our spotlight on a magazine features, forbes magazine on the car of the future. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--] >> good morning, everyone. here's what's happening on capitol hill today. e n.s.a.'s general will be testifying about cyber security threat. senators will be asking about the surveillance program. the military chief will also be on capitol hill first before the senate budget committee and then the house budget committee to testify about their 2014 budget request. we will have live coverage on that on c-span3 at 10:30 this morning the immigration debate resumes 9:30 on c-span2. senators have filed numerous

amendments to the legislation after voting yesterday to move forward on the bill. that's where we'll begin to get your thoughts on the bill advancing in the senate. we will also take your comments on twitter and facebook. you can e-mail us journal @c-span.org. immigration reform clears its first hurdle. a couple of quotes for you here. harry reid said he hopes the senate will vote on passage of he bill by the july 4. mitch mcconnell says this bill has serious flaws. that's the atlanta journal institution.

and the "baltimore sun" this morning. their story on the bill advancing through the senate. their headline "immigration bill clears a hurdle." democrats who control narrowly appeared willing to accept some measures to toughen border security but not changes that a future president or congress could use to block the bill's 13-year route to citizenship. they worry that complete control of the southern border which some republicans insist is the price of their vote is an impossible goal that would beat league limbo for the next decade and beyond. - passing the immigration bill into law would be at the hop of his chamber's accomplishments this year and he hinned he might be willing to let a bill come to the floor even if his g.o.p. caucus does not support it.

after 10 years -- joe in bethesda, maryland, democratic caller. you're up first on this call. go ahead. caller: this makes me very happy that this situation seems to be

moving forward. i still have some degree of skepticism. i myself am an immigrant and i went through the natural san diego process -- naturalization process in 2008. and a lot of people work very hard and contribute to society and they're in the shadows but they want to become legal and they want to make a difference and they work just like you and i do. host: joe, do you think the people that you know that are in the so-called shadows, do you think they will get on a path to citizenship that would take them 13 years, pay taxes, pay back taxes, go through all of the different hurdles that are set up in order to go down that path to obtain citizenship? >> well, the people that i know that have been here, they pay their taxes on a regular basis and i know that they're pretty qualified. as far as the length of time it took me a long time before i became a citizen. host: you came in 1986?

caller: naturalized in 2008. host: did you come under the 1986 immigration bill? caller: i believe i did. i was a little kid at the time. i was a child. host: so you came with your parents? caller: yes, i did. host: and so it took from 1986 to what? caller: 2008. host: and what was that process like? caller: it was amazing. i was getting my doctorate's at the time and i became a citizen. i went to a court in california and there were about 500-1,000 people and when you go through the process and when you can finally have a say by voting, it's a big deal. you know, to be a contributing citizen and then to have the right to vote, i think it's really important. host: where were you from originally? why did they want to come here? caller: originally, i was -- i came from the dominican republic. host: ok. caller: and my parents wanted to

provide a better life for my sister and i at the time. they wanted to provide us where school -- and things where i was, i probably would not have had the chance to be where i am and to do what i'm doing now. i'm very happy as a scientist and i think i'm making a contribution to society i think and that's important. so i very much value what my part. s did. i remember that every day. caller: i came to the united my father 54 and came here a year prior to the -- and being here a year prior, he had to prove that he wouldn't be a burden to society. and then i came here with my parents off the ship, off a boat, and we came here and then we had to register every january

our alien because you had no alien card. me myself, i'm offended by what's going on. i think the whole process is very bad, but i really actually have to say one thing. i have to thank the 15 senators ho voted against closer. -- closure. i think those senators are true american heroes. i wish they would show who the 15 senator who is voted against closure which would have continued the debate because the bill is like 2,000 pages. nobody even knows the ins and outs. we need to have a little clarity. but that won't happen now because now it's controlled. host: why are you offended? being an immigrant yourself, why are you offended with this legislation? caller: most of the people, sorry to say, most of the people they're talking about came here

illegally. i didn't come here illegally. i came here legally. and there's a major difference. you can't allow the country to be basically invaded and after it's inbound saided, you say ok, you guys are all good. it didn't work in 2006. now you're saying it's going to happen in 2013? host: 82-15 tuesday to bring up a reform bill for debate that is expected to last weeks. that's a healthy vote margin for any piece of legislation but remember, the vote was only the procedural matter of beginning the fortunately debate. so this is how the -- formal debate. o this is the breakdown --

host: there with no democrats who voted no but 15 republicans did. here's the list -- so those are the 15 republicans who voted no on the motion to

proceed. this is not final passage and as the "washington post" points out there, are weeks to get ahead before they get ahead. renee is on our republic line. -- republican line. caller: i think i would like to give all my congressional representatives, they use the term representatives loosely, a dictionary of what is the term illegal. i don't understand why we have all this mumble jumble over this immigration policy. i just think common sense says illegal is defined as someone who's not here legally. we need to all get together and decide. let's take the national vote and decide what to do because our representatives are not representing us, the american people.

thank you. host: all right. here's a tweet -- immigration bill would go nowhere. another congress failure. another one. if we don't secure the border, then we do not have an immigration policy. senate is destroying the united states. don in los angeles, democratic carson palmer. hi, don. caller: yes. i would like to say that these lawmakers in washington who are being paid a salary from the american taxpayer are spending all of this money to try and justify the presence of illegal aliens in this country. that is totally ridiculous. there are too many domestic problems going on right now in this country that need to be solved. they are not living up to the oath they took to defend the institution when they were sworn into office. in my opinion, some of them should resign. they're not doing their job to protect the rights of the american people.

they're trying to defend the rights of the illegals. host: what do you say of the argument? will are 11 million to 12 million people living in the shadows. we need to address this situation? >> yes they need to come back and go where they belong. illegal is illegal. plain and simple. they claim they can't find these people hiding in the shadows, get the credit card people to find them. they'll find them. and what these people -- why these legislatures continue to do this is because they obviously want the big business who is benefit from this cheap illegal labor. they keep americans unemployed. they want to justify and legalize these people so these big corporations can continue to make these profits using illegal labor and keeping americans unemployed. do something to help the american people. stop wasting the american taxpayers' money defending illegals. host: all right. the baltimore sunny says many --

baltimore sun" says -- it also goes onto say that when he new senator from new jersey ted yes yesterday, senator richard durbin crossed the floor to shake his hands. the republican who opposed the debate -- here's what president obama had to say yes when he was at the white house trying to rally support for this immigration bill joined by the c.e.o. of the chamber of commerce, tom onohue, the president of the

seiu labor union. here's the president on immigration reform. >> the good news is every day that goes by, more and more republicans and democrats are coming out to support this common sense immigration reform ill. and i'm sure the bill will go through a few more changes in the weeks to come. but this much is rear. if you believe we need to fix our broken immigration system, there's no good reason to stand in the way of this bill. a lot of people, democrats and republicans have done a lot of good work on this bill. so if you're serious about fixing the system, then this is the vehicle to do it. if you're not serious about it, if you think that a broken system's the best america can do, then i guess it might make

sense to try to block it. but if you're actually serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it and now is the time to get it done. there's no good reason to play procedural games or engage in obstruction just to block the best chance we've had in years to address this problem in a way that's fair to middle class families to business owners, to legal immigrants. host: we're talking about the immigration reform bill advancing in the senate yesterday. the president saying this is the best chance in years. the "washington times" says the last time a bill was on the floor was 2007. within the first two hours, lawmakers have filed 44 amendments to the 1,075-page bism among those propose illegal nd to make immigrants have to wait --

host: charles in huntington, west virginia in virginia, what are your thoughts? caller: i voted on the bill. it should be english. if they can't learn english, they don't need to be here. i've worked in washington, d.c. at the smithsonian museum in 2007-2008 and 95% of the labor was illegal immigrants. all-- sprinkler system, and over d.c., i worked from maine down to florida, to georgia in

construction and they were everywhere. the last wal-mart was put in by illegal immigrants. host: so you talked about the need to discuss the bill more. they spent two and a half, three weeks in the judiciary committee marking the bill off. it's come to the floor now. now this is the first week. they expect to be on the floor for weeks. the are going to have some amendments although harry reid says he wants to limit the amount of amendments arguing that some are just proposed in order to kill the legislation, but there is going to be weeks of debate with the final vote anticipated by the fourth of july. what do you think? caller: jeff sessions, the one in alabama is the one that made any sense in my opinion. host: you were listening on the senate floor yesterday? caller: yes, i listen to all of it. i listened to when they were putting it on and i listened to

it all yesterday. i listen to all of it. host: i want to show the rest of our viewers, senator jeff sessions, an opponent of this legislation in his own words. >> and i would say to my colleagues when you say -- for those in the gang of aid, i know they wanted to do the right thing and they've worked hard but they got off on the wrong track. the favors were pulling for weeks. the union are here and the chamber of commerce are here and here. a -- ag industry is and our senators over here somehow letting them all hammer it out. and that's how this writing comes up. that's how the -- it came from them. the senators didn't write this. they knew exactly what they were doing. they are putting in numbers to

get certain workers that businesses wanted so they could have more employees and they can keep wages down. host: senator jeff sessions talking about the immigration bill after the senate voted yesterday to advance the bill. the legislation on the floor this week with amendments expected and jody on twitter says this -- just voting no is one thing. but not having a plan where they would support is where the government truly fail the american people. kathy, a republican caller. what do you think, kathy? caller: good morning. yeah, i think citizens have, in this country, is according to the institutions where the strength lies. whether sessions who you just quoted, i agree with that. we need to have more than just workers, but one thing that we could do now is to bring like you said, bring things out of the shadows is to just have people have work visas and deal

