.. today that the investigations are nowhere complete. so, is that a responsible statement or is that something that may be a little irresponsible? >> i don't want to get into a big argument here. a lot of statements have been made in the face of an open investigation that would be drawing conclusions prior to the conclusion of that investigation. so, i don't think that there is a single focus on people at this point drawing conclusions. my position is, as i have said, i'm looking forward to this cotee's inigat determining where the facts actually are, and i look toward to that. >> you are relatively new member. register did not want to answer the question. you are afraid to stand for the white us and say, you know what, mr. president, that may have not been the most appropriate comment. >> let me make it clear. that is not responsive the chairman of the subcommittee with major conclusions in the

face of an open investigation. it is not my role to challenge what anybody is saying in terms of what is going on and what happened in the past. i have said, i am looking forward to the investigations being included. we will see what the facts are and respond appropriately. i am not engaging in anybody in a debate about the perceptions that may have. i don't think that necessarily would establish that i don't have independence or that i am not going to behave independently. if we're going to solve this problem i think it is going to help free actually work to see if we can't get the irs back in a position where it is now being bandied about. >> if i hear your answer correctly whom polynya would be of the opinion that there is no way to come to an inclusion of this points on the way you're testifying before us, there is no smidgen of corruption in the two-party. the investigations set up and complete. >> my position has been that everyone is entitled to their perspective on the evidence as it is unfolding. >> i'm asking what is your --

>> i am not expressing an opinion manhattan me. i am telling you, and here to run this organization. mom a straightforward way. ben not going to second-guess, by anyone. >> okay. so do you believe that the investigation is not complete so therefore there is no way to go to a conclusion. whether or not there is evidence of corruption. >> i'm not coming to any conclusions. but anybody else wants to do is up to that. >> and i appreciate it. that shows an open mind. i wanted to talk to you from an operational point of view because you do have some leads there that you clearly have referenced in the understaffing and funding issue. how would you judge said there is an understaffing issue in the agency from your point of you? you have heard from the front-line employees.

i get that. have you done any studies or do you intend to do any studies? what material you deploy to demonstrate that there is an understaffing issue with the irs and how are you going to measure of the fulfillment of meeting this understaffing and underfunding situations? >> the irs is a remarkable agency in the sense that it measures a lot of things and cares a lot about those measurements. one of the measures is how many telephone calls go unanswered to. your insight as 85 to 88%. last year it was 61%. i find that a measure says that we don't have enough people answering the phone. >> out you come to that conclusion? >> they measure whether the calls are answered and not. >> but how do you know is because the people are doing their job? >> it might be. i suspect -- >> it might be.

>> i will tell you. something, i have been done up, a benton six. if. what guarantee there is no way that 40 percent of the calls not getting through has anything to do with the activity in the dedication of the employees work in there. if of to beat a guarantee we get some more calls if we add more people. i can guarantee you we don't have the people. >> the time has expired. >> yes. and this is a question were going to have to continue to work with you want to justify as we talked about another meeting prior to this year just a vacation for how the money will be spent to rise as this budget. this committee will work with you. we are going to need information from you here to make those decisions. >> as i said, it's not as if i say we need of limited funds to be the question is well-founded. we need to tell you what you're

getting for what you buy it or you're not getting because enough buying. as we get through the budget were about to start the 2015 budget discussion, my view is we need to be able to tell you if you have $100 million. if we get 300 million over there, this week to get. i can demonstrate in the past we thought. you bought a wears my refund website that took two water and 50 million hits. that's not come for free but because we spend money appropriately. it is exactly right. i spent three years at ellen be worrying about how many we spent. this taxpayer funds. the taxpayers deserve to feel that we are careful stewards of the funding the of the way spending money, making sure that we are efficient fast. so we don't where none of model 2 with a lot of people doing the work. i can tell you, you can look at the enforcement numbers. we have 3100 fewer revenue agents and officers. i met with them.

there will tell you how many millions of dollars of uncollected and sitting right there. we have done there reviews. we just and have enough people to send the letters. it is an important question, and i look for. mr. chairman, i would not ask you to give us the money just for fun or just for some general purpose. if we get the funds and we will talk about it in the 15 budget, will do the best i can to identify exactly where the funds would go, what you will buy for a first. not come back to you later be accountable. >> thank you for being here to testify. it goes without saying the u.s. taking the reins of the travel agency in a chair will time. i sincerely hope you're going nasa says, was successful so of your predecessors have had in assuring the iras will be administering the love and inappropriate manner. as you clarified, hard-working taxpayers deserve this of the very least.

what touch on several topics. the irs has proposed rules for 501c4 groups. they are bizarre for a number of reasons. not only of the premature release in the middle of an ongoing congressional investigation, they also do upend long established rules that are governing 501c4. and it does looking at the regulations i understand that under the proposed rules the charitable organizations will still be able to conduct a nonpartisan voter registration. is that correct? >> that is my understanding. >> but if the sea floor organization conducts nonpartisan voter registration it would jeopardize the exit status and count against that into the social welfare activities. >> that's the proposal out there for discussion and comment. >> and under the proposed rules a charitable organization would still be able to conduct a non-partisan candid forms near an election.

>> that's my understanding. >> but again if the organization held a nonpartisan candidate form near an election that would jeopardize its denizens count against the into the social welfare activity. >> that is the proposal of for comment and discussion. >> and commissioner, and just trying to understand if this makes sense because the cells were extended back to the drawing board. and mist and the public will have an opportunity to comment. the issue we expect the treasury or the irs will be able to publish a draft rule that makes more sense. the only way this will make more sense is if the intent is to drive -- if the intent is to drive and out of the public square. it's only looks like is the direction it's pushing. >> the new american record for comments in terms of 21,000. there is still more time. no accord to scene with those comments are and participating. i don't have total control obviously.

participating in the discussion to respond appropriately to those comments which are covering these issues and others because i do think that it won't do us any good if we end up with a final regulation that doesn't solve the problem. i am looking forward to learning more from those comments. >> there will address the issues of race. >> we have heard from our constituents. light bulbs went off. learn about what's going on. various indigenous being targeted. , low wages and suspicious. lightbulbs are going off saying hey, i've been active with some

violence seafloors been given the politically to organizations my being targeted? you just let me know and that the committee know in general. you touched on this. what procedures if any is the irs now having in place to ensure that individuals are not being targeted by the irs in any way as a result. >> that issue has been reviewed says the irs has a historical long history of very detailed procedures and reduce of audit selection criteria. i can guarantee you that no one is targeted because for those artists, the criteria for any affiliation they have. the audits are targeted according to data and the analytics the come through in terms of where we're likely to find other under reporting or over reporting. i think it is important to assure the american public that is the situation and i can give

you my varying commitment of the irs says it goes for doing audits will be doing them in of fair even-handed way and as i discussed earlier tests by concern is that everyone going forward to the extent there is visibility, the basis will assume that if they get a letter from the irs there will immediately think what did i do wrong. once my church affiliation. i just want to, to the extent i can by saying it, i assure people that there is no selection criteria that will be viewed as unfair. it is all done independently, and people are going to be treated in have been treated fairly in terms of audits. >> commissioner, would you and your staff be willing to work with myself and members of my staff to -- some of those concerns a been raised by some of those individuals i have heard of? >> right. and as i said earlier, i talked

to the employees. as always been my view that internal auditors and ideas are very important sources of reparations. frontline employers, as i said in my senate confirmation hearing congressional inquiries are a great and important source of reformation. if we get a series from different constituents in different congressman that is an important source of information that we need to listen to investigate. to the extent that anybody is getting concerns, i am delighted to work with you and will commit that our organization will work with you to make sure that we have not inadvertently got somebody in a situation they don't deserve to be an. i would like the public to feel confident that when they raise that issue with you you can raise it with us and we will charlie assure that if there happens to be a problem everyone will know about it quickly. i am confident that we're not going to find those problems. i need to hear from your constituents. one of mine.

