camp obama and maybe camp .illary in 2016 vomit if you had a more libertarian leaning republican and some unlike hillary clinton, i think you can transform for people think they have allegiance for. pew has been the biggest proponent of going to war in the middle east and getting involved in syria? hillary clinton. has she been anyone who said anything about privacy? she has been a big proponent of the surveillance tape. there is a chance if you had side,e on the republican they might all the sudden say -- on that site, they might say maybe democrats do not represent me. and say iople come up

supported president obama but i am more conservative on taxes and fiscal issues than he is. on social issues, i am more liberal than the republicans are. i think there are three ways. i think they are looking for something they do not immediately fix in either party. >> are you saying that hillary clinton was a proponent of the surveillance tapes? >> yes. she has never been a critic. if ron wyden were here, i would say he is a democrat who is an advocate of privacy. i would not that hillary clinton and that cap or a. areou and your father popular on the web. they are getting pushback from republican leaders, especially in the house. internetink this

libertarianism is an overly vocal minority or is your party's leadership ignoring an important part of this country? >> i think there is a growing movement. if you look at the use, they voted 3-1 or president obama. if you look at the polling data spyingcause of the nsa and president obama has become an extension of the bush administration with less concern for civil liberties, there has not been as many people speaking out on this. through, there was almost a hatred for bush from people who believed in civil liberties and thought he had gone too far on the war. president obama has carried on all of those things. he did bring some troops home. as far as your right to privacy, he has gone up far beyond what bush has begun. i think there is a growing mood among young people looking for something different. i think people are not as wedded

to one party or another as they used to be. lot of people consider themselves to be independent. i think young people are among that. people in silicon valley are among that. there are people who supported the president in 2008 the did not support him in 2012, prominent people who switched. i think there is an opening. likes one thing that is very concerning is the republican party seems almost anti-science in some ways, denying evolution and others. to speak outan against that? how do you plan to change that perception? i am not sure if there is an exact answer. i do not think the republican party has ever been anti-science though some people promote a different understanding of science. some might be in the republican party. by and large, i think we get characterized. you get people who are from one party.

they say something and they say that is the way all republicans believe. the same thing happens for democrats as well. i am a physician. i come from a science background. i do not think you will hear anything coming for me that is anti-science. >> why do you think libertarianism is so popular on the web? the am not sure i have answer to that. i think there is a huge bunch of people part of this "leave me alone" coalition. the internet is a place for freedom and for being able to do , people gravitate to it because they have a lot of freedom. people are just individuals. even when they were for big companies, when i have been out visiting google or facebook, when you go in, there is an atmosphere not of structure you cannot go five steps without be able stop to have food or nap or

play ping-pong. it is less rigidity and more openness. i think people are attracted to that. of "as libertarian sense long as i am not hurting somebody else, leave me alone to do it i want to do." >> labor unions are almost nonexistent and tech companies. tech for pennies. do you think the happy future in the u.s.? why do they often but heads with innovators? not against the small guy having leverage against the big guy. is interesting about labor that when you look at the anti- laws, the idea was to keep business from getting so big that the consumer would have no leverage.

really right now, the small guy has no leverage. i am a physician. i am a small guy and my individual practice. i have almost no leverage. they will not let me organize physicians to negotiate my contract with the insurance companies or have 10,000 retailers say this is my representative and you say now we have leverage. laws havee antitrust made harder, not just for labor but for the small guy to organize. a call that collusion. it is actually a mistake. antitrust laws are keeping the small guy down and the big guy in place. i hear from independent pharmacists that we have no leverage against the big chains. i would let the independent physicians and retailers organized so they could have leveraged against bigger companies.

