- about 43 states that have some kind of codified regulation of use of force. that means any kind of use of force protocol within the state. that doesn't say when officers can use deadly physical force versus when they can use regular use of force. it does not mean every entity has to collect the data, report the data, or disseminate the data. but we are seeing more states starting to come to terms with the fact that they need to put some kind of regulation on the books that mandates agencies at least record these incidents and then reported to a state entity. because at that point, a state entity could assess that, say do we have problems in one agency versus another? and more importantly, does that agency suffer from higher rates of crime or lack of training or poor leadership? there is so many things that could contribute to an agency's, you know, prevalent he of force versus their choosing not to use force.

something a caller said earlier which is really important is de-escalation. our agencies that are employing de-escalation training and tactics, are they sing lower levels of force? is there a positive relationship. if we get positive de-escalation -- relationship? if we get positive de-escalate torturing, are they less likely to use force? i would say yes but unless we have the data, we are not able to find out. host: we have time for one more call. we will hear from joseph in fayetteville, north carolina. go ahead. >> i was never a sworn officer. i wrote parking tickets in a small town in kentucky called anderson. also at the verbal abuse, i never carried a weapon, never carried a nightstick. and my experience was one of many i have seen over my lifetime. i am retired now. my mother almost got killed by people that she went to check on as a probation officer. i know a man and now that he's a

traffic person and he's been threatened by people. people do not realize that they are escalating things a lot of times and they just go on and on. and the only thing that the person can do is just sit there and take it. and they don't realize that a police officer a lot of times, they don't have to use a gun or anything. if anybody were to touch them or something, that's assault. and if they responded, they would consider that use of force. there's a lot use of force than guns and billy clubs. that's all i wanted to say, that people just do not respect the fact that law enforcement officers, they are just enforcing the law. if they have a problem with the law, people that pass the laws, they need to get out and vote.

jillian: you're absolutely right. i have had this conversation while i was a police officer. i would get called to a scene, i would get there, people would be like, why are you here? i am like, someone called me, someone called 911. we would get yelled at, they would try to push you out of their apartment. meanwhile, they called you. you go there trying to help them and then they are, you know, obviously, law enforcement officers deal with this regularly where people yell at them, try and shove them or whatever the case is. we go to that call for service. i always tell people, and i did this, i have been retired only almost four years, so relatively recently. congratulations on your retirement, as you said you were. but we don't have that level of respect for law enforcement that we used to have. i grew up thinking, ok, there is a police officer here, so that

person is there to make me feel safe, to protect me from harm, to keep the community free of crime as possible and i need to show that person respect for the job they are doing. we are not seeing that as much now. there are still so many do appreciate law enforcement and they will thank an officer or go in the precinct on a holiday and bring cookies or candy, like thank you for your service. there are a lot of great people who respect police. but at the same time, there are people who do not. those individuals, the way they go at police, police after be generally very composed. because if we got upset over the way someone spoke to us, we would be upset a lot. i do tell people, you know, the way in which you talk to the officer is the way the officers most likely going to respond to you. officers go out trying to be respectful, cordial. if the person they encounter is none of those things, it's going to make the situation a lot more hostile. host: jillian snider, retired

new york city police department officer anchor mill justice and civil liberties policy director for the r street institute, thank you for joining us. jillian: thank you so much. host: up next, or still had, it is our annual cram for e exam. we are goi to review with high school students across the country as they prepare for the ap u.sgovernment and politics exam happening on monday. will be joined by social science teacher sunshine cavalluzzi. until then, we will hear more of your top news story of the week. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday on q&a, former rhode island democratic congressman patrick kennedy talks about americans who struggle with mental illness and the role family members play in their care. >> in my own case with my

mother, my brother and sister and i had to get guardianship over my mother. we saved her life so she could to be around with my kids. my kids never met my father, obviously, who died before they were born. they got to meet my mom and they got to meet my mom because my brother and sister and i went to court to get guardianship over our mother to keep her from killing herself. she was so happy. at the time, she was not happy, but she ended up being so grateful that she was able to make it to the other side because we intervened. >> patrick kennedy with his book "profiles in mental health courage" sunday night at 8:00 eastern. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. ♪ >> do you follow this a lot that

in the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> watch american history tv's congress investites as we slur major investigations in our country's history in the u.s. house and senate. authors and historians will tell these stories. we will see historic footage and examine the impact of legacy of key congressional hearings. today, the 1975 senate committee hearings led by idaho democratic senator frank church examining alleged abuses within the u.s. intelligence community. watch "congress investigates" saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. ♪ [gavel smash] >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing

balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, all the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the next 10 minutes or so, we will be taking more of your calls on your top new story of the week. as a reminder, some of the stories and headlines e are highlighting are the campus protest and the house passingn antisemitism bill. former president 's trial and the gag orders against him. e dea recommended reclassifying marijuana. the federal reserve held interest rates at a 23 y high slower hiring.jobs report showed and sswoman marjorie taylor greene is continuing her push to rhouse speaker mike johnson. we will go straight to the phones. frank in silver creek, georgia

on the republican line, your first. caller good morning. yeah, there are some things that are interesting. the school riots, well, not, the protests, we won't call them riots, they did not get that bad. but they found out 50% of these people are not students and it kind of makes you think. and then you look at other things like bridges being destroyed, like i-95, and you had the thing in baltimore getting destroyed. you start thinking, could we be on the verge of a guerilla war with eight to 11 billion illegal immigrants in this country and we don't even know who they are? this is not 1900. this is not the turn-of-the-century when we had millions come over. now we've got millions coming into this country, we don't know who's payroll they are on.

