a governor as to whether the port authority is involved in some traffic issue in fort lee at a bridge or tunnel. it is sadly not an issue that would register with the governor as of significance. if there had been a circumstance where there was a discussion of alter your notice, that -- motives that would have richard with the governor but how could that have been surrounded by people, many people from the port authority, his spouse, and dozens of people coming up to him constantly? that did not happen and no one has suggested it did. suggestedein lawyer in the context of him seeking immunity to prosecution but also indemnification from the port existsty --" evidence that the governor heard

something about this during that week of the implementation." let me finish -- the fact of the matter is that a mention of a traffic problem would not have registered in a memorable and meaningful way. there are traffic robbins and issues all the time at the bridges and tunnels. that would not be a significant event, memorable event. it is also telling that in , itng that representation is an admission that david wildenstein has no evidence because he has produced none and his lawyer did not represent such that the governor knew anything about this bridge lane realignment before it was implemented. because he didn't. suggesting that the

governor's office appoint an officer responsible for overseeing this. are you suggesting that the governor would be responsible? >> the governor is the head of the governor's office so the governor is being requested -- his office is being requested but he is ultimately -- he ultimately runs that office to appoint an ombudsman, senior a soundingo be board, resource and the place where complaints could be taken within the governor's office and then report periodically to the public on any issues that arise in the governor's office with a direct reporting relationship to the governor and separate from that, the appointment of a chief ethics officer, someone who would be responsible for trying to make sure through ethics enforcement, conflict issue resolution and training that issues like this never happen again both in terms of who gets appointed and how they serve.

back --le man in the [indiscernible] >> you think the administration is capable of hiring someone like that? >> thank you for the question. the answer to the question is, of course. because the actions of rigid kelly -- a bridget kelly, while they adversely affect the governor's office are the actions of an individual there. the office as a whole, there are many fine, distinguished look servants serving their. there are people whose reputations have been besmirched because of what bridget kelly did and besmirched unfairly. to lift that cloud, to restore public trust to make sure there are no misconceptions or appearance issues whatsoever, we have recommended to the governor that while these are the actions

of a few, to restore public and the manywhole honest and dedicated public service and that governor's office and the many honest, dedicated public service of the port authority -- we have made the recommendations we have to restore public trust. now it will be up to the governor to decide to implement. we will take two more. andrea -- question asr your soon as we are done. i've already answered two of your questions. we asked for sampson for an interview. his firm on behalf of the people there asserted the issues. excuse me -- i have answered your question. go ahead. feelasserted they did not that they could respond to our question and had attorney-client

obligations and the clients to be interviewed. i'm just telling you what we were told. go ahead. >> can you elaborate a little more about the significance of the severed relationship [indiscernible] you seem to imply that this may have colored a reaction they had on her line to the governor because of the timing. were you also thinking this is one of the reasons that there were ulterior motives behind this? >> i'm not implying anything. i am not speculating. we did not speculate on alternative theories. i am stating what we felt we established as a fact before a brief period of time. there wasmer of 2013, a personal relationship between those two individuals that had cooled by the first week of august and they largely stopped speaking at that point.

i just stated the facts. sir, you are asking another question. a lack ofnce would be communication between the two of them during a critical period when the lane realignment decision was made. yes, we are going to do two more. who has not had a chance to ask a question? alright, i will let you go next and we will do you last. thank you. >> i will cheat a little bit. i will follow up on my colleagues question first. adversek there is an inference between mr. sampson decline the interview? as far as your central premise goes, mr. christie was not aware of any lane closures.

his statements to you, is there other evidence that he was not aware or is it simply a lack of other evidence? as far as his phone and e-mail, did he still have tax on his phone --texts on his throne from august? >> let me start with your question. our finding is based on the facts and the entire factual record. the inferences to be drawn thatm that entire factional record and we found not a shred of documentary evidence on personal texts, e-mails or governor files anywhere from anyone that suggested the governor knew anything about this before hand -- anything. second, we look at the totality of the evidence and we see that

it could cool junctures how the governor and his staff reacted to certain events and how they would count certain events, not just the governor but everyone on his staff. we have seen their personal te knownd e-mails and we there is not a suggestion anywhere by anyone that the governor knew anything about , about thishand decision to close these lanes beforehand and we see a governor reacting on the 12th and the 13th of december having further inquiry made to try to drill there was anyr involvement by anyone in his office. let me finish -- december 12 and 13th were the days. you may be newer to the party. the 13th was the day the governor held a press conference. we know that what he did at that was he insisted on further

inquiry being made. he directed his chief of staff to make further inquiry with rich at kelly -- with bridget kelly and he convened a senior staff meeting. the early morning of december 13 and he confronted the entire staff and said he wanted to get to the bottom of this now and they better tell him now whether or not they know anything about and the confessionals are open. and that he expected them to come forward now. that is not the action of someone who is sitting there with people who know about the lane closure before hand demanding that they tell him. it is the action of someone who is trying to find out if his staff knew and he detailed kevin o'dowd to question bridget kelly.

this further cooperates the governor story because he sensed his account. kevin o'dowd is chief of staff and former prosecutor and found upper bridget l.a. whether she knew anything about this in advance, the decision to close these lanes and whether she has any documents that reflect knowledge of the lane realignment and what happens in that sequence. d confrontss is o'dow kelly, questions her, she denies , she calls a subordinate, christina renner, to go over what happened the week of the lane realignment and they have a kind of unusual conversation, the kind of conversation that someone knows they have done something wrong and are trying to cover up as with somebody who knows some information that the person trying to cover it up hopes will never be revealed. she has her go through what

happened that week, the week of the lane realignment and what she remembers happening because rigid kelly knows. there are documents that reflect. they called iga during the lane closure week and complained bitterly about the lane closures and that information was relayed kelly -- bridget kelly on her personal e-mail and she responded hours later "goo d." bridget kelly calls renner that night. she calls him that night on the 12th and she has him recount what he recalls happened during that week. renner does recall that. she recalls the complaint to ifa and renner reporting it back to kelly and she recalls renner writing back later that night "good." that is a potentially incriminating e-mail.

