founder also. ruger.todd host: "washington post" report this morning that two officers were involved in investigating conservative groups, making clear that the effort reached beyond the branch in cincinnati. the means committee announced yesterday they will hold a hearing on friday on the irs investigation. president obama told agencies yesterday -- he called the benghazi investigation inside show. what is your take on the president's comment and the impact of this on washington?

you can post your comments on twitter or go to facebook got,/cspan >> here is the front page of the washington times this morning. below the fold --

words the president's own on benghazi yesterday. [video clip] whole issue of talking points has been a sideshow. thesen mind, by the way, talking points that were six daysfor susan rice after the event occurred pretty much matched the assessment that i was receiving at that time. keep in mind that two to three days after susan rice appeared on the sunday shows using these talking points which have been the source of all this the headsy i set out

of our counter-terrorism effort and thatl hill extremist involvement inside libya were involved in it. >> "the washington post" reporting

this morning -- on the irs, "the washington post ninerting this morning --

here is president obama yesterday during that joint news conference with prime minister on the irs.

[video clip] >> the ig is conducting its investigation. i'm not going to comment on their specific findings prematurely. but i can tell you that if you have the irs operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way than that is outrageous, it is contrary to our traditions, people need to be held accountable and it has to be fixed. we will wait and see exactly what all the details are. host: president obama yesterday on the irs investigations of conservative groups. what are your thoughts on this this morning? we will get your phone calls in a minute. on twitter --

the justice department seized phone records of ap journalists -- michael in riverside, california

-- you are up first. what are your thoughts? caller: i want to weigh in on his comment about benghazi. itan independent i believe is utterly reprehensible our commander in chief would stand up there and say things like that. he is supposed to be commander in chief. he is supposed to be caring about the fact that these family members have lost their loved ones. i blame the republicans because although he has tried in the

-- te the house i am a descendant of slaves. this fellow is utterly reprehensible. >> did you vote for him? just because he is a brown and does not mean i was supposed to vote for him. no i did not vote for him. scottsdale,in arizona -- a republican collar -- the morning. caller: i agree with the gentleman. the amount ofs scandals are just starting. boston is a scandal in itself.

is tremendous.ce the thing about benghazi is secretaryed and theton -- having been given information straight from morning.at 2:00 in the when he had been given the information at 5:00, what he needs to do is come on tv and tell the american people exactly what he did from 5:00 to the time he got on the airplane to go to the fundraising in l.a. he needs to fess up and tell the

american people why he went to spoked nobody has ever to him again. 2:00 in the morning hillary knew the ambassador was dead and they did nothing. ollars,d billions of d everything was in place. there were several assets. aircraft carrier in the mediterranean? host: frank is our next caller. that we havepears got a group of left-wing

radicals in d.c. in this administration. communists, anarchists, nuts.thing from soup to the suppression of the fax from benghazi -- this is a terrible situation. he is hollowing out our military, embracing our enemies, turning on our allies -- god is the mercy of sending all of us this information so we have one last chance of recovery. host: what should happen? caller: we should turn against all of this slaughtering of the

unborn by the millions, glorifying sin and a morality and turn back to god. the assaultlly stop against israel and jerusalem to try to divide the land. host: we will hear from a bacharach, massed in chicago. -- from a democrat, matt in chicago. caller: think it is amazing that all of these right-wing groups run to the media every time they feel that something has happened to them and they play the victim cards. concerned this guy tarot looks for a scandal under -- the sky daryl looks for a

scandal under every rock. a this guy darrell looks for scandal under every rock. he will find everything the president does or the left-wing givethink people should the president the benefit of a goes,and see where it particularly as it comes to the irs. host: why you say that? my understanding is there is an inspector general of the irs that is conducting an investigation. i am sure that if there was a cover-up what has come out so far would not have come out. i think the president is taking the right stand. he is saying that if anything happened that it was not on the up and up.

it will be dealt with. thank you. host: we are about to hear from the inspector general on the report about the irs, expected to be released soon tweet james in arkansas, independent color. -- released soon. james in arkansas, independent caller. caller: i am in alaska. ought to hitody him with the truth. host: some comments on our facebook page about this.

what are your thoughts on this? president obama calling the benghazi investigation by the "sideshow."a you want to get your thoughts as to go to the newspapers this morning. front page of "usa today," --

that is the front page of " usa today" on this story. the other newspapers this morning having some other q and a on the irs story. "the wall street journal" says --

she will be joining us this morning to talk about this issue of the irs. front page of "the wall street journal," -- "washington post," inside that paper --

tony from madison, wisconsin -- democratic line, what do you think this means for the second term agenda? caller: i have a problem listening to all of this. you have people calling and that forget that under the president's watch -- there are some things he did not do correctly. i am not discrediting him. i am a marine. four americans getting killed is four to many. how many people got killed under the crazy horse? crazy wars? nobody wants to remember that this was how this all started. want to beinually the run the bush. i would want to hear more

caucasians, i am a black man, i would love to hear more caucasian's be honest with themselves and in particular politicians be rid republic titian's. why don't they come out and say that the reason that they hate this man is because of the color of his skin. that shows how shall minded and this is auilty -- country full of guilty people. the chickens will come home to roost. host: on twitter -- that is at the front of this irs investigation. therenew york times,"

headline on this -- kathleen in st. augustine, florida. hello. caller: good morning. i am flabbergasted that these people hold such a higher offices and just lie to people. it is amazing. when i sawfied hillary clinton screaming about what difference did it make that four americans were dead? what is the matter with her? previous caller who blames the color of his skin and refers to him as a black man, i am just tired of that. he is not black, he is half and half. i do not know if they call them "mixed" or whatever.

he is not. that has nothing to do with the job he is doing. see was elected to office. when he was elected i did not hear anybody screaming about people who hated the color of his skin. people put their trust in him and they hoped that he would do a good job. office with ahat tremendous amount of support. he is the one who wrote it, not the people. host: let us hear from jim. is doing ahink he wonderful job. his predecessor, george bush, embassiesbers die in on different attacks. nobody questioned that. i am tired of it. republicans are trying to find -- instead of working on the

problems of the nation they are concerned about helping themselves. just doing their job as far as targeting groups. if they had nothing to hide what are they worried about? none of them have been presented got cut kind of -- they off from their tax exemptions. it is all just political. republicans just help themselves. host: can i get your reaction to this editorial this morning --

what do you think about the way the president and his administration are handling it? >> i think they are handling it just fine. i would be more assertive and say they are doing their job. they got into a situation where a lot of these groups -- a lot of these are groups to obtain funding for their political agenda. they probably do not deserve the tax exemption. pathetic.sec -- it is i condone it but i do not get a tax exemption -- i can donate but i did not get a tax exemption. i get a small amount. of we are talking millions dollars. even if taxes were at 90%, as long as that & i get to keep let me live further down the road with my standard

of living, that is something the republicans have never given. "the new york times -- on benghazi --

"the wall street journal," -- closedd's "baltimore sun " -- -- "baltimore sun" --

president obama has said of the irs. we are getting your thoughts on that. in other news this morning, so here is "the washington post" -- in the politics section of about theon times," meeting president obama had with britain's prime minister -- here is what britain's prime minister had to say. [video clip] >> if we can broker a peaceful solution that leads to assad's

departure but leaves syria intact that accommodates the interest of all of the religious , andthnic groups inside the bloodshed and stabilize the situation, it will be good for everybody. we are going to be very persistent in trying to make that happen. i am not promising that it is 26 zestful. thekly sometimes once theory has been unleashed in the situation we are seeing in syria it is very hard to put things back together. there are going to be enormous challenges in getting a credible process going. even if russia is involved -- we have other countries like iran and actors like has belote that

have been involved. hezbollah that have been involved. host: that is president obama talking about syria. we will show you what the prime minister had to say. ofthe international section "the new york times" -- here is. [video clip] then the issue of opposition in syria we have not made the decision to arm opposition groups in syria. what we have done is we have amended the eu arms embargo so that we may give technical assistance and advice. we are continuing to examine and look at the you arms embargo and seeing if we need to make

further changes with it in order to facilitate our work with the opposition. i do believe there is more workers can do and with technical assistance. argue that if we cannot help the syrian opposition, who we do recognize as being legitimate, who have signed a statement about the future of syria -- if we do not work with that part of the opposition and we should not be surprised if the extremist elements grow. being engaged with the syrian opposition is the right approach. that is an approach i know i share with the president and other colleagues. on syria --

that is the latest on syria from the newspapers this morning. back to your phone calls and what president obama had to say yesterday on the benghazi investigation by republicans and the irs. arkansas, a democratic caller. caller: i wanted to make a couple of comments, one on benghazi. i believe the talking point that he said they were talking about on benghazi. if you call it an act of terror or terrorism -- or even when rice went out on television -- there is nothing anybody could do. said 13 people got killed

under bush and we do not know their names. irsother thing is the targeted teh nacp. naacp under bush. let us talk about wmds. we still have not gotten a clear understanding of the wmd's. why do we not bring the war criminals in in the previous administration? we need to find out why all of those people died in afghanistan and iraq. he said something that i kind of do withis thing has to

color. i do not care what anybody says it has to do with color. i want people who are not colored to know that the next person that is of color in that position will have the knowledge base that this is the way they keep treating their presidents. the way they keep treating him as a black man -- host: 10 in huntington beach, california. -- ken in huntington beach, california. to what isreference being said about obama by the republican party, it all seems to come a point of our rich. -- of outrage. i have come to realize that within the republican party is