i want to respond properly. read a letter and it takes months to get an answer from me. i'm delighted to try to work with you get to the bottom of it. >> all of the questions says their raised some questions that relate back to the seven items i am delighted to have that list. focus on what it is you feel unique more documents. were you think you're not gonna all the documents you need. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. >> your background suggests that you have done this before usage your call then to help and with

troubled companies. new look at the irs your number one goal right now has to be restoring its image. >> it is. i don't say it as words. public trust and the agency is critical. our most valuable asset. we collect 91 percent of the revenues. we touched virtually every american. we have to have people confident. >> eat we work for the same people. >> is a taxpayer funds we're spending. >> i think he alluded. whenever he is back, i talked to people all the time. we tried to get their permission. let us know what's going on, make us aware what is happening. people come to me and talk to me. this is not anecdotal. you can use my name. >> the history does not have the

same projection as the words. and, you know, i've been around for a little bit of time. usually people to little stories. who is leaving the less one, up from the government and a real help the. i would suggest that don't know how you do this. how are you going to turn that around. i hear what you're saying. he gave us the document. said this is our path to getting this fixed. he didn't stay on the path very long. you're on board know. this is a turnaround issue. i am concerned because i have to tell you, the american people, i don't know what the approval is, but in a lot, they're scared to death of the irs because of the past performance. we have these talks. it's great to go back and forth with the reality of it is they just a bunch as the arabs because of the weighted been handled in the past. these people are treated very

well. the and this indeed is say that if you make over a million dollars have a 110 chance of getting audited? >> as the number. >> thus the number. to in the hell would want to make a million dollars in? the ira's lot you. you talk about incentives not to do something. that will be it. and just saying every audit strikes fear in the heart of every single american. your job, your coming in, you're going to turn around. indelicate the figures. the secretary of treasury makes $99,000 a year. i also know that -- >> are not eligible for a performance award. >> wait a minute. title five of the u.s. code, page 72 of its employees' annual salaries higher than their more than two and $25,000. is this part of your turn around getting a better focus on how we pay these folks? >> actually, we have special

authority which was provided by the congress. >> the answer is yes. >> have already looked into it. and the part of it comes down to what's called a critical player authority and unconcerned. >> what is your going to do. and you have not been there that long. so there's certain things easy relevant to this agency. as you were called in to help companies, the number one objective, and i have to tell you, this idea -- we talked to people throwing conclusions, but you were drawing a conclusion that says a lot going to make a statement based on people making a statement of facts that aren't yet put out there. whoever it is, the truth of the matter is we don't know yet what the answer is in the investigation the virus is

doing. >> that's right. we're already the sea will refine. >> we don't know do we. >> we don't know. >> nobody can make it declared a statement saying it is not funny for me. >> when i go all -- >> declared a statement from several people already. >> i understand, but he did not tell them what you're asking. nobody can stand in front of you and tell you that this is clear, that there is absolutely not one smidgen of evidence that proves. the investigation isn't done. it isn't done. those type of answers add to the gap between what people trust and what they have faith in any more. the answer is never a direct answer. it is an interim. when i come out of church after mass on sunday, when a metal walmart, k-mart, down in my little coffee shop they keep saying how do we know we can trust you. how do we know we can trust the

government. that is a heck of a position to be in in this country and this time because overwhelming data that we have looked at is that they can't trust us. we give them every reason not to. i think the opening exchanges great. the ability to talk to each other is great. i would just say, when people tell me back, you can use my story but you can use my name, that's the most chilling effect of what is gone on. and it goes unanswered for weeks after weeks, after months. we keep hearing the mothers actually nothing else. nothing to see here. that's when they know, you know what, it's another cover-up. you have a tough job in front of you, but no tougher than mine. >> i have to take care of 75,687 people in western pennsylvania and the rest of this country who expected to do the right thing for them because that is the model. that is what america means. i think you for being here. we will be back and forth on some questions we have because

the investigation is far from over and there are the things we need to look at. you need to turn the agency around. we needed tending government around. >> take you, mr. chairman. >> alex forger working with you on that. >> we're very honored to have the chairman of the social security subcommittee, our esteemed colleague mr. johnson here with us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this important hearing in the laramie as a full member of the committee to attend. mr. commissioner, on behalf of my constituents, some of from indexes appear to have been targeted by the irs. i just want to send a clear message that the irs has no business targeting americans for their beliefs. what is worse is that while this scandal is still under investigation even though you claim it isn't, the obama administration has proposed new regulations that effectively target these very same

organizations. let me be clear. you have the responsibility as the head of the irs to ensure the irs is not being used as a political weapon. and you have said that. no, mr. commissioner, want to talk to you about the so-called death master file. are you aware of it? >> i am aware. >> are ready years this file has been used by identity thieves to commit tax fraud as well as victimize families of lost loved ones. the bipartisan budget act took an important step toward stopping this by ending the immediate public availability of the death master file. that change your agency has advocated for many years. unfortunately the department of commerce which channels this file is ignoring the law. still allowing access until it establishes a certification pro gram for legitimate users. no, mr. commissioner carlo going

to ask you some questions. i hope you can respond simply yes and no. it will save you talking. with the tax filing season under way, doesn't comers' decisions mean that the debt master file can still be era -- still be used by a dinner the thieves? >> i was not aware the commerce a captive open. >> tax fraud is still possible because the fire was still publicly available. >> as long as those files are available it's a target of the opportunity. >> mr. commissioner, and now want to ask you about the individual mandate tax. this is the first year which americans to do not have an obamacare health insurance policy will be penalized with the individual mandate tax. no, just to confirm the irs can enforce this mandate tax by deducting it from americans' tax refunds. yes sir no? >> yes.

>> isn't it also true that the government can sue americans who don't pay the individual mandate tax, yes sir no? >> i think that's correct. >> okay. you know, i think that it is true. you know, the obamacare brief filed by the administration's lawyers before the supreme court says in addition to going after refunds, the attorney general has general authority to file civil suits for unpaid tax liabilities side. >> there are some things we can do. we can't put levees millions. >> if someone fails to pay the mandate tax, how much would that person have to go before getting sued by the government? >> i don't know if a decision has been made about that. >> well, i think that american people deserve an answer. could you follow up riding? >> i will follow up. >> lastly, let me just say that

it is unacceptable that the irs is not doing a better job of stopping improper payments. for instance, the inspector general has raised serious concerns about the ira's management of individual taxpayer identification numbers. bottom line, these itunes are costing taxpayers billions because they can be used to fraudulently get tax refunds. in the coming days i will introduce legislation to reform the aiden program. joint text tells me that that would save about seven and a half billion dollars. i hope we can get together on this. >> i look forward to working with you on it. >> thank you, sir. i yield back. >> commissioner, want to thank you for being here today. answering questions, providing your testimony to the subcommittee. please be advised on members may have written questions that they will submit. those questions and your answers will be part of the formal hearing record. clearly there are a plethora of

issues, some better still outstanding we can see to it that we restore the trust and the irs and the eyes of the american people and solve some of these many difficult outstanding problems as we go forward. with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> tonight correctional budget office director testifies on the deficit, the future of the u.s. economy, and the impact of the health care law. he spoke in front of the house budget committee to mendicancy that hearing at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> earlier today arab culture secretary spoke at the white house briefing on the creation of seven regional climate of here's a look. >> are you seeing farms go under because of the effects of climate change? >> i can tell you without any hesitancy that because we did not have a good assessment and

did not have good forecasting and did not have a disaster assistance program, some of the livestock producers and the dakotas, for example, the just could not make it. when that snowstorm hit v they did not wipe out just a few. nobody anticipated and expected that severe storm that early. that is what impact. i can tell you that the folks who live in the western parts of the united states to have been dependent on timber and forestry are deeply concerned. about the impact of the pine part you and diseased trees. we have roughly 45 million acres of diseased trees. not killed during harsh winters as in the past. that is having an impact. that is making forest fire significantly more intense. that is creating not just a fire hazard of falling hazards following the fire.

there are ramifications today that impact operators. >> severe weather patterns. >> when you take a look at the intensity of the storms that we have seen recently and the frequency of the, the length of drought combined with these snowstorms and the subzero weather we have experienced, the combination of all those factors convinces me that the climate is changing and it's going to have its impact and will have its impact and is having its impact on agriculture and forestry. if we are not proactive as the president has directed we will find ourselves five, ten, 1520 years down the road wishing we had done will be done today, wishing we assessed the risk, created and identify the vulnerabilities and wishing we have created programs and responses to those of our abilities to dampen the impact. >> part of today's white house briefing with a martial arts and cultural secretary tom bills sec. you can see that entire event any time on line.