with citizenship or non-citizenship at a later date and just somehow change the whole work visa thing. you know, i hear a lot of people say especially the western part of united states, it was mexico. so let's just let the mexicans who are here be citizens because it was mexico. but there was a war. i was speaking to a history teacher and he said he knew about mexico. their plan was to try and get as much u.s. territory as possible if they had won the war. mexico had the same idea. if it was still in mention can hands, the territory, the question is would there be silicone valley and hoover dam and all the different -- and hollywood and all the different things we have here, golden gate bridge. i mean, that's due to us americans being here. i've heard it said, well, the

only ones who aren't immigrants are the indians. so we're all immigrants. but the indians immigrated. they came to the bering strait thousands of years ago. i think we need to do something to make it so the people who are legal and deal with the whole thing with citizenship at a later date. host: all right, kathy. here's a tweet -- there was report that the gang of eight would get together before the committee mark-up each day and economy as a group which amendment they would like to decide or oppose. yourselfa, good morning. -- ursa, good morning. caller: most of the people i talk to do not want this mmigration bill. they're talking about appropriating $100 million. this would be in the fiscal year

of 2014 just to start this bill. and we're broke. where are we going to get the money? another thing is in which another caller had said something about. what does this do for the american people? you got a big business which this serves. the illegals which this serves, and maybe some unions. i mean, how -- the only thing that this is going to do for us is, you know, we're actually paying for this, our tax dollars. we're actually paying for this bill. we're not going to get anything out of this. american workers are not going to get anything out of this bill. host: julie preston in the "new york times" reports this --

it also says immigrant workers have brought union with declining membership. they reached a hard-fought agreement with the chamber of commerce for foreign workers that is included in the senate bill. we're going to keep taking your phone calls on the senate moving forward on this immigration legislation. but let me give you some other headlines as as well. the "washington times" as this n their front page --

and then he "los angeles times" as this on their front page --

live coverage on c-span3 at 10:30. and then also this morning from the front page of the "boston globe." -- that story below a story in the "boston globe," gomez makes bid for democratic voters.

we'll go to sandra in massachusetts, independent caller. hi, sandra, who what are your thoughts on the immigration bill advancing in the senate? caller: well, i don't know. is there anything attached to that bill like another bill like they've always done to bring it to the floor? and two, why was it so hard to bring any farm bill to the floor. anything to do with americans don't make it to the floor. this is a stupid thing. this is for votes, votes, votes. host: let me clarify something pause the senate did approve a farm bill on monday. caller: finally. it took forever. it took forever for them to take and pay attention to the americans. the american bills, there's a few of them floating around that we need done and they don't even do it and on top of that, i want

to know how all these immigrants end up owning businesses when we don't even have a business. host: all right. caller: that's all i want to know. host: yesterday on the floor, senator tim kaine, democratic of virginia gave his speech in spanish. this is the "new york times" -- if you want to see that speech, if you missed it, yesterday we tweeted out a link to the video. you can also find it on our

website if you go to c-span.org. you can find tim kaine's speech all in spanish yesterday on the floor. also front page of the "washington post" is reporting this this morning -- cynthia, savannah, georgia, republican. what are your thoughts on immigration, cynthia? caller: good morning. you know, this is a very since testify -- sensitive issue and personal issue for me.

i feel speaking in spanish is unnecessary pandering to the latino vote. when the senate members allow other senators to do it, it is simply panledering but what i would like to say about the bill -- you know, my father came from is country and he naturalized. he said this country gave him three beautiful children and a wife. i am totally against the immigration bill because if you're here and you're illegal, it's a felony. and if anyone in the united states -- we can't work but we have everyone else coming here breaking the law, creating all kinds of habits in our

institution and the members of the representative of our country are actually condoning this atrocity. my bottom line is if you really want to be here, if you love this country, if you want to partake in everything, then naturalize. become one of us. host: all right, patrick in pennsylvania. democratic caller. hi, patrick. caller: good morning. there are two profoundly disturbing thing about the immigration bill. the first is the language that's embedded into the bill pretending to -- pertaining to bio petrick -- bio metric issues. this goes against every aspect of civil liberties in america. big shocker for the government with all the things that are going on. but also, this is a social

engineering construct. it's designed specifically to maximize specific groups for mult culturalism to destroy the foundation of the united states internally so that the globalist can essentially create a -- one global government and have absolute control over the american people. all you have to do is look at the aspects of what are taking place literally on a daily basis now. the n.s.a. spying on american citizens, patriot act. people better wake up and better wake up soon. host: we're going to talk about the n.s.a. surveillance program on the "washington journal" with two members of congress. let me show you some headlines on that story. here from the "wall street journal," prosecutors developing extradition strategies for edward snowden and this also

below that from janet hook, changed to data program laws unlikely. that caller mentioned patriot act, those sort of things. the intelligence committee chairman dianne feinstein saying changes unlikely. we'll talk about that. and front page of "u.s.a. today" about this. aclu filed suit over the n.s.a. case. it says the surveillance programs came under more scrutiny tuesday and a senator and google call on the administration to disclose more information. in its lawsuit, aclu says it violates the rights of all americans. again, we'll talk about all of this coming up here with a democrat and a republican about the n.s.a. surveillance programs and what they heard yesterday in the all-member briefing from the n.s.a., f.b.i. and c.i.a. back to our topic though here about the immigration bill

advancing in the senate. james in silver lake, indiana, independent caller. hi, james. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for having me on your program. this bill has been concocted by just the same way that they have concocted the portable health care and i think it's a sham. i think it's a sham and a joke on the american people. host: all right. caller: and i do not think either party are taking this serious in border enforcement. they don't do a dang thing to enforce the border. there is a bill under bush that said we get the border under control first. and then comes barack and blows a bill all to hell! host: all right, james. rubio talking

about the need for immigration reform. >> the fundamental reason why we have to do immigration reform is because we do not have a 21st century immigration. our immigration is built on the idea that if you have a relative living here, it's easy for you to come than you have a skill or talent. we don't have a merit base system. we have a family based system. and i say that because my my parents sister came here in 1956. but the world is so different. so different from 2006, not to mention 1956. and our immigration system has to reflect that. the problem is we have a broken legal immigration system. it does not reflect the realities of the 1st century. and the result is that even if we didn't have a single illegal

immigrant in the united states, we should be on the floor debating immigration reform because we must modernize our illegal immigration system. and that is the reason why my colleague should be excited about the opportunity to have this debate. because we have to modernize our illegal immigration system so it is a benefit to our country. host: marco rubio owe on the floor yesterday. the "washington times" reports this from the senator, that the deal as it stands cannot pass the chamber who was part of the gang of eighting and is considering key to sell the bill to conservatives, under the bill, --

we're getting your take on the senate advancing its immigration bit. we have about 10 minutes left here. in the papers this morning, lots of headlines about the economy. front page of the "wall street journal" this morning -- and in the "new york times" -- interest rates are rising.

and the "u.s.a. today", home prices toss out a life jacket. it is flipped below $10 million for the first time in three years. and the "new york times" has this on their front page of they're newspaper this morning. michael bloomberg who is an advocate of more gun control is asking wealthy new york donors not to give any money to senate democrats who opposed gun control legislation. of would be mark baguette alaska. and then also "the washington post," the a.t.f. nominee is grilled before the senate panel yesterday. we covered that hearing in case you're hearing. msnbc voting this morning that it's been seven years since they've had a permanent a.t.f. director there. that's through the newtown

shootings and the boston bombings. and then also we follow up on yesterday's story about the i.r.s. targeting conservative groups. this is the "u.s.a. today"'s lots of headlines about the uprising in turkey. here's one picture from the "new york times" of the square in tuesday and the demonstrations have began nearly two weeks ago. we'll go to a republican caller in new york about the immigration bit. what are your -- bill. hat are your thoughts? caller: we have a great president who is very well educated. i think many young immigrants came here without a choice because their parents brought them here and the parent who is

brought them here were seeking a better life. we look at it in totality, people who migrate in this country will leave everything behind. they leave friends, family, employment and they come here to contradict to this country. so i really think we should give immigrants a whole lot more credit because they do a lot for this country. host: in kansas, democratic caller. what's on your mind? caller: i grew up in arizona and a lot of the immigrants are coming across the border on private property. and until those land owners do something about keeping them coming across there, they're going to keep coming in the united states. and i don't think it's right for the one -- it's not fair to the ones that have come here legally and lose out because of the ones that come here illegally because it's not fair to them. if they had to wait all this time to be legal, then the ones who are illegally should have to

come here legal too. host: what are your thoughts on the children that were brought here by their parents? the so-called dreamers. the "new york times" features a story today. immigrant, young adult who is are part of the movement of im grants who call themselves dreamers and their parent who is have been deported and back in mexico, have traveled from mexico, brazil, colombia, and other places to meet up with their children for the first time along the border. and you can see a picture above this article showing the children meeting up with their parents who have been deported. the meeting under a -- was a new piece of a political theater that young immigrants have used to dramatize a bill to overhaul the immigration system. caller: well, if the parents came here illegally, then they should be sent back and their

kids sent with them. ow, when they say that the immigrants don't know anybody back in mexico or these other countries, they have friends and family back there that they know that they keep in touch with. and i know this because i know mexicans. and so they're not just going back to their own country with no place to go or nobody that they don't know because they do know somebody there. host: all right. here's an a tweet -- independent caller. go ahead. caller: yam. -- yes, ma'am. for myself, i've been here 22 years and people like me, they are waiting for this kind of bill to be happen. like we pay tax, we have a home,