seems to be that their agenda primarily revolves around trying thing overbig every little thing that goes wrong, whether or not have to do with obama. if a republican's shoestring breaks he thinks "damn obama." host: let us hear from mark in florida. speak: i would like to about that i could. the american ebassy -- the american embassy represents the united states of america. menfact that these four and theling for help

cia informed washington that the place was insecure and the head of security was begging for more security over a long period of time -- and then when the attacks started washington did not know if it was when the last three hours, three days, or a month. poor men on the roof surrounded by extreme people that tortured them, they were bidding for help and they were told that no help was on the way. host: in today's "washington times," --

if your interested in looking at a little more, this presidential letter of instruction that is given to embassadors -- that brings up different topics. you have a topic idea for us that you want to see featured on the journal, send it to journal @c-span.org. we would like to hear from you and get your ideas. in other news, let me show you -- let memore sun show you a "the baltimore sun," - -

this story making the national section. it made the front pages of the most of the mainstream newspapers. it made the front page of "wall street journal." today" already put on

their page. times" "the washington -- the placement of the story, how the media covered this story, also became an issue for many. we will go to leslie in sacramento, california. sacramento, california. you are on the air. as far as benghazi, the president is right on. these people are making a big deal about four people that were killed. the ambassador has responsibility and unpleasantly

he was killed in an incident. -- i am a retired marine. he was talking about race being a big issue. i am sorry for america that it has come to this. still grappling with race. host: a lot to show you in the newspapers this morning. david in st. joseph, missouri, a republican caller. lied through his teeth. he did not care a whit about those men dying out there in benghazi. all he cared about was getting up in the morning and going to

do his campaign trail. irks me how cold levitt and and caring to democrats are and his supporters. 13 that thatd the under bush's campaign. nobody was told to stand down. they were not denied help. they were sent help when they needed it. caller: hampton, virginia, joe, independent caller. caller: thank you. i will be 64 next month. black cherokee. these countries are looking at and how many clowns this

president has to deal with. all the people and all of the government's adhere to their leader. enemy'ssident finds within his own administration. it is a thing of color. the one thing i do not hear is about the trail of tears. what about the native americans? what about the immigrants that come over here and have racial discrimination? we know where it comes from. we know who it comes from. the country was found on white man's thoughts and how he wanted things to be. i am a descendant of slaves and indians.

i put eightinall leaders of this country. host: some other quick headlines -- from "the star tribune," -- front page of "the financial times," -- on immigration reform, "the has the storyic" on the front page of its newspaper --

this is a study put up by conservative groups. speaking of immigration reform, the senate judiciary committee is quite continue its markup of the immigration reform. live coverage of that here on c- span at 10:00 a.m.. and then steve king from iowa will be having a news conference this morning with other republicans, giving their take on the immigration bill. we'll be covering that at .'clock a.m. on c-span3 a republican caller from florida. go ahead.

caller: this administration is clearly above the law. nothing has been done as far as anyone coming to justice for "fast and furious." nothing has happened with those folks that were left behind in benghazi. the administration is above the law. what would obama to if it was his daughter's working for the hillary'srtment or daughter working in benghazi. would they have left their daughters behind? if joe biden's son was working on the border would he be getting involved? host: let us get one last phone call. cecilia from mississippi. a democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments. thatyou accept a job like in a foreign country you know that you have some risk.

am sad that these people did passed away and it should not have happened. but we have thousands of military people that were killed in the defense of this country. that is just smoke screens. but these people are angry about is the fact that they were win this election. the regular everyday people spoke and they were able to win this election. about. what this is all at about the internal revenue service, i think they should target every group that was diverting tax dollars. if they came after me -- i am paying them every single month and nobody seems to be concerned about that. host: we will return to the top of the ira's investigations of conservative groups later on when we talk to the co-founder and ceo of one of the tea party groups. oming up next upeleanor smeal

president of the feminist majority will be here to talk. we will be right back. ♪ >> in every society the major buildings reflect the ground out of which they grow. major buildings reflect the philosophical economic, and political situation of their culture at the time.

this building does that. this is an eloquent building. it reflects the movement toward secession. it reflects the use of slave labor. it reflects the social turmoil of the post-civil war era. it reflects the optimism of the new south in the 20th century. and, of course, it continues to reflect south carolina today. the building was designed to be symmetrical. instead of a dome the original architect intended a square tower rising above the roof line. you will remember the construction was stopped during the civil war and the state was theable to afford foundations for that massive stone tower. what we see is a pressed metal dome.

on the inside of the building we look up into what we think is that dome but in fact it is an --hitectural dilution architectural illusion. two bombs inside that don't. -- two domes inside that dome. outside it looks like the u.s. capitol dome, inside it is quite small. >> learn more about the south we look state house as at history and literary life of the columbia cut, south carolina. "washington journal" continues. host: eleanor smeal here to talk issues.minist

last week the house passed legislation on this families act. time off vs compensation, what was your take on it? guest: i think it is falsely named. it is not a "fex time" act. it undermines overtime pay. essentially they are giving you comp time instead of overtime.' of alabamaepublican talked about the republican's efforts over all to improve the lives of working families. [video clip] >> this week the house passed my bill, the working families flexibility act, which removes unnecessary restrictions on private sector employees in exchange for overtime.

this bill provides options for working moms and dads to take more time to take care of family responsibility. it demonstrates how applying conservative principles can help working americans in their everyday lives. what the bill does not do is change the 40 hour work week or how over time is calculated. the same protections that have forn a part of labor loaws decades are still there. this bill also does not add government regulations to the workplace. we have enough red tape. a more flexible workplace is not a new concept. many employees in the public benefitspnjoy the right now. passed a law to allow local and state comprnments to allow

time. what should government workers have more freedom in the workplace than everybody else? why is washington restricting employers from offering certain benefits that government is free to offer? our machines -- our message is this, we want to get washington out of the way how you use your time. i am happy to champion this act on behalf of working moms and dads throughout the country. host: your reaction? guest: this is not a new measure. the republicans put this fourth decades ago. is thatis saying workers have a choice between comp time or overtime. but the employer gets to determine when you get to work two more hours. then they do not have to pay the overtime.

they control the comp time. flex time is when you work in a 40 hour week if you are going to come in early or not. this actually could be you are working overtime in a big crunch. babysitting.ange you are going to get cheated on overtime. who aremparing people souring workers who have many other benefits -- who are salaried workers who have many other benefits. host: where is this legislation going? how are democrats responding? guest: negatively. it will not go anywhere. host: what will democrats be pushing instead? guest: the democrats have a far better plan.

sick leave in this country. for 40% of our workers and almost half of women workers -- if they get sick they do not get one day in which they are paid. they have a healthy families act seven paid sick days. it is the best we can do under real resistance from the republican party. more important than that we have to go to paid family medical leave time. if you have a critically ill sponsor, you can get paid leave of up to 12 weeks. we are decades behind the rest of the world. host: are their companies that offer paid leave thfor maternity leave? covers only 12% of

the american workers. the top workers have paid leave. what itnot visualize would be like to not have one day of sick leave. it is only 12% of the work force. that the you concerned president -- guest today he had david conference with all of this could sideline the second term agenda. the political reality is they get for time -- they get floor time. guest: we are determined to get some more economic measures. i do believe we will. the reality is we have to get

the affordable care act -- which is very important for working women -- implemented. the republicans voted for the paycheck fairness act. suddenly they are blocking it. last time they blocked in the senate. the american women have to start looking at the bottom line and start seeing who is blocking it. i think we can make this an before the 2014 elections. host: explain the paycheck fairness act. guest: it is an equal pay act in 1963. it needs to be modernized and amended. this paycheck fairness act, we have had it before. underngress has passed republican control in the house. they filibustered the republicans in the senate. where they are right now is they are blocking it but procedural

motions in the house. the democrats are demanding that it come up. all two hundred one democrats have decided to this. we only need 17 republicans to discharge it. host: are you working across the aisle? guest: of course. we need host: 17 targeting them with ads in their states? you will see some movement. is "thenimum wage, here baltimore sun" --

guest: right now have a inelling going on of workers fast-food places going on strike. you cannot live on $7.50 in a major city. wage.s not a living you can work full-time and you are going hungry. something has to be done. be ashamed of ourselves. the bottom of these fast food paying a livingot

wage. host: we are talking about women in the workplace. , "e headlines in the papers to the baltimore sun -- "the baltimore sun " -- guest: it is going to be hard but we are going to fight. this has to become a national issue. it would help the economy. more money circulating from people at a lower income, the more activity. it helps the economy to raise wages.

if you are going to build an you need to have people -- it is the same thing. they are skipping meals. it is also hurting children's performance in school because they go to school hungry. they cannot concentrate on learning. host: the economic studies appear to be mixed and there are lot of reports included in newspaper stories. one economic study says raising the minimum which doesn't have that big of an impact. raising the minimum wage, really negligible. guest: i do not agree with that because we have so many people at lower levels. women are essential for the family income. sometimes the only income coming

in. it acts like we can go to bangladesh -- they are paying 22 cents per hour for our clothing. do we want no regulations? we have to pay a living wage. at federalt get it level more state to a point to pass it. -- more states are going to pass it. minimum wage movements are across the country. you are going to see more referendums. if theby the way, republicans are blocking it, they have to realize that these referendums are bringing people to the polls. they will not be able to hold this line. >> ron, a pencil -- host: ron, pennsylvania, your on the air with eleanor smeal.