what does renner do? what does kelly say to renner? she asks him to delete that? that is somebody trying to cover up their misconduct, covered up from the chief of staff and the governor. and what happens the next day? the next day, kevin o'dowd is in her office because he was dealing with her by phone on the 12th. demandinger office that she go through her e-mails and see which you can find. guess what she does to cover up? what does she do? she prints out just the e-mail that reflects the complaint. she cuts off the trail trichet only gives him the e-mail that says sokolich complained that week which by her account -- it

was not that significant at the time. she said she did not call so here it is. having cut off a master collect to not keep the e-mail where she said "good." you asked me as a logical person -- i'm just a lawyer. i'm just an investigator but you asked me. what i take from that, i take somebody who did wrong is trying to cover up from the chief of staff and the governor. last question -- >> what about the sampson inference? >> since the information we any prioras denied knowledge and there was no evidence in the port authority documents that you are able to see sampson having probert -- having prior knowledge, it was not going to be inference to be

asked about his -- about him. this relates to issues unrelated to the scope of our investigation but am happy to answer them in more detail later. >> you said that there is no text or e-mail that the governor knew about the closure. the governor did not have a conversation with bridget kelly? can you corroborate? did you have a personal interview with the governor? >> let me go with this -- the governor does not recall having any conversation with rigid kelly on the subject. he does not believe he had a conversation with her on the subject before hand or otherwise. she has taken the fifth amendment which an adverse result can be john. taking the fifth amendment, one can draw an adverse inference.

me finish. spirited the base afterwards. >> did you interview the governor and asked him if he had conversations with bridget kelly? >> yes, >>we have the opportunity to review personal e-mail and texts of the governor's and other senior staffers. related the second -- what was the second part of the question? >> did you interview the governor...? yes. the governor does not recall having had any conversations with bridget kelly about this issue before or during the lane realignment and detailed kevin

o'dowd to speak to her directly in december. he was in the room when amended to know from everybody in that room whether anyone had any knowledge of this. you asked me whether we interview the governor. we had as much access and as long a time as we ever wanted to interview the governor. he made himself fully available to us and we interviewed him on multiple occasions. please, please, please -- i'm not going to give the specifics. these meetings lasted over days and hours but i will not say how often it was multiple times. when ever we requested. let me please -- you already had a chance. much of the documents was texts and e-mails of -- and phone records of the governor's and what was in that? >> we will not discuss what was

in text or e-mail that is not relevant to the investigation. whatever tax and e-mails exist that are relevant to the investigation and responsive to subpoenas, we are producing to the appropriate authorities. excuse me -- >> where their thousands of te xts? not a comfortable thing to ask people to turn over their personal cell phones and their personal e-mail accounts but we had to review thousands of them from the governor and his senior staff. it included some former senior staff. let me conclude and i know there will be many more questions and i will be happy to take them. andrea, it is great to see you again. [laughter] let me have one second. i make the invitation and i'm sure andrea will take me up on it. i wanted to say in closing --

past 10 weeksthe trying to get to the truth. i am reminded of some wise words from winston churchill -- the truth is incontrovertible. panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it but there it is. investigation, we believe we have gotten to the truth. that governor christie knew decision tot this ,ealign these lines before hand that the allegations of a conspiracy among the highest christie administration officials to threaten mayor unless you sandy aid

supported a private development project, are not true. those are our findings. that is the truth. is laid out in our 340 five page report. thank you very much and i will be happy to take your individual questions later in the day. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much, everybody. christiersey governor will brief reporters later today about the investigative report you can watch that lie that 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two. also live today on c-span two, discussion on the role women play in national security issues. air force secretary debra lee jennings will participate in the conversation hosted by the group women in international security

and it's that 1:30 p.m. on c-span, we're live later today with a look at u.s.-china relations covering several issues including sports and cultural diplomacy. that panel the to the former nba player yao ming and the former nba commissioner that starts at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span. in scene earlier this week washington, snow tuesday earlier this week, in front of the supreme court as the court heard to religious liberty cases. supporters and opponents were in front of the court and heard the vsument in the case sibelius hobby lobby which call -- which dealt with country septic coverage inalso live today on c, discussion on the role women the national health care plan and a decision is expected later this year. we will have those oral arguments for you in their entirety tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span.

up next, conversation from this morning's "washington journal," on the heroin epidemic in the united states. host: joining us from nashville is russell moore, president of the southern baptist convention commission. >guest: that's right. host: let's start with you in nashville, when you heard just hear the term religious liberty, what does that mean to you? guest: i defined as the freedom to be able to live out one's religious convictions without

coercion or pressure from the state. say thew would you state of religious liberty in the u.s. is today? guest: i am concerned. reasons, wes of have one court case after another dealing with very basic constitutional questions of religious liberty as well as a cultural climate that concerns me. when religious liberty is often presented in headlines in scare quotes as though this was a political invention of recent times rather than what it really is -- one of the bed rocks of this country, natural right that the founders of this country believed was given to the people , not by the government, but by god. it is centrally important, something that all americans ought to be concerned about regardless of whether these americans are religious or not. host: barry lynn, what is americans united for the separation of church and state? tost: it was founded in 1948

keep a decent distance between the institutions of government and those of religion. some of the early battles at that time her efforts by the then powerful and still very powerful roman catholic church to get funding for its own school system, this is right out of yesterday's headlines, to stop contraceptives being available to american women, even there were efforts at that time in the new york shipyards not to take films off boats if those films offended the catholic hierarchy including the famous film "amerco," which many roman catholics thought it was blasphemous. some of the same issues come today and i believe in religious liberty as well for everyone, the right to believe, the right to put into practice your theyfs until and unless crash right into a legitimate right of some third-party.