they can be on china's payroll, they could be on iran's payroll, they could be on north korea's payroll. they could be getting paid and their choosing targets. these people are not going to commit suicide. they are here to select targets and take them out without being caught. now, the democrat party and joe biden is responsible for this. they have let's 8 million people, we don't know who they are and who is backing them. that's all i got to say. host: john in sun city, florida on the independent line. john? caller: [indiscernible] host: john, can you turn down your television in the background? caller: [indiscernible] host: are you there? all right, we will let john go. one of the headlines this week is representative marjorie taylor greene, republican of georgia, announcing that she is going to force a vote next week on whether to oust speaker mike

johnson. and here is marjorie taylor greene on wednesday talking about her efforts. rep. greene: and you want to know something? nobody wants to rock the boat in washington, d.c. oh no, that would be uncomfortable. we don't want to face the issues, marjorie. let's just wait and get through the election, marjorie. let's just assume president trump is going to win and we will fix it next congress. i am sorry, how many more americans have to die? how many more debt american bodies have to pile up before the house of representatives that's paid for by americans' tax dollars actually does something about it? i want to know when this town is going to give a damn about americans. and that's what this is really about. well, there is one thing i know, there is one thing i know. if we get president trump back in the white house in january of

2025 and we are lucky enough to earn the trust again from voters in america to have a republican majority in this house of representatives, that we have a job to do. we cannot let people down again. we cannot fail president trump. and this cannot happen. the maga agenda that i believe in, the make america great again agenda that i support and americans support on the whole reason why republicans are going to turn out and vote in november, because they support president trump, we need leaders in the house of representatives that are going to get this done. not working for hakeem jeffries. not working for joe biden. and not going to be twisted and lulled into continuing the disgusting practices of washington, d.c. mike johnson is not capable of that job.

he has proven it over and over again. host: rob in grand junction, colorado on the independent line. hi. caller: good morning. my story of the week, simply put, monday, the state of mississippi celebrated confederate memorial day. which was a proclamation by governor of confederate heritage month. they celebrate basically secession from the country due to their belief in slavery. how can a state to go out there and celebrate a war that was based on memorial of confederacy and slavery and the same type of state that also celebrates robert e. lee's birthday at the same time they celebrate martin luther king's birthday? it's very simple while we have this. if you go back to the yougov study that was done this year, they asked republican voters if

they agreed with the donald trump's statement that illegal immigrants poison the blood of the country. 81% of republican voters agree with his neo-nazi statement. what type of political party do we have on the right when you have a republican governor memorializing confederacy and you have a party where 81% of the republican voters agree with the donald trump's neo-nazi stance? thank you. host: joe in tampa, florida on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. what i wanted to talk about is this month is veterans day month and memorial day. what i have been noticing is a lot of companies are now pretending that they support veteran causes. but the one casue that i think they should -- cause that i think they should really push hard on is the -- act that was

passed. i don't think anybody is getting compensation from that particular act that was passed. so companies, and also, what you call it? the veterans service organizations need to push harder on the administration to require them to start compensating the veterans who actually have a lot of case log outstanding with the department of veterans affairs. thank you. host: dj in weatherford, texas on the republican line. hi, dj. caller: hi, good morning. in reclassifying the marijuana laws, in addressing that subject, i find it, you know, it is a real problem when they are trying to get this going but it is like they want to start the fire and then go fill the bucket up. in most cases, when, you know, you want to deal with fire, you

have a bucket of water standing by before you even light it. and it happened with alcohol and it's going to happen with marijuana, it already is in d.c., how they have allowed it to be recreational. they are not educating anybody and that's the problem. if you don't educate first the people, then you are filling up your bucket of water after everything is in flames. that seems to be the policy of the liberal party. people need to remember that the liberal party is the party that wanted slavery. the liberal party is the party that continues to keep that issue alive. they want you to be repressed. it is quite obvious. they want to bring in all these people like they are right now that are going to make a reclassification of marijuana all of a sudden.

you got to kind of wonder. if you look at our vice president, ima class-a truck driver. when i work for companies or what i do is i am a teamster, local 399. i work for hollywood in the film industry. i handle a lot of the vehicles that you see on television, ok. i am subject to random drug testing. i don't, i'm not in charge of a country, don't have lives at stake, ok, except when i am on the highway, then it would only be a select few. i don't deal with the whole world. i don't have the entire country's life in my hand. why would not the people who are running our country be subject to random drug testing, starting with our vice president?

you see the clan of people she hangs out with. this woman, you look at her face -- host: we will go to randall, our last call in the segment in washington, d.c., on the democrats line. hi, randall. callers: hi. i just wanted to say something. over the years, when i observed the republican or conservative think tanks, i feel like those think tanks, i feel like they come up with a hypothesis and they work to prove the hypothesis. i feel like because of funding and stuff, they cannot and will not put out reports that promptly do not support their

hypothesis that they are trying to work towards. whereas i think other more legitimate think tanks probably come up with a hypothesis and promptly deliver the findings as they are without probably tweaking them to the foregone conclusion they have to satisfy for their funding. and i just feel like you have one group of legitimate think tanks and you have another group of illegitimate think tanks that are funded by a lot of billionaires who are on the conservative side, like the koch brothers and all of those. and they want to have their kooky ideas supported. and that is why you have certain

people -- i won't name names -- but i feel like they only are trying to support a particular hypothesis. host: that is it for this segment. up next, w are going to be joined by soal science teacher sunshine cavalluzzi. she going to help us cram for th em for high school udents across the country who are getting ready to take the ap u.s. government and politics exam happening this monday. we will be right back to talk with her. >> next week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are in session. the house will consider legislation requiring a citizenship question on the u.s. census, and marjorie taylor greene plans to offer a motion to vacate the chair to remove mike johnson as house speaker. the senate continues legislation on a five year faa reauthorization bill to extend its programs past the friday

deadline. on tuesday, education secretary mcgill cardona testifies before the house education and workforce committee, examining his policies and last year's financial audit failure, and president biden will deliver the keynote address at the united states holocaust museums days of remembrance. wednesday, the national public radio president and ceo appears before the house of energy and commerce subcommittee over accusations of ideological bias at npr, a taxpayer-funded news entity. and muriel bowser and metropolitan p police chief pamela smith appear before the house oversight and accountability committee considering antisemitism at george washington university. watch next week live on the c-span networks or c-span now, our free mobile video app. also, go to c-span.org for scheduling information, or to watch live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill providing balanced unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided, all the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the rest of today show, we are going to help high school students cram for the exam as they get ready to take the u.s. ap politics and government exam happening on monday. joining us now is sunshine cavalluzzi. she is a social science teacher at el dorado high school in california. thanks for joining us again. guest: thanks so much for having