we have children born here. but the only thing we don't have the proper document. the way we can pay tax different, we have everything. because back then -- host: hold on. you don't have proper documents? caller: not like a green card but when i came here 23 years ago, back then, they give you -- and you are able to buy a house and everything. like without the green card, i still own my house and i'm still working. i don't have the like the green card. i can go back to my country and visit and get citizenship, and stuff like that. so we are still waiting for this bill and since we still waiting, like people like me too many i know. my other family about 23 members, all u.s. citizens. the number is

coming in 2015 so far. the first time i came here, i came with a visa. then i have to go back to my country -- host: ok. i'm going to leave it there. we've got to get in one more phone call here before we finish this discussion. greg in california, republican caller. hi, greg. caller: good morning. yeah, my point is basically and because i'm a native californian and i've lived with this issue all of my life. i happen to be born the same month as the president. it is laughable on the face that we are told by a leech in the politics and the talking heads and various representatives of interest groups that we cannot locate or deport the 13 million

illegals from this country nor can we secure an 1,800-mile border yet we can listen and monitor every phone call and every e-mail that has ever made in the united states. if we have the technology to that, i think we can secure an 1,800-mile border. and the last point i would make is that those individuals, republicans and democrats in the senate, and the president and his wife, the heads of the chamber of commerce, the talking heads on the editorial board for the "new york times" and the "wall street journal," none of them and none of their children will ever be in competition with illegal aliens. they live in gated communities. the only time they will ever come in contact with an illegal immigrant is when they hire one as a nanny. it is minimum wage american citizens who are in contact and in competition with these folks. these wages are depressed and it is those minimum wage americans

who should be making policies and not these out of touch elites in washington or in new york. host: all right, greg. that was the final thought there. we're going to turn our attention to the n.s.a. surveillance programs with two members of it. we will talk about the defense authorization bill and military spending. and loretta sanchez will discuss about edward snowden. we'll do all that right after this break. >> one interesting aspect of this building's history is the fact that it exists at all. and really, much of the reason tat this building is still here is due to our governor at the time, governor bans. when the civil war started to come to a close and union troops

are camped outside raleigh, he was very concerned about the fate of the people of raleigh and of its buildings. he knew what had happened and the other southern cities when troops came through so much he crafted a peaceful surrender of the city of raleigh. he agreed to leave the city of raleigh and have the confederate troops leave the city of raleigh peacefully and the union troops take charge and it specifically, they would spare the state capital with its museum and library. we do have three representations of george washington here at the state capital, one outside and two inside. the statue downstairs is a copy of the original statue within the statehouse that burned and that was destroyed. that statue was made by an italian sculptor. he represented george washington in a way that he felt really matched his reputation, as a

military leader, as a political leader. and so he made him in a very classical way. it look like a roman general. and that was not entirely a popular decision with the people of north carolina and probably the thing that shocked people the most is his legs and feet are completely bare. and many people thought that was a little disrespectful to show a president with his legs and his toes showing. >> more from the north carolina state capital next weekend as book tv and american history tv look at history and literary life in raleigh, north carolina. saturday at noon eastern, on c-span2's book tv and sunday at 5:00 on c-span3's american istory tv. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to our table. joe wilson, chairman of the arm services subcommittee on military personnel also sit ops the foreign affairs committee in the house. i want to get your take on the

n.s.a. surveillance programs. what do you think about what has been revealed about these programs and that this was . aked by edward snowden guest: it's been overreaching. in 2006, i agreed with vice president joe biden at that time indicated there -- gosh, now we see why it should be a great concern what the information is used for. it should be used in the global war on >> to. we have people who have -- terror. we have people who have sworn war. that is what the intent should e, but i'm very concerned. this administration has abused is surveillance capabilities and really put the american people at risk. host: this surveillance program is said to be no different than what president george w. did.

guest: well, this is broader. and into enter new technology. so president obama has been president during an expansive time, much more greater, much more extensive than president bush. so there's almost no comparison and most of it relates to new technology. host: so what do you think should be done then? guest: i believe and i have great deal of faith in mike rogers, and the ranking member. i think that this particular committee should have, and it does, have the over sight -- oversight and i would have faith of the bipartisan nature of the intelligence committee on how they would monitor and it needs to be, again, restricted and it needs to be where the american people can have faith that the information received is not used to intimidate american citizens. host: how can the american people have faith if they don't

know what's going on? guest: i'm concerned. and indeed, and this is where the media plays such a role of letting the american people -- and there's a balance. because certainly, we have persons who have declared war on the existence of the american people and we must be ever vigilant. and so i applaud the president that he is pursuing this, that he does understand that we have a growing al qaeda threat, particularly in north africa and in the newspaper today, to see where in mali, the yeah affiliates there are securing missiles. that would be such a threat to the american way of life that we would not be able to have aviation in our country. host: so there's changes of legislation that are needed. did you vote for it? ave you voted to renew it?

guest: yes, i did. we have enemies that must be monitored. i go back to what the vice president said before he was selected, vice president tat it should be within limits and it needs -- there needs to be oversight that the information not be abused against the american people. host: so then what changes need to be done? uest: i would hold mike rogers -- i just have such faith on his integrity. he's a former nassib agent from michigan. as an extraordinary person a person who i know will be recommending changes that a very positive. host: n.s.a. revelations are disturbing but legal surveillance suggests those watch over american secrets need watching, that the intelligence committee is too close to it and

that they have not done a good job of overseeing this program and it says that's why more robust separation between intelligence community and the lawmakers and judges charged with overseeing it is a necessary tism more frequent rotation of the senators and representatives on intelligence panels may be necessary for example. guest: that's another oversight and another safeguard for the american people. and so the committee itself, i would disagree that i believe that the integrity of the people who are serving on that committee is very high and they are independent members of congress and their first role would be to protect the american people. but i appreciate you bringing up about the judicial side of this because that could be such a positive restraint. host: you mean -- are you talking about the surveillance court? guest: well, the surveillance court and courts and also u.s. district judges that have

jurisdiction over whatever search warrants may be issued. that is the safeguard. that should not be abused. and it has been recently, we found out. but overall, we should be having an independent judiciary have oversight in addition to congress. host: it was an all-member briefing yesterday. you were not able to attend. tell our viewers why. guest: i had a delay in the flight. i'm really grateful that speaker john boehner arranged for this immediately. so he has been another person who truly understands the civil liberties of the american people. host: how will you explain this to your constituents back home so they understand the security versus privacy issue? guest: i'm very concerned. i had a lot more faith in our government until i found out the abuses of the i.r.s. targeting political organizations that were not favorable to the

administration. i had more faith in the justice department until i saw their targeting of the "associated press", including the house gallery. there was monitoring of phone calls through the justice department. the targeting of fox news. my faith has been shaken and that's why i'm very grateful that we have congressional oversight. it's so important of the last firewall of independents in terms of all power, big government power in government is the republican majority and the house of representatives. host: we'll get to phone calls. gayle burke, republican caller. go ahead. caller: yes, hello. i just want to say i was reading through the congressional research service. c. have a paper by edward lew and so i would like to ask the representative what do you think about fisa about having

the mechanism for the domestic acquisition of communications of persons in the u.s. without a court order. and two, all of the electronic communications info is taken from electronic service providers, a.k.a. like verizon. thank you. guest: there needs to be oversight. i'm very concerned ironically, i have to tell you again i was pleasantly surprised i agree with vice president biden. there needs to be limits. there needs to be oversights. and there needs to be an understanding of how the information is used so that it is not abused as we've seen. it's shocking to me the abuse of i.r.s., the abuse of the justice department. spying on the news media of our country. this is wrong. and so i'm looking at this with eyes and eyes open. and so i don't take lightly your concerns. n this wonderful tweet o

-- guest: we are truly under attack in our country. we see with the attack in above, how sad that was. to the brutal murder of an 8-year-old child intentionally with the satchel right next to him. the murder of the chinese student. we see the attack almost beheading in london in the last month. and another attack by a jihaddist in paris. so this is a worldwide phenomenon that we must face because these people have every sfwonet annihilate the american people and not just us. there are more muslims being killed that the americans. last month, the attack on a mosque in karachi, pakistan. 40 people are blown to bits for attending a mosque in baghdad and in iraq, there were pilgrims on their way to a holy site.

ironically, iranian pilgrims and indeed there, was an attack with persons being murdered. the enemy we face, it's just inconceivable. host: if you knew now -- if you knew what you know now about what n.s.a. is doing, would you have voted to reauthorize -- to vote their patriot act? would you have voted for fisa? >> yes. because what we voted for, there were limits. the limits in terms of understanding of how far this would go and additionally and we had judicial oversight and we had congressional oversight. what's missing, the administration is approaching a 1984 a virtually in orwellian way. that's wrong. host: bonnie is next in milltown, new jersey. democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning.

there has no abuses. it's within the law, unfortunately. but the most concerning part is that our "homeland" security -- well, our security in general and everything else has been privatized. we've been brainwashed into believing that government is bad and business could do better. it at a higher cost because this information is very profitable. and it can destroy our nation. it's not some our security, it's also protecting corporations and their information. this has to end. this is -- we're going -- it's so anti-american for someone who espouses the virtues of our institution and -- constitution and our issue to americanism. this is -- when the corporations are handling situations that government should be and there should be a separation. it's like church and state.