caller: first, when does this overtime turn into full time for climate? -- for employment? your schedule, down to 35 hours per week, right? then you work overtime? places it is 40 hours per week. there is no place that is 35. 40 hours is when it typically begins. caller: well, if you work part- time and they keep giving you over time, they do not give you the benefits for full-time. to keep you down. guest: that is what we are arguing about, employees need more power and certainly need more pay. host: this question from twitter --

guest: know, there is no crisis with comp time. let's face it, this was a mother's day gesture. they want to show they are doing something for working families as they blocked paid six days and paid -- sick days, paid family medical leave, and the fairness act. it is a deception. exposing divisions within the democratic party according to the report, "6 democrats voted against the wage increase." are havingts difficulty passing minimum-wage legislation as well. guest: well, not many democrats. and you will start seeing more republicans. especially the northeast republicans in big states like

california, new jersey. there is a reality where they cannot continue to deceive people into this idea that they are family friendly. that is what happened with this so-called flex time that undercut over time. you cannot deceive people continuously. they will have to start putting something on the table. host: do you know where the votes are in the senate for minimum wage increase? guest: it is filibuster. you need 60 votes in this crazy system. obviously we have the 51, which is normally enough, but now they make it 60? that is the threshold. host: where are you with getting the 60? >> it is very hard. guest: some of these measures, we get every democrat.

but there are always a few we have trouble with. the question is the 60 and it is the block of the filibuster, which we must expose more and more what is happening. i hear it over and over. washington is broken. it is not broken. you have a party that has decided to block so much legislation. that has to be uncovered and realized by the people. this is not working. host: dave, fargo, north dakota. good morning. when they question is, mandate the minimum wage, let's say $10 per hour, $12 per hour, $15 per hour, businesses of this going to attack and raise the price of the product, so consumers wind up paying more anyways. there is no increasing the

minimum wage. the price of everything else goes up. you know? the price of an apple goes from 50 cents to 75 cents. the consumer just winds up paying in the long run. they raise the price of the product to cover the cost of labor. is an old argument. basically you cannot just say that we are never going to move wages and prices have been going up. in a bigt an apartment city at a minimum wage. you cannot. the reality is that prices are going up anyways. the bottom has to be raised up. minimum wage must go up. you cannot hold it at what? 250 -- $2.50?

$3? the faster the to go up, i believe the circulate more money. host: ron says -- host: don, fort washington, democratic caller. caller, how are you doing? i just have a quick comment. personally, i think that the employee laws in each state need to be changed to be on the same playing field. every state has different employment laws. the time to pass legislation as far as getting things equivalent to the government? know, if a government employee -- someone is trying to fire a government employee, it could take up to two years to get that person fired. know, are just not -- they are basically

always created to protect the employer. this just needs to be redone all over again to enhance the employee, give them some incentive to want to come to work. one quick example, i have a friend of mine who was unemployed for two years. he was collecting unemployment and unemployment was paying him pretty well based on his last job. toht of the jobs he went out find were paying less than the unemployment. so, you are not giving anyone incentive to go out and get a job where if they sat at home and collected a check, it is $10 per hour. state's employment laws need to be on the same playing field. the same law and the same benefits.

guest: there is no question that we need to have federal standards and that is what we are arguing for. paychecktandards for fairness and a minimum wage, but in the meantime we have some variations and it is good that some states are moving ahead of the federal government, which has failed act. but yes, we need a basic federal standard that creates not only a living wage, but paid sick days, family medical leave, and for women we need some paycheck fairness. in other words you need to get rid of sex discrimination in wages. host: toni writes in about france and spain. guest: as you know some countries, like spain, unemployment is quite high, but it is not in my opinion have

anything to do with these benefits, it has everything to do with the great recession that has hit some countries even more. but basically, the country's that have some of the best benefits are in northern europe. their unemployment rates have not been as high. host: what about the impact of unemployment in this country on women and their pay? guest: women -- the recession -- women have not had as high and unemployment rate as men, but the recession has not gained as many jobs. the unemployment rate is too high, although it is coming down. i think we would have created even more jobs, we would be lower if the governors, especially of republican states, had not laid off so many public employees, teachers, which was

absolutely the wrong move, it hurt workers. host: norma, your up next. guest: -- caller: i wanted to comment about this overtime bill. i want to tell you, we had this same discussion in my office yesterday and what we actually did was we got the bill out and we read it. it is totally wrong that they are trying to not pay overtime. they are offering it as an option. they have words in there that it has to be part of a collective bargaining agreement. there are all sorts of provisions. i would encourage every listener the to have to actually read the bill rather than take it on the words of all of this propaganda that they are trying to do away with overtime. host: hang on the line, i want to get elie to respond.

guest: thank you. yes, they say they have a choice for vision, that the employee can choose either taking over time or compensatory the enforcement mechanism is ridiculously week. therefore, we believe, that it will be used by the employer to trade off over time for compensatory time, which is why we have people who -- more defenders of workers saying -- wait a minute, this is really an employer gift, not an employee gift. caller: i would again disagree, i can tell you that as a longtime federal worker and also as a person who has elderly parents, i chose the option many times so that i could do my share of taking care of parents. i think that this is a plus.

an option. it clearly calls it an option. the law says that if the enforcement is an issue, maybe there needs to be stronger enforcement. guest: you have a republican party who has been getting in force and of the fair labor law enforcement of the fair labor laws. hand they say -- well, we will have enforcement, but then they cut it as a reality. if you are a government worker, you are in better shape than the average worker in the private sector, which is what we are talking about. guest: -- caller: we can put more money in enforcement? of course we can. where is the money coming from? where is the money coming from with the debt that the way we have it?

my final comment, i encourage on line and to go read the actual law. guest: i agree with that. i agree that everyone should read the law. the wonderful thing about today, you can easily. you can get the name of the law, you can read it. we really believe in that. you are going to see that the republican version is much weaker. i am not just talking about democrats and republicans. if you look at where all of the women's groups are, a wide array of them, not just a handful, a wide array of these groups are on the side of the stricter versions. we want real flextime, where the employee can work with the employer on hours that are reasonable. with paid sick leave.

can you imagine our country? roughly 40 million workers? almost half of those workers without one day of paid sick time? thes ludicrous in 2013 for richest country in the world to not have basic minimum standards for their workers. host: michigan, independent caller, go ahead. caller: i would like to talk about the minimum wage issue. i am from a family that has in this generation a lot of small businesses kept inside people in my family. each one of them, there is a small business -- maybe a rest construction type of business. in each one of them they are paying for the can afford and what an employee is worth as opposed to -- starting out, i

start out fairly. as opposed to what the minimum wage you are proposing is. i tell you, if they had to start them at 10 cents per hour, they will not be hiring people. they will do with what they can. the support will care act mandated as it is, they will not be mandating at all. this is damaging my business and what i am talking about. people that run small construction companies, small restaurants, these are people that employ entry-level jobs for young men and women just coming out of college. between college and high-school, trying to get a foothold. do not use the ploy that they cannot pay rent, these people are not renting. they are using this money as a

stopgap to go to other jobs. guest: that is a theory, but the reality is that we have a lot of adult workers at the minimum wage that are being taken advantage of. i am all for small business. my whole family comes from small business. i have been running a nonprofit, i understand how hard it is to make a payroll. but i also understand that you have to have paid living wages. both of these laws, by the way at the federal level, they have exemptions from very small businesses. you are talking about exemptions, usually 15 employees or more. when people are arguing for no minimum wage, they are really representing large employers. when they are talking about fast food companies, mcdonald's, very large employers making lots of money. there is no reason to use small employees, small employee

business things that to protect these huge employers who are totally on their paying and making large profits. host: this twitter message -- host: another twitter message -- host: joanne, clayton, n.c.. caller: i am so glad to have been able to click on the television and find out that you are having a discussion regarding minimum-wage. i would not have been able to hear about this discussion had it not been for the fact that for the fourth time in north carolina i got terminated from a job. i say this because i live in a

state that is at will, where you can be terminated for anything, getting terminated for the wrong color pair of socks. a discussion regarding minimum- wage, the fact that you want to increase it to $10.10, i think that is a noble start. i think that a decent living wage begins at around $16 per hour, but i take into consideration that you have to start from somewhere. i want to know what politician, if any, has attempted to live off of $10.10 per hour and if there had been a model of such, if someone said it was workable. while i think it is a start, i think that really, truly for people to live decently, respectfully, not have to go to social service assistance and be able to take care of their families on their own, i think it decent wit -- decent living

wage begins at $16 per hour. that being said, as a teenager i started at $10 per hour and the man was generous. it allowed me to pay for school books in college, allowed me to do so many things with that summer job. the thing was, i wanted to go to work because i was compensated, even as a teenager. >> i totally agree with those comments. by the way, when the other caller said something about waitresses, you know there is a subminimum wage for waitresses, because they say they will make it up in tips. it is around $2.50. that is just ludicrous. basically, a living wage does give you incentive to get up and go to work. host: what is a living wage? how much? a big city? i think she is right on.