me. i am delighted to be here this morning, and i want to send a shout out to all the students joining us this morning and the teachers who got up early too. host: thank you for doing it. it is one of our favorite segments here. just to get things started, why don't you tell us about the u.s. government and politics course. how extensive is its, and what our students learning about? >> absolutely. the questions are intended to mimic a freshman year survey course at any college or university in the united states an introductory government and politics course. it lists the branches of government, and what i love about it is it is united states government and politics, so we get to add on the and politics, how people influence our collective narrative, how have we grown since our origins, what did the framers intent, and how do people influence the way that has changed. what is an extensive focus on

the policymaking institutions and how they interact. there is also a focus on the role of people. there is a unit on civil liberties and civil rights. so, it is a broad introductory tour of all the things that go into this grand american experiments of democracy. host: talk a little bit about the format and the kind of questions that students should expect to see. guest: sure, absolutely. the test itself is divided into a multiple-choice component and a free response component. every ap exam is scored a little bit differently. and our case, all the portions are getting equal weight. the multiple-choice is 50% of the score and the free response is worth another 50%. the free response is divided into four different kinds of writings. there is an argumentative essay, similar to what you find across a lot of different disciplines. then there is the caq, concept application question, where students are given an excerpt of

media, maybe a speech, may be a news article, and are asked a three-part question. can you understand it? can you apply it? and can you identify something within it? the third kind is a qaq, the quantitative analysis question, where students are given an info graphic, chart, table, graph, and asked again, can you read it? can you understand it? can you apply it? another is a scotus comparison question where we have 14 supreme court cases that students are required to know, and they are given a case that is not one of their 14 with a little bit of information about that case and asked to compare it to a case that is one of their 14. the multiple-choice component, there are 55 questions in 80 minutes, and for the free response, four questions in 100 minutes. host: 180 minutes is the length of time students have to complete this test. how do you suggest they best manage their time? guest: sure.

for the multiple-choice, it is a fairly extensive amount of time. you have more than one minute per question. so, the best strategy for that, and the two components are timed differently with a break in between so there is no bleeding overtime from the multiple-choice into the free response. i like to tell my students, it is one slice at a time. you are not taking the whole pizza and eating it like that. for the multiple-choice, really being cognizant of your time is important. and also what i like to tell my students, if you just take the test, the test might take you. you should attack the test and go in with the mindset of, i am going to use this for an opportunity to show what i know, and to say, challenge accepted. i have worked all year on this. i know plenty of things and i am going to find a way to put those things on paper. on the multiple-choice, being strategic in your approach is typically to the good. rather than sitting and saying,

i will answer each question in order, it is not a great way to approach any kind of multiple-choice test. instead, anything that is time-consuming or difficult to you, skip it. get the easy points first and treat it -- treat your brain like a muscle. also, the easy questions are not going to take you over a minute to answer. so you get to a question where you have to read a passage and interpret it or look at different things in a table and compare it, you know how much time you have to do that. sometimes, there is something on question 42 that reminds you of what the answer is to answer three, which you didn't know when you looked at it. if you spend two minutes staring at question three when all you had to do was read question 42, that was not a great use of your time. being a great time strategist. at one of the important things, too, because students have time on that multiple choice, being careful about going back

and second-guessing yourself. checking your answers is a really great idea, but changing too many answers because you are doubting yourself is not always going to be to your benefit, and that is where you want to lean on your training you have been doing all year with your teachers. last thing with the multiple-choice, it is really important to physically interact with the exam. we still have a paper test. you can and should write, cross things out, circle things, star things. that physical engagement awakens another part of your brain and is helpful to you, and reminds you of what you knew about, what you were sure about, what you need to return to. the college board advises spending 40 minutes on the argumentative essay and 20 minutes on each of the other components. they are scored evenly, but i think more importantly, it is the same idea with the way you attack your multiple-choice questions. do the question you are most confident about first. read all four of the questions.

don't answer them in order. read all of them. which is the one you feel the best about? get those points on the paper before you move onto the next thing. then as well, when my students get tired of hearing me say it, good morning, thank you for getting up this early to come to us for one more example for why el dorado is the greatest school on earth. what i say, five minutes of planning and 20 minutes of writing is exponentially better than starting to write right away and getting 20 minutes in and realize you are writing on the wrong thing. be a good time manager, but think about, what are you planning to do? and reread the question for you start to write. make sure the answer you planned actually responds to the question you are asked. we say all the time, ap is not just advanced placement. it is not just appreciate the process. it is not just accelerated procrastination. it means answer the prompt. host: and for the rest of this segment, we are going to be hearing from students only.

this is your segment. you can call in with questions, give a shout out to your ap teacher or your class, or take a challenge question.the first four students who answer a challenge question correctly will get a c-span water bottle or a hat. sunshine's daughter called in and correctly answered a question last year, and she told us how great the water bottle is. students, if you want to call in, you can start doing that. your lines are, for those in the eastern central time zone 202-748-8000. in mountain pacific, 202-748-80 01. you can also text us, 808-748- 8003. you can also post your questions on x @cspanwj, or use #cram4 theexam.

going back to time management, the test is on monday. for those who are doing a review and have a day or so left, what do you recommend they what is the best use of their time -- what do you recommend they do? what is the best use of their time? guest: first of all, vocabulary. if you are not solid, make a quizlet. there are quite a few on c-span classroom. grab a friend, grab your mom, teach it to your dog. there are so many ways. it is a giant vocabulary test. knowing the terms can so often help you find your way to the right answer even when you are not sure, especially because a lot of times in multiple-choice, you're not trying to find the right answer, you are trying to eliminate the wrong answers. the vocabulary you will have will help you do all of those things. definitely, i would say start with the vocab. then move to the founding documents in the court cases, because you know some of them are going to appear.