>> new c-span.org website makes it easy for you to find and watched all of c-span extensive coverage of official washington. look for it on a rampage in a space called federal focus. each day you will find comprehensive coverage of house and senate debate, congressional committee hearings commence with the president and members of his cabinet. press briefings from the white house, capitol hill and the state department and the pentagon. plus selected supreme court oral arguments and appearances by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus. making it easy to keep tabs on what is happening in congress, the white house, and the courts. >> next, look at the obama administration policy on the use and sale of marijuana.

also here of a plan to privatize all federal airport screeners aren't in two years. from washington journal this is 45 minutes. >> and we are back with congressman john mica, chairman of the oversight and government reform subcommittee on government operations heading up hearing yesterday on the administration's marijuana policy. what did you learn? >> well, a lack of -- let's see, by the obama administration. got into this mainly because of some of the present administration officials reasoned commentary. the president was quoted saying -- infection i have is "right here. i know think it is more dangerous than alcohol, marijuana. it is important to go forward because it is important for society not to have a situation with a large portion of people at one time or another that have

broken the law. and only a select few get punished. the operations chief to cried the legalization. the enforcement side is saying that legalization, marijuana at the state level is reckless and irresponsible. the movement the criminalizes the sale of pot in the united states. so we had the head of the office of national drug control policy which is right under the president's. when it was created it was put in the white house. but trying to sort out what is the policy of the investigation. now faced with many states. passing legal use of marijuana for medical purposes, no recreational purposes. and we still have marijuana

listed as a schedule one charge, a very dangerous drug. >> what does that mean combustible one? >> set up categories. actually, the law allows the administration to put certain drugs that may be the most harmful -- they call it a schedule one drug. and right now marijuana is in that schedule. the president was quoted a few weeks ago, i think maybe when he made his comments saying that it was up to congress. a little bit further refund out that the administration can change the categories. this yesterday, find out where we're going. resister from melinda ecb. the department of justice. they have also conducted under

the ace of raids. we spend about $40 billion, we've done that yesterday, and other drug enforcement, education prevention programs. and the head of the zero windy city also testified that actually since the beginning of the obama administration the use of marijuana has spiked up in adolescence. most of us, well, i think everyone on the panel knows some pro legalization though experienced yesterday members of congress. some -- everybody agreed that we should not allow this narcotics, this drug in the hands of adolescence. so we're going downhill in controlling a substance, abuse of marijuana with young people. we are spending a lot of money. we have the policy, the federal policy that is here. state policy is changing.

our subcommittee is charged with looking at state and federal relationships and things of that sort. you know, you try to sort it out, and thus the purpose of hearing. we will continue this. did the department of justice in some of the folks who can tell us about the science of all of this. >> reporting about yesterday's hearing. the obama administration deputy drugs are said tuesday that the white house opposes the legalization of marijuana despite the president's recent suggestion that some statewide decriminalization initiatives should go forward. the deputy director of the office of national drug control made clear in testimony that the federal marijuana policy has not changed. >> well, again, i called it a schizophrenic policy. it is a policy in chaos. and we are trying to sort out where they're going to go. the same time if you are spending billions of taxpayer dollars and we're going in

different directions to what are we doing? and also, the report on adolescence abuse and use is concerning. we have made great progress. tobacco. we have cut the use of tobacco. the gray still having a lot of problems of adolescence. the most vulnerable i know some of the victims. adults, you know, they make decisions. many states have made decisions on the marijuana for medical use. at the florida just put it on the ballot. we will have in our state that question. twenty states have adopted that policy. it does insect with federal policy away the look at how you will control that. several states have gotten into recreational use, and the district took some action yesterday. it is not final, but i think they're also leaning toward more of the legalization.

>> is marijuana it just as dangerous or more dangerous than other schedule one drugs like heroin? >> again, we did not have the science folks in to tell us. >> o windy cp director told us two things. he said yesterday, they know from studies that habitual use of marijuana actually lowers your iq an average of 8%. that is what he testified to us. he also said there were 314,000 in treatment, so it is costing us a lot of money. people who are addicted or have the abuse problem with marijuana does have consequences. also brought up at the hearing, if this washington crowd. but -- but in any event the

question kept coming up about how many people have died for marijuana overdose. the director could not name anyone. but by the same token, you would not say, you know, what dangers posed in relation to other. he just would not testify to that. so we will hear from some of the experts at our next hearing, but we do know of course that the marijuana and that is out there today is not the thought that was out there go 30, 40 years ago. as a much higher narcotic content. it can be very addictive and somewhat harmful, as you described. we are trying to sort through it and, again, but they logical policy. i think one of the questions i was interested in, criminal

justice and drug policy back in the late -- well, it was 1998 to 2000. we came up with the ad campaign, work with the clinton administration and others to try to bring down substance-abuse problems, the use of illegal narcotics will whether it be marijuana or other drugs. often referred to as are drugs. we tried to get the media also, the public knows the air wastes also use some of their time for a public-service announcements in helping us try it said abate some of the use of hard drugs and harmful drops. so we are going to go back and look at what we have done as far as where we are with the campaign. i am going after marijuana and

other drugs. but the whole host of issues, another issue that just came up to the administration no is looking freeing eight to 12,000 prisoners who were convicted of cocaine. i think we have made some changes in the cocaine lot. the amount that you are prosecuting. the president recently granted clemency to some folks that had -- that he felt were unfair sentences. so one of the questions that is to appear with this release of these prisoners, the deputy attorney was asking defense lawyers to help government locate prisoners and encourage them to come forward. that raises a number of questions. some of the dealers would plead

down a lot of these folks that end up there who were actually dealing with playing down to lesser offenses our position. so we're going to look at what they're doing also in regard to this new wave of releasing some of these people who were in prison for offenses. >> let's get to our viewers. bonnie has been waiting. republican caller. you're on the air. republican of florida. go ahead. >> sent you for letting me beyond. i got up early this morning. i am on television. of course using the race card all the time. that really bothers me. here in ohio they are going to have it on the ballot. on the ballot in november to legalize marijuana. we are trying saw -- trying to

explain how dangerous marijuana really is. we know that it is. they try to say that we are going to do it for medicinal purposes, but will be tried as a year is that we don't vote on madison. we did not vote on penicillin. we did not vote on any of these medicines. why would we vote to make marijuana a medicinal thank? >> congressman. >> first the comments, the impact on race. the ranking member of the committee indicated, the criminal charges against african-americans as opposed to whites who have a similar charged with marijuana. i think that whole issue, if you want to look at the race aspect of all of the problems of we're

facing now -- a lot of the starts unfortunately in the minority community, substance-abuse among african americans and only a job for 13 percent of the population. 50 percent of the prisoners african-american. we have a much larger problem. i really wish the president would step up and do more for our minorities. they have been the most impacted by whether it is a substance abuse. over half of the people in our prisons, the illegitimate birthrate among nearly 70% for african-americans and other minorities, extremely high. we look at the dropout rate in school, the graduation rate.