then we have to allen's what happens. we don't just assume the religious claim triumphs over whatever somebody else believes. host: do you consider yourself christian? guest: absolutely, i'm an ordained minister in the united church of christ and the lawyer. i can forgive you right now or sue you in the afternoon i wanted to but don't worry, that will not happen. host: russell moore, listening what we just talked about, it sounds like you two would be in agreement? is that fair? i don't think so, we would probably be in agreement that everything reverend linda of the definition of what religious liberty and separation of church and state would be in the abstract print i think we have very different ways of seeing how that works itself out. in the public square. i am concerned about the government restricting the free exercise of religion.

i think we see that happening all over the place. i don't think the problem we are facing right now is a roman catholic church with a normal political power repressing people. the exact see opposite -- a large and intrusive state often harassing the people of faith including roman catholics, little sisters of the poor, and others were simply seeking to carry out their religious convictions. host: in the hobby lobby case, russell moore, is that government imposing on a person's religious beliefs? guest: yes, it is. the green family is simply asking to be able to live out their religious convictions without this burdensome and unnecessary government mandate coming from the hhs. the green family says we don't object to contraception but we do object to contraceptive technologies or devices that we believe can possibly have an

abortion effect. we don't want to be able to be forced to participate in something we believe could arguably be taking a human life. that is the question is whether or not the religious liberty rights we have are simply at the level of what we believe in our hearts and what we sing from our hymn books are whether that religious liberty is the freedom to live out one's life according to one's religious convictions. the green family be allowed to run their company the way they want? guest: no, within limits. they cannot do that. we cannot allow the loss who happens to have one particular religious viewpoint to set up a corporation in the case of hobby companyd a related called conestoga would -- they have decided that the corporate interests of the head of the company override the religious convictions of the women employees who might choose to obtain contraceptive coverage

which the green family says should not be available under their plan. corporations have been considered persons in some regard since the 1900s. it did not start with the infamous case of citizens united. however, a corporation is not a person for every purpose. we do not send corporations to jail. when's the last time a corporation took the fifth amendment before congress? it does not have the kind of corporate right. i don't believe the free exercise of religion can be practiced by a for-profit company that is in the business of making a do-it-yourself craft. i notice they are selling garden gnomes and stitchery at hobby lobby and toy trains and model airplanes. their purpose is not to practice religion. if you formyou do yourself as a religious charity or other place of worship. a company like this or company that makes wooden cabinets does not and cannot seriously claim a free exercise of religion right

protected by federal law that was at issue on the supreme court tuesday called the religious freedom restoration act. that is about muslim firefighters growing a beard or about ends that do not have an adverse affect on a third-party like the green family has a serious adverse affect on women employees -- they have thousands of them -- that might choose out of this huge availability of medical services some of them would choose to use contraception. host: should the catholic church church or other religious the mama nations be allowed to have an exception in the formal care act? guest: the churches do have an exception that the president put into the regulations in the formal care act. the groups in the middle like a religious hospital or a religious university -- all they have to do to avoid paying this directly themselves is to read says we a document that refuse to cover contraception's

because it violates our religious convictions. you mail it in and the judge in the case we just want against notre dame says it takes five minutes to do this. then the government is responsible for coming up with another insurance plan willing to have contraceptive coverage. there is no connection between what those middle range institutions like notre dame -- there is no connection between them and an independent decision by a student or faculty member to obtain contraception. not awescord, it does abortions. this is an issue that slip through during the oral argument the other day. i think russell is dead wrong on the science, there. guest: it is not really up to barry lynn to play up to the consciences of other people. this could cause the want to be -- the womb to become in-hospitable. i also think that

the constitution and the bill of rights, these do not mandate that we give up our free exercise and conscience rights when we enter into the work is. -- workplace. so simply to say because people are incorporated together and working in the marketplace, this means that somehow these free exercise rights are placed in a blind trust, not as -- this is a serious distortion. the green family has been for years seeking to put into practice their religious convictions. that is the reason they do not open on sunday. it is the reason they pay their employees at a higher rate than some competitors. they try to do everything they can. anyone who has ever been in hobby lobby can recognize that the religious faith and convictions of the family are all over the place. i do not think we can simply say

that because someone is in the marketplace, this means that free exercises gone. guest: the problem with this is that it dates too much. if you go into a hobby lobby, you will hear christmas carols in december. in some stores, you would not. simply because there are these accoutrements of religion. that does not mean they are exercising religion. there in the business of selling crafts and kits. it makes them decide to become a for-profit company. the goal is to make money. there is nothing wrong with that, but they cannot also later claim they are independent actors who can make religious decisions. russell said something completely wrong. you can have a sincerely held belief about anything. bigfoot -- all of the sesame street animals will move into your

neighborhood. you can have all kinds of beliefs. you cannot put them into practice that they claim to be scientific and are inconsistent. notwithstanding that they may have idiosyncratic views of what happens -- when you take a morning-after pill. the most recent, these are not terribly difficult to read. the most recent review says not what russell just said. the use of these medications prevents an egg from being released. it is never fertilized. therefore, it is impossible for you to call it an abortion. we have to make public policy based on sound science, not on someone's religious views with this overlay of pseudoscience. that we don't permit. guest: the idea that an iud can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb is not the equivalent of believing that sesame street is in one's neighborhood.

this is a serious argument between people. it is the oral arguments that were never argued. they argue that these drugs are not classified in that way. host: we're going to go to calls now. russell moore is with the southern baptist convention. barry lynn is executive director of americans united for separation of church and state. bonnie is calling in from middletown, new jersey. guest: good morning. the facts are the facts. your beliefs are your beliefs. when you put garbage and propaganda in, you get that out. the iud stops ovulation. it does not kill a fertilized egg. let's start from the premise.