that is a roundabout way to say they're is a place for organization -- there is a place for organizations. labor unions had the heyday trying to get rid of really horrific working conditions with people losing limbs and fingers and having no safety at work and 100 hour work weeks. i do not think they really have a place so much really in the high-tech industry. they are not paying slave wages in silicon valley or anything. >> no. [laughter] we're doing quite well. in a previous interview, you once called silicon valley as "communitarian." what did you mean by that? does that inflict with your own philosophy? >> i do not remember saying that but i accept that i might have. there is a sense, particularly in young oh, they still want to

make money and do things that are successful. they are socially conscious in the sense that they also want to do things that protect the environment. i am not saying that in a bad way. i am saying that in a good way. i am supportive of a bill in our legislation about letting people corporationss "b ." right now the rules are such if you are a for-profit organization and i say i want to buy from this were some because they are environmentally friendly, you are not allowed to because if they cost more you're doing a disservice to your stockholders. i'm opening up some of the corporate laws. they can always leave your company and they do not like what you are doing. you should be able to do things even if they are not the least expensive thing because you are concerned for the environment. there is a community spirit with people with -- with young people

and the way they approach business. >> act intellectual property. can i call my lawyer? patents areand that a kind of legalized government monopoly and they are strangling innovation. do you see patents as a legalized monopoly? this questionber from 30 years ago. there were for terry and that had written that -- there were the pertains -- libertarians that had written that china do not have any. i think it ought to be protection for intellectual property. patents are really complicated. are so complicated. how we fix it is complicated. >> patent for software will probably come up in your spring

-- in the spring. what is your position? >> i am not sure. your tour though we did some kind of patent reform. weas never -- a year or two did some kind of patent reform. i was never sure because i did not understand the right or wrong side of it. it is obligated. even with protection of intellectual property, for example with the books, i think we do life of the author in 70 years. limits. patent is there an absolute right or wrong? i do not know. some argue maybe judd patents patents are too long. i do not note the exact limit to win a patent should end. and a part of the problem with drugs that it takes to approve them. there's the fda burden of trying to get something approved. it has gone too far. we want safety but now we have

burdensome bureaucracy that is taking millions of dollars to get something approved. i amottom-line is that open-minded on it. i see some of the problems that people are going through and challenging everybody's patton just to get a payday on that. just to get a payday on that. >> one more question and then i know you had to run. you have a very busy day. the rise of the libertarian weaning conservative -- leaning conservative, the tea party, do you think that would exist without the internet? >> no. in fact, one of the beauties of the internet is that it gives voices thatority were not necessarily within the mainstream. when you have three television networks. i know cable is not the internet. it was the beginning of a revolution in information. you have dozens of television stations now. you also have the internet.

there will come a time, television like in new york city, a congressional race is so expensive they cannot afford to be on television in new york city. the advertising is cable or the internet. the internet is fascinating. a search and i am looking at stuff at night. arei am like, wow, my ads everywhere. the figure out what i am looking at. i miss me the preference of someone who would support me. o up.s fg [laughter] you are not advertising to everybody. you're advertising to the people already interested. one more point i would like to meet before i go is there is a difference, and this is very important if you are in the world of information and you make money off information to, f you are google and share , ifself on that information

we lump that and with the government, we say all of that is bad. allowing information to know about you is bad. that is a real problem. the model of the internet does require information to go around. i do not think it is the same. i think it is important we understand it is not the same. when i went to google, i said it notmportant that people do perceive gmail to be government mail. if they think all privacy is the same and you cannot make a privacy to say make my and honestly used -- anonymously use, you're going to get government blanket come in and kill everything. they will not only go after the government, which we should do, if they equate the internet as the same thing -- >> should there be regulations on the way google correct

information? >> it should be a contract. >> if users agree, you think it is ok. >> this is something they may not like me for. we made a state -- a mistake in the picture act by saying we protected internet people from being sued. i want a contract with google. we can negotiate it. if they're going to send people knocking on my door and knowing my name, i'm probably not going to use their search engine. if they can keep it anonymous and i make an agreement it is really about contracts. my other suggestion to a lot of these companies, and this is coming from someone not in the business but i get a lot of free advice and you can pay me in iscoin if it is good advice, that it is very important for them to put up a fight. i know they're putting up a fight, but i would say even more against the government and

invasion of privacy. my understanding is that this has hurt a lot of companies in europe because they think we are trying to fight for americans only do not care for europeans. if that is true, they will go to european companies. we have to put up a fight. i am suing the nsa and i would love anyone willing to support that fight. it cannot be just about transparency. a lot have gotten together. i support what they are saying. president obama responded and said some of these can become public. that is it. it is good. that is not the end of it. the government should not be collecting this data. i want these companies to support the next step. is it constitutional to collect with a single warrant 100 million people's records? belief is no. i think it is good for your business model, support going