the graduation rate. for minorities it actually has backslide it. >> i just want to point that out because i think that is something. i would like our committee to look at government programs and now they're having a negative effect, particularly on the minorities. back to her point, though, it is -- many states have had this on the ballot. it as pests because they nearly crafted use of marijuana for medical purposes, which most people are opposed. a problem in florida is a half caveat that open the door for other expansion of use of marijuana. >> if we legalize pot still we have to legalize all drugs to kill the underground drug trade? is there enough benefit for just pot? >> i don't know.

it is very difficult to control. personally, i don't favor it. again, i think that -- and other people may not like this. of a tough enforcement and a guy. and the criminal-justice drug policy chair. rudy guiliani, a zero tolerance. ec their results, residual to today in new york city. people not using drugs go to singapore. they have capital punishment. not that i'm advocating. i went over to the netherlands to talk to their people in the judiciary. adopted some of the most liberal policies. they found that it became the

capital of narcotics trafficking for your. the official said to back off and go the other way with tough enforcement and change the law. am afraid we may be headed in the wrong direction. there may be consequences. >> we will go to john next in fairfax, virginia. >> i. good morning. it is incredible. marijuana is not -- marijuana is not addictive. the people who are in rehabilitation, they are there because the court sent them there, not because they have a problem. the draconian jail system. >> not addictive.

>> action and move to colorado. she said she's -- for all life revolves around the use of marijuana. it can be addictive. tobacco, mother actually passed away from being addicted, from the effects of smoking in being addicted to cigarettes. alcohol, people can handle it. we do have a drug that is also much more powerful which was testified to yesterday. does have some damaging effects. you can't control the behavior. you have to be responsible.

if nothing else we're spending billions of dollars with the unfortunate prevention programs, all host of things. >> he said at the top 4 billion. >> forty. >> how much of that for marijuana? >> again, and i don't have the statistics. it is broken down. there is quite a bit for prevention. another interesting thing, and not to go back and check his testimony. a lot of people -- to london 14,000 in treatment. they're in treatment, but i think the zero nbc director said the good news is i think they're eligible under obamacare for treatment. at to go back and check that.

but that is kind of scary because again a new program, they open it up the tremendous folks, that will. the june and raises the point how effective are the programs and is it just a diversion. >> richard rodgers treats in, you mentioned in the past away from tobacco related condition. which is more harmful, cigarettes are marijuana? >> i would say marijuana. my mother managed to keep her faculties. you know, it's a horrible death when someone has destroyed their longs from smoking. we have done a very good job. we could do is get a job on marijuana and drugs, hard drugs,

almost every family and name someone know who is died from an overdose. is probably one of the highest. the automobile accidents. if we can do that, get a job with tobacco at think we can do same thing with the substance abuse. >> we covered yesterday's hearing. marijuana versus harder drugs. congressman had a back-and-forth with the white house. want to show that in the reaction. >> what is more dangerous and what is more addictive? cocaine, math, or marijuana. >> simple, i think that conversation of minimizing harm -- >> and not trying to minimize the harm. i want to know which is more

dangerous and addictive. >> again, i go back -- >> you don't know. >> as a public health person one of the things we look at is not the relative risk of one drug. >> let me just say i think they your equivocation right there being unable to answer something clearly and definitively when there is unquestioning evidence to the contrary is why young people don't believe the propaganda. why they think it is benign. if a professional like you cannot answer clearly that math is more dangerous than marijuana , which every kid on the street knows, which every parent knows. if you can't answer that may be that is why. we are failing to educate people about the dangers. i don't want kids smoking

marijuana. i agree with the chairman. the deputy director of the office of drug policy can't answer that question that you expect high-school kids to take you seriously? >> congressman mike. >> well, they hearing obviously raised a lot of questions, some that cannot be answered by the president's director of the office of national drug control policy. this is an important question. we have a policy in chaos, a transitional lolls. i think we will continue our work. what to bring in the apartment of justice and people who can answer the question that was not answered. this is in a republican or democrat issue. we have republicans, the legalization. but we have spent a lot of money . a big impact on our society, particularly our youth. we need to get it right.

>> kevin tweets income of the war on drugs has been an expensive failure. end the war. do you agree? >> again, aspects of it. i worked on plan columbia where donation was captured by an arco terrorist. the former speaker and i helped put together the plan. it was successful. we helped rescue a nation. it is -- you know, we have human beings get involved in abuses. we have hard drugs that do need to be controlled. they have to look at the whole thing. i think we can and must do better and spending an incredible amount of money and not succeeding. that's not a good picture. >> lexington, kentucky. independent. you're on the air. >> hello. thank you for avignon. just to give you a little background, and drop in florida.

i am no studying history current university of eastern kentucky. amelie unamerican for liberty member. there would just like to say, having been end criminal-justice , i would highly suggest he look into a group called leak. that group is going in tell much of a failing drug war that we currently have. how we can get at it because we're spending millions of tax dollars on something this is not working. heroin is currently on our streets more and more and worse the marijuana. yet we focus on marijuana. right now the city of lexington is using a thing called bark can nearly every day on about three people trying to reverse the effects of heroin. currently marijuana is just no where near. >> congressman. >> again, i somewhat agree.

i don't know about the group's in mentioned. the policy is in chaos. we need to look at it if we're spending money. it is not doing the job. we need to put the resources where we have the best impact and make certain that again one of my concerns is the impact on our youth. we need a program to deal with that. we are failing in that area. we will examine. this is the first time we open this. marijuana use when i was chairman and congress a decade ago. >> no hearing since then. >> no. i remember dennis kucinich had taken over. i don't think he did in the hearings on all subject. but they got a number of agencies that double of money and programs. they are not effectively -- to

look at them and do what we can to bring chaotic policy to some rational point. >> and the story on their website about heroin use. it is ben on the rise since 2007 growing from yearly users to 669,000 in 2012. for two reasons. a larger cheaper supply stemming from an increase in heroin importation mylan american cartels and a bigger market for opiate strong buy prescription painkillers. what should be done about this? >> again, a lot of money. this points to a lack of success. we need to review all of these programs. they have not been reviewed and i intend to do that. i don't know the answers are no. we started programs. i mentioned plan columbia. other things, the drug education program. political consultants help those

with the program. let's look at what impact. and then the success rate. >> congressman, you did seem has to to give your perspective, what you think should happen on these issues. >> only because again i want to have a fair and open hearing. he will look at the other aspects. some were raised yesterday, some by your callers. then you try to put together a rational programs that make sense to make a difference that rightfully used taxpayer money. i am not committed to any course read no heavy not a big legalization. like some of those things. to make sense. we will take another course.

everything is on the table right now. a lot of chaos and policy. needs to be reviewed. >> let's let you get a drink of water. >> and listen to be the next phone call. mary is in kentucky, a republican,. >> hi. good morning. it is nice to see somebody has a telephone. i only have a computer. i would like to know if you have ever tried this stuff. i haven't. i am a chronic pain patients. and have taken these of the medications and the strong ones. i have, often by myself. when you go on this stuff you have to take his medication to counteract this effect and this medication to counteract the effect of that medication and of the one to counteract the effects of and the medication. i have a plan. a person that had cancer. in the loss my father to cancer.

it was terrific. morphine. there was not any. but the effects of that stuff is gone awful. and this lady that took a marijuana joint after going through chemo, this see her come out of that room happy, smiling, content, and the drying up, no side effects, no nothing. she was already dying. what is wrong with having a happy death? >> congressman. >> to answer her first question, i have not used in a narcotics, including marijuana. but i do want to say that i never smoked either. again, i was raised in a family. i saw the effects on a family member.