let's go with another odd premise. that corporations are people. they are legal entities, with corporate rights given to them -- granted by our laws. not people. people are certainly afforded their religious freedoms. there is no problem with that. you can believe what you want to play. -- believe. how about you coming to work for me? i am jewish. if i tell you what to eat, what to wear, how to live your life -- how would you feel? when you are a for-profit business. host: all right. your response? guest: corporations are groups of people banded together. the religious freedom restoration act does not exclude people in corporate form from being able to carry out religious convictions. bonnie is wrong about that.

nobody is arguing that employers can dig take the lives of their employees. we are saying that the government should not be able to force a mandate to make people participate in something they believe to be wrong. they believe this to be wrong. it is unnecessary. it is unlawful and unnecessary. this is not the route we need to go. host: will is calling from albany, oregon. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. native americans have never been about religious freedom. that goes without saying. my real question is whether religious liberty includes freedom from religion. we have the constitution signed in the year of our lord. that established christianity as our religion.

even though the constitution calls -- article one, section nine, proviso 1 says no title of nobility shall be granted by the united states. in the year of our lord, when they ratified it -- lord, we know who that is. that is the title of nobility. how is the united states a legitimate nation? it seems to me the religious freedom is nonexistent unless you are a christian. host: all right. that is will. guest: we have a dizzying level of religious freedom, contrary to what russell was saying. we have 25 million nonbelievers. we also have about 2000 identifiable religious groups, all practicing. the christian majority in this country has plenty of freedom. they get to make lots of rules.

sometimes they even use religious beliefs to formulate rules. that is something congress should not do, but sometimes does. the problem for people is that if you're in a small, insular minority, you may get your rights trampled upon by people claiming to be in the majority and claiming to have a religious belief that trumps your beliefs. a woman just called from new jersey. i was in camden last night and someone reminded me that in the early 1960's, there were preachers on radio stations in the self arguing against -- south arguing against integrating schools and businesses, claiming and quoting from the book of genesis. god separated the light from the darkness. if you go down the road saying companies and individuals can impose religious views on anything and anybody -- and trump all of the other laws of the state, you have something

that in a slightly different context, even justice scalia called close to anarchy. that is not the way we run this country. your rights abut against a claim by somebody else, trying to make a moral decision, and economic decision about when to have or whether to have families. they have a right to make those moral decisions in light of their conscience, without the law saying i win because my corporation practices a different religion. it does not practice religion at all. host: gallup poll has shown that people are consistent. how important would you say religion is in your own life? the very important percentage. it was 58% in 1992. today, 56%.

religious affiliation, christianity in the united states -- in 2012, about 73%. down 5% over the year. unaffiliated is a growing category. nearly 20% of folks consider themselves to be unaffiliated. when it comes to religion in the u.s., is it on the upswing, downswing, study? -- steady? give us your take. guest: we are seeing that nominal cultural forms of christianity are falling away. many people now are calling themselves unaffiliated or none or no denomination are people who would have referred to themselves as baptist or catholic or episcopalian. in a nominal sense.

they have a cultural identity, but are not a part of those churches. host: sandy beach tweets in to you -- the first amendment says what it says. if you do not like what it says, then go through the process of changing it. guest: perhaps she thinks i misinterpreted the united states constitution and what the first amendment means. what i am articulating is what it means. it did not say and neither does this law that has been issued -- the religious freedom alsoration act, which purports to reflect the values of the first amendment. it does not say that any time a religion is burdened, they get to void the law. that is not what the first amendment says. the constitution says you do the free exercise of religion and it prohibits the establishment of religion.

that is in a very broad and sweeping 16 words. it says that every claim of religion simply does not trump everyone else's right to also be a moral actor. practice religion in their own way. in this case, companies do not get to dictate to their employees how they may conduct themselves. if russell is right -- if you connect good -- can exclude contraception from insurance coverage or carriers, then why can't you say -- other forms of compensation, including your paycheck, you cannot go out and buy contraception. i do not think there is any way down. corporations are not allowed to dictate religious values of the men and women who work for them. there is no way to stop sliding on an icy slope. host: leonard is calling in from dayton, ohio.

caller: mr. moore, your bible, i have good news and bad news. black people are mentioned from the beginning of time. white people are not mentioned at all. the supreme court has never answered -- how did you find out, constitutionally, that that woman had an abortion? with that, being a southerner, your religion teaches that america was made for white people. black people were subservient. how is your religion -- how will it bring black people in to your god? host: anything you would like to respond to? guest: my religion does not teach that at all. all people are made in the image of god.

we all are coming from the same place in adam. everyone is equal in the eyes of god. jesus shed his blood for the entire human race. every person has dignity. everyone has the quality. -- equality before god and with one another. it is not what my religion teaches. religion was a driving force of both the abolition movement and the civil rights movement. arguing those very things, that we need to live up to what we claim. not only us churches, but also as a country. i would also like to return to some that mr. lynn was saying. it was completely untrue. nobody was arguing that a claim of a sincerely held religious belief trumps everything. what the religious freedom restoration act in tales is that the government must have a

compelling interest in overriding religious reactor size. -- free exercise. it must find the least restrictive means to do that. just because someone held a belief, that does not mean the argument is over. that has to be weighed and balanced. we're arguing that this is not necessary to achieve these goals and is not consistent with what we have agreed to do. guest: how can you believe that it is not an government interest to have them attempt -- whether you like or hate the affordable care act, it is an effort to have comprehensive systems to make sure that americans are cared for. it believes, the whole history is that certain preventive services, are essential to making sure that the system works. how can you say it is not a compelling interest? those students at notre dame that you represent --