then think about what do you know about the different powers and the different branches? that is all over the exam in different forms. how do branches interact with each other and how do the people interact with the branches? i would also say have some fun. put yourself mentally ready. take care of you and come in primed and in that great mind of challenge accepted. bring it on, college board. i am going to show you what i learned. have a little bit of a sleepy sunday, eat your favorite food, whatever it might be. but enjoy being you. if you are up saturday morning watching c-span, you're probably super ready for the exam, even though you are on the cram program. trust that process. get some rest, get some good food, as well as look at the vocab. and whatever your teachers have told you to do. you probably have great teachers, so listen to them.

host: we have students lined up and ready to talk to you. we will start with anita in high point, north carolina. good morning. callers: good morning. host: do you have a question for sunshine? or do you want a challenge question? callers: i would like to ask a question. host: ok, go ahead. caller: shout out to my a peak of teacher. -- my ap gov teacher. what is the difference between the department of homeland security and the department of defense? guest: sure. the department of homeland security is the newest cabinet department, which you probably know, created after 9/11. it is an agency that looks at keeping us safe here at home. evaluating all sorts of different things and putting together in a lot of ways information from different independent agencies and looking at it with a broad lens. what are the risks?

what are the things to do? they look at the borders, what is coming in. the department of defense is the umbrella agency that looks over our military, so it concerns matters foreign and domestic, but mostly where our military commitments are, our troops, how are they doing. host: we will go to taylor in new york. good morning, taylor. caller: good. host: would you like to ask a question or do you want a challenge question? caller: i would like to ask a question. host: sure, go ahead. caller: first off, i would like to give a shout out to my teacher, mr. freeman. and how do incorporate ration -- how does incorporation rep is in idea of federalism? guest: sure. can i ask you a challenge question anyway because you share a name with one of my favorite recording artists? do you know what federalism is?

caller: i can answer it. federalism is where the state and federal government share the powers. guest: excellent. that is a worthy answer. incorporation is using the due process clause of the 14th amendment to apply the bill of rights to the states on a gradual case-by-case, right by right basis over time. that is the definition i suggest my students memorize verbatim, and i would suggest that all the students who are watching. effectively, as you already know, how the supreme court can require states to expect the guarantees and the bill of rights, and that did not originally happen. if we look at the language of the first amendment, it says, congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof, abridging freedom of

speech or the right of the people to peacefully assemble. the first part, congress shall make no law, is binding on congress. the ratification of the 14th amendment, which talked about states not denying due process, the supreme court had to start saying, states are bound by that, too, starting with new york where they established the incorporation of speech and the press. they are basically pulling the rights of the 14th amendment to apply to the states. at this point, almost everything has been incorporated. it reflects the notion of federalism because of what federalism is fundamentally. the question is, what policy areas falls under the purview of states and which are the responsibilities of the federal government? you probably know that has changed over time. that is a really good thing to review.

if federalism is in a multiple-choice question, it is probably the answer because it is such a big concept. it is the idea that we had cooperative federalism, then moved to new federalism. so it has made the states more beholden to the national government because it guarantees whether their state constitutions guarantee them. host: a question for you on x from mike rose from our spill chip alter high school in ohio. he has a shout out to mr. cloud. this question is, how is patronage different from the civil service or the merit system? guest: sure, great. the civil service system is really a reaction to patronage.

it is affiliated with president andrew jackson. it is the notion of giving jobs to your friends and your supporters, to someone who helped you along the way. you are getting them back. you are building your entourage around you of people who have been good to you. there are plenty of great examples. over time, the concern was, while theoretically this is good because if somebody is loyal to me, if i give either one of my son's a job or i give my daughter a job, they are pretty great humans and they will probably do a good job, so the american people get someone who is working hard, even if they are working hard because they want me to do well. the american people get the same result, which is good. but my sons are probably not qualified get to run the department of defense or the department of justice or to run an agency because he is still making his way through his high school experience.

so, maybe that is not the best choice for the american people. that was the concern, among other things, that the american people were not getting the best work. so a switch was made to the civil service in requiring federal government workers to take tests so they had some demonstrable merit and it was not just that they had been loyal to the right person in order to get their job. host: we will go to isaac in california. go ahead, isaac. caller: hello, good morning. host: do you have a question or would you like a challenge question? caller: i would like to ask a question. host: sure, go ahead. caller: i wanted to know about the frq and how you use documents to support the question, and you can also use outside evidence for the second evidence. how modern can you use the evidence, and what should we know about it? guest: i think that is a great

question. also, good morning on west coast time from mean to you. early morning wake-up call here. i am glad you asked this because, tammy, you asked me earlier about if this is modern or not. you can get as modern as you want. you could do a story from this week if that is helpful for you. the test was written quite some time ago. you are not necessarily expected to know all the things going on in government right now. the test was printed and mailed out to your school weeks ago, so they are not going to have a question about marjorie taylor greene and her move to potentially have a vote on referendum on the speaker's leadership. but you could write about that. you could definitely use anything current to support your argument. the best thing is, pick the piece of evidence that you can write about intelligently,

clearly, and directly links to the prompt. again, getting back to that notion that a is answer the prompt. i tell my students all the time, you don't get extra bonus points for fancy answers. you get a point if it is right and no points if it is wrong. so you don't need to go for the most creative and clever answer. just execute it perfectly, or as close to perfectly as you can, and to show what you know. it is a great idea to use modern examples because it shows you are conversant in these ideas and how they apply in real life. anything that works to support your answer is fine. i would also say on that that i really encourage all of you who are watching to think about using examples to support your explanations and your evidence. if it works to write about judicial review, great. but give an example of a case where the court used judicial review in a way that is appropriate to the prompt. not as your second piece of evidence, but a subset of your