i just -- it turned me on a totally. medical marijuana, i don't know. i really probably don't have a problem with the use of prescribed by a doctor and controlled and can help somebody and i have seen several clans or it has set some positive effects again, this is much bigger than that question. the medical marijuana has been used as, again, and on chair seen in some of the states and referendum to go beyond that. and that's a question that we have to look at because it does conflict with the recreational use this conflict with the schedule of the federal government has set in the category in which marijuana is no. so we will try to do that, and give a responsible. see the rest of the different sides to bring in the science of this. there was a question about the potency, the marijuana that is

on the market today and its effects. we need to find out how much of our risk is posed in how addictive it is. >> if people ever used pot, we could do the same thing we do with those who over use of all, but then in treatment, the same with all drugs. here is another treat. tobacco and alcohol use has dropped because of public service announcements and education. why not do the same with marijuana and legalized. i asked that question yesterday. i thought it was a fairly effective campaign. ,remier consulting with morris one of the most respected political consultants. he said we can change people's behavior through advertising and we did it. we'd have done it for young people through advertising. that was 10 years ago. i asked yesterday how much they were spending on social media and he did not know. ing and e-mailing and the

different social media that impacts people's lives, maybe we can look at impacting in a positive fashion whether it's marijuana all the way to heroin , educating people a little better and changing people's attitudes on this. one of the last things i will mention is i met with some of my police chiefs recently. i was asking them questions about narcotics abuse. they told me the only reason that the tallies are not worse -- that this -- the fatalities have leveled out there in they may not be too bad as far as his store coal standpoint -- they tell me they only reason for that is they are better at saving them now than they were 10 years ago. impact and you

cited some of the statistics on heroine. heroin and crack and all of the and legal drugs prescription medication. we as a society must do better. if i'm spending $40 billion of federal taxpayer money and we are backsliding, we are not succeeding. hawkeds are getting more --hooked and we have a problem. that's the way i try to approach our direction in congress. host: i want to get your take on some other issues. there is debate within the gop caucus of what to do on the debt ceiling. should it the attached to reforms to the affordable care pipeline orl something else? guest: we are falling further and further into debt. i have voted for and against raising the debt limit when we were at war and at other times

to get us to a point. when you have debt reaching this for a level, we should ask some steps that help us reduce that deficit and help us reduce the spending. occasions to many try to get that spending under control but this is a good opportunity or something that would boost our economy, maybe the pipeline. again, i don't think we should let the opportunity pass either to get our spending under control or get something that and aenefit the nation lot of folks in the country are still out of work. that would boost revenue and careity solve health problems on a whole host of other issues. time and unique

hopefully we can make it a positive time. host: you served as the top republican on the house transportation committee for many years. i want to get your thoughts on this political magazine piece that was written five days ago by a formertsa screener -- guest: fortunately, it confirmed our worst suspicions. tsa was taken out of her committee and has much and from 16,500 screeners to 51,000 screeners and on top of that, 15,000 bureaucrats. that's 66,000 people total. it needs to be reined in. i will introduce legislation which is a switch to all private under federal supervision organizations. when we created that, we have five airports that were private screening under federal supervision. , theroblem was 9/11

government failed to put any rules and regulations or audit the procedure. that's what we need to do, not go back to -- at the federal government out of the operations side of it and the spencer bureaucracy they have created. almost every western country has private screening under their federal supervision. we can bring the bureaucracy down and make it a more passenger friendly -- 99.9% of the people screamed posed no risks and they are getting hassled unnecessarily. we see from this article what is going on. host: how would making tsa screeners privatized prohibit them from doing something like this? guest: the federal government won't never meant is that many people very well. they are also not good at innovation or expediting the process for the private sector can always do it better.

it's a one-size-fits-all operation. they need to take it back into security, connecting the dots, not running a huge yurok received. we only -- not running a huge bureaucracy. we have 35 airports that handle 75% of the traffic. on 15,000h administrators to run that. you can bring down the cost of administration. can be much more customer friendly and be friendlier to the tsa employees. private screening is a better retention rate and pay them more in some absences to retain them. we have had a revolving door. we i think they will be happier campers in that situation. government does not running huge operation -- it should not be the administrator or the regulator or the auditor. running this huge barack hersey

-- bureaucracy. we can do better. host: back to the marijuana policy, here is a tweet -- guest: yes. based on my two years chairing the criminal justice drug holocene. when i the information shared that. that's what i am left with. yesterdaye question and it's a good question that needs to be asked -- is there evidence this is a gateway drug today? we will update that information and see what the scientists say. is it a gateway drug to harder drugs? i don't know where we are today. testimony, wee

have a more powerful drug then we had some years ago. psychological impact on the brain. we will see what they say as far as taking people to the next level. i want to hear from the experts. host: can alcohol be a gateway drug? guest: probably, people do take alcohol and go on to other types of substance abuse. some incredibly horrible effects. you can just look at the statistics. it was 40 then it came down to 30,000 traffic deaths and half of them are alcohol-related. not counting tens of thousands of injuries. substance that we control

probably not very well. guesthost: guest: that's his opinion. we have a responsibility right now. of the drugchedule set by law and by the administration, the schedule of hard drugs. that is part of the question we are asking. the change we see across the country, the legalization with medical use and now recreational ,se in some other jurisdictions going in a different direction. you have to rationally sort this out and look at where we are going and i go back to the money. i am a fiscal guy. i always look for ways we can do things that are and cost less

for the taxpayer. we will look at the whole picture and we make a rational decision based on facts and outcomes. host: if you are interested in schedule one drugs and how the justice department classifies them, though to justice.gov. it is right there on their website. marijuana and heroin fall under schedule one and scheduled to drugs include cocaine meth. why is cocaine scheduled to and not schedule one? by thethat can be set up department of justice and the administration. it's not just a congressional mandate. they can be changed. the president said it was up to congress. if they want to change it, they can. we will be addressing those

issues when we bring in the department of justice and when we bring in other officials. dea is on the enforcement side. they have the ability to adjust that schedule. we will see if that is the direction they are heading in. here are other scheduled to drugs. glenview, illinois, democratic caller. i hope good morning, eventually you will see that legalization is the better policy. the harmful effects of our current policy are astronomical. is political nature of this fear. when you have studies that say things like an eight percent reduction in iq and to use that and publicized that without discussing what studies have been done looking at decades of

habitual use of alcohol and compare their iq. obviously, we don't have those figures because that is not the political goal of people looking at this. time over 30 years ago when addiction meant real addiction. it is a medical condition where when you take the substance away, your body stops working properly. you can measure metabolic problems. narcotics do that and so do opiates. after a long away term of use and your body does not function properly. now, we have begun to use the term addiction to mean the same thing as being addicted to television or marijuana. we use it for 30 years and take it away but no doctor will find anything going on with your body. you have given an entire generation an excuse to convince themselves they are addicted to

something. guest: first of all, i did not bring up the eight percent. that was brought up the president's director of the office of drug control policy. i don't even know what study he referred to. he was just saying that there was an eight percent increase for habitual users in the iq through a study. i don't know how valid that is. the question of comparing it with alcohol -- the president brought that up. i don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol. this is the president's statement. and theirup the dea enforcement chief is saying this is reckless and irresponsible. i am in the middle of a food fight over the legalization.

steward this out and if we need to adjust the laws we will. if agencies will go down some path that is not effective, my job is to hammer them as an oversight chairman in congress. people are out there working sendings every day, their money to washington and they want me to make certain our policies and the actions of the administration are effective and worthwhile. billion on a whole host of programs, let's find out what makes sense and what does the best job. i go back to our adolescence and kids. that's one thing we have not ofe and we cited statistics not only our kids being further at risk. you pointed out that heroin is taken off -- has taken off the last couple of years. is in chaos.