$15, $16. we are way below that. it has got to go up. you have got people -- we have something like 20% of our children in this country with what they are now calling food insecurity. what does that mean? they cannot eat normally. they cannot get three meals per day. we have school districts now that have to serve breakfast, lunch, and supper because the students have no food at home. this is disgraceful and even more disgraceful you have people working full time and you cannot make that. there is a real reason why these fast-food workers are working off the job. they cannot survive. say that we will have certain basic standards in our country and hunger is not going to be one of them.

host: how many of those jobs at fast-food are women? guest: the majority. the majority of minimum-wage workers are women. and the majority of them have families, children to support. entry for teenagers? it is not. people need a living wage. by the way, teenagers are frequently supporting disabled parents. this is not acceptable. and we cannot keep on using these tired old arguments that some small company -- we are talking about big companies taking advantage of their workers and there is no question about it. are head ofny women household? making more money than their house -- and their husbands? guest: not a very high percentage. host: typically low wage? typically hire wage

workers. one of the craziest things? men are more likely to have paid family leave because they are executive, at a higher levels. the higher levels get paid family medical leave? give me a break. a heart attack? something happens? they do not have to worry. everyone is for them. what about the poor person who has a heart attack? or who has a serious illness? it cannot go on like this. by the way, this whole business of saying not a sprat -- not a paid sick day, the woman who said spread viruses, spreads the flu? not only that, but one of the reasons you have some of chronic caress is they cannot take when they're sick, so it gets worse. host: gavin, republican caller. i have four comments, if you

will allow me to dispense them. i really appreciate what you do. it is refreshing to wake up to hear a topic on this discussion. regardst comment government employees and their wages. they are not in line with the private sector. government employees constantly get living allowance increases and annual wages while the private sector seems to be limiting wages annually, which i do not quite understand, but it is what it is. to comment on the last caller as far as uniform labour laws, pennsylvania is an at will call, and prior to my they could lead to go for the color of your hair. it is ridiculous. there needs to be some form -- some form of uniform labour law across the continental united states. the minimum wage, i would have

to agree, i would like to see my local congressman pay a mortgage and 10 cents per hour. own gas.ump their i find it utterly insulting that our representatives get a two year term and their health care and attention is locked in for life. i am a former marine who has been unemployed for over a year. i cannot even find a job as a waiter. host: why is that? what jobs are you applying for? why are you not qualified? honest with you? i think i am overqualified. i literally have to dumb down my resonate -- resume. host: are you married? caller: yes. host: is your wife working? caller: yes. host: is she supporting the family right now? caller: yes.

host: what did she do? caller: she works for a bank, $60,000 per year. it is difficult, but at the end of the day we count our nickels. guest: what part of pennsylvania? host: harrisburg. guest: i am from the western eerie, i amburgh, her glad that he is keeping on trying, because we have got to get through this. but he is right, you cannot make it on the salaries. by the way, not all government workers are getting steady increases. the federal government has been on a wage freeze and what they are calling a sequester, which really means that they are not layoffs,- partial pay. they are cutting back salaries. beenme states

massive layoffs of government workers. there is an attack on government workers and, as we know, not enough jobs out there. and there are too many jobs not paying a living wage. host: i want to get a reaction from you on a couple of other stories not related to the workplace. this piece from frank gaffney, the female scandal of the benghazi factor. he goes on to say -- there are plenty of men indicated in the run-up in the efforts to conceal the scandal. their contribution to this requires their own investigation, but so does the peculiarly not implicated valerie jarrett and hillary clinton, the deputy former deputy chief of staff.

, as he says,ake of the female factor? guest: i think is bogus. it has been shown over zero bridges over and over again that it did not go that far. this is a test to start presidential election. as far as valerie jarrett, i do not even understand that implication at all. as i say, i think it is bogus and that they are trying to make something out of an incident that was obviously a tragedy, but these of the same folks, by the way, who have cut and cut and cut the state department funding. one minute they say that the federal government does not do anything, that you do not need a federal government, and they are constantly cutting, and the next they say they did not have enough security. have they looked lately at the

state department budget? it is totally, shockingly underfunded. supportuld your group -- did your group support hillary clinton in 2008? would you support her in 2016? guest: as i say, i think that this is just the opening salvo of 2016. case your reaction on the in philadelphia? the abortion doctor found guilty of killing three babies. guest: apparently this was a very badly run situation. i mean, this doctor, it is shocking. on the other hand, one of the reasons you have, always have irresponsible actions in many different professions and in many different ways, but one of the things that has happened to the abortion situation is you have so maligned a necessary

procedure for millions of women over the course of their lifetime that you have fewer and fewer clinics, fewer and fewer people going in for this very needed service. frankly, if you have free access -- not free access, but if you had more readily accessible services, if you had birth control that was more readily available, you would not have some of these situations, although it is remarkable, but the way, in all these years i think this is the first time this has happened. carol, texas. caller: thank you for c-span, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to give a little story about a private sector job here in texas.

system when itime went to work for this job as a mechanic. my firston review in year, my boss asked me how much time i had accumulated. i had 22 days of combat time accumulated. we had been so busy i had not been able to take it. they just flat said that i could not take that time of. so, they came back and offered me only straight time pay for all of that, time. said and i was warned not to make a big deal about it. i was told i would take 22 days of only straight time. i lost the time and a half i would have had with overtime. i essentially forfeited 11 days of pay. i lost that.

guest: the reality is, when they say that you have a choice, the reality is that they were busy and you should have had over time, the choice is not always work. is when youble time get a deal with the employer before. in other words you have a plan on when you will come in, when you will not come in. maybe you can put the 40 hours on for days, for example. 10 hours per day. maybe you come in a little bit earlier to be rush-hour. whatever your needs. it is planned. what they are talking about, if it gets really busy, you are really working overtime. you're supposed to get from time later, but the employer

approves that. you are really undermining an overtime situation. overtime is principally for hourly workers, people who are not exempt. there are some workers to have salaries, supervising people, that is a totally different situation. host: eleanor smeal, president of the feminist majority. thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. appreciate it. guest: thank you very much. host: coming up, jenny beth martin, we will talk about the irs bargaining groups like hers. and lego we will talk about the civil rights division. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> by the end of 1985, the cia

is and see. or at least some people do not like what happened. the cia has been drawn in to what has gone on. reagan has not officially told them to do anything like this. in 1985 ready to decide on this presidential finding to authorize covert operations. it says that because of these reasons, i ordered these agencies to do this, this, and this. and it is fairly specific. there were two things about this finding that were highly unusual. the first thing? it was retroactive. contrary to the law. the law clearly states that a finding is supposed to be signed by the president before the covert action is initiated. not after it has been going on. this 1985 finding says explicitly the law prior

actions are hereby ratified or approved. the second thing that is unusual? it states explicitly, the document does, do not tell the house and senate intelligence committees about this. do not tell them. these are very unusual and questionable documents that reagan signed. it?did he do people insisted that reagan had to give them legal and political cover. >> money for rebels in nicaragua, the iran contra affair on lectures in history, saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span 3. bu>> "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back. jenny beth martin is joining us from atlanta this morning. co-founder and ceo of the tea

founder -- tea party favorites. -- t party patriots. yesterday the president assailed the irs for their actions. what did you make of what he had to say? caller: i am -- guest: i am glad that he is a knowledge in their actions, but i am concerned because he said if. saideporter from the irs that they did know, so it is not a question of if, but when and to. host: peter miller, acting commissioner of the irs wrote today -- we should have done a better job. "mistakes were made, but they were not done because of political or partisan motivations. we will continue to look at these tax exemptions statices in an impartial manner." guest: were they singling out

other groups? were they looking at groups that did not have 9/12 in the name? educating people about the constitution and the bill of rights, with a better america for americans? documentation we are seeing shows that they were targeting consumer -- targeting conservative groups, especially groups like mine. learned thatay we there would be a lawsuit against the government. is your group taking part? guest: we are talking to our counsel and work -- and reviewing the costs incurred and determining how much damage we have suffered because of these tactics of discrimination from the irs. we are looking at all legal options. forward withpress legal action. cost toat has been the your organization? can you give us an estimate?

guest: i do not want to throw out a number without making sure it is accurate, right now i do not have a number to give. host: can you explain the extra scrutiny? what did they ask for? how did it work? all, in 2009of when these groups apply for this status, it would take four months the nine months to get approved and our applications were submitted in 2010. others submitted there's in late 2009. many of those groups have still not heard back with a final, definitive approval or rejection from the irs. with tea party patriots, the irs is still stringing us along. they acknowledge receipt of the application but did not do a lot with it throughout 2011 and in 2012 sent as a 6 page 28 page letter asking for all sorts of

information from us, including the e-mails we had sent out, what is on our facebook posting, and of the comments not just what we posted, but with any person who happened to comment put on there, and to our donors were, even though by law we are allowed to keep those people confidential if they are less than a certain threshold. we have over 400,000 donors and the average donation size is around $50. the vast majority of our donors are not legally allowed to be kept confidential. the questions that they were asking -- some of them, i understand they need to know it. 4 butu really a 501 c3 or the rest of it seemed to be a fishing game. we did not trust them to keep it confidential.