female employees of hobby lobby, heard before the united did supreme court. they do not have an independent right to make their own moral judgments. without regard to what the head of the corporation believes they ought to. guest: i do think they have an independent right. guest: they are barred from obtaining something that has an enormous effect on their ability to finish school. their ability to choose how to plan a family. 50% of pregnancies in this country are unintended. 42% of those lead to abortion. there has got to be a good reason, no matter what you think, to try to reduce that. if you're going to try to take a contraception, you take away that right. guest: no one is taking away contraceptive ability. we do not have the sort of situation in this country where the only way that anyone has access to contraception is if we

force hobby lobby and little sisters of the poor to pay for it. host: moving on to rod in florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. so far, this discussion has gotten down to the weeds. a lot of hypothetical what ifs. i would like to look at some principles in the big picture. the first amendment protects our right to exercise religion. it recognizes that god-given right. article 1, congress is making laws. then we have the supremacy clause. sibelius issued a regulation. we have no idea who issued that regulation. i say that that regulation is

not a law. it violates the first amendment. congress never passed that regulation. it is not a law. therefore, the issue should not be between civilians -- -- sebelius and hobby lobby. it ought to be hobby lobby and the religious freedom restoration act. because the regulation violates law. law trumps regulation. it is clear that congress did not pass this regulation. there is no compunction to obey. if congress wanted to impose this rule, on private business, it could have. host: we have the point. barry lynn? guest: there is not a single example. i have to tell you, i was there,

working for three years on this bill. orrin hatch and ted kennedy -- if anybody during the three years of deliberating said it also means that a for profit company can decide not to provide contraception spy a third-party, that coalition would have exploded like a watermelon being hit by a shotgun blast. it would never have been passed. you are fundamentally wrong about regulations. try not obeying other regulations. see if you can make the argument they do not count. congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. it applies to the states. i know you wanted only to apply to the federal government. they made sure that the bill of rights did apply to the states. that is the way the court has been moving.

fundamentally, you are unwilling to recognize what the force of law is. free exercise of religion means you can freely exercise. until you start to violate the third-party. i do not think russell can come up with a single example used in all of the three years of debate. nobody assumed or said companies that make word houses have a right to tell their employees how to act. host: russell moore? guest: every exercise involves a third-party. that is why we need courts to balance these things. i think the caller has a very good point. congress, in debating the affordable care act, these issues are very deeply divided issues. what the administration promised

consistently to pro-life democrats -- they are a key coalition. at one point, they seem to prevent the bill from a past. that is to say that this is not going to engage the country in these deeply held divisions over abortion and human life. we're going to have an executive order that will prevent that from happening. what do we see? ever since the affordable care act is implemented, we have this continual issue of the administration regulating and trying to force the sexual revolution onto people, families, and companies. guest: do you think that notre dame ought to be able to refuse to sign a paper? sign-up up paper that says we will not cover this? we are exercising our conscience. you are to have to find another way to do it. the obama administration is

willing to do it. they provide them with what they want and need. his signing a paper, refusing to cover something, violating religious freedom? guest: that is not the regulation does. this is not a statement that we are refusing to do this. it is involving notre dame. it involves other organizations in providing us. -- is this for the people in the company. the issue is not how long it takes to sign the paper. the issue is not how little the finance. -- fine is. these were the same conversations that we had in the founding era of this country. we are saying to baptist preachers, all you have to do is pay this amount of honey in order to be licensed to preach. the issue is not the amount of time it takes to send the paper. who can demand the? the administration attempted these word games that do not

actually solve the problem. that will not deal with it. host: sean tweets in to you -- both churches not having to pay taxes is what is troubling me. should religious institutions have to pay taxes? guest: i don't think they should. our founding fathers recognized and history demonstrates that the power of the tax is the power to destroy. we do not want them being able to regulate churches and synagogues and mosques through the power of the purse. i do not want the government taxing the churches and synagogues and mosques. i also don't want them funding them. guest: it turns out to be a very come and get it question. -- complicated question. if you wanted a property tax on inner-city churches -- many have valuable property, but very few members.

in order to finally clear a way to do it, it is not simply to say that they have to pay the taxes. i do think that we need to have serious constraints that the tax code does have on the conduct of these churches. they have obtained a 501 benefit and tax exemption because they are organized as a church. one of the things that you have to do is just not endorsed or oppose candidates using resources. many say that violates my constitutional rights. we demand the right to come up to the pulpit or pass out leaflets in favor of this candidate. i want to make sure that we regulate churches only as much as necessary. there is no constitutional right for a church to get a tax exemption. courts have said that if you have a large number of exemptions, the birdwatching society --

then churches can be included in such a range of charitable endeavors. you do not have an independent right to get a tax exemption. not in the united states, at least. host: this tweet from brian. he says, hobby lobby claims to be for the first amendment. yet, it uses its power to trample on the first amendment rights of employees. guest: i don't think they do. they are not seeking to be involved in their employee's lives. they are seeking to not be involved. it is the government forcing them to be involved in these decisions. they are asking them to pay for it and include these things as benefits. hobby lobby says we do not want to be involved. the whole idea that they are seeking to be a box involved in the lives of their employees -- that is not true. they are trying to say we do not

want to be in those decisions. host: allen is calling from tacoma, washington. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i have a quick comment. when the state of texas executes a corporation, then i will even corporate personhood. my comment is -- recently, the bishops have said that distracting from the wealth disparity, the rich are inflicting on the poor -- not all in this country, but the world. there are social issues, whether gay marriage or the issue at hand. i am not belittling. i agree that it is important. as the host's graph illustrates, this is a longtime scale problem. i find the timing of these