let's sort it out. i am trying to do that or it we will do it and i want to hear from everybody. we will hear from all the folks that have not been heard. and people who have facts. that's what we want to deal with. then we will try to sort out a rational policy with a lot of different opinions but members of congress. >. host: congressman john mica, republican from florida, thank you for being with us. guest: hopully, i will rec thank you, congressman. coming up on the next "washington journal," a discussion on pending u.s. trade agreements with pacific and european countries.

our you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. tonight congressional budget office director testifies on the deficit. the future of the u.s. economy, and the impact of the health care law. he spoke in front of the house budget committee and you can see that hearing at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. senators had the day off for their annual policy retreat, "politico" congressional reporter, i guess, being a congressionallal reporter means covering the repeat.

senate democrat at national park in washington hearing from president obama and former president bill clinton. what is the significance of their timing of their hearing from president obama? >> caller: well, it's significant because in some ways senate democrats have been breaking from the president on certain issues. some of that related to the 2014 elections and democrats running in states where the president isn't particularly popular like louisiana and arkansas. come at the big moment for legislation in the senate on employment insurance still hasn't been reveef -- revived. that expired december 28. they prepare to go forward with a minimum wage increase. i think they try to strategize as a party where as in the past i feel like congressional aids have been little bit critical of the coordination between the white house and the democrats. >> i understand there's not a lot of media coverage coming out retreat. bill clinton what is the purpose being there as a cheerleader for the agenda?

>> yeah. i've been told with sources with the meetings they don't expect any big policy news political news out of president clinton's visit. it's more of a, you know, get riled up. we're going to hold the senate, you know, we're going to be on the same page. we're on the democratic team. i would look more a team-building exercise right now. >> democrats go to the ballpark. republicans go to thely prayer. the library of congress for their retreat. what was the focus of their meeting? >> they get on the same page in term of getting their agenda out there rather than just be 0 poagz the democrats agenda. i think there's a recognition they are seen as an opposition party more than a party as ideas they want to present themselves as. they look at how can we offer alternatives to, for example, raising the money him wage or how can we offer alternative toward extending unemployment benefits indefinitely. it's going to be sort of those ideas. >> well, the house is holding down the legislative floor on

capitol hill. today the house budget committing hearing from the congressional budget office director. you tweeted saying house republican members have been given a bullet list of talking point for the day. the first of which is about 2.5 million jobs. tell us about some of the fallout of that messaging coming out of the cbo hearing today. >> you're lucky. the senate is out so i was in the house to get the tidbit today. the member who told me about this didn't give them to me. said the primary one was the 2.5 million jobs that will be lost due to the effect of obamacare. the administration and pushback is because low-income americans won't feel as obligated to juggle so many working hours. they can have a more comfortable lifestyle with these insurance subsidies they wouldn't have had without it. >> and going back to the senate as we wrap up. you mentioned earlier the unemployment insurance. that issue coming back on the

senate floor thursday. what is proposed? >> well, the democrats have a three-month extension that paid for with this changes to federal pension law called smoothing. it looks like that may not get 60 votes but may be able to get that passed; however, maybe a wink and nod agreement with republicans to repeal cost of living adjustment as part of the budget deal but negatively impacted veterans. there may be interplay between the two things. right now they're scheduled to take a vote on thursday. at 11:00 a.m. there may be a deal in the works to have more vote on amendments. republicans want to have vote on their proposal and . >> "politico's" congressional reporter. you can read more at plit cool.com and follow his reporting on twitter. thank you for the update. >> more about the congressional agenda and more specifically what is ahead for the democratic party in 2014.

from "washington journal" this is 40 minutes. "washington journal" continues. to welcome back donna edwards, democrat of maryland talking about the democratic agenda, campaign 2014. lots of front-page news this morning about what the congressional budget office had to say yesterday about the affordable care act. here is one headline in "the boston globe." guest: i don't agree with that. one thing that is clear is an individual employees have a choice about their health care and no they can keep it, they can do lots of things to make decisions they would -- they would not have made otherwise. people of said i might leave the workforce but i will start a

business i have always wanted to start. i might lose this job but i will start another job. i think it is not clear what the real implications of the law are going to be for the long term. this underscores the fact that we have to get it implemented and continue studying it to make certain it has the kind of impact we want on people's health. host: a column in o quote the washington post." guest: we just really don't know this yet. one of the things that occurs to me is with health care, i remember when the cbo first scored the affordable care act. they could not score prevention.

we don't even have any idea of what prevention and changing of behavior will mean for the american people. i want to see this play out for the american people. i think it's good we have health care and i am proud of what we have done but we've got to keep our eye on the ball. the ball is health care coverage for all americans. it is portability from one job to another job or starting a new business and those of the things i think we don't quite know what the cbo says. when you look at the details of the study, it also says that there are a lot of unknowns. gauge doing something important for the american people based on what's going to happen in one election year or another. this has been a lifetime change in direction of our health care system. right now, more than 10 million people from the affordable care

act and medicaid expansion are being covered health care and i never had it before. host: part of your job in ccc ands is to work for d you are in tried to -- you are in charge of recruitment. poll from yesterday. has this hurt your recruitment efforts? guest: it actually hasn't. we have recruited candidates in some of the toughest district across this country, strong candidates. many people have been focused on some of the retirements but that have come from mostly safe district. our candidates, because they are strong and committed and convinced about the law, they are talking to people about what is happening. there he restores of americans who have health care coverage for the first time and most

people are focused on the economy and we can do to grow jobs. we have a group of candidates around the country who are focused on how we grow jobs and how we create jobs in this country and how we improve the prospects of millions of americans who have been left out of this economic recovery. it is more of a wall street recovery and not a mainstream recovery. host: we are talking with congresswoman donna edwards. she sits on several committees including the science, space, and technology committee, transportation and infrastructure and she is also heading up recruitment efforts for the dccc for the upcoming election cycle. democratic agenda for 2014 is our topic this morning. debbie wasserman schultz talked about democrats chances for picking up the house and 2014. [video clip] owing to confidently predict that democrats will take the house back. what i will predict is that we

will pick up more seats. down boy. [laughter] context of at the the president's speech last night, for the republicans and the country, they are strangled in a civil war where the tea party has been allowed to take control of the agenda. do you share the lack of confidence there from the dnc care about taking back the house? guest: i heard confidence. i'm confident that we have recruited the candidates across this country that will make the case of the american people about creating jobs and growing the economy for the middle-class and those who want to get into the middle class. is it going to be the majority or will it strengthen the congress and we can make that case to the american people. people look at overall approval ratings. republican approval ratings right now are just in the tank. they are absolutely in the tank.