the next step which is really shutting down the collection. >> do you take it to the supreme court if you can? >> yes. we have 350,000 people who have signed up. i would like people on the internet and really promote our lawsuit and let's get 3 million. but get 10 million people on our lawsuit. 10 million let's get people on our lawsuit. we could if we got everybody going on this, timmy and people signed up for a lawsuit -- 10 million people signed up for a lawsuit sends a message. it is good for your business. to need to go the extra mile show your customers that in europe and the world you're going to stand up to what is unconstitutional. andare going to stand up not just be transparent for court orders, but we're going to oppose the government collecting the records unless they name an

individual. >> if they had to search for individuals, do you think they should in the future be immunized for that? >> i do not like community. i think you should on your contracts. that yourall of you privacy agreement can be breached any cannot be sued, it is only so much. i am not for regulating privacy agreement or any of the search engines for what they can do. if you say i cannot sue you if you breach my privacy agreement, i'm getting angry at the private entities, too. the patriot act says i cannot sue the phone company. i had a privacy agreement. they advertise that when you're waiting on hold. we are protecting your privacy and doing all this. they are but i cannot sue them if they break my contract. i have to sue them in order for

them to adhere to the contract. >> that is a fascinating idea. i'm not heard that proposed. >> that is the area where i will sometimes disagree. for business reasons they would like the patriot act. you have to have that. that is the check and balance to the consumer on my information. you're going to abide by your contract. that is something we ought to change as we go forward. also, we have a website we just put up called defendthefour th.com. i hope we will rally more people to try to get to this cause. we will probably find our lawsuit hopefully within the next week. we have the complaint mostly written. last week the federal word on privacy and civil liberties came out with more harsh statement saying it was illegal and unconstitutional. it is not about having more internal controls and lawyers. it is about whether or not you should be cutting the data at

all. we do not think they should collect the data. >> i am for it. can have your information. they should not go to the company that holds your information and say we want everybody that you hold information for. that is indiscriminate eyes. that is a generalized warrant. that is why we passed the fourth amendment so that we would not have that. >> wilmer question and then i one moreou leave -- question and then i will let you leave. what is the future of libertarianism in the republican party? it is not just small government. >> i think of it as a bright future. some of it is an old-fashioned idea and some new. the old-fashioned ideas federalism. federalism is a devolved power. ours not all in washington. not all in washington. the other thing is you can agree to disagree. for example, the concept what

the government should be involved with, particularly on social issues, is different in alabama than san francisco. every buddy agree? -everybody agree? say in washington you want to enforce a real conservative doctrine on social issues, then you are going to have to tell can't but -- tell symphysis go to cannot have their roles -- san francisco you cannot have their rules. is going ton dictate to alabama, i do not think it makes for good relations. part of it is agreeing to disagree. if you live in alabama and you have one conception of some of the social issues in san francisco and you have a different, the best way we can get along is to agree to disagree. we have some laws that are slightly different at the local level. it is not a one-size-fits-all. it is complicated. we have some things like the federal tax code and federal

benefits. my hope is that we can sort of figure out some of these more contentious issues by agreeing to disagree and having a little difference between localities. >> fascinating. thank you so much. >>. thank you for having me. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] address, weekly president obama outlined his plans to create jobs and boost economic growth. wasrepublican address delivered by house members fred upton, gregg harper, martha roby, and susan brooks. legislativey four priorities were they say bipartisanship can be achieved. >> hi, everybody. this week i delivered my state of the union address. today here's the three-minute version. for four years of economic growth with 8 million new

private sector jobs, our unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in more than five years. with the economy speeding up, uppity say they intend to hire more people this year. top are doing the better, average wages have barely budgeted. inequality has deepened. too many aware kids are working harder just to get by -- americans are working harder to get by and too many are not working at all. it is time to restore opportunity for all people. the idea is that no matter who you are, if you work hard and live up to your responsibilities, you can make it if you try. the opportunity we laid out on tuesday has four parts. this week i took them on the road. job one is more new jobs. dobson construction and manufacturing. jobs in innovation and energy. i talked with plant workers at ge about part two. training more americans with the skills to fill the new jobs.