i like both. host: ok, bonnie, we will have the cram -- congressman respond. guest: i share your concern. that is an unholy alliance between what i consider to be big business in government. that's wrong. there needs to be a division. also though, we do have public private partnerships that work. i have worked on a biomass facility in south carolina which is public and private. it's been very environmentally sound, providing -- they are using biomass. use tires. so i've seen public-private work. but i am very, very concerned about an interrelationship between big business and government and big government getting bigger. host: this is from the "washington times" this morning. a quote from senator richard durbin. the average contract employee cost twos to three times as much

as an average d.o.d. civil yap employee for performing similar work. -- host: he said that to the defense department representative. host: you sit on the armed services committee. tell us about dealing with this issue about contractors in the budget. guest: this is maybe the first time i agree with senator durbin.

this administration is reducing the number of army personnel to the smallest size since 1939. 20,000 marines. this is a time when we're at war. there's no reduction in the civilian department of defense personnel. that is a good example of where it should be. we need front-line service members. have the new greatest generation. that is to we should be focused on. the civilian employees, there is an overreliance. ont: this is sure to come up

capitol hill today. chuck hagel and martin dempsey. they will go to the house side and testify before the budget committee. caller: hi. of theve the gathering theormation by the i.r.s., nsa knows your phone calls and e-mails. host: jeff? you are breaking up. let me put you on hold. dan in ohio. healthy doseed a of skepticism when it comes to the government. in lot of people were complaining about the patriot act.

andliberal administration it is expanded. you thought conservatives or pushing the government thing. this guy is threatening news reporters. if we don't keep the skepticism on government -- the founding fathers did not trust the government and they were the government. you have to keep a close eye. we cannot rely on the government to run the people. things are turned upside down. host: would you like to see hearings on this? caller: i would. we need to leave the american - there is no reason to suspect me.

why would be monitoring my calls? guest: you are right. there should be healthy skepticism. it is so sad. justice department is intruding on the lives of the american people and targeting different groups that disagree with this administration. we have the ability of congressional oversight. limited government works. big government around the world has failed. youconsequence of this -- are being monitored and i am being monitored in our phone

calls and our financial transactions. this is not right. we have good people like congressman darrell issa. there is a former solicitor. he is a person that can cut to the chase. -- shery sebelius spoke had made two phone calls raising money. she a minutels -- there were three additional phone calls that cheap acknowledged. it is really sad. this is skepticism in full force. the american people need to be informed. our liberties are being chipped away.

host: an editorial today from "the new york times." guest: this is amazing to me. now i agree with "the new york times." .hat is well stated that is a rare example of bipartisanship. too.ould be a bipartisan, the elements that the editorial relates it should be universally embraced.

who is in charge? thet: i believe that technology has changed in advance. by the be concerned release of information. it is not being monitored properly. there needs to be greater oversight. i want the american people to know that it is not perfect. the chairman of the intelligence committee is a person of the highest integrity. host: publishing requests and letting their users see how many requests they have received and what type of information the government wants.

should the attorney general agreed to that? guest: i hope the attorney general -- i have not gone over fast and furious. i hope he is prudent in what he does and releases the information that can be released. we are facing an enemy that is ed.l financ host: thank you for waiting. --ler: i believe the i.r.s. the nsa knows your phone calls and your e-mails. i do not know how they got around warrants to gather this information.

i believe this information along with a huge facility to store this information could be used in the future to basically select who lives and who dies on their political beliefs or their affiliations or things that they may have said in confidence, what they thought was in confidence to friends or family via friends and family. .uest: you are correct there is a judicial role in that. it does relate to obamacare. it has been a pattern and that is sickening. the first people hired for health control were not doctors and nurses. they were i.r.s. agents.

least. at now we are seeing there can be an abuse. democrat senator indicate it will be a train wreck. it will be overwhelmed. to information is going to be collected. a denial or a deferral of services. we have waiting lists. i was always concerned. connectedcally well will have the care that they need. those not connected will fall through the cracks. this is an example of big government run amok. the effortce has led

to an alternative in providing health care. we should be maintaining a doctor-patient relationship. .ost: this comes from twitter was askedarney yesterday if he believes -- jay carney was asked if edward snowden was a traitor. [video clip] secretary dinner called snowden a trader -- secretary traner called snowden a itor. believe it is the appropriate posture to let the

investigation go forward and whether any charges will be fbi andand left to the the department of justice. guest: this is sad. has acknowledged what he is done, which is put the security of the american people to risk. i want to remind people again. educated, very determined jihadists who left ever intend to eliminate the american population. they proclaim the people of israel will no longer exist. itor? is he a tra guest: i believe he is. d to see russia playing

games with possible asylum. how did they forget the jetliners that have blown up through terrorists attacked? moscow is at risk. they gave information about the boston bombers and we did not act. i'm very disappointed. host: russia it is considering offering edward snowden asylum. guest: they are under direct assault every day. have are jihadists who every intent of setting up a separate country with the intent of eliminating the russian population that lives there.

chance will give you a to disagree with "the new york times." .hey argue this guest: parents, i do not see -- see.ence, i do not

we'll have the ability for al qaeda not to know what we are doing. he would be selling information to other countries. you have to have a market. i believe this will deter our abilities. people will be fearful in providing information to us. we have friends and supporters in the middle east who are at risk. trying to stop mass murders. safe havens. that is what we are trying to do. we need people to feel safe to give us information to protect the american people. int: we will go to pat

alabama. hi, pat. caller: i have a question from a slightly different angle. i understand the nsa budget is near $80 billion. the congressman listed a number of events earlier -- the boston bombing, the murder of a british soldier in london, the knifing of a french soldier, the bombing the mosque in pakistan, discovery of surface to air missiles. how many of those were discovered by tapping my phone or tapping the phones of anyone else in the united states? i heard the argument that there was a potential bombing in new

york subways that was discovered this way. i heard the british intelligence gave us this information. how much are we spending and is it worth it/ ? guest: i appreciate the concern. not everyone needs to be searched. young children. it is starling that there should me.- it is startling to there should be discretion. that is what we voted on in congress. i will be looking to monitor the cost and to see if the limits are being applied. host: we will go to mike in arkansas.

caller: good morning. nice to have the opportunity to talk to this congressman. i am a disabled veteran. i do not know where to begin. i so disagree with your stance. you know how they smuggle drugs into this country? baby diapers. bags.men's don't you think they are starting enough to monitor -- for goodness sake. thank you forto your military service. i have a great appreciation for your service. did not say that the bags

should not be searched. there needs to be discretion. should beelieve we monitoring every phone call in the united states. there should be limits. there should be search warrants authorized with limits. the administration is failing. apparently they have no limits. host: richard is next. caller: there is some issues they have not discussed. are employees with taxpayers but do not act like it. it is very, very sad. excellent.

we have a more serious problem. it is china. congressional hearings on the oil company purchased. 20,000 pieces of american technology was stolen. person.st of a chinese where is our priorities? host: what about the role of china? tost: they are taking action build their economy based on the research done in the united states. i am pleased that day cyber command is being established. this is important to monitor countries that are becoming a rogue.

china should be a responsible country. they have shown that they are not responsible. a circumstanceng of distrust when we should be working together. we have a common enemy. they have a weaker threat of jihadists in their country. .e should be working together all of these countries, all civilized society is at risk. host: here is a headline in "the new york times."

host: who do you agree with here? more: we are being aggressive in a positive way in the house. sexualy understand that assault is a crime. we have a sexual assault prevention caucus. ofgresswoman tsongas

massachusetts. we have over 20 different theisions to promote prevention of sexual assault. the prosecution and punishment and the investigation. i would be in favor of what we are doing. the vote was 49-2. host: who has the power to prosecute? guest: i believe it should be the commander. bring in an outside monitor. we need to put the authority on the commander. i am pleased. the army secretary and the chief acted to replace a

commander in japan who did not follow through. that needs toess be promoted. i am grateful that we have extraordinary leaders. loretta sanchez has taken a lead in regard to whistle-blowers. we have these provisions. the congressperson has worked hard on the provisions that i believe will protect our military. serving in thes military. sexual assault is a threat not proceed by the civilian population. in the military, you look out for each other. there is a higher level of responsibility. host: let's go overseas to

turkey. guest: i have faith in the prime minister. he said he would meet with the protesters. turkey is a land bridge to the middle east. it is an example of a democracy. people say people of muslim faith cannot adapt to democracy. i believe the violence will be controlled. thes really historic, korean war monument. allies, close allies for decades. host: what about the use by force?

here is a picture from "the washington post. " that reveals it is a water cannon. there is a level of restraint. they may have a legitimate gripe. they are trying to protect a park. protesting that are are saying this is about democracy. they should be allowed to protest. guest: and i agree. i believe that democracy is at work. it is not perfect. it is not people being crushed. host: democratic caller. caller: thank you for having me.

he was saying how dismayed he was about how the administration used the power. i think he is forgetting history. the bush administration doing illegal wiretaps and then going to have the law made instead of the law being there. it was congress that passed these laws. overreaching. if he would call snowden a traitor. snowden broth is to our attention -- snowden brought this to our attention. he is double talking both points. something is not being done and

there is nothing in washington except for bipartisanship talking. guest: you are in a great place. we agree on this, i believe. the a lot should be enforced -- the law should be enforced. be enforcedaw to for illegal conduct. this is an exponential increase in surveillance. we see targeting. i would hope you would find that offensive. justiceg by the department of the associated press, fox news. this is wrong.