host: there was a piece written by mother jones yesterday. wasaid that the problem that there has been a genuine explosion of these groups, and that lots of them are primarily -- primarily used as electioneering vehicles and the irs has been unwilling or unable to regulate them properly. the fact that some of the folks responsible were looking for a way to flag potentially dubious groups is sort of understandable." guest: ok, so, flagging dubious groups. one of the things that the irs used as flagging war groups that were educating on the constitution and bill of rights. the constitution and the bill of rights? founding documents? those on the dubious, question of why activities and it is certainly one that would 5 under which fall under 501 c3. i would agree that there was an

explosion of groups and i encourage coordinators' receiving these questions from the irs to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a lot of activity and it might take a while to process it. so, i agree with that and i understand that, but there is a difference between processing and figuring out how to handle and mng educating on the constitution and bill of rights, which insures free- speech and the freedom of the press is dubious or red flag? that is absolutely the wrong message the government needs to be sending to the people of this country. host: jenny beth martin, j joining us from the plant the today. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for independents, 202-585-3882. we want to start taking your phone calls here in just a few seconds. from the piece from steven miller in "usa today," he also

writes -- host: will not be repeated. guest: right now i do not trust very much at all of what steven miller says. lois lerner said that it was only front-line employees? the deputy commissioner, now the acting commissioner of the irs and knew about this? new about it in 2011? this was not just front-line employees. it makes it very difficult for us to trust him. this is the problem, one of the reasons why it is such a huge problem. the irs, these servants,

not elected, they abused their power. they abused their authority. when you abuse your authority and power, the people in the country quit trusting you. they brought this on themselves. it is very hard to trust anything he says. i understand that there are rules and laws that we have to work within, i know the irs has to do that. our organization has been so cautious. we have done everything we can, probably limiting ourselves and not even fully doing " we are allowed to do because of this process. yes, each case must be taking in the -- must be taken individually, but they are not doing that. i do not trust the irs at this point and i think the american people should be very concerned about this. if it can happen to us, it can

happen to any group and any individual. host: let's listen to what the president had to say yesterday, his comments on the irs investigation. uest: -- [video clip] >> this is something that people are properly concerned about. i am not going to comment on the findings prematurely, but i can tell you that if you have got the irs operating in anything less than a neutral and non- partisan way, then that is outrageous and contrary to our traditions. people have to be held accountable and it has got to be fixed. so, we will wait to see what, exactly, all the details and the facts are. host: you heard the president say that people need to be held accountable. do you think that steven miller

and lois lerner should have to step down? guest: i do think that they need to step down or be terminated. they need to be terminated, they need to be disciplined. the american people need to know that the people involved were held accountable and that there are serious repercussions for doing this so that nobody thinks that they can flirt with abusing power in this manner again in the future. again, the president said if. lois lerner admitted this on friday. stephen miller, sounds like from what you're saying, also acknowledges that the irs did this. it is not a question of if, the irs did act inappropriately. host: this question comes from twitter -- guest: i do not know if any groups were denied irs tax status.

became so sick -- so concerned, they do not have high-powered political attorneys? some of them just withdrew their applications altogether because of the scrutiny and intimidation. scrutiny is allowed. these letters were intimidating. every donor, everyone who attended your meeting, facebook posts, comments on your facebook post. you just sent this twitter message. for all i know they may have wanted to know what you had to say because you interacted with me. they also wanted to know all of our media appearances. i guarantee you that they would have wanted to know about you. that is not what they need to do. next, republican caller, go ahead. caller: i want to thank you very much for your good work, the tea

party. first of all, i got involved whenthe tea party in 209, i saw my country spending like drunken sailors. i went to a tea party rally in florida. 400 people were supposed to be there, 5000 people showed up. we should keep on going, we should ask them where our tax money is going. this is like communism toward dictatorship, this country is turning into. that is why the two-party is good. we should not be intimidated. sorry. we should all stand up. we should not even pay taxes, how about that? the hard- country, working people. the immigrants and people coming here are just taking money. taking money from us. welfare, food stamps, you name it. it is a joke. anyway, thank you so much. goodbye.

guest: i am not encouraging people to not pay their taxes. i am concerned about the abuse of power from within the irs. thank you for saying that. we were not intimidated. we have good attorneys and donors who have been very generous and gracious to us and we have done everything we can to keep our commitments within the law and we have put our attorneys up to do what we are supposed to do. liberal groups around this country did not have the groups that we had. didade the attorneys -- we our best to let people know that they could talk to our attorneys and get advice, but some groups around the country were intimidated by the irs. the irs admits that some groups withdrew their applications. that is not how this process is supposed to work. host: this would message -- -- twitter message --

guest: so, we do a lot on the constitution. we have worked with the national center for constitutional studies, teaching people about how the constitution came to be, the founding fathers, the amendments. also trained on the political process and how you get involved. like how you would maybe go door-to-door or how you would run a campaign, how you lobby, how you do legislative activity. all of that kind of activity through irs procedures. that kind of activity is supposed to fall within a 501 c3 organization. we can debate whether or not you should have rules and if those should be the rules or not. i am not here to debate whether those should be the rules.

we are working within the rules that the government set up for us. host: this question from twitter -- guest: we have never even endorsed a candidate, so yes, we abided by the rules. our attorneys told us going into the election cycle last year, after the national conventions for republicans and democrats, that we could not mention the name of rick -- romney and obama. we had to only talk about issues, not candidates. there were videos that we created that we could not do anything with because once we saw them we realized that they were not acceptable and may have been considered campaign activity. just interviews with people on the street. not just document in the interactions of the day. so, yes, we were obeying the rules.

our organization has been focused on legislative activity, grass-roots lobbying, asking our supporters to call in and engage with congressmen and senators, and any election activity we is allowed by the rules of the irs. all of those activities have been focused on issues, not candidates. >> your lawyers, -- host: your lawyers, have they said what your prospects are for a case against the government? guest tell honestly, i have been working so much on the other things, understanding the time line with this, at the moment i have not consulted with them since late yesterday afternoon. i do know that we are going to pursue it, because we have to make sure that the people who did this, we need to make sure that no one will use the irs is a political weapon in the future.

>> what is the next step in filing a case against the government? >> the more important next step is the hearing on friday in front of the house ways and means committee, with more hearings in front of congress. frankly, my most important concern is that we find out exactly what happened through the congressional hearing process and that the rules and laws are put in place to make sure that this never happens again. the secondary concern is what happens with damages to tea party patriots, but for me right now more important concern is that this does not happen to groups in the future. it should not have happened to us and i want to make sure that the stage is set so that does not happen again. host: do you know what other committees are planning investigations? guest: i do not. i am not sure exactly who else

is going to do it. i think that the hearing on friday will be the first and i think there will be more after that. congress needs to understand how the citizens felt intimidated. the irs was asking questions that, whether they meant to or not, whether it was simply insensitive or deliberate, it prevented citizens from fully exercising their rights. congress needs to understand that from the people affected. host: we are just now learning that the republican governors association called for a special prosecutor to investigate this targeting. this is from scott walker and bobby jindal. "this is big brother come to ."fe, to be blunt

your reaction than the guest: to be frank, i am glad to see the governors association stepping up. is this the kind of america that you want to live in? where you open the papers and you see the government, those in power in the government using agencies to intimidate the citizens? this is not how america is supposed to work. we need people on both sides of the aisle to step up. the president even said that those who did this must be held accountable. i appreciate that. this is not leftovers is right, this is about the people who have power in the country not of using it and those of us who are citizens being protected. citizens are really supposed that have the civic authority in this country. host: stephen, indianapolis, thank you for waiting.

caller: what makes this so sad, you white folks must have been going around all of these years blind to the world. this is nothing new to the media, nothing new to those of us who are people of color. this happened to us for years during the bush of ministration. the same thing. all of a sudden that happens to conservative organizations and every white person, every white republican comes out like -- jackson sent this message, did this not happen to the naacp? guest: my understanding is that something has happened to the naacp. i have not fully asked those questions. someone asked me that question yesterday on "hardball." listen, if someone -- if that happened during the bush and

ministration, that was. i do not care who did it, republican or democrat. it is not about republican or democrat to me. i agree, it does not matter if it is republican, democrat, white, black, this is about people who have power and authority in this country not of using that power. the irs is not a political weapon and should not and will not be used as one in the future if i have anything to do with it. willis, texas. guest: i am kind of surprised that she is questioning this. if the applicants were black, muslim, lesbians, gays, they would be outraged and they even have a special treatment. see, fromfar as i can the irs documents, they were not questioning groups like the ones

that you named, they were questioning groups like tea party, patriots, people who wanted to make america a better place. those were the ones being questioned. so, the irs was being discriminatory in its actions. it should not be discriminatory towards any group. frankly, the way the rules are areup with a 501c4, they allowed to advocate on issues, so it should not happen to groups like that either. we have the right in this country to express ourselves. we may disagree politically, but one thing that we should be able to agree to is that we have the right to express the opinions. i understand that the irs wants to see how that works, needs to make sure that everything with money is on the up and up. when money is spent it needs to be spent within the tax code. again, if that is how they are set up, no one should be

discriminated against. caller: these things going on with the president, the press, irs, benghazi, and other things -- there are many of them. it seems to me that the people who are supposed to know what is going on, they do not know anything. and they are just blaming it on people under them. why do we need them in there if they do not know anything? i do not understand what is going on in this country and i am worried about it. all i can say is god bless this country. guest: thank you for that, janet. you are right, god bless america. it is a good question, how much to the people inside the white house and the administration know? politico is reporting that the white house counsel knew about this, knew about the inspector

general investigation. if the white house counsel knew about it, why did they not let the president know? with the president not want to know these kinds of things? why did the council not know? was the council not doing his job in reporting the information to the president? host: do you think that this goes as high as the treasury secretary? should he be held accountable? possibly step down or be forced to resign his post? guest: i do not know how much he knew, i know that he is fairly new in his post. we will have to see how much he is aware of. the fact of the matter is that when these things happen i, thee should be management's supervisory systems that those above the front level and apparently mid-level irs commissioners, who did know about this, higher ups should know about this as well.