when push comes to shove and every single congressional district, people make decisions based on what is going on there laws and whether they believe somebody is committed to making sure we raise the minimum wage, committed to getting things like paid leave and we have equity in pay for men and women come out of the job they do. people are focused on growing the economy because we are growing -- we are changing the infrastructure of the nation and investing. we are investing in research and development and the kinds of things that are about creating jobs in the 21st century. host: president obama met with house democrats last night. were you able to attend? what was talked about their? guest: the president had a chance to echo in short form the state of the union message which was great. also, we had an opportunity to engage with the president and vice president and members of the cabinet on specific issues

to our districts and overall concerns. i think the president has expressed optimism and he expressed optimism of going around the country and making the case to the american people in a strongerd be position if we had a majority is democrats. we are counting on him to do that. he and the first lady have already helped us out in that respect. they will continue to do that. overall, i think it was a great way to get the year started. we are all on the same page about what we want to do for the american people. host: we will go to matt in texas, democratic caller. caller: good morning and thank you, and donna, congresswoman edwards and greta, thank you for taking my call. blue dot democrats -- blue dog democrats -- i thought we were going to talk about spending but on infrastructure, that is one

area we do not need to cut. high-speed rail and things like that -- on the election, the tea party i think is the best thing that could've happened to the democrats. i live in the third congressional district in texas. there is a lot of moderate republicans who are fed up with the tea party and their antics on a whole host of issues. a lot of those folks eventually will look for a choice. democrat and as a as the democrats have another choice on the ballot. that's all i wanted to say, thank you. guest: i think texas is one of those states where over a. of time, demographic is shifting. for the future, there will be for expanded opportunities democrats who really are about making change for the american people. i love the idea about not cutting infrastructure spending. when you look between our roads and ridges and water and social

systems, they are falling apart. we have to invest in them. that is about creating jobs. even as we go into this debate about immigration, i think the american people are recognizing that the tea party is representative of an extreme this country. it is not emblematic of the vast majority of the american people. even among republicans, i think there is a thought that we have gone too far. in some of these districts, i don't know if republicans -- moderate republicans will be able to gain control in these district but democrats will offer an agenda that is about strengthening the economy and focusing on those who strive to get into the middle class and want an opportunity and those who are in the middle class who have seen stagnant wages over the last few decades. we focused all of our legislative energy on those

people. put thepublicans would keystone xl pipeline under infrastructure spending. is debate within the house gop whether to demand the president's approval of keystone xl in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling. should it be approved? guest: i think that's a separate question. i have not been a big fan of the keystone xl pipeline. i look forward to seeing all of the results from the state department and also from some of our other agencies. at the end of the day, that is the president's decision. even with keystone, we could have 55 thousand bridges in this country that are failing. i say let's invest the infrastructure dollars there. the president has said he will hold off and get input from

other agencies and make a decision about the pipeline. we have done a good job in this country on gaining additional energy independence. i would like to see us make more investment in some of our renewable energy strategies and improving our nations grid. --should strengthen drop broadband access at our schools. that's about infrastructure as well. there is plenty to do. i question the job creation numbers when it comes to keystone. i think they have been greatly overestimated by the proponents. i don't know whether they have been overestimated by others of us. host: "the washington times" - and we are talking with donna

edwards, democrat of maryland about the democratic agenda for 2014. obamacare is focused on having 6 million united states citizens sign up for health care. never to my knowledge was the health care of the 11 billion illegals brought to our attention. because they are not united states citizens, they are not entitled to obama health care. therefore, what kind of health care plan will i have to have and how will they pay for their health care? hasn't us providing them social services increased our debt? guest: this is precisely the reason i have been supportive of

the republican retreat around immigration. i look at immigration and a couple of ways. one is getting so many people who are paying taxes aboveboard and to paid wages that they put into the economy and contribute to social security and medicare, largely a younger population. and then they become eligible for health care coverage so it does not train our emergency room's and other services. whatr than focusing on immigrants and their population is draining from the economy, i like to focus on developing a strong immigration system that respects our borders, makes sure we can get people above or in the economy, and then they will be job creators and innovators and contribute to this economy in the most positive way that immigrants have always done. to worryon't have about what they are taking away but can focus on what immigrants will be putting in. host: springfield, virginia,

independent caller. caller: i have a question on immigration reform -- i am still on the fence with regard to whether or not i am in favor or not. one question that has been nagging at me that nobody has provided an answer for -- we have a rather strong social safety net in this country. people on social security, for example, lower income people get much more back in benefits than they contribute. we have the earned income tax credit. . we have food stamps all of these costs taxpayers money. that at been estimated least 50% of the illegal immigrants would qualify for these benefits. the question is, who is going to pay for them? think it's an interesting question but let's consider was happening now. we have a lot of people in this country illegally.

they are working every single day. they are largely out of the tax system and how to contribute them to sell security and medicare but some do. or actually above makes them contributors in the economy and the estimates for immigration reform are the that we would end up putting an additional millions of people in billionshe economy and into our economy in terms of job creation and strengthening the economy and strengthening some of our social safety net programs. when people are working and they are paid a living wage, they want to work and they pay taxes. they buy things and the gross area economy. i really think we have to think about how we create jobs in this economy in a different way and whether that is strengthening our immigration system so that people are allowed to immigrate and become citizens and be come

contributors to the economy. also, strengthening the lower wage jobs and increasing the minimum wage and making sure that people earn enough so that they are not reliant on food stamps and the entire social safety net. host: here is a tweet -- guest: we presume that the majority of the immigrant population are all low-wage jobseekers and that is not true. when you add people into the economy and they are aboveboard, if you increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour which is modest. if we index the regular minimum wage to inflation 20 years ago, it would probably be about $17. , you havewe do this people working above the poverty dependentre no longer

on food stamps or other aspects of the social safety net. they are paying their taxes and paying into medicare and paying into social security. they are buying goods and services of they are contributing to the economy. the whole bunch of other people create other kinds of jobs. based on that. to look at the question of immigration and low wage basin a different kind of way, making sure that people who get up every day and work for a living -- the president has said this -- if you work 40 hours per week at a job, you should make above the poverty line. if you are like the rest of us,. host: republican caller is next. caller: good morning, i have three questions -- what is your education and what did you do prior to being in politics? guest: all my goodness.

i went to wake forest university. i had a degree in english and then came out and ended up at a job at lockheed engineering, working on the spacelab program and nasa as a systems engineer and got additional training. iran nonprofit organizations for many years, hiring many people and raising a lot of money. then i came into the congress. franklinas well from which is now the university of new hampshire. caller: have you ever owned a small business? guest: i have not but i started nonprofit organizations from scratch in which i have employed lots of people and paid lots into the system in addition to helping people in our community. host: what's your point? caller: i have a point. you think the affordable care act is helping small business owners because it's

not. i am a small business owner and it is destroying us. i working construction contracting and i used to be a member of one of the much loved democratic unions. i us to hire union employees and i don't do that anymore because i cannot compete with the illegal aliens that work for $11 per hour. ideas.e all these great i think you're going to be surprised in the 2014 election. the tea party will come around -- white you both so hard and bike you both so hard that you will be very surprised. guest: i don't know i agree with you. when i talk to small businesses in my district and i will give you one example -- a woman came to me and said she has about 30 employees and she the minimum of $10.10 per hour. she is able to grover business.

grow her able to business. she was able to get health care as a small business owner and she had never had health care for her employees before. as a business owner, she made a decision to contribute 50% to their health care coverage. qualifiede employees most of them qualify for subsidies to pay for their health care. for the first time ever, all of her employees have health care coverage and so the she has a small business owner. host: is there some for of economic reasoning between -- behind $10.10? how did democrats, but that? guest: the current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. the idea was to graduate from $7.25 per hour to $10.10. the key is to peg it to inflation. we are not put in the position like 2006 when democrats had controlled the congress and we

passed the $7.25 per hour increase to minimum wage. in that time. -- in that time, we get to $10.10 would have it to inflation. it is not a political question. the minimum wage worker would have wages that keep up with inflation. host: democratic caller from new york -- 105 feet of freefall a 9/11 is not also below must explosives -- unless explosives were planted at the world trade center. host: that's part of a group of people who are organized and calling our show and others and believe the investigation into the 9/11 terrorist to cats -- attacks was not adequate the government. do you think it was adequate? guest: i do and i think it's pretty clear who caused that

harvell tragedy on 9/11. -- of that horrible tragedy of 9/11. we have done things in this country the last decade to strengthen our security and make sure we are protected against those kinds of threats. host: monro township, new jersey, independent caller. caller: i have a question about the obamacare. i don't have insurance. i don't qualify for a subsidy. when i look at the plans, it will increase my cost significantly just paying out- of-pocket. person, if i cannot pay the premiums, what happens to my insurance? will the government cover me four will again thrown into medicaid? i wonder if she has

insurance now and what her premium is. depending on her income, and it doesn't cover everyone but depending, you can qualify for a subsidy. if she has insurance now, i would be instant in comparing that and it's hard to know. the vast majority of people in my district and around the country are now qualifying. they really are getting a better deal. i even got a better deal when i went on the exchange. i am saving almost $600 per year in my health care premium because of my age and the plan that i chose which meets my needs more than the one i had under the federal employee health benefit when so i am excited about that. 6.3 million people are now qualified for medicaid expansion so they signed up for it another