important.o our governor fought back. now we have 6000 jobs in charleston. this administration has been overreaching. host: a letter has been signed to congress. -- is special committee .alling for a special committee looked intommittee the cia. the reporttee and was blamed for new during the cia. what do you think about a special committee? guest: i would be in favor of a special committee or a select

committee. frank wolf has been such a leader in trying to uncover how the british new the withdraw about the consulate in benghazi. we maintain the consulate resulting in four deaths. there is a real disconnect. this needs to be done. it has been shocking the cover- up, making a mockery. a video was not viewed. there is so much reason for those in congress to be skeptical as we see how this administration conduct business. host: congressman joe wilson, thank you for your time. we will keep this conversation

going with loretta sanchez. then later, we'll talk with joann muller of "forbes" about the race to build america's's super connected cars. biden speaking at a fund- raiser for congressman ed markey. says senate republicans are scared of two of their freshman, ted cruz and rand paul. the government has fundamentally changed and he has never seen anything like it. the gun control debate. they were voting no because they did not want to take on senators cruz andpaul. patrick leahy of filed an amendment to the immigration bill that would allow gay u.s. citizens to petition their

spouses to become permanent citizens. it is unclear whether the proposal will get a vote on the senate floor. andsenate begins thursday you can watch live coverage of the immigration debate on c- span2. a new study on distracted driving finds new systems that let drivers use voice commands to do a number of things are being pitched by auto companies as safer. we will talk about these new features later on "washington journal." those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. the c-span of video library has reached a milestone. there are now more than 200,000 totallyogramming, all

searchable and free. america's cable company. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back thetta sanchez, a member of intelligence subcommittee. you were at yesterday's briefing of the nsa is surveillance program. what did you hear? guest: we had several i would say not upper level but people who were involved in the situation from various agencies, two or 3. i would say that the mood in the room was not a happy mood. and generally speaking when we thisnto these classified --

was a classified meeting. some of us believe that people do this, they label them in such a way so that we cannot walk out and say what we heard. yesterday they talked about walking us through the program and came back with, you'll authorize this and you knew about. host: is that true? thet: the patriot act and fisa act. these programs are legal. maybe people on the intelligence more ine may have known detail about all of this going on. for a member to get the full picture of what is happening.

you had democrats and republicans in the room and that was a group of very angry people. host: what types of questions were members asking? guest: how did this happen? how did we not know about it. this was so important. you had access. we did not have access to top- secret type of information. not all congress people have the same access. i sit on armed services. i push it to get information. when i get information on programs, i have to go into a room.

it is time consuming. you have to schedule it. you have to schedule people from the outside to be there. i does this as part of my living. someone on transportation or the education committee, many times they do not have an idea of what is going on and they are relying on us. tactically there may be a possibility that most congressmembers' could have gone to that. there were a lot of obstacles. host: law was the response when you ask how this happens? how a low-level staffer working for a government contractor

getting a hold of these documents? guest: the standard comment is this is under investigation and we cannot speak about it. there has to be a monumental change. , as representatives toamerica's people not only see the policy but to see the money. "we are still investigating and we know nothing right now.' those are pretty much the answers. host: so what happens? thes is the front page of " washington times." ofre needs to be a rotation

lawmakers who sit on the intelligence panel, according to "the baltimore sun." sit more thannot six or eight years. people like to be on that committee. opinion, what starts to happen with some of the members is that they -- it is almost like the intel committee becomes their friends. the more nicer they are, they get more tidbits of information. onis hard to get up to speed the intelligence issues. beyond for two years and get off.

some way ino find which to get that out. host: this comes from "the washington post" this morning. in other words, this is legal. guest: this was all legal. there was so much pressure after 9/11. i refuse to vote for that and spoke up about that. we are putting our civil liberties on the line. i am an american. too not want the government monitor our phone calls. so that was legal.

thatund out inadvertently president bush and his intl committee will listening in on phone calls -- and his intel committee. and that was not legal. you had a group of congress people who write up the fisa act and retroactively make it ok. "we can collect this kind of data." host: what needs to be done? guest: i think there are some good provisions in the patriot act. we need to have a serious debate, conversation. it is a very difficult.

i saw mayor bloomberg today. "it is a very hard." i get that. here is the thing. everybody -- and they are good at this. the government is good at this. robinson.will it is terrible. everybody is going to kill us." let's sit down. let's not stampede over people's individual rights. .ost: tony agrees with you newspaper.e hill"

guest: she is the center of my is the center of my state. of my is the senator state. he told us about the information. the laws are there. he has a lot of problems. host: do you consider him a traitor? guest: under the current laws, he would be considered a traitor in this country. he definitely should not have done what he did. host: he is on a whistleblower,

then? guest: not in that sense. i have worked with a lot of whistle-blowers. joe wilson talked about whistleblowers. one reason he is not a whistleblower is this was all legal under the current law. under the current law. some congress people understood it. the section that allows this to happen was the biggest concern i had. from thes is washington times." guest: well, i cannot speak to

what is in mr. obama -- president obama's mind or in his intel. wakeup, congress. this has been going on for awhile. it is difficult to get information. some people stand back. they might have the nsa in there. the nsa can do no wrong. we created 14 new -- a whole new structure within the department of defense. beingis a lot of intel collected.

is it getting in our way? have tos dod and nsa have it? and why is it so secret? we are just throwing money at it. you might go off and read the budget. it is so difficult. no one wants to explain it to you. the: we are talking about nsa surveillance programs. "theis the headline from washington post." hi, bret. caller: i have a twofold question. the way theet about conservatives are characterized when it comes to immigration

reform. almost every conservative has no problem with legal immigration. we resent our tax dollars going camelfare programs that here illegally. that is the contingent. forroblems whatsoever someone that wants to, or legally. when you, it illegally -- you come here illegally, you have committed a crime. explain what would happen if i went to mexico. if iwould happen to me expected the same benefits? guest: thank you for calling in. question.valid i understand the american laws

pretty well. i try to understand what i'm voting on. constituents and how we handle them when they go of fafoul of the laws. the not familiar with mexican laws. if you contact the mexican embassy, you might get some information with respect to that. anti-ot think we're immigrants. we believe it it is important to have new blood, immigrants, a need for workers and new ideas, a neat to have immigrants from every nation coming here. as we work for immigration

reform, it is to make the law toat allows people to come this country and to get status and to move back and forth. the biggest problem we have is that we need more people. at immigration reform, and it is about redoing the law so that people who want to have fear and that we need legally.ct come here that is what immigration reform is about. host: this is from sea of tranquillity. much power as as we are willing to take. the power of the purse.

if i tax take the hit you. and thethe power to tax power to use that money. we can withhold money from programs. the congress has a lot more power. intelligence to and these very precarious policies and situations, it is not willing to insert -- assert itself as much as they should. some do not talk a lot about it to us. -- "i needommunity to know this and this and this"

in a meeting that they had behind closed doors. lady.t worry, little don't try to wrap your head around it. just know that we are doing the right thing." i think that was pretty condescending. push there are efforts to for the surveillance court to open up when they approve some kind of a subpoena or allow the government to do these different types of surveillance programs. would you agree with that? guest: i would have to see the details. it is time the intelligence community understands we are sick and tired of being told not to worry.

need to be briefed on some programs. homeland security. that is what we do. we asked some of the intel people to brief us and their answer is, "you are not important enough. you're just the homeland security committee. we don't have the time to come." that is pretty much the answer we receive. or they say they will send somebody. "we weren't too busy." they put barriers up. host: you control the purse strings. how many people have security clearance?

i would say that it comes back to the issue that i believe our government tends to classify to a much higher level so that everything can be done in this black hole. if you don't have a security youarance to move documents, have a security clearance. there's a lot of that. this area of the government has grown leaps and bounds with nobody putting any control over it. it." this money and go do that is pretty much what has been going on.

host: there is a chart of the thetech providers to defense department and the money they secured in government contracts. james, go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to make a comment. traitor of is a this country. you sat on the intelligence committee. i do not know how long you have been in congress.

each one of view is trying to tell the nation that you didn't know anything about this and that you are very upset and each one of you were upset yesterday. youweren't you upset when -- if you were there and voted against the page attack. why were you upset when it first came down? host: ok, james. guest: i am a democrat. it doesn't matter what label i have on mae. i voted each and every time on the patriot act. i voted to each and every time. recordtatements into the

and i have been on television. "why would you be voting against this?" this is one of the concerns that i had. i outlined this particular case. i was upset and voted against it. intel subcommittee of the homeland security committee. in theheard what i said last few minutes, being on the intel subcommittee of the homeland security committee, the intelligence community does not want to brief us or deal with us and makes it difficult to get any kind of information. so yes, i am upset. all of some of my colleagues to start to say, maybe you are right.

let's go back to the table. to expand the intel committee. maybe we don't need as many intel people. debate.all for right now the picture act and the patriot act and passed with a lot of votes. caller: good morning. youa, i appreciate taking off your partisan hat. me.wilson was killing going straight to the topic. when i hear you and other

representatives talk, what we need to be concerned about is it seems that the corporate piece of this is having more sway in the dialogue. anytime a member of congress away fromgets shooed getting questions. canou cannot get answers, you imagine how far off the grid the typical american is? ago, i couple of decades awayonly one of two links from having a conversation with a representative. now it doesn't seem to have the same impact.