first priest evidence -- your first piece of evidence. sometimes, a great example can salvage an explanation that is a little bit shaky because it shows that you know what you're talking about. the raiders are looking to give you the point. they want to give you the point. the better you can do to bias the reader and show you understand the context, the better off you will be. host: isaac, are you still there? caller: thank you. i want to give a shout out to my teacher. i forgot about him. [laughter] host: i was going to ask. caller: i'm going to shout out fourth. period gov. host: we will go to maria in carolina. do you have a question, or would you like a challenge question? caller: i have a question, but first, olivia, kaylee, chloe, michaela and i would like to

shout out our teacher first third period ap gov. basically, my question is, what foundational document that -- best developed the government today? guest: that is a great question. i am not going to ask you to tell me about it, but what do you think you would say? caller: i would say that the declaration of independence gave a good list of things that they wanted in the u.s. government. but i think the constitution obviously developed the best. guest: right. i am fascinated by this question and i want to go in as soon as this is over and ask my students what they think, too. that is why i asked. the reason i ask is because when i think about social science, there are very few right or wrong answers. there's just well and poorly

defended ones. it is more of a question of what do you make the best argument about? i love the declaration of independence as america's original breakup letter. we are never, ever, ever getting back together, or 10 things i hate about you, king george. but 27 things i hate about you. it is a list of what we want and complaints of what we are not getting from our government, so i think that is a good way to go. but if you look at the constitution, and especially the preamble, we the people of the united states. it is such a great turn of phrase. it is a great roadmap for this is where we want to go, and the rest of the constitution is how are we going to get there. obviously a great working knowledge of the constitution is going to get you into a bunch of other prompts. but the federalist papers has a lot to offer, as well as federalist 10.

what is it we are hoping to achieve? how do we represent other people's voices? why do we go with the system with majority rule with minority rights? this about angels were to govern men. if men were angels, no government would be necessary. those are great ones that apply to different places, so those are good, too. host: we will go to william also in california. good morning, william. caller: good morning. host: do you have a question for sunshine, or would you like a challenge question? caller: i do have a question. host: go ahead. caller: first, i want to give a shout out to my teacher, mr. cummings. [indiscernible] host: can you say that one more time? caller: is there a specific

court case you recommend we review the most? host: a specific court case for review. guest: was at the question? host: i believe it is. guest: thank you. of the 14 aret i think being where versed on margaret versus madison is important -- marbury versus madison is important. some people are out there trying to game the system. there is more than one question. there is an operational version of the test and they all work the same way. it is not like you get the placebo group in a drug trial. i would not try to guess which one it is going to be. i would instead focus on going through all of the 14, briefly summarize the facts, and one great pullout quote from the whole thing that you can use. but if you are only going to do one, marbury is the baseline for a lot of questions. it is good to know that. can you quickly summarize the

facts and do you have a good pullout quote for the outcome? host: sunshine, there are examples of the type of questions students will be getting on the test on monday, including this one that we are showing on the screen right now. which of the following is an accurate comparison of constitutional provisions? what would be your approach to answering that question? guest: sure. for all of these questions, there will be tables, and there will be a handful of these on the test. what i saw my students is you want to answer these vertically instead of horizontally. pick the column that you think you know the best, whichever one it is. these columns can be federalist, anti-federalist. declaration of independence, magna carta. constitution, articles of confederation. whatever it is. take the one you're more confident about, and see what you can eliminate, what you know is not the answer, and cross that out.

usually you will be able to eliminate two. then you go to the other column. can you eliminate one of the other two remaining? once you have eliminated the option, don't look at the other side of the other column. just ignore it. move past that in your brain. that way, if you have to guess, you are only guessing best of two instead of best of four. that's the preferred approach. there is no penalty for guessing. you get a point if it's right and nothing if it's wrong or blank so don't leave anything blank. . you might as well guess. every option you can eliminate increases your likelihood of guessing the right correct answer. host: we will talk with samuel from starkville, mississippi. good morning. caller: hello. host: hi. do you have a question for sunshine or would you like a challenge question? caller: i would love to answer a

challenge question. but first, can i shout out my ap government teacher. his name is mr. gavin gilbert and his the best ap government teacher in the state of mississippi. host: great. we are very excited for the challenge question. identify and express -- an express power of congress that another branch could check the power? caller: to regulate interstate commerce. we can see the civil rights act of 1964 allowed people to not be segregated in public spaces and the judicial branch, the supreme court, could regulate that by hearing a case in which either the commerce clause is enacted properly or improperly and decide that. much like with certain cases like plessy v ferguson, brown v. board of education. host: what do you think, sunshine? sunshine: a+, great job.

that was an outstanding answer. i love the tie-in and the inclusion of legislation. for a little bonus and awesomeness and ability to effectively represent your best teacher in the state of mississippi. do you remember which of your required cases about the comers because? caller: usb lopez -- u.s. v. lopez. sunshine: rockstar. well done. you are so ready to crush this test. what you want to do on the response questions is include details like you did. you did not just say commerce, you came up with examples, you had examples of court cases. that's exactly how you want to do that. show what you know. bias the reader in your favor and flex and it's a bit. you spent all year learning this stuff. put as much relevant information on the page as you have time for. good job. host: we have your contact information. somebody will be in touch about your prize.

thanks for calling and. we will go to joshua in greensboro, north carolina. go ahead. good morning. caller: good morning. host: do you have a question for sunshine or would you like challenge question? caller: i have a question. host: ok, go ahead. caller: can you explain the difference between trustees, delegates, and politicos? sunshine: that's a great question. i am laughing because it is actually one of the challenge questions we are going to have to skip. but that's ok. this has come up a fair amount on the exam recently. do you understand how our elected officials make their decisions about how they are going to vote on policy? what is governing their approach to it? a trustee is essentially what they think is the best, and if we think about the word trustee, it contains the word trust we are trusting them to make the right call.