social issues to be very suspicious. the rich people in this country are poised to literally got the middle class. any comments on that, i would appreciate. guest: it is certainly true that many times when big issues are arising, there tends to be, here in washington, efforts to go to the social issues. a few years ago, congress reestablished that in god we trust was our national motto. this was under serious attack. they spent a whole day debating this topic. it distracts us from understanding that this congress has not done a great deal. notwithstanding the praise every morning. they have not been able to achieve much on the real issues that matter to real people. whether immigration issues, economic issues. some of the things that the president talked to pope francis about yesterday. diversion is a very clever tactic. using language like we don't want somebody to be forced to use an abortion pill or pay for

it, even though it is not an abortion pill. language matters. phony language or distorted language leads to bad public policy. that will happen if hobby lobby prevails over its employees. guest: this is a conspiracy theory to divert attention. it is a vast conspiracy, indeed. and includes president obama and kathleen sebelius and the entire apparatus of the administration. that is where this came from. hobby lobby did not say we want to suddenly start talking about contraception issues, and neither did any group of churches. this was a mandate handed down by the administration. it is not an issue of incidental concern. religious liberty and freedom of conscience, these are important for the common good of all people. if the government is able to run

over the conscience of people of faith, they are able to do anything in this country. these are important and significant issues. the pope has spoken to this. as have the catholic bishops. they have been speaking to this nonstop. they are not concerned about other issues. they understand that if we do not have our first freedom, we do not have any at all. guest: they get is also fair to say that the contents has spent a vast amount of money and time hacking about certain social issues, including opposition to marriage equality. there are coverages for even contraception's. they did when on the abortion question. we do not pay for abortion. the death penalty is also a traditional part of their doctrine. they pick and choose. they're picking to focus on this. they claim it is about religious

freedom, but it is about corporate power. host: laurie goodman in the new york times has this article. christian charity backtracks on gays, world vision u.s., the sponsor set off an uproar when they said they would hire gays. they are the largest charity in washington state, where same-sex marriage is legal. then they reversed their decision. should you be allowed to hire whomever they want? or should they be required to hire same-sex marriage partners? guest: if they were a charity that never received government funds, they can hire anybody. i know a lot of people don't like that, but that is what the law is. world vision does several

things. now what will not hire same-sex couple members. they did reversed themselves after an enormous amount of pressure from the family research council. world vision also will not put into positions of permanent employment -- india is a prominently hindu country. they will not hire people for employment. they require you to sign a paper that says i am a christian and i believe in god the father. i do not wish to give money during a campaign -- candidate obama said he did not believe in this either. she had to change this one iota. if you change a government contract, you get money from all of the people. you should not be able to hire on the basis of religious preference.

you should not be able to act in a bigoted fashion towards other people. world vision tens of millions of tax dollars. they still discriminate and they will continue to. they are very overt about it against same-sex couples. they made a huge, correct decision early in the week. by yesterday, they reversed it and made matters worse. host: russell moore? guest: they are a christian ministry. they were founded by you and all goals. -- evangelicals. they believe that the christian church has taught and what the bible teaches. sexuality is expressed only within the union a marriage, a marriage defined biblically and believed to include one man and one woman. that hardly surprising world vision would say we want

to hold to a biblical vision of sexuality. what was surprising was that they would even entertain changing that. saidthey did, evangelicals this is not an image -- evangelical move. they reconsidered and back down. guest: you said you do not want the church to be interfered with. you also do not want them to fund the church. this is a christian ministry. when they decide to take a huge amount of money -- tens of millions of dollars, then they can still discriminate on the basis of religion? i would prefer that that not happen. if you want to be consistent about not funding christian churches or ministries, we ought to stop. maybe we could sign a joint letter. you should not be able to obtain government funds. guest: i do not agree with you on that. christian ministry should not take government money.

i do not trust the government long-term. what is happening here is my variation of the co nstitution. they are achieving goals that we want to see achieved. their help in poverty and hungry kids. we wish to empower that. i do not think that is unconstitutional. i do not want the government funding any ministry i am a part of. moore, southern baptist convention -- do you take any government money? guest: no, we do not. there are employment restrictions in any organization. certainly any religious i nstitution, your beliefs must carry out our mission. host: barry lynn, what about at your company? guest: we never see government contracts. this is an entirely voluntary set of gifts given by our

members. ussell, if he thinks it is not a good thing for religious ministries or missions to accept government money -- maybe the letter we could write is that we both agree. maybe world vision to stop taking the money. it's a good principle to adopt. host: lewis: from illinois. you are on the washington journal with barry lynn and russell moore. caller: i have two questions. what are the medical reasons why craig nancy should be aborted -- pregnancy should be aborted? i would like to ask both members. and what evidence is there that there is a god? thank you. host: russell moore? guest: i am not sure what the

first question is. that is a question he is asking of those who are demanding contraceptive mandates. question, the best evidence that there is a god is that the universe around us -- the conscience with dennis. human dignity. there is something unique. christian,eve, as a that jesus christ was raised from the dead. there was something that happened in the first century that transformed a group of 12 people -- then an entire movement of people. jesus of nazareth was raised from the dead and is the rightful lord of the universe. guest: i think the medical question is really one of going beyond what could have happened. it is dangerous for some women to become pregnant and carry those fetuses to term. there are independent reasons as well. many people, on a basis of moral

and religious judgment, choose family-planning. this is not some kind of alien concept. it is seen as a highly moral issue. they ought to be able to exercise their free exercise of religion. i'm not here to give a sermon about my beliefs. i believe in a purposeful universe. i believe in historical existence of jesus. that is the basis of what a christian optimally. i speak to groups -- whether the american atheist convention or the united church of christ in california, i believe that what we need to do is not disagree and spend time disagreeing about the question of is there a god. we have to protect the constitution as it was intended to be protected, so it covers all of us. all of us nonbelievers and believers.