laws didpaign finance change, we're heading towards a ditch. i would like a response. guest: thank you so much for your call. has piece of the budget been growing since 9/11. it is difficult to understand what is in there. it is like reading a book are going to a lecture from a profs class. you can ask him if there is something you don't understand. that peace is not available to most congress people. theye ask our colleagues, have been in top-secret meetings.

they cannot talk to was on the outside. everybody is so busy. "just believe me." there are several rooms. and the the capital individual offices. there are offices for people to do their work. there are some special meeting rooms that are made to secure so that we can talk about top- secret things and classified things, etc. ask to reserve the room. i am in the minority. republicans ifr i can have the room for 30 minutes. then i need to have the person

shown with the information to agree to have a meeting at that time and for them to come here and do that. all of justt rid of us in their. and then one of the things that i do, let's talk about this, we will tell you this, we will tell you this. if youk out of there and take away one, too, or three things it is probably a lot. and it is difficult, difficult, at ase we are really disadvantage. they get to tell us what they want. how do we contractor them against someone else? is this guy lying to me or not? you have read the stuff in the newspaper about senators in

oregon asking in open session if the nsa collects information from the people out there. no, sir, we do not. no, sir, we do not. the answer to the question in my opinion was so farcical. host: can you tell it? guest: basically they said -- you did -- you did not understand the context of how that was asked and if you have listened to the stuff before the poor guy that was answering the question thought that it meant whether people had dogs, that information. when he said no, he was thinking -- i did not get the names of dogs of people. i am over exaggerating, but that is really how ridiculous that is. host: referred -- referring to the question about whether they were surveiling americans. this twitter message --

guest: i do not know. my answer is i just do not know about that. host: could that have been some sort of classified information? been in acould have classified section or an intel bill. huge and big.are yes. but remember, when you read a bill here, it is interesting, in the california state legislature the current law, when they want to amend that law four bills they through to amend it, strike out what exists and put in a different power of what they want to change. you can do the research to see what type you want. here in the congress they do not do that. they just say they're putting

this behind section 13. mean?oes that people say to me all the time, did you read the law? no. what i did was look at the committee and they told me -- this is the bill you want, what the heck does it mean? i do not know what it means to go to section 13 of the 1963 amendment to the law amended 14 times? that is what you want your con -- congressperson to do. leading this stuff is like reading hieroglyphics. here, we really should go to a system like the state of california has, so that everyone could follow what was going on. even americans. even the general republic -- general public. but we might learn things that we do not want to know. it is interesting what happens around here. host: pat, republican line.

caller: thank you for your honesty, but i must tell you, if you look at the way the public feels about congress and the senate right now, you know the numbers are down, ok? i am still waiting to hear more information on benghazi. will that ever happened? all i hear our meeting after meeting and nothing gets done. it seems like you send things to the white house, he throws it over his right shoulder into the rose garden, does what he wants, and is back to years later. i was a democrat my whole life when the health bill, someone introduced it as sign it or read it later, 2000 pages. i said -- i was on wall street for a long time. no one asked me for my signature

unless i knew what i was signing. guest: you sound like a very smart woman. thank you for calling in and putting some context to things. you know, yes, the answer is that congress people are generalists. we have everything coming at us, national security, transportation, health care bill, all of it constantly. we have staff that specialize in particular areas, but we have all seen the last few years. they have taken a 20% cut in staff and it is becoming harder, we are trying to do more. i am not excusing that, but it is difficult to get into the meat of a bill. usually the people who do, they sit on transportation committee, the fed's committee, defense bills come in -- i am looking at every line.

why? when i go to take the vote on the house floor people are pulling me aside and saying -- what do you think about what is going on with at 35 with a joint strike fighters? should we continue? should we stop? loretta, what is happening with controlled fox in the military? you become a specialist in a particular area. the answer is that it is not obama throwing things back at us, it is the congress that is in a stalemate, in a sense, between the senate and house, between the house republicans -- the democrats in the house side are in the minority right now, we have very little say in the bills that are moving. we try to impact them but it is difficult to do because the house is a winner-take-all system. remember, i told you i had to

reserve a skiff if i wanted to preserve something? the favor of the republicans, you see what i am saying? it is a much more complicated job. most of my colleagues were very hard at trying to get this right. it is just a lot comes through and there is a very real batch of contentious members, more so than 17 years ago when i started. host of this twitter message -- -- host: this twitter message -- host: "the financial times" this morning put forward this idea -- a model for a thorough examination of the power and scope of u.s. intelligence agencies. guest: my answer to you would be to push your congressperson to put aside partisan politics, push your congressperson to ask that we do a revamped and a

discussion around the nation for americans to understand. the majority of americans told me they were not doing bad things, 80%, i would probably look at them and say that i do not like it and personally do not like it. host: the polls showed 54%. host: and a lot of them -- guest: and a lot of them did not even really understand what was going on. that is why we need a discussion around america. i know the america that i grew up in. i believe in red, white, and blue, in individual liberties. my parents came to this country, immigrants. they have two daughters in the u.s. congress. we are american. when i think of america, i think of america and i think of all of

the amendments, all of the protections. i particularly think of amendment no. 4, which says that no one is going to be eavesdropping on me. we have laws right now that say that they can. host: congressman loretta sanchez, a democrat from california, her sister also serves in the house. what about a committee? guest: but, if you are talking andomeone for a long time they say -- i know we are from the intel community and i do not doubt that you do good work and do not doubt that you are american and care about this country. but i think, though, as my father used to say, congress has given you a very long leash and maybe you are doing things out there that most americans really .o not want to to be doing

maybe we need a committee that takes a look at the liberty on individuals as opposed to the security for the good of the whole. i think that is a real dialogue we should have. host of democratic line, wilder. -- host: democratic line, wilbur. caller: i did a lot of catering up there on capitol hill. i know all the rooms you are talking about. my question is, about the immigrants coming inside this country, i worked with a lot of spanish people across all my jobs. i think it is the right thing to do. they are hard workers across the country. some of these mean-spirited republicans need to stop, because they are doing that

landscaping and everything else. have a heart, republicans, and do the right thing. host: thank you so much. definitely the immigration debate is way beyond here in the senate. somehave been kicking up dust all week, trying to figure out what to do with that. it would be my hope for the real viability of a good economy of family unity and homeland security that the congress can come up with a legal framework, a law that would allow us to have immigrants here in this country so that they do not have to of hide in the shadows. when they hide in the shadows they get taken advantage of by some people. in some ways they are more depressed when these people cannot turn around and say that they are paying less than minimum wage and it depresses the wages of the rest of

americans. they really are the heart of what is happening right now. if we get the law good and strong, i think we will be a much better america for it. we will see if we are there in the fall. thank you for the comment. host: the senate immigration debate begins this morning on c- span 2. they voted yesterday to proceed to the bill. several amendments have been filed. it is expected to be on the floor for weeks. our coverage begins at 9:30 on c-span 2. the chief of the nsa is expected , surely askedng by the senators on the appropriations committee about the surveillance programs. we will cover that on c-span 3 at 2:00 p.m. also, the military team will be

testifying before the senate budget committee this morning. at 10:30 we will have that on c- span 3. those same people will be going to the house side to testify before the house budget committee, likely also to be asked about government contractors and the intelligence community. richard, go ahead. caller: rep sanchez, you are just a breath of fresh air. i have been a c-span junkie for years. i have come to the conclusion that congress and the united , it has come down to being run by the executive branch almost entirely. much theso sure how president and vice president at the national level have to run people in the executive branch. branches within these agencies control the controls

and revise the rules. in the last election cycle i donated to someone running for congress. i unsubscribed from that list. longer trust anyone in the government. i think we need people like you who will leave a -- lead a congressional revolt. unless congress takes back their power, people will be afraid to vote to you -- donate to you because they will be afraid of winding up on an enemy list. guest: let me tell you first that sometimes i am not very popular with some organizations, businesses, corporate america, because i do think at the have a bigger ability to sway the congress these days than just your average person who used to

be able to walk right into the building and coming to the office. as ahome every week congressperson, and i lived in california, so it takes me 10 hours to go there and tend to come back. i work 20 hours before i ever start work. when i go home i make sure i am out in the community. i go to the macy's and make sure that people see me shopping their, because they stop me and ask me what is going on with this, what is going on with this? would you do this? would you do that? i think a good congressperson tries to do that. it takes a lot of effort. that mosty told me congress people stayed in washington, d.c., and that they

kind of made their community here. they all knew their kids and had a lot more trust in each other. for that reason they were a better block, if you will, a better institution. they believed in each other and forided a strong contrast the administration. that does not happen anymore. how i do not know how we get congress people to actually understand -- take back the power because you represent the people. host: yesterday with national security officials and the nsa program, we were told by a green wall of the guardian that there was more to come, more than they had received from edward snowden. were officials asked about that? how are they planning to respond?