typically, they have a lot more information about the building constituency do. first of all, they have seen it. in many cases, they have helped write it, they set in hearings about it so they understand it on a level that most americans are not googling, let me do a little light reading of 10,000 pages today. most people only know what they've seen maybe in a hashtag or a news story or turned into c-span and watched the congressional hearing in full, but they probably never read the whole thing. we are trusting our elected representatives who have to make the right call. they are saying my constituents trust me to do this. a delegate is you are acting as the people's delegate. you are there proxy effectively. you are doing what they would do if they were there. for that, a member would vote for what his constituents want or her constituents want whether or not it aligns with his or her personal opinions about the issue. a politico is a little bit of a mix of both. what do my constituents want? what do i want?

what might serve my interest long-term and help me continue to represent my district effectively? host: thanks, joshua. on x, we have a message from joey. he says hello, can you explain the significance of the iron triangle? this is a fan favorite. i am struggling to understand the connections. he wants to make a shout out to ms. richmond, the best teacher ever. sunshine: awww, so nice. love the shutouts. props to my colleagues. hope you are getting a little more sleep this weekend and i am. i still always have ap gov stress dreams that never have to do with a lack of confidence in my students, it's about me failing to teach them well. iron triangle is definitely a fan favorite. it is obviously a triangle, so we got three sides to it, an interest group, a related congressional committee, and a related executive bureaucratic agency, meaning the policy that all of them care about is

connected to one another. the american cattlemen ranchers association, the agriculture committee in the house and senate, and united states department of agriculture would be in an iron triangle together and you can think of exponential other examples. it's the idea that these three institutions all have anything, a policy they care about, but also the congressional committees and agencies have a lot of demands on their time. there's a lot of different interest groups asking them for a particular area of focus. and there are a lot of different areas in which they can focus on have some discretion to do that. they all have interrelated, that's why they are in a triangle together, interrelated actions. alike to start with an interest group. the interest group tries to affect the political committee through campaign contributions, scorecards, grassroots activism, etc. the congressional committee has influence over the agency because the congressional committee with power of the

purse, which is always a good default express power when talking about congress. they determine how much budget the agency gets and how they are able to do their work. they have influence over the agency by passing legislation that affects the agency's purse, sometimes it gives the new agency -- the agency a new role to take on. and they have influence over the agency through congressional oversight. they can call the director of the agency infer a hearing, that can conduct an investigation. they have confirmation power over the heads of those agencies most of the time. the agency, going backwards, influences congress because they are the ones actually carrying out congressional intent. they have a lot of discretion of power to do that. they affect the interest group because the interest group is, of course, the policy area that they are regulating through their work at the agency. they have all these mutually interconnected interests. the link between interest group

and agency in the first direction is that, a lot of times, they would be people in, the interest group in it for the long haul, it's a career job from them, and it's a career job for the agency so they build a relationship over time. the interest group can engage in lobbying. making calls, try to do visits, etc. host: we have about 20 minutes left in this segment. but if this is not enough cram for the exam for you, you can go back and either review the segment or look at previous year's segments. you can find it on c-span/classroom. you can also find resources there for teachers of social studies, economics, science and other subjects. students and teachers can also find a collection of resources for the ap government exam, not just of these cram for the exam segments. just go to the featured resource page in the upper right-hand corner. we will go to -- sunshine: another -- sorry. host: go ahead, sunshine.

sunshine: when you go to featured resources, you also can find topics organized by unit, as well as a section just on review. in that, on each of those sections, there are booklets, quiz let's -- quizlets, not only for vocab, buggy concepts, there are maps that link to different c-span videos and resources to give you a little bit more. some of them are just a couple minutes, some of them are longer. pretty much anything you want to be reviewing this weekend you can find on c-span classroom, so would definitely encourage a stop there if there is a topic we do not get to today. host: that's why appreciate having sunshine on the program. she's an expert. we will go to felicia in jamestown, north carolina. do you have a question for sunshine? or do you want to challenge question? caller: i have a question. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to know if she can explain the difference

between independent executive agencies and regulatory agencies and government corporations? sunshine: sure. so, that's often a challenging question. the independent regulatory agencies typically deal with some facet of the national economy. they are given independence for the same reason the courts are given independence, so they can really focus on a little bit more what they think is the right course of action, which is not always the popular course of action. sometimes you will see longer terms for commissioners on those agencies and other different methods of job security that are built into place. the typical ones you can think about are the federal reserve board, the small business administration the federal elections commission the federal communications commission, the securities and exchange commission. government corporations do some kind of work, like the name corporation implies they are within the purview of the government. host: we will go to owen in some

prairie, wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. host: do you have a question for sunshine or do you ha -- would you like a challenge question? caller: i would like a challenge question if that's all right. host: absolutely. ok, you ready? it is, explain the difference between a policymaking institution and a linkage institution, providing an example of each. caller: all right, so a linkage institution, sorry, one second. so, a linkage, sorry, just nervous. a linkage institution is an institution that connects people to the government. so an example of that is like the media or like holding a protest. it is something that gets the people involved in government.

and then on the flipside of that, you have something like congress, or one second, interest groups would also be a good example of a linkage institution. on the others of that, like policymaking groups, you have congress or the bureaucracy. you have people who are actually affecting policy. and usually, it is kind of a two -way street. they are influenced by those linkage institutions to take specific actions. sunshine: excellent. perfect. 10 out of 10. great credit to your teacher and to your own studying. caller: a bit messy but we got there. host: do you want to give a shout out to? caller: i would. thank you to my teacher in some. . host: we have -- in some prairie. host: we have information. thank you. francine in greensboro, north

carolina. hi. do you have a question for sunshine or would you like a challenge question? caller: i have a question. host: ok. go ahead. caller: what amendments do you think will be most important to know on the exam? sunshine: this is a great question. so pretty much anything in the bill of rights you probably want to know and have fairly locked in. i think it's especially important to take some time to review, in terms of the rights of the accused minutes, 4, 5, 6 and eight, what rights are within each one? especially the distinction between what's in the fifth amendment and sixth amendment. if you write that the right to counsel is secured in the 50 men, which is incorrect -- fifth amendment, which is incorrect, you're not going to lose points, but you would rather write the right to counsel is in the sixth amendment. you don't get escorted down for things that are wrong, you just get scored up for things that are right. the bill of rights guarantees are important, and the voting