if they did not know at the very least the internal practices within the irs should be scrutinized and adjusted. if they did know and allowed it to continue, he needs to be held accountable. host: a couple of twitter messages -- host: you talked about this before, but h. roberts says -- guest: i will take them backwards. i have already said this repeated times, the irs should be asking questions to understand if the groups are acting within the rules. i do not disagree with that. it wastion is -- discriminatory activity that was an overreach, asking more information than it truly needed

to know. they did not need to know every single time we spoke to the media. you can look at the fact that the ap had a wiretap on their phones or e-mails recently. that should be very concerning for people who respect the freedom of press in our country. as far as tax and of already, that means automatically that the irs should be suspicious of us? why? because we do not want to pay more taxes? that does not mean that we are not paying what we are supposed to pay. automatically because there are people in this movement that already, thatugh is not a crime and should not be used automatically against people. the answer is no. now, if you are not doing what you are supposed to do, that is one thing, but as far as being responsible with the tax money

being sent to the government? that. -- : phone records seized back to our topic about the irs, this to eat -- guest: the reason why we do this is because, if you are collecting money and engaging in certain activities, you have to disclose those activities. it doesn't mean that i necessarily agree with it. i want to see a simpler and more fair tax code and some tax

reform happen. sure, i would like to see that. but the fact of the matter is, for the past four years and before that, the rules have been set up the way they are and i have made sure to make sure that the tea party patriots have worked within those rules. we can debate whether there should be status and tax for those groups. that is a question about tax reform. --s is about whether the the whether they apply the rules fairly. i want to ask about other policy issues as well. the will continue with immigration reform bill markup. what is your groups take on this effort by tea party candidates like senator marco rubio, republican in florida?

guest: the take is that this law -- not law, but this bill, the immigration bill, the process that the senate is going through reminds us of obamacare. it is such a big, big bill. people do not understand what is in it. , theyis passed into law don't know how it will be enacted and what the consequences on our budget will be. so we are questioning the entire process, making sure that the senate and the house fully understand everything that is inside of it and the implications of the bill. if they don't understand it, they shouldn't be approved. and passing it and the first thing -- they shouldn't be .pproving it and passing it securing thee border first. host: in the richard -- in the

times this morning -- so, on one part of the economic boostnt, he is saying

u.s. productivity. guest: our issue is always secure the border first. so secure the border first and then come to us. this elicits hundred 68 pages at this point point and we need to understand everything that is in it and the full applications and the break for certain groups of people versus other groups of people. if you come to this country, apparently, there is a provision that, if you come to this country to be a ski instructor or a snowboard instructor, you are given special provisions. there are bizarre things in it. nobody knows every single details of what is in it. itneed to fully understand and have town hall meetings with our senators and congressmen so that we know whether we like the bill or not. the tea party patriots stands outside of the process which is secure the border first.

once we support the border first, then we can talk about the other issues. host: do you support the idea that there is an economic benefit that there is economic -- thatmic and if it there is a economic benefit to the country? there may or may not be an economic benefit to immigration reform. whether there is an economic benefit to this particular bill, i question that. our issue has always been to secure the border first and then we can talk about the other issues. that's when the government says that we will cut taxes and then we will talk about spending later. they still increase spending every single time. so we don't trust them to actually go and cut spending

later. and we don't trust them to sit here the border later. security now and then come talk to us about everything else. legislationid this does not secure the border now. do you think that, if that is the legislation that passes and gets to the president's desk, do you think that hurts marco rubio's chances of possibly being a residential candidate nominee for the republican party in 2016? have to see what happens to his chances. if you look at john mccain's record come a did not help him become the president of our country when he took stances in fiscallythat were less responsible. so it may not be the best thing for him. concern is where are right now is with the process and with securing the border first. we are not really looking at it

son the other -- .he other it is what is the indication right now if you have another humongous bill going through congress that has a great potential to be another train wreck piece of legislation. host: kenneth, new orleans, thank you for hanging on the line. caller: [indiscernible] he actually went through the text. actually, none of those i believe should be getting tax exempt status. i think she is trying to dance around the issue whether the tea party patriot vote is a political vote. the tea party patriots are not a political group. the tea ready candidates, marco rubio, rand paul and they advocate for those people, sure.

but at the end of the day, they are not a dumb a credit or a republican that should have -- not a democrat or a republican should have that status. it should not be a political issue. she advocated again the affordable care act and she continues to advocate against it. , listen, i'veht said this before and i will say again. whether a group should or should not have tax exempt status, that is a question as far as overall whether it is tea party patriots or whatever the groups are, whether they should be granting that kind of status, that question is for the tax code. so do we think maybe the tax system is far too complicated and should be simpler and more ? that is whatmed i think we all can agree on.

it sounds like we can probably find some agreement there that there's room to improve the tax code. as far as what makes a political organization political, i didn't make these rules. i didn't write them. i didn't write the laws, the rules or regulations. these are the things that the government has written and put into the tax code. i am playing by the rules that have been given to me. whether i like the rules are not as a different story. i am playing by the rules that i even to me. political activity, when you endorse a candidate and talk about a campaign based on candidacy, that is a different activity. my organization, tea party patriots did not do that. there may be candidates who run as tea party candidates or there may be candidates who are endorsed by other organizations. party organization, tea patriots, did not endorse candidates. i can't be that is for what other organizations did or what a candidate claims to be in

their speeches when they are running for office. that is not my responsibility. my responsibility is with what tea party patriots did. and we have done everything we can according to what we understand, based on the rules and regulations and what our attorneys have advised us to act within what is called a social well for 501 c organization, advocating on the issues. as citizens, we are allowed to complain about pieces of legislation, whether it is already in the law or not. we just did that with the tax code. you even just did that. but if i'm spending money, even if it's just for staging and equipment so people in the crowd can hear me, that the irs wants to know how i collected the money and how i spend it, i understand it, and that is why they regulator. i think there is a lot that we have some agreement there. i'm not saying that i like the way the rules are set up. i am saying that we work within the system that we were given

and the irs should not discriminate based on what my political beliefs are. we have a first amendment right to disagree on the lyrical ideology and pretty much anything on th in this country. host: rand paul seeks to broaden his brand. he reached out to evangelicals. a guns to say it -- it goes on to say whether he can win over the establishment without upsetting his tea party bac bas. tost: if you doesn't want upset his tea party base, he will have to continue to be physically that's to be fiscally responsible and stand for free markets. if he compromises those issues,

then the tea party base will begin to look more closely at him and with more scrutiny. that is how they look at all candidates and elected officials. but as far as the chances for 2016, honestly, we are not even halfway through 23rd dean fest 2013 and i am not looking for the candidates and nominees at thes this point. host: but can he stick to his fiscal philosophies and reach out to evangelicals on social issues at the same time? guest: i think he has the , yes hel to do that and has the potential to do that. honestly, we don't take of social issues so i have not followed with that. we have a bubble may be more focus on social issues and what they think about rand paul and they have not had those

discussions. caller fromc indiana. ms. martin keeps talking about all these intimidating letters that were sent out to all of these people. she said herself that they had made videos, but they knew they were illegal that they were not allowed to use another can use them. i don't think people were intimidated. people found out they were going to be caught when questions came from the irs and her and the other groups vowed out because they knew they were breaking the law. host: we will get a response. guest: we never bowed out. we have challenged the irs on some of the russians that they asked stop our questions about -- on some of the questions that they ask. we want the government to be responsible about our money. if i am talking and they talk about what they personally believe and i have it on video, i have to make sure that i don't want to include that.

i can't control what comes out of peoples mouths. i can only make sure that that what we do with what we gather is within the rules and the law. we, at tea party patriots, we push against the irs. , youings continue come out will see that we did push back. but there are groups around the country who received this information. they didn't even have attorneys. they applied for the status to the irs. they may not even had legal representation and they should not have been so difficult to have expensive attorneys to understand their rights and the rules and lawss -- lo that were given to them. i've spoken with one or two in the past 24 hours and that is very concerning. it is not that i have a problem

working within the rules. i will do what i am supposed to to work within the rules. the problem is that they were digging so deep that they were asking russians that i don't think they needed to ask and they certainly don't need to -- they were asking questions that i don't think they needed to ask and they certainly don't need to -- they were doing it based on political ideology and that is discriminatory. in dc on friday. host: we be testifying? be twoi think there will people testifying. i want to hear what they have to say and then we will go from there. we want to ask them to make sure that they have hearing so that they can hear from the citizens who were affected by this and make sure that their procedures and policies and laws in place so that the irs cannot be used as a lyrical weapon in the future fo.

host: you can follow her on twitterr foow the tea party patriots group. thank you for joining us from atlanta this morning. we appreciate it. guest: thank you very much. host: coming up next, a discussion about the civil rights department. todd ruger. but first some news update from c-span radio. >> it is 9:17 a.m.. they have detained a u.s. diplomat that they claim is a cia agent after they caught him red-handed. they say he was trying to recruit a russian agent. he was carrying some specials technical equipment, disguises, written instructions and a large sum of money when he was detained overnight. they say that mr. vogel was handed over to u.s. embassy officials.

kurdish prime minister david cameron is in boston today offering his condolences following the boston marathon bombings. also, to talk about lessons that can be learned from the attack. earlier this morning, the prime minister in massachusetts governor deval patrick visited a makeshift memorial of t-shirts, letters and other things. the attack killed three people 60. wounded more than 20 announce that the pentagon will furlough about 800,000 civilian them poise -- civilian employees for 11 days. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. 18 that shows lucy attending to a wounded soldier. two causes that were very important to her were veterans and soldiers and also orphans, children who had been made

orphans as a result of the civil war. when people associated with those causes would come here to visit, they would sit here in this former parlor. lucy was such a wonderful hostess. she wanted people to feel very welcome here so this is where they would sit. this is where they would discuss the issues of the day. they would have hosted a number of political figures here for dinner, including future presidents taft and the killing and general -- cap and mckinley and general sherman and other national political figures. she was a partner with her husband entertaining these political figures and it would have been incredibly important. >> a conversation on lucy hayes is now available on our website. tune in monday for our next around on first ladies lucretia garfield and mary arthur mitchell brooke -- mary arthur mcilroy.