we learned in there is significantly more than what is in the media today. i cannot speak to what we learned in there. know know if there are more leaks, war information's somewhere, if someone else is going to step up. but i will tell you that i believe it is just the tip of the iceberg. but again, all of these things were legal. host: can you categorize this type of information? you know more than what is in the public. is it worse than what the public knows now? guest: i do not know about worse, but it is accumulating. it is broader than most people realize. host: you suspect that they told you this because this is the type of information that could

be leaked out? guest: i do not know who leaks, but again i want to caution everyone, these programs are legal. under the law. i mean, you have aclu's saying that this is unconstitutional and, you know, congress passing laws, the administration doing this and running with it. the supreme court coming in and saying -- maybe not, guys. that is the balance of power. that is what we have to been to. i will tell you that there is probably more to come. certainly the congress people realize that these issues are not going away. i hope my colleagues have realize that we need to get on top of this. host: you have done a lot of work on sexual assault in the military. the word today is that a measure

will be replaced to make a special prosecutor decide whether or not a case is tried and instead have a senior military officer to review decisions by commanders who declined to prosecute sexual assault. is a good friend, she was a blue dog in the house. jobs doing a good representing new york. sponsored to be a house of her bill. 17 years working this issue way before there were other women on the committee. getting a good understanding of what is going on. i do not believe it was in the who interests of people have allegedly been sexually to haved or rates

things taken to the outside to look at situations. i think that we told everyone in the chain of command responsible for what is going on because this is about discipline and unit cohesion. if you as a leader cannot handle this correctly, then you should not be a general. you should not be a kernel. the issues and the legislation in the house side, there is a prevalent amount of the work i have done in it on the floor today. the women are coming together in a way where we think about what we have to do, but it does not include what senator gillibrand wants to do. what chairmann

lebron is proposing, but more -- might be more along the lines of what i think needs to happen. host: thank you, congresswoman loretta sanchez, for speaking with us. guest: how fast the time goes. host: yes. next, taking a look at silicon valley vs. detroit, the race to create a super car. we will be back after this update from c-span radio. >> 50 years ago today medgar evers was assassinated. the first mississippi field secretary for the naacp was just 37 when he was killed. his widow says that it would be easy to stay mired in bitterness and anger but she says she is determined to celebrate her husband's legacy.

meanwhile, an update on the health of nelson mandela from the current south african president. earlier in remarks to parliament he said that mr. mandela was responding better to treatment after several days in a hospital and that he is happy with the progress that the international icon is making. nelson mandela spent a fifth straight day today in hospital, where he is being treated for a recurring infection. the 94-year-old former president was hospitalized on saturday. an update on syria from the lebanese security officials, reporting this morning that syrian government helicopters have fired three missiles on the border town in northern lebanon. officials say that one of the missile struck the center and it on ane first such attack urban center inside of me -- inside of lebanon. meanwhile the situation will be the focus of talks this weekend

between david cameron and vladimir putin. this ahead of the upcoming summit. you can hear the david cameron remarks on the subject sunday night on "prime minister's questions" which airs here on c- span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we believe that he has got the situation needs. on the evening of june 27 he has a conversation with one of his subordinates. it is actually someone who is a , officer commander general with no command. he speaks to the end they say the's, talking about federal's, they will come up through frederick, strung out on a long line and demoralized.

throw an overwhelming force on their advance, crushed, driving one back on another. success repulses and surprises and before the concentrate, create a panic to destroy the enemy army. just one of the scholars -- >> just one of the scholars you can watch commemorating the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live on sunday on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in the last hour of "washington journal" on wednesdays we take a look at recent magazine articles, part of our spotlight on magazine series. today from forbes, the headline "detroit" -- inside, vs. silicon valley." you say that the war is on

between these two areas, joann muller. why is that? guest: there is sort of a convergence going on between the auto industry and telecom industry. what is happening is everyone recognizes that consumers want to be connected in their cars. they want the digital life that they have come to depend on in their homes and on the go to also apply in the car. what that means is a lot of this technology is moving into the vehicle. the question is, who is going to get rich off of it? i think both silicon valley and detroit think that they are the ones that should get rich. host: which companies are investing more? what is the timeline for this super connected car? guest: the technology is already making its way into vehicles.

every care figure almost, 90%, anyways, will have meaningt of activity, that you will somehow be connected through a cellular signal to the cloud, which means lots of information will be coming and going through your vehicle. have then is automakers trying to protect their turf. and then you have companies in silicon valley who are very innovative, as well as the telecom companies, the sprints and at&t's of the world, all trying to figure out how to get a piece of this revenue stream. host: how much money are we talking about in research that these companies are putting into these efforts? guest: billions, certainly. each automaker, for instance, spends about $8 billion per year

on all kinds of research and development. business is certainly a big chunk of that. the more important figure may be the revenue opportunity. $25 billionat least up for grabs. i suspect it is way, way more than that. if you start to think about the potential things that could happen, there are ways for advertisers to reach drivers in their vehicles. just think of the revenue stream. talk about a trapped consumer, you are in your car. there is no way to escape that. it raises all kinds of safety questions, of course, but the point is that you can reach people in their car and there is so much data available, advertisers can pick the people

they want to reach. from the peace -- host: we want to get your questions and comments for joann muller. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for independents, 202-585-3882. so, joann muller, what does the super connected car look like? give us an example of the type of technology. guest: in fact, you are already starting to see some of this. someay have driven a car, are coming out now that have

adaptive cruise control. what is different from the cruise control you may be familiar with is that a car can , slowingd distance down to keep the appropriate distance. the real potential seems to lie through sensors and other signals, which can make a car aware of its surroundings, not just other cars but the roadways, traffic signals, buildings, all of that kind of stuff, that is to keep the vehicle safe and keep the drivers say. but you also have the idea of that the digital lives of people will come into the car. this has all kinds of possibilities. it is not really about being able to check your e-mail what you're driving.

what it is really about is, for instance, letting insurers know what kind of driving record you have. progressive insurance is already doing this with a little gizmo, but there are ways that she can tell what kind of driving record have. that might affect your insurance rate, for instance. there are many other ways, but eventually where we are headed very likely to be autonomous driverless cars. talking to your office, the cart delivers used safely to your destination. displayogle has put on their self driven car, famously having logged more than 500 miles since 2005. where are they with this technology? do they plan to introduce it to

the consumer? guest: the ceo of google would very much like to see this on the road within five years. that might be pushing it a little, but maybe not. states like california and nevada have already passed laws allowing for driverless cars. there is a conneaut, there must be someone in the vehicle behind the wheel to take control if necessary. drivinge privilege of on highway 101 outside silicon valley in the global car not long ago. i have to say that it was very eerie at first and then i've only relaxed. it was just like riding as a passenger in another car. what is interesting about google is that they have none of the concerns or restrictions or baggage, let's say, that detroit

or even a global auto maker has. their only concern is taking the data that they have collected so much to their google maps, very impressive database, they are trying to use that to enable a driverless cars. i really do not think that their interest is in getting into the automotive business, but they are very good at pushing the envelope. they have gone out there and really got a lot of publicity and make people start to think about this. the automakers have been doing the same kind of research, trust me. also have driverless cars, but they are concerned about all of the many safety regulations and all of the other stuff that

goes along with trying to build a safe vehicle. coming at it also have driverlet perspective. host: which brings up the role of government in this conversation. what is it? guest: i do think that the government will be mandating more and more of this kind of safety technology. now the university of michigan, transportation research, they are doing a very interesting study. of first real world study 1000 connected cars on local roadways. cars,are not autonomous mind you. they are being driven by humans. however, they are all equipped with various signals, sensors, and things like that. they are talking to each other and talking to the environment around them. the purpose of the study is to

figure out how soon this can be enacted. we are talking about saving lives. this stuff really does work. i think that the government will gradually require more and more of this kind of technology, just as they required anti-lock andes and air bags electronic stability control. all of these things, once proven to work, the government rolls now very quickly. the other role the government might play, keep in mind, has to do with the rent -- the environment. it is interesting to see this around the world. i believe that new york is even thinking about trying to ban vehicles in certain parts of the center city. the congestion is not only causing gridlock, obviously, but

it is terrible for the air. the auto makers have something to worry about here. there is so much growth around the world, yet they may be putting themselves out of business. host: there are a series of photosphere about the future transportation. one of them is in this vehicle, more carbon fiber lightening the "lets wait means better efficiency. carbon fiber, stripped down systems, engines and transmissions. we will gods models, to ken in huntington, new york. sorry, need to push the button. you are on the air. caller: ok, ok, on the air here. good morning.

today's cars are like driving a computer on wheels. but of what about those who are not technology savvy? drivers who may not be familiar with this kind of technology? you raise a good point. i drive a lot of cars. cars week i drive a lot of to see what everyone is producing and i confess that i get confound the by some of the technology. way, if youhis could. there are a lot of people who lack mobility, either because they are disabled or older, they are unable to drive. if you could give them a vehicle that would automatically take them where they want to go, you

could actually create greater mobility for people. now, i totally agree with you that there is a lot to overcome still in the way that we interact with this technology in the vehicle. there are whole new field of engineers focusing just on that. i can assure you that everyone is looking at it. i dare say that no one has come up with the best solution yet. >> this is a twitter message -- what percentage of electronic extras are used for car function and simple entertainment? question.reat i am not sure that i know the answer. i would say that if you think about the electronic steering now, electronic braking, these things used to be mechanical and now they are all handled by sensors and signals.

moving to push button ignition. all of these things are electronic and it takes a lot of computing power to make that work. one of these math applications, the biggest ones i have seen is in a tesla roadster, an expensive luxury car. has a 17 inch screen, navigation screen on the center consul, that is as big as your computer. this takes a lot of computing power as well. host: john, republican caller. why did she consider it a war andeen silicon valley

detroit? it seems that they should be working with each other. guest: you are right, i agree with you. wen i say war, you know, know they are going to have to collaborate eventually. none of them have the skills necessary to deliver these kinds of things, but the war comes down to the revenue, which is the point that i focused on in my story, who is going to get rich off of this? lot oftalking about a money. telecom operators would be wise, probably, to look at the car as another device. screen that they can package into the cellphone plan. well and good, what does that seesfor the car maker who

that all going off to the telecom company? to bek there will have some fees paid trip portion of that money going back to the car maker. one thing that you must remember about the car companies in these kinds of situations, if you are truly satisfied with the way that your digital life connects with your car, you are more likely to stick with that car company. not only that, the car company, because there is so much data that can be gleaned from your once connected to the cloud, the carmaker can get to know you better and cater to you better. whether it is the features that you want, the patterns that to drive.