amendments, those come up a fair amount. so having a working knowledge, being conversant in which rights, which things pertaining to voting, excuse me, were guaranteed by amendment versus things like legislation and court cases is helpful. host: on x, we have a question from caitlin in walker's bill, maryland. she was wondering if you could expend how congress can limit the supreme court. also, shout out to my ap go teacher -- ap gov teacher. sunshine: sure. that's a great question, and again linking back to what i said before, a lot of times that this is what the college board is looking to see. can you not only identify the rights and powers of different agencies, policymaking its additions, but how they're able to limit each other? when the supreme court passes a decision, exercises a judicial review, weighs in on a topic and whether or not that is actually constitutional, it is the most

unchecked power that any of the branches have, if we look at checks and balances, that a veto can be overridden, that a nomination has to be confirmed. and then the court makes a decision and almost that's it. there is not the ability to veto that, the ability to override it, the responsible to confirm it. that does not mean the other branches are powerless. if you were to write about something like that, one of the constitutional provisions, of course, that is allowed to congress, excuse me, as a remedy, is the ability to propose a constitutional memo with 2/3 super majority vote. if something gets added to the constitution, it can no longer be unconstitutional. that's where we look at the 13th amendment which nullified the dred scott ruling. we know that congress does not amend the constitution very often. what they can also do is pass new legislation that is tailored in some way to the court decision that may be tries to chip away at it a little bit in the hope that the court will change their mind when that new

legislation gets challenged. host: we will go to azure -- andrew in no peters -- milpitas, california. good morning. do you have a question for sunshine or would you like a challenge question? caller: i guess i would be ok with both the but i did call into have a question answered. host: ok, go ahead with your question for sunshine. caller: what is the difference between baker versus carr and westberry versus sanders? sunshine: sure. so, as you know, courts rule on cases and cases from come controversies. you cannot file a lawsuit just because you do not like a decision. somebody has to be injured or damaged, there has to be damage in some way in order to bring a case. the court rules on the cases that are in front of them. in one of those cases, westberry versus sanders, you have districts was the thing in

question. this same principle is applied to both but it's a question of which districts were being challenged. caller: baker versus carr is about state and westberry is about like federal? sunshine: right, it was the house district. both the districts were being drawn but one was being drawn for the state legislature versus the federal legislature. baker is one of your 14 required cases. host: do you want to give a shout out to your teacher? caller: sorry about that. to tlky, period one, who is taught by mr. cummins. host: all right. thank you so much. sunshine: milpitas is in the house today. host: they are. great teachers. we will go to holden in kernersville, north carolina. good morning. do you have a question? caller: yeah, a question.

host: ok, go ahead. caller: what are the most, the top five supreme court cases that we should know? sunshine: ooh, ok, so that i would say, again, links to my answer before. the top 14 you should know are the top 14 required cases. any of those could be the one you're asked to write about in the scotus comparison question. i think for all of them, rather than picking five and knowing them deep, pick your 14 and know them well. what were the facts? what were the rulings? i also think it's really useful sometimes to pick two of those cases at random and see, can you match them, can you link them to something else? that's a really useful exercise. i would say also if you're going to go farther, pick one that you really like, that you really think is interesting, and go into depth about that a little bit because that might be, at least it'll be fun for you to review that versus something else. it might be something that you

can use as an evidence point. i also want to make sure that everyone is clear that you can, if you cannot remember the exact name of a case, if it's one of the 14, you want to be able to name the case. but if you're bringing in another case that you are going to use as an evidence point, for instance, on the argumentative essay, even if you do not remember the name of the case, if there is a common colloquialism that's used to refer to it, you can use that as well. if you don't remember pahlavi alabama, you can write the scots -- powell v. alabama, you can write the scottsboro case. if you cannot remember is snyder v. salt, you can write about the funeral protest case. don't feel stymied or frozen on the test just because you cannot remember the exact name. write what you know. don't worry as much about what you don't know, worry about what you do know and how you get that on the page. host: do you want to give a shout out to your teacher? caller: yes, ms. koontz. host: all right, good luck on

the test. we have a text from nicole in mission viejo, california. she says a shout to maybe gov teacher mr. woods. and she asks, can you explain the necessary and proper clause? sunshine: sure. the necessary and proper clause, if you remember that it's nicknamed to be unelected because, that can help. just like your favorite thanksgiving pence, it stretches. what it stretches are the constitution. in article one, section eight of the constitution, we have the articulate enumerated powers of congress. causes like one through 17 are those express powers, the power to test, the power to suspend for the general welfare and the national defense, the power to regulate commerce, as was mentioned before, the power to establish weights and measures, the power to regular the post office, etc., etc., etc. list of those powers weights of army and the name, and then clause 18, which is easy to

remember, it is 1818, which is also the age that all of you are or are about to be. clause 18 says and all laws which should be necessary and proper, which is where the name comes from, for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. if congress can do all this stuff and anything that is necessary and proper to make that stuff meaningful. the easiest examples to think about is the power to create the air force, and nowadays, the space force. the constitution does not say that. the constitution says congress can raise an army and navy but implies it might be necessary and proper to expand that and create other branches of government. the reason it only says army and navy because at the time the constitution was written, the air force was basically ben franklin's kite. as time marches on and we take to the skies and outer space, we have the needed to be able to conduct military operations there so congress can create the air force, can create the space force. if we think about paper money,

the constitution says congress has the power to coin money. that would get awfully heavy and clearly if you wear pants made for women that don't have sufficient pockets, it would be extra problematic. congress can create paper money, they don't have to amend the constitution, they just say it's necessary and proper. you have to remember that of your required pieces sets up a broad interpretation of the elastic cause to give congress the power to legislate more areas. host: owen in wadsworth, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: i'm doing good. thanks. would you like a challenge question? caller: hit me with a challenge question. host: oh my gosh, this is so exciting. define the government and describe one way it influences policymaking. caller: divided government is when it's like split. so the president, republican and congress is ruled by democrats, it's just like difference of parties.