capitol hill reporter for the national law journal here to talk of the division within the justice to her meant on civil rights division. tell us first what it is and its history. guest: well, it has been around since 1957. it has the responsibility of enforcing discrimination laws in a number of different areas, is notably like voter rights, and for the -- enforcing those and housing act. it does many different types of police misconduct investigations and it also takes -- iguess some of the guess some of the more -- i'm sorry -- host: controversial? guest: yes, some of the more controversial issues that , tennisights, say

versus renters. host: what have been some of the successes and some of the sailors? guest: during the obama administration, and has been rejuvenated and it has gone out there. this year, it has done a lot of asing rights act enforcement a lot of these voter id laws, for example, have gone on across the nation. right now, it has been fighting in a case that has gone all the way up to the supreme court in shelby county, alabama. that is a section five of the voter rights act. that is truly what the department feels is the heart of the voter rights act enforcement. they have done a lot more. they have been a lot more active with litigation all across the entire spectrum of what they do.

host: it is led by now by assistant attorney general thomas perez. he is the president's labor secretary nominee. his nominee is being held up, possibly voted on later this week. andis their focus on him what he did in his current position? guest: because he is up for a cabinet position. one of the things that he did was to orchestrate a deal in 2011 that dealt with whistleblowers -- whistleblower cases in st. paul, minnesota. a lot of people on capitol hill on the republican side don't like the way that he handled that. he said that he basically threw whistleblowers under the bus for a broader goal for the department, which was getting a supreme court case dismissed. as the labor secretary, he would

be responsible for responding to a number of laws that deal with whistleblowers, at least 20 that go from everything from safety, workplace safety, to that sort of thing. so he basically, they say, if this guy is not doing a good job , do we wantleblowers him to the in the department of labor? recenthere have been stories that the obama administration wants to expand what they do and the budget proposal is asking for 25 new attorneys for civil rights activity. what do they want to do? wantederic holder has this for several years. that is to increase the number of attorneys in the civil rights division. he wants to go after human trafficking, police misconduct,

and adding all of these lawyers would add $10 million to that section's budget. it would increase 45 lawyers overall. he wants to do that because it is sort of what he views as his legacy when he thinks about what he is doing at the justice department. he cites the civil rights division now. that doesn't look like it will happen. i mean, there is a lot of problems with the majority now. he has asked for the same increase in the number of civil rights attorneys last year and didn't get it. cut to, he got $1.611 the department because of the sequestration. $1.6 billion cut to the department because of the sequestration. it will be tough to find that money. he has already gotten indications from the hill that

it would beou the most congenial relationship with house republicans. they do control what doj gets money for. they have had serious problems with how the civil rights division bn inhe past obama administration. why is he -- why is that a central part that eric holder believes is part of his legacy? aren't a lot of things that the department of justice can go after, but this is something that has boiled up during his administration. for example, the states passing voter id laws have come up in the last four years. -- there are a lot of ways that he pushes forward civil rights that are becoming sincef our society

discrimination against gays and lesbians and other issues that come up for race. host: what are the problems that members of commerce have had with the civil rights division? guest: in the inspector general's report that came out in march this year, it really took a look at this division, particularly how it is run and found that it is not running as efficiently as it could be. it is not doing everything that it could. a lot of that is because of mistrust they found in the department among the career staff and the appointees, the political appointees. , they said that decisions were being made in political nature. but they do point to a department that is not very well run. because it is capitol hill, there's two sides to this. republicans held a hearing and highlighted that tom perez has

not done a very good job in cleaning this up. do we really want him running the department of labor when he hasn't really done a good job running this smaller division within the department of justice? at the same time, democrats say, well, this is a sign that he has any great job running the department. the problems date back to the previous demonstration and they have put in place a bunch of things that now make it -- that --e improved row stop host: improved. host: democratic caller, go ahead. caller: good morning. talking about civil rights, i would like to know how do you get justice in this country. i have been trying to get justice for the past eight years. my husband had worked in the largest shipyard on the west coast. when he died, they didn't pay his life insurance.

and it wasa lawsuit 18 days before he died. the judge told me himself that the company had been in his court many times and they knew the laws. but the jury said that they lost this case. i lost everything. i lost my home of 39 years and i -- and you can't get a lower -- you can't get a lawyer to go up against that country. the ceo then is not the ceo there. he is seven years after my husband died. my brother passed away and they still his -- and they still his life insurance, too. he had a $250,000 life insurance policy -- host: before we go down that road, what you think should be done? do you want the justice department to step in? caller: i you and wrote the justice department and they said they

don't handle that kind of work. host: what do you make of the comments? guest: she made an interesting point in the beginning on how do you get justice in this country. something that the civil rights department does is looks into that. in every administration, there are the laws and they are there to enforce attendance sure that it is enforced fairly. for example, in this administration, tom perez does what he says, dusted off an old law that basically looks at how they can use the enforcement of and whether laws that's fair. he has this new theory -- it's an old theory, but a desperat de impact theory on whether it is legal or discriminatory based on that. that you have is a entire

division dedicated to issues such as this. i suppose your issues not something that they could handle guest: they do a lot of things about housing. host: what are they doing about housing in the civil rights division? guest: they have a discriminatory lending practice. this was big for many years during the boom of the real estate and subsequent downturn in the real estate market. what has been one of the bigger wins for them is several supplements with larger banks. milliontled for $355 with bank of america related to countrywide loans, minorities and inner cities that were not fair. targeted that, and

that has been one of the things they looked at in the last four years. host: what kind of settlement did that mean for individuals, minorities that were caught up in these arrangements? caller: that's, i am not totally sure about. caller: yes, my name is kelly, and i just had a couple of -- one comment. i did not vote for the current president, however, i will say as far as the presidency and the commander-in-chief, i hold the highest regard for our presidents. however, i have a question. id, if i'm not mistaken, do you not have to toe and id to buy alcohol, receive welfare benefits, to receive any kind of food stamps?

do you not have to go in for medicaid? do you not on many levels, no matter what age, race or color to prove who you are? i am not quite sure why many people are trying to say this has to do with the race and politics, other than we are just ofing to preserve the right american citizens and the right to vote. host: ok, todd ruger. guest: this is one of the bigger issues that has been debated out there. there are both sides to this, the civil rights division has said the right to vote has a great protections to it and has fought these every step of the way. there are also indications that the voter id only affects one side or the other.

a lot of times, it is accessed in the ability to get these documents that you need to get the voter id that has affected everybody, not just one race or another race. one example of that, if you look in pennsylvania, there is a big fight up there where they did -- they came in to say i would not be able to get an id. one thing they are protecting is to try to everybody's authority to vote. that obviously is very much in debate on how to best do that and protect against voter fraud, which is what they are -- these state laws are trying to get at, which is the money should not be able to get to vote who does not exist. they are trying to make sure that doesn't happen. there is not a lot of evidence that has been happening, but that is part of the legal debate. there has to be evidence is

happening or else it is just a good policy that states want to put in -- in. host: where does that stand? guest: they are taking several actions in arizona and in alabama, the big section numeral five case. that allows them to get -- to preclear any time a state wants to do a loss of business that has a history of discrimination in voting laws. that is shelby county, alabama, in the middle of this right now. that was argued earlier this year, the supreme court, that eric holder has said since then no matter what the supreme court does, we will continue to enforce these voter laws, even if section five is struck down. host: when will they make a decision? guest: they could release it at any time, end of july or september. i am not sure.

it will be later this year, we have a number of the decisions they're working on right now. host: eric holder says he will keep pursuing these what are id laws. does that mean there are more lawsuits to come? guest: that indicates that. a lot of what they do is not necessarily litigation. many times, they will tell you they are reaching out to these places to try to make sure that laws are not being broken and discrimination is not happening. they want to avoid litigation except in places where they feel they have to. as wethat is our topic wind up today's washington journal. we have 25 minutes left, talking with the civil rights division within the justice department. things like voter id laws, voter rights, housing, financial fraud, immigration, education. we will go to mike next in ohio, republican color. caller: hello. -- republican caller.

point: i would like to out that our elected representatives take an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. all of them do. so do you. our constitution says all laws must apply equally to all people. any that don't are unconstitutional, and when enforced, will result in civil war. have got thek you cart right in front of the horse. you need to get back to what is , and quitwhat is real nitpicking. host: todd ruger. identified an interesting issue, which is how

to apply the law fairly. in the end from the it ministration is making that decision about how to do that. one of the admission -- one of the interesting things that happened recently, this settlement in the fair housing act case from minnesota. that is the topic among capitol hill and one of the main things thomas perezng up as nominee for secretary of labor. he helped orchestrate this deal with two things that republicans says- welcome everybody are unrelated, the whistleblower case in st. paul, and the other one is a case levels heading to the supreme court that was there, the case was aimed at or has not had a chance of knocking down the administration's use of this legal theory that would have allowed them to -- that they used to enforce fair housing all across the country. this is a controversial theory. some people think it is good and something this bad.

yet, here you have the administration making a decision to use this law. they thought maybe he could get shrunk down if it went to the supreme court. they arranged a settlement, where in one hand the decided not to interfere -- intervene in a whistleblower act case, in this case, subsequently was dismissed and now is on appeal. they said if you get rid of that, we can drop this case at the supreme court. many republicans say that is inappropriate way of handling whistleblower complaints. it should be on the merits only, that whistleblower's were thrown -- you don't want throw them under the bus in order for them to have a broader policy upheld in the supreme court. there is a great debate constantly on a lot of these issues about how you make something fair, how do you fairly enforce the law.

in a lot of these gray areas, it can be really hard to get an agreement, a consensus among all lawyers. host: compress is the current attorney general -- tom perez. advocates onen see c-span and the justice department saying that those groups have a tough time ,stablishing their identity the cost, the expense, the travel to get id that is sufficient to give voter registration. yet those same advocates establish their identity for benefit cards, for medicare, for food stamps, the agent -- aged and infirm.