it works for everybody or does not work for anybody could guest: i agree with you, but that religious freedom does not shut down this conversation. it empowers these conversations. host: rob, dover, new hampshire. i appreciate your comments. i have focused on mutual respect. we had neighbors from different face in different types all across the board. i grew up in d.c. --if a jewish neighbor did not eat pork, we had a next or grill. we cooked our mail on another. we focus too much on the argument than the solution. people can get along in this country. that is what makes america so great. it is now white and black print it is this is how i am, let me live. let's see if we can let you live that way.

we had reasonable people making reasonable judgment that one time in this country. nobody is saying that contraception -- supporting it is the same as wanting to give a blood transfusion. we have gone too far in the argument rather than solutions. we have to work together to figure out why americans liked each other in the beginning. as far as -- let's just get along, how about that? guest: very good concept. the problem is that sometimes, when you get powerful forces, even powerful religious forces -- they decided that since they know everything, they literally believe they are getting a direct pipeline to god. they are getting the perfect christian answer. that should be implemented by the government. it is really hard to fight that if you are in the religious minority.

if you are a nonbeliever and everyone else assumes that there is a god and we should pray to the cut every day. at the city council meeting, we ought to assume everyone is a christian and pray. --ould love to see i lived in new hampshire for two years and you are right. there is a tendency to get along, to work hard at accommodating. what government needs to do is to make sure that everyone's right to individual free exercise of moral judgment is permitted. the boss of the biggest company in town should not choose for you what you can do and what interventions you can choose. host: both guests are ordained ministers. lynn has a theology degree from boston university. russell moore, undergrad, university of southern mississippi, divinity from the

new orleans baptist theological seminary. barry lynn, would you be comfortable attending the southern baptist theological seminary? have beenhough i invited by pat robertson on several occasions to speak at regent university -- we disagree on virtually everything. we have very respectful conversations. lawyer and i just had a debate at the university of pennsylvania on this very issue earlier this week. i think respectful conversations about these issues -- the legal implications and cultural ones, are terribly important. i would be happy to go into the seminary and have a dialogue. i do not think i have been invited specifically there. i am open to the invitation. we should talk about these issues. ultimately, you have to make a decision.

who is right on the constitution which guides all of us? host: to go to the christianity issue, you are both christians. yet, barry lynn said he just disagreed with pat robertson on everything. guest: i think that most christians are in agreement. the reverend said that he believed that -- he believes in god and the historical existence of jesus. i would say that the gospel of jesus christ is much more than that and essential for what it means to be a christian. he and i would probably have a different about that. it goes all the way back to what has been called the fundamentalist modernist controversy, about what christianity is. i also think that robin lynn is wrong when he frames this issue as one of powerful religious interest.

that is not where this controversy happened. that is not the origin. the controversy happened because the government is seeking to impose its mandate on people of faith, who say that we cannot participate in this. one of the most chilling aspect of the oral argument -- on the government side and the hobby lobby case, was when the government attorney was asked, could the government impose abortion requirements on businesses? the answer was yes. i do not think that is the sort of country that we live in or that we should live in. that itish eyes tweets has asserted itself in government, politics, public life -- it is time there exceptions were removed. eric in pennsylvania -- pensacola, florida. caller: reference, i have a hard time saying reverend. you have given me two pages of

stuff. i have been able to get it down to a couple things. people who live their everyday lives as christians -- what ever religious group they follow. they don't even have to be groups. if the individual has the right to practice their religion -- living life as christ taught means everyday life means your spiritual life. you cannot distinguish the two and walk out the door and drop your bible. routinely, you mentioned something about the rights of people to contraception or abortion. i do not know where you get that. natural rights, life, liberty, property, have to overrule. one thing you keep saying is that contraceptives -- you are being less than truthful. the presumption

that if government does not do something, it will not get done. someone is forced to pay for someone's abortion. you think that they pay for abortion and contraception's? the person can go something else --somewhere else. i would like to it. -- to wait. host: i have to hang up on you. say anything else quickly. god -: you say that man's - god of man. guest: a lot to respond to their. i do not think it is fair to say that you can live in a country -- whenerstand what you say your spiritual 24/7. hobby lobby sells craft products. all the things i mentioned at the beginning of the program. their focus is not on promoting religion.

it just happens that the ceo and many members of the family are having a christian worldview. they are not practicing religion all the time. they do not come up and say can i help you? do you want to know what i'll the model airplanes are in? and do you want to be saved today? that is not the way they conduct themselves. they are a for-profit company. they do not have the right to exercise freedom of religion. they never have and i think they never well. i am sorry you disagree. i know that if i do not answer this, though, people will write questions on my facebook page. what do i agree with pat robertson about? after the debate between bill nye the science guy and ken and, he criticized ken hamm said he made christians look ridiculous by claiming the earth

was only 6000 years old. i applauded him for saying that. host: russell moore? guest: the idea that when one is in commerce, the person is not able to exercise religion, is religious. -- ridiculous. we expect people to act according to conscience. we hold people accountable in the marketplace in terms of conscience. and they're right. religious conviction is not simply about the things that we have in our heart. it is not about the opinions. it has to do with how we live our lives. exercise religion, but only to the point where it begins to inhibit the religious or other fundamental human rights that americans have been given under the constitution. i think you skewed this in the favor of the corporate religious conscience headed north he conscience of women. as it was mentioned in the oral

argument, the effect on women is really important. i hope that is the centerpiece of the decision. host: that has to be the last word. tweets only, three religious liberty. monte says religion is a business and should be taxed accordingly. says reverenddedi lynn seems to have had a misfortune of being born in a country found him on the belief that our rights come from god. and smiley says the religious right do not understand the constitution. a lot of conversation on the twitter feed. russell moore, barry >> coming up in about 45

minutes, a discussion looking at u.s.-china relations over the last 35 years. issues including sports and cultural diplomacy, featuring david stern, live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the scene in washington at the supreme court was a smelly one, as supporters and opponents converged with the justices hearing the arguments in two cases combined into one. the hobby lobby case and the other -- the question was whether for-profit corporations can refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to their workers, based on the religious beliefs of the corporation's owners. this is a look at the scene outside the court. >> we gathered in a prayer andle inside this court, prayed to the supreme judge of the universe.