sorry, what was the second part of the question? host: one way it influences policymaking? caller: it adds trouble into policymaking because everything that congress does, like, will not get like passed by the president, so it can be vetoed, causing more gridlock. sunshine: love it and even throwing some extra terms in there like vito and gridlock. great job. great reflection of your class, your work and your teacher. host: we have your contact information. do you want to give a shout out to your teacher? caller: i would like to shout out ms. h. host: all right, great. good luck on the test monday. we have another text. this is audrey peterson from alexandria, virginia. can you please explain what pac 's and super pac's are and what their purposes are? also, shout out. sunshine: sure. pac's stance for political

action committees. what i tell my students, think about it like a chair. you hear pac, you think cash. they're basically the wallets of interest groups. their purposes to raise and distribute money in a way that serves the interests that they were formed to represent or promote. and remembering that when we hear the term interest groups, we default to thinking often about issue based interest groups and i'm sure you can think of some examples because your teachers obviously prepared you well for this. things that corporations can be interest groups as well. if you remember that, it helps you often come up with examples you might want to use. pac's are raising and spending money to try to influence the palooka process and policymaking. thinking about them as the wallet of an interest group can be helpful to remember that. super pac's, which links to citizens united, which is another one of your required cases, are raising and spending money independently of direct campaign donations. right. so traditional pac's, can give

money to congressional campaigns, super pac's don't. host: we have time for a couple more. from wisconsin. did i get that? am i even close? caller: yes, perfect actually. host: that's a surprise. do you have a question for sunshine or would you like a challenge question? caller: i would like a challenge question, yeah. host: explain two ways that congressional leaders can influence policymaking. caller: congressional leaders. so, let me think for a moment. sunshine: good job on picking up on congressional leaders and not just congressman. it's important to read every word in the question so good job. caller: the first thing they can do is encourage activism around the issue. and they can use their platform to [clearing throat] begin

stating their opinion on it and encouraging public perception towards the issue. the second thing they can do is that they can campaign on that issue itself. and this can help them get elected and get the message out to the public in a similar manner. sunshine: great job. excellent work. host: do you want to shout at your teacher? caller: yes, i want to shut up my ap gov teacher. ap gov in brookfield east. i also want to thank ms. cavaluzzi for taking the time to help us today. sunshine: it's absolutely my pleasure. host: go ahead, sunshine. sunshine: it's funny. i just wanted to mention because it pertains to this idea of congressional leaders and i did not say before and i want to

make sure everybody hears it. when you get a term and the free response questions, you want to make sure you can define the terms. you guys have done a great job defining divided government and you know what congressional leaders means. when you see a term like that given to you in the question, to find it in your answer before you start answering. make it clear that you know what you're talking about before you go on. if you get a question like, you know, how does a linkage institution affect the political process? you want to do exactly what we heard done earlier in the program, define what a linkage institution is, maybe even give an example of it and then go into your answer. just show that you know what you're talking about. if you see congressional leaders, congressional leaders such as a speaker of the house mike duke da dad da, so it's clear you know what's on the paper. don asked the reader to look into your mind. the readers are teachers, they want you to be successful. you don't control whose table your free response lines on, you don't control what time of day does, you don't control where it

is in process. what you control is what you put on the paper. control your controls, drug or knowledge on the paper and good luck to you all. host: logan in california, hi. do you have a question for sunshine or would you like a challenge question? caller: i have a question. host: ok, go ahead. caller: shout out to my teacher, mr. woods, period 2. how does federalism play out in some of the more recent supreme court cases like mcdonald's or chicago or d.c. versus heller? sunshine: sure. great question. again, back to the earlier questions. federalism is defining the nature between the federal government and state government. how much can decision-making on the federal government kind of weave into what state governments have done? so, if we look at recent court cases, we look at mcdonald v. chicago, which is another one of your required cases.

that's another question of selective incorporation as a way to decide whether the state government is bound by the national government rules and regular. in that one, of course, the supreme court incorporated the second amendment and said chicago could not police gun ownership in the way they wanted to because the second amendment had to be respected by chicago. in that case, we saw a movement of federalism in that it was using this national amendment to limit what the states could do. on the other hand, one of your other recent cases in u.s. v. lopez, of course, congress struck down the gun free schools and said congress cannot legislate in that way so that was affecting federalism in the other direction, giving more authority to states versus congress. host: we have time for one more call. we will go to steve in hendersonville, tennessee. hi, steve. caller:hi, good morning. shout out to my ap gov teacher miss gregory. host: do you want to ask

sunshine a question or would you like a challenge question? caller: i would like a challenge question. host: fantastic. here it is. if you are writing an argumentative essay about the power of the president, what is the founding document that you would use to support that essay and how would you use it? caller: i think article 2 of the constitution would be perfect to write an argumentative essay about the powers of the president. sunshine: how do you think you would use it? caller: just like, i am sorry, i am nervous. sunshine: i know, it's ok. it is, it's super nerve-racking, i get it. caller: i would probably say that using some of the powers listed in article 2 about how the president has the ability to veto legislation from congress or maybe how the president has the power to appoint justices to the supreme court. that may not be in article 2,

but i believe it is. those are some of the powers of the president that i think would be important to use in an argumentative essay. sunshine: i think you are right. i hope just for you that that's exactly the question you get on monday morning. good job, steven. i would not veto that answer. host: thank you to everyone who called in and thank you to sunshine -- thank you to sunshine cavalluzzi for joining us for another year of cram for the exam. good luck to all of the students taking the ap test on monday. sunshine, any final words of wisdom for these students? sunshine: attack the exam. trust your knowledge. trust the work that you have done. put what you know on the paper. and have fun. have fun. it's the and for most of your senior year. this is the great time, this is the payoff for all the work you've invested. go get it. host: sunshine cavalluzzi, thank you so much. and again, you can find this

episode of cram for the exam, along with previous year's cram sessions on our website. you can go to c-span.org /classroom. that is it for today's show. thank you to everyone who joined us. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific. enjoy the rest of your saturday. ♪