in tennessee, i talked with students about part three. guaranteeing every child access to a world-class education from early childhood to college and right into a career. part four. making sure hard work pays off for men and women with wages you can live on, savings you can retire on, and health insurance that is there for you when you need it. these ideas will strengthen the middle class and tell more people work their way into the middle class. some of them will require congress. take steps to expand opportunity for more families on my own, i will. i asked business leaders and philanthropic leaders to partner with us to the dance these goals. every single day i'm going to fight them for these priorities. for more middle- class families and to keep america a place were you can always make it if you try. thanks.

have a great weekend. enjoy the super bowl. >> you may not have been thinking about it at the time, that on tuesday when the president was delivering the state of the union, we were observing a tradition prescribed by our constitution. all branches of government and all walks of life gathering around in the people's house. it is democracy at its finest. to come withgs responsibilities. the constitution also requires the president and the congress to heed to you, the people, to work to carry out the business of the country. in that spirit, republicans have identified four areas of bipartisan, ground that the president talked about in his speech. better, these are all areas where the house is already -- has already acted and we can move the ball forward without delay. we would like to share these ideas with you now. for example, the president talked about supporting

federally supported research to unleash more discoveries. we agree. more must be done to use the resources we have for the research we need. the kids first research act would limit public hunting for local party conventions and this did run pediatric research at the national institute of health. we are talking about everything from cancer, autism, to the rarest genetic disorders. we cannot fix it all. ofely creating a lifetime hope and opportunity for our most vulnerable kids is more important than subsidizing weeklong political pep rallies. can toant to do all we help hard-working americans balance the demands of family it is taking aer child to the doctor or taking care of aging parents. any americans need your flexibility in their jobs. the president talked about this, then we need to fix world place rules from the madman there

appeared. i'm glad he raised this issue. it allows workers in the private sector the option of using their orrtime for paid time off calm time that is what they would rather have your government employees re: have this option. why not give either sector workers the same choices? our bill would finally replace restrictions that have been in place since 1938, long before drawn -- don draper's time. let's more must be done for the millions of americans finding a job. one thing the president talked about is ensuring workers can get the right skills for the right jobs. we agree. this is critical. as someone who worked as a community college, i know our economy has changed. train our workers has not. the work act will consolidate programs up with a focus on programs that works, programs actually lead to jobs.

all while strengthening the vital relationship between our community colleges and job training programs. i strongly believe this legislation would create an opportunity for every american to find a good thing job. not only what americans working again, we want the building. the president talked about how natural gas eduction is good for our economy and jobs. we cannot agree more. bitterly cold winter, and my home state of michigan and across the nation, the demand high andricity is heating bills even higher, the time is right for action. our infrastructure has not kept pace. it is why we must build an architecture of abundance to help create jobs today and keep energy affordable tomorrow. the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act cuts red tape to ensure that pipelines can be built. it connects natural gas supplies to new manufacturing plants.

it is another step towards a real energy policy. these four bills cover a lot of ground. i know. they are about making life work for more americans. they need only a vote in the senate. the party passed them in the house -- they need only a vote in the senate, has we have already passed them in the house, to make it to the president's desk. we are purely awaiting his a pie -- apply -- we are awaiting his reply. a moment when speeches give way to solutions. the american people never let us down. we cannot let them down either. it deadlyw, abenowng now -- debbie st is our guest on "newsmakers." at can watch the interview

10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and then president obama state of the union address and the republican response beginning at 10:35 a.m. eastern. >> bringing attention to what women do or how women have contributed always returns to the question of the body. many peopleg, object to bringing women's studies or women history into a middle school, high school classroom. there is an assumption that women's studies is only about sex, birth control, abortion. also about women in politics, law, working on farms, queens, prime ministers. break down beefier

many people have. what goes on in a women's studies classroom? women's studies professor bonnie morris will take your questions in depth live for three hours starting at noon eastern. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> this week, the discussion of the impact of the net neutrality ruling by the court of appeals earlier this month. joining us is the managing director of bloomberg bna. has been the fallout from this court of appeal ruling? >>