makecan figure out how to cars better. loyalty of engineering, that is all good for the car company. they will collaborate, but who is going to get rich? that is essentially my point. point, who is going to fix these cars and how much will it cost for the average consumer? guest: great questions. you have to understand that at the same time this revolution is happening, there is another revolution happening, which is the shift towards electrification. cars have been rather slow selling, but hybrids are starting to get more traction. the government is of course requiring everyone to produce electric cars, plug in cars, and hybrids. so, these cars are going to be selling in greater numbers.

but that technology is expensive. when you layer on the technology from electricity, from electrification, plus all the connectivity, you are definitely driving the price up. does theion is, how car maker try to bring down that cost on the back end in order to glean a decent profit? has not think that anyone figure that out yet. trust me, that is probably their number one focus right now. host: this twitter message -- are: democratic caller, you up next. caller: this has been in -- on my mind in florida i would hear of people driving into lakes and not being able to get out of

their cars and driving -- and dying, and i wondered if it was werese the windows electric and they could not roland down. the thing that worries me about computerized cars is that i do not know if they are say and people panicking about the nsa gathering information should even think about it they want a car that they cannot control themselves when they are in it? guest: i cannot answer the one of the beginning of blake, but that is a great question. i think that what you're saying is -- could your car be hacked and someone take over control? when i asked that question, i was assured and told by engineers that that would not be possible, that there is sufficient security.

your car is that of a fight with you. one of the issue that spoke to engineers about is -- when you sell the car, how do you make sure that it is scrubbed clean so that none of your personal information that might have been connected to your phone and your car would get into the hands of someone else? these are really, really excellent questions. i think questions that need to be asked. host: how is the ntsb going to keep up with this? might it need to be a different agency, larger agency, with more money? guest: i have not heard anyone talking about that gets. the national highway traffic safety administration is the organization that mostly looks over the regulations.

they look very closely at the carmakers to identify issues and to figure out solutions. they do collaborate with the car companies. as everything gets more complicated, you have got to wonder. host: on the website we want to show viewers the pot car. a prototype two seat car that drives automatically and comes when you call it three or iphone. the software was developed with their chinese partner, who helped to distribute it to the market the targeted. specifically china, where it would be especially useful with their gps technology and the communications system would ease congestion and reduce the risk of accidents. dan, louis, missouri. go ahead. caller: i have a question for the guest. what if i do not want this technology in my car?

pay taxes on ecar it, i do not want this technology in my car, i do not want someone looking at where i am every second. i know that some insurers do that and some lenders also do that to make sure that you do not skip town with the car. be able want anyone to to look and see where i am. i don't care of it is for security or advertising. host: can you buy a car without these additions? guest: right now you can. you can certainly by the entry- level base model. a lot of this stuff is not standard at the moment. know, the government may require a certain aspects of it eventually. cars are easily tracked, that is a fact of life, in our digital

life everything can be tracked. you can certainly shot off some of these features. personally i get very annoyed with all of the chimes that come at me if i slightly drift out of my lane. i understand that it is helping me to be a better driver, but all that noise is distracting, frankly. so, you can shut off a lot of it. ultimately up to [indiscernible] to decide if that should be required, if the information should be or could be disclosed. the forbes website notes that lexus and the fort lincoln and self-park a car, so the technology does exist. you quoted the ceo of nissan in

car piece, the driver was will hit showrooms in 2020. -- driverless car would hit showrooms in 2020. go-ahead. caller: ok, hi. host: mike? the computering on era, i remember it, the year 2000, yk, it was robust. that is the way it should be at this time. when we have hackers and everyone trying to rip off going into the elections and are negativehere thinkers. why not just be positive and idea oferica like the

the administration had in mind? ?ost: ok, joann muller guest: i think the caller is saying -- why can we not work together to drive better? i think that is where we are headed. you know. it is just that as with any figures, people want to out how to monetize it. they know the data exists. they want to come up with an act or come up with a marketing strategy, somehow, to get people to pay more money so that they can make the company more profitable. host: rick, ohio. caller: it is the tried in the 60's and the seven's.

-- 70's. when you talk about general motors and silicon valley, they were the most advanced technological company in the manufacturing and engineering. 1940 the make high-speed rail. electric rail, 60 to 70 miles per hour. they took all of the work of nasa and put it into their cars. they had a million workers. they created another 8 million jobs. talking about silicon valley, not even talking about china or bill gates. you are talking about the rise united states, now you're

talking about silicon valley, the labor unions collapsed. host: i think we got your point. , labor tensions involved in the super connected car of the future? guest: i do not agree with that. certainly we are all familiar with the fact that general motors and chrysler filed for bankruptcy and nearly collapsed. thate years leading up to and especially during that time, they were just scrambling to survive. they cut a ton of workers. for a while they had to cut back on their research and development. they lost time. no doubt about that. but they are very quickly catching up.

all three u.s. companies are hiring engineers. what is interesting is that they are hiring them in these new fields. they are hiring software engineers at hiring certainly electronics specialists and battery specialists, people who can help them to build the car of the future. michigan in particular, he mentioned growing up in detroit, is really trying to position thelf as the home for future of green cars and electric cars. detroit understands where this industry is going and they are positioning themselves, i think, very well to deal with that. go, thes labour unions factories, i do not have the numbers in front of me, but there are very few were blue- collar workers assembling cars

in detroit right now. but there have been a lot of workers hired in southern states where foreign companies have been expanding. so, i do not believe that silicon valley is the enemy or anything. i believe that detroit and silicon valley will find a way to work together. but right now there is a little bit of tension between them. on, that is the title of the piece from "forbes magazine" by joann muller. caller: you made a point earlier about the disabled and the car of the future. i was wondering, being disabled myself, how could i get involved with possibly helping with this technology -- for lack

of a better word, the trial and error, test dummy on the cars? i have computer backgrounds and i was lucky to get and i read -- i would be lucky to get involved. guest: my advise would be to probably contact one of the or through one of the disability organizations. i am certain they are in contact with those car makers about how to make cars better for the disabled. you know, i do believe that this kind i washe referring to pericarp is ordered up and drives itself and takes a disabled person to where they need to go, that is still 15, 20 years away at least. so, there is a lot of work to do on that, still. i encourage you to get involved,

that would be fantastic to have that kind of input. host: this twitter -- host: george, okla., independent caller. caller: with this government taking our identity away from us in nevada, cars that are traced wherever you want them to go, the government can trace you, what your doing, use your cellphone and anything else. ?ost: joann muller guest: i presume it is a possibility that technologically it could happen. i do not think it would happen, but this story is still unfolding and we are all getting surprised at the amount of information out there. my personal observation is that

nothing we do is secret anymore in this day and age. driving is probably one of those things. host: oscar has this question for you. what are your views and what do you know on states proposing fees on hybrids to cover gas tax losses? know about that specifically. my feeling on that is -- people are still much convinced that hybrids are worth the money to pay for -- to get that technology. the question is, would someone pay not only the higher cost of a vehicle but another fee on top of that? that would only squash sales more, in my view. host: in your future transportation picture series, here is one, the minicar weighs less than 1,764 pounds, with

emissions 50% lower than the average production model in its class. the one. leader to cylinder car is the future of their hybrid design technology with lithium ion .attery packs half the size and it's 112 miles to the gallon. thoughts on this car? guest: i have not personally seen that one, but i did drive a one,wagen called the xl which is similar in its approach. they were both saying something like 180 miles per gallon, but the point is that it is all carbon fiber, completely aerodynamics. everything about it is light weight. thes completely out of reach, cost-wise, for the average consumer.

that is the thing we have to remember. carbon fiber is great in terms of designing vehicles and making them light weight and thus more fuel-efficient, but it is still way too expensive. there is another little war going on between the raw materials makers. the steel industry, the aluminum industry, carbon fiber, they are all jockeying for positions to try to get car makers to use more of their materials in vehicles. the kind of steel coming out of the steel industry lately, that is the high-tech industry, let me tell you. some of the work they're doing their to come up with affordable high-grade steel that will truly shape the vehicles that we drive in the future? aluminum is doing the same thing. it is still a bit pricey, but

they are all very much going to be a part of our vehicles in the future. host of this twitter message -- -- host: this twitter message -- guest: so would i.. [laughter] host: why would you say that? you drive a lot of cars. guest: i am joking, mostly, the cars today coming out our wonderful, but i do get confounded. one of the things that infuriates me and a lot of the viewers i am sure, voice recognition. you ask it to play a certain artist for song and you get something completely different. right now i happen to be driving a gm vehicle. surprised thaty it understood the pronunciation of my husband's last name, which is always mispronounced by humans. i thought -- this is a good

thing. this voice recognition technology in this particular car is very good. the majority are not so good. but it is also all the buttons and screens. you have to go through layers and layers of screens in order to get the function you want. this is anything but non- distracting. if anything it makes you more distracted. it is very interesting to me, as i came in this morning i heard on the radio this morning another survey that came out and said that voice recognition is more distracting than holding your phone, because it causes you to have -- miss visual cues. host: we have to leave there, i apollo -- apologize. thank you for a time, the house is coming into session. now live coverage for the house. [captioning performed by