3.3 million people who signed up through the federal and state marketplaces. every day, we have more people signed up that we're getting to the point where we have over 10 million people now who are signed up in the affordable care act. they will be millions more. people,say to the young their parents should go and check. 3 million of them now qualified for health care coverage under their parents plan. as the mother of a 25-year-old, i can appreciate that. caller more about the cbo and wt they announced yesterday -- we are talking about 2.3 million americans that will choose to either work less or retire or go to a different job in order to keep health-care subsidies were stay on medicare. post" had washington a fact check on what people are saying. the argument could go that this

analysis would hurt the nation's budget because 2.3 million fewer people will pay taxes on their earnings. guest: this is not balance the jobs that are created and the health care pion , you know, with the . i don't think it is a parallel connection. i think this is what this analysis is saying. there is no connection between the affordable care act and this kind of job loss and transition. there can be other factors that are attributed to that.

important toreally allow this to play out and allow some wanted to do not analysis which could not have been done given the health-care law's implementation. whether it is a real estate business, insurance business, or other kind of business. because my children have a pre-existing condition -- now i have the flexibility of making that decision. that is what this study underscores is that the employee choice now becomes available that we did not have to four. mixing that with employer behavior. host: republicans are talking about attaching that part of the affordable care act, reforming that part in exchange for

raising the debt ceiling. guest: first of all, i don't have any interest in having a conversation about something in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. it is ridiculous to negotiate repaying our bills. i don't want to go back into that. we were there last fall. we should not repeat that mistake again. our economy is fragile right now. we don't want to create more uncertainty after we have gone through this. period of appropriations. as for this risk core door that republicans seem to be hammering theyght now, i think that are making assumptions about what is going to happen with insurance companies. they are over assuming the failure of insurance companies. i heard some republican colleagues talking about not

creating a bailout for insurance companies. there has been no discussion on insurance companies needing a bailout at all. host: that is what they are referring to? guest: i believe so. i have only just heard this. republicans have been trying to seize on any kind of argument repeal or that can change the affordable care act. the washington post says in thepeal of provisions affordable care act known as first quarter is, which limit the amount of money that a health insurance plan can make and lose during the first three -- the plansold start losing money. we will go to fill up in fort worth, texas. worth, texas.ort caller: i want to know if you

think it is fair for all the people that got excused where they don't have to provide obamacare because the companies excuse -- have that they are cutting people's hours -- people work 39 hours. now they cut them down to 29 hours. it is not a fair playing field. i think there has been a lot of anecdotal evidence of that. i'm looking forward to study this in more detail in terms of what employer behavior is. that is true, people still can qualify on their own plans.-cost health this is especially true for some .f our lower wage workers

they qualify under medicaid. i think we are going to have to -- the jury still out on what that impact is. i know we have heard a lot of anecdotes about that. we have not heard anything really specific in terms of studying this phenomenon. deborah inll go to richmond, virginia. democratic caller. obamacare is way better than what we had. the reason i say that is because -- over 10 years ago, i was mri.d an they claimed i had arthritis. as far as the marijuana is concerned, that is way better. they never talk about how many prescription drugs are killing

people. they never talk about that. i have to take all those and nothing really works. bit -- to dig a little guest: i hear the stories all the time about people who have pre-existing conditions and so they were not able to get that health care that they needed. pre-existing conditions don't count. i was surprised when i went to sign on for my health care plan all they asked was whether or not i smoked. they do not ask anything else about my health condition. that meant that insurance company cannot deny coverage. smoking in the statute was actually identified as an across-the-board risk for making an assessment about how much you would pay for health care

coverage. so that is the only question that you are asked. i'm not a smoker, so i said i don't smoke. i was able to get health care coverage. they do not ask me about anything else. they did not ask me about whether i had broken this or that or had asthma or a whole range of things that insurers used to deny coverage. i had a woman who came to us last week. i took her to the state of the union address with me. she had just gotten health care coverage that day. at first, she had been calling and they hadrs denied her because she had pre-existing conditions. she had to make a change because her husband retired. we were able to help her get that coverage. navigatingot of online.

the upshot is that the end of the day she and her children have health care coverage today. they have not been denied. what we ought to focus on. people get health care, not how long it takes them on a computer or whetheravigate they have to be walked through on the phone. the fact that they get health care. host: they asked that question on that website. can't you just mark know even if you are a smoker? obviously, everything is under a penalty of perjury. most people are honest and just tell the truth. found not to ever tell the truth, it is pretty easy to determine by a health care provider whether you have been a smoker or not. most people actually tell the truth about their health care. that smoking question actually allows for doing something that

we are investing in in this health care system and that is to provide people with smoking addiction with something that will improve their health. conversationa about the administration's marijuana policy. the president has been talking about it. that is the one question that they asked when you sign up for health care. are you a smoker? they don't ask if you have used drugs or anything like that. guest: no. but for the first time in this country come every single health care plan actually has to include substance abuse treatment. i think this is really important. there are some any families out was one.my family i had a family member who struggled with addiction. the sheer cost of being able to afford private substance abuse treatment is staggering for families. the fact that that kind of thing is going to be covered now under our health care plan means that we can begin to address these long-term issues that impact us,

whether it is mental health treatment or substance abuse treatment or all the health issues that host: our families face. let's go back to the story that we were talking about before we talked to our viewers. cbs is going -- cvs is going to stop selling cigarettes. the executive saying, this could cost them billions in revenue. guest: i think it could. they understand that. cbs is one of these companies that also knows that it is actually in the health care business. me -- ilways troubled am a cvs shopper and it troubles me when i go to the counter and i'm standing behind the counter is all the cigarettes. there's somebody buying tobacco in a pharmacy. i'm glad for this. cvs has been a tremendous partner along with some of our other pharmacies and getting out great information. that is the great part of the

affordable care act. cbs, it was really self-explanatory. i think this is a good move for cvs. it will be a great business decision. by getting rid of tobacco products, cvs can further define pharmacies as full health care providers and strike a deal with hospitals and health insurers. overtores already home to 750 minute clinics, the country's largest chains of pharmacy based out care clinics. hear from john in georgia. republican caller. caller: good morning. just a few comments about health. people caring for their own health. 87-10 servings of fruits and vegetables a day and

take a moderate to high dose of vitamin c and b complex vitamins and maybe some b12 vitamins they day and quit eating cancer-causing dairy products hormonesoid like that have banned in other countries, we will probably save hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs every year. the comment about inflation, peter schiff had a whole keynote on this, analyzing the top things american people spend their money on. the real inflation rate is between nine percent-10%. a bloomberg economists said the same thing. that is further suppressing wages and our economy. this policy of lose money and printing money, trillions of dollars. debt over the last five years is not helping. host: we are running out of

time. guest: john raises a lot of good questions. the real premise of the investing care act is in prevention. john laid out all those reasons so we can create a healthy society -- one in which people can get up and go to work and continue working and contributing to our economy. they do that because they have great health care. we have lower the health care costs with the affordable care act and we are excited about that. we are in the business of making sure that people when they work for a living make a waste that pays them above the poverty rate whether they work for the regular minimum wage are not. host: thank you very much. coming up on the next "washington journal."

.. for a state dinner in a beautiful gown you know and some speech where -- or whatever but i think what they may not