i don't understand design congruency -- incongruency. i am not totally an expert on this issue. the justice department is enforcing the laws as they see them, which is to allow for as much access as possible to people that deserve it. and the arguments you bring up above the voter id and you have to have it to do all these other things like to just get on an airplane, they are out there, that is the debate right now. the justice department has just decided that the law as they see so that to be upheld people can get to the polls. the access issue is more important to them than, say, the convenience issue. host: anything happening on

capitol hill on these voter id laws from the federal legislation? guest: i don't know of any right now that is happening. host: a tweet says this -- as far as the number, i would just be guessing on that. there are a lot of cases that they handle that are not actually -- that don't get to having to file litigation, and actual case. it may not even represent how much effort they have done. what they will say, statistics --w they have done much more many more of those in the last four years then the department has ever done. i can't say it is a historical high.

what was the first tweet? .ost: i am blanking myself let me read this one, what happens to the civil rights division when the republicans are in the white house? guest: the part i can to do about that is the recent study by the inspector general has pointed to there was a lot of hiring practices that were bad. there were a lot of problems with morale inside the division. -- itvision is still carries on through this division. when it is republican or democrat, no matter what it is charged with upholding a lot of these laws. they don't really have a choice. they follow them anyway, both sides, think that there should be fair housing laws, for example. there should not be

discrimination. everybody, of course, the right to vote. so you get to this voter id issue, and it is how do you enforce that law and how do you interpret this law for everybody? ae difference to get between republican and democratic administration is just in those gray areas, the decisions about how things are done. for instance, tom perez, when he came, he said i'm going to dust off the legal theory, which is a way to determine whether something is discriminatory. he has used that in a way that previous ministrations did not. previous administrations. housing laws, financial fraud, immigration, voting rights, education. charles, alabama, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: yes, i was going to make

light of selective service for all males who automatically had to sign up for that when they turn 18 and they are still eligible when they're 25 or responsible for that. also, one thing i wanted to make light of is in the wake of -- i hate to bring up bad news but anyway give these guys that were over here illegally and did the bombing thing in boston, how do you think perhaps the department of homeland security is going to implement better regulation on immigration, which is a big talking point of our current president right now? host: todd ruger, do you have thoughts on that? , immigration almost immediately came up when it was found that the students involved in the boston bombings, for

instance, were here on student visas and the like are is -- like. that is part of that discussion. as far as the other part, the selective service, i am not sure how that fits into the civil rights issue. dot: a tweet says this -- these laws only protect u.s. citizens? guest: that is a great question. i would say, no. i mean, i would say no, they do not only protect u.s. citizens, that there is -- for instance, a company could have a discriminatory policy on hiring or a discriminatory policy on who they rent apartments to. if the department can show a pattern or practice of the discriminatory behavior, which is one of the things they have ,eally tried to focus on

pattern of practice, then they don't have to prove, for example, that that policy of a racial discrimination in housing was always followed but that if there's a policy there, then then it is a violation of rights. completely right about that, but i am pretty sure that even non-citizens can --disseminated against discriminated against when it comes to finding basic shelter. host: part of the civil rights desert -- division is voter id laws. a tweet says this -- san antonio texas, independent scholar. -- caller.

we americans need to change our language and there should not be a need for civil rights if we are all americans. apparently, some people have sought to divide themselves into groups, people that call themselves quite and yet we all have one common ancestor. we have all these different pockets of resistance or advocacy for civil rights. if you are an american, you're civil rights should be declared automatically by the constitution bill of rights. we have people like scalia who say that the act is another minority giveaway, then that translates into the shield you had on before this man who seemed uninformed but who considered himself a patriot who seemingly can't even begin to identify where funds come from and who she works for.

then you have citizens united, which was backed by a decision of the supreme court. you have something which is minor or should be minor -- an id card that identifies -- your voting rights are automatically given to you by the constitution. guest: i think that you make a good point about seeing these divisions among people and race. the thing about america is right now, it is very fluid and all of these things. it strikes me all the time that a lot of the movement of the civil rights was only a few decades ago. now we are to -- going through another one that is very rapid, the gay marriage issue, gay rights and same-sex marriage. that is at the supreme court right now. there are two cases for that

that the supreme court is deciding. you mentioned the voter id thing is currently one of the things that is out there in debates. unfortunately, it would be nice to get past -- to be a stephen daubert a nazi race, but right we, -- and not see race, but need to make sure the civil rights doesn't all of time. even now in the supreme court case with section five of the voting rights act, that is one of the things the supreme court -- a number of the supreme court judges voiced their opinion at the arguments which was itscally this law has run course. it was established decades ago, and now we have come far enough that we don't need to have a law that protects or stops states

from putting in these voter id laws. it's still out there as one of the hot issues. as much as you like to get away from this happening, it is still right there in our face and the one of the major legal issues. , national lawer journal reporter breed you can follow him on twitter also. we are talking with the civil rights division. mississippi, republican caller. go ahead. caller: i want to tell you ain't americane no more, we have all kinds of mexicans, immigrants from everywhere. they need to be sent home. if we invaded their country and took all of our work to where they are and they governments all this, they will be broke.

they don't do their judges right. the judges get paid off, the lawyers get paid off. workers get paid off. brings up immigration that is part of the division. what sort of laws are they looking at? guest: i am not totally sure about the immigration side, what they are doing. i have been focusing mostly on the other parts. host: as many of you know, that brings up immigration. the judiciary committee continues its market today. it started last week, the so- called gang of eight immigration bill. they will talk about what those senators have put forth and continue to market up. we will have live coverage at 10 a.m., so keep tuning in. we will go to iowa next, independent caller.

go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. good morning. you all know me as william from facebook posts you have read of mine in the past. i thank you for that. to that to respond caller from georgia who can't -- apparently can't see the additionalbetween barriers to voter access and receipt of benefits through the federal government. when you place a barrier in front of a legitimate voter, you are interfering with what the supreme court has called that right preservative of all rights breed ok. an individual by voting is contributing to their government, not benefiting from

their government. any barriers to benefits are understandable because you are taking money from the public cool. -- pool. pool ofadding to a voters and contributing to a government of, by and for the people. guest: i think he made a great case for why the department of justice is going after some of these things, the barrier to one of the most basic rights that we have. a tweet -- guest: there has been in

florida, there was a movement this last time to cut back on early voting. the doj is monitoring all of that. were fewer early voters, fewer cutbacks in florida and there was a lot of talk back then about why it was done. exactly who was going to be affected by this. subsequently, you had a lot of long lines in the country in florida during the last presidential election. i believe even during the state of the union, president obama brought out one of those voters who stood in line for i care member how long it was, but it was pretty much too long to vote. i would never wait three or four hours. she has much more tenacity than i do. ,n that state of the union president obama called for a bipartisan committee of the two top campaign lawyers from the

thatpresidential election they are going to get together talk about how we can attacke this problem. the president made a statement about it the night of the election, we need to do something about it, he said. formation stage right now. as you can see, what happens at a state level with the government saying we are born to cut access to voting early can filter up to the doj and ultimately to the white house saying we need to do something about this and enforcing the law. host: louisiana, republican. i want you to know i am not originally from louisiana. i am originally from another great state, oklahoma. i bring a fresh perspective to a lot of things that i have seen going on in louisiana.

it is reversed intimidation that we see at the polls. i have worked with commissioners who are actually intimidated not to ask and not to require all of the rules because they don't want to end up in front of the civil rights division. ?ost: are you still there back up a little bit. what did you sign? isler: we understand there a straight line to the department of justice for anyone who can say that they have seen a voter irregularity. we are seeing loitering at the polls. we are seeing people -- i know these people have picture ids. i can't ask for them. i have to allow them to hold the line up in order to write out something called a voter affidavit and sign it or say that they are illiterate and

have other people sign and go to the voting booth with them. we witness those things here. caller: yes come -- .uest: yes, you're right there are a lot of people that are looking at every polling place. mainly, it was the political parties themselves that generated these gigantic thousands of lawyers, even more volunteers to go out to each of these holy places and look for irregularities. that is a lot of times -- polling places. they want to make sure everything is unfairly. you have the department of justice appear at the top. a lot of these a voter ballot watching laws happen right down there at the local levels, the county, they pet watchers and

every poll. there are teams are to take phone calls. any get a call and experienced election lawyer is on the other line to let the person know if they should object or what they should do next. the department of justice has a lot of sway in all of that. more so, the political parties are the watchdogs of all these polling places. there was a lot of issues that the doj did look at during this last election because there was a group based in texas that was go to all these different polling places and talk about voter ids and ask people if they had their id. the doj was monitoring if any of these groups are crossing the line into voter intimidation or otherwise breaking a voting rule.

host: last phone call, illinois, independents. caller: i would like to hear more about the senses that that showsnsus since 1996, blacks have been voting at a higher percentage than whites. and it further shows that states that have voter id, those percentages don't change. blacks are voting and a higher percentage. therefore, i find that the department of justice and the democrats are in talks about all these barriers to minorities. i find that very condescending. caller: -- guest: i think with the department of justice would say to you is that we're not protecting the access to polling places for only only minorities, we are doing it for everybody, even for somebody

there are examples out there of somebody who is generally old and does not have some of their original documents that some laws require in order to get an id. would say, yes, it is great news that the -- that race is no longer that big of a problem when it comes to voting. that minorities are getting out to be polling places. we need to make sure that they always have that ability to do that, not only them, but everybody. host: you can follow his reporting. thank you, sir. i appreciate it. now, we bring you to live coverage of the senate judiciary committee grade -- committee. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]