not out here, where they tell us -- that is ok. inside the court. assured -- >> we will bring you the oral argument in that case, coming up tonight, 8:00 eastern. at 4:00 p.m., you can hear it on c-span radio. >> mr. speaker and my colleagues, i rise today out of us, andfor you, all of a concern for this united states house of representatives. it is one that has been involved in the reform movement, for the years i have been hearing congress. those of us interested in true reform are interested in just that -- reform. to bash thist institution, nor our colleagues. you talku out home -- to your constituents.

i talked to mind. they are outraged. i was today stands at the lowest esteem in the history of polling in this country. and why? because the american people look at us as ineffective and unaccountable. if we are sincerely going to do something about real reform in this congress, those are the issues we have to address -- accountability and effectiveness. on the effectiveness issue, we all know the problems of committees, the proliferation of subcommittees, the rules under which we operate. it is broke. one only has to look at what happened last year, or in the consideration of banking reform legislation. we never could get our arms around it. look at the problems of health care. we can i get our arms around that issue. we need real reform. we need to set up the select midi. -- we reallyility call down.

congress is not willing to live under the same laws we expect all americans to live under. the firsthould be body to call for an investigation of the branch of government. hold everyone in the private sector accountable for every dollar we give them. do not hold us to the same standards. today, we have the october surprise. today, ladies and gentlemen -- >> the time has expired. >> i yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds. quick today, we have an opportunity to take an independent step, to set up an independent body to put this house on the right step, to take the first step toward real reform, which is going to increase the credibility for the american people. which is going to once again start the process of building some faith and confidence in our

constituents, so that one day our constituents can have respect for this institution, the greatest institution in this democracy. more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. created by cable companies 35 years ago, wrote to you today as a public service through your local cable or satellite provider. atprobably, when you look the threats we face, when you look at things like improvised nuclear devices, we know that no one jurisdiction will ever have the capability to respond. we will have to bring resources from across the nation. looking at various threats, several of which are terrorist-based, some of which are natural hazards, he started adding up the numbers -- casualties, fatalities, injuries. immediate recovery needs.

part of this was to address the funding, not only hoping that it capability,ational but driving some of the bigger risks and threats as an overall national response. how do you build that capability and direct that funding? statute, grant funding is based on the division between states. the other has to be competitive, so we can see in areas of this country where sponsorship by one state or community could provide resources to an area, ursus at each jurisdiction trying to build that capability. there are concerns about jurisdictions getting what they need. there is not a lot of trust out there. that also concerns me. in these types of large-scale events, if we cannot agree on our responsibilities and work together as a team, how does that work in a real disaster,

that requires all our capabilities, not just the local , but multiple jurisdictions responding to these types of events? >> this weekend, the fema administrator on his toy 16 budget request. arizona,ok tv, from the tucson festival of books. alan wiseman on saving the on the following a panel u.s./mexico border and the future of u.s. politics. and, the origins of the cell phone. the motorola researchers invented the first cell phone in 1973. sunday on c-span 3. >> coming up in about 35 minutes, a look at u.s.-china relations over the last 35 years. that is live from the brookings institution at 2:00 p.m. eastern.

until then, part of the conversation from "washington journal." here is the cover story from christian science monitor weekly. heroin's long reach. suburbs confront the scourge. kristina lindborg is the author and joins us now from boston. when did you get interested and why did you get interested in the story? about, it wascame last november. i was covering a panel discussion. this was another news organization that has a lot of local newspapers. i was covering a panel discussion. called with all sorts of town officials. the chief of police -- different people who were using community services. they were talking about what has come to her attention.

there is this problem of heroin. needles in finding uncommon places, like on beaches or playgrounds. in a neighboring town, a woman was found unconscious -- she was experiencing an overdose in a public restroom. this was coming out in a town or city that has never experienced anything like this. it is a very affluent seaside community. a lot of tourists go there. rich maritime history. i went to this meeting and i was surprised. i live in a neighboring town. i had never heard anything like this. i went back to my editor and i said, i think this is a bigger story than covering one of event. anduld like to pursue this

talk to other neighboring towns. so did. it was amazing how consistently i heard the same stories, especially from on for spent. the same stories every time about the number of overdoses that they had to respond to. the coupling of the heroine with the painkillers. there was never an isolation. that was the beginning of what became -- for that organization, a three-part series. christian science monitor asked me to do something very -- i was very grateful to do it. to give me an expanded view beyond my region. to take in a more national feel. host: you have a chart here in urkel. heroin use in the u.s. -- showing that it is going up at least 35%.

in the past 10 years -- s or those iny user the last month. why this increase? why now? guest: that is an interesting question. i do not think you can point to anyone resend. there are some mitigating factors that seem to be undeniable. that is where the painkiller abuse comes in. as the -- let me go back here. if there is that experimentation following prescription with painkillers, these are really powerful opiods. there is a very strong one goesd that once down that road, the addiction is given.

if the pills are not available ,nd they become higher priced then it gets harder and harder -- the cheaper route is to go to the heroine. that is what i have tried to bring out. ares not that people actively seeking out heroine. whencomes the easier route the pills are not available. there's a dependency. host: and you point out that the heroine of today is a lot more pure. it is accessible and cheap. guest: exactly. that has been waiting to a lot of -- many would say, problems of overdose. years ago, police officers said that they would -- the kind of heroine that they ould find in their arrests

would be two percent or three percent. now it is 80%. there is a new audience now that is finding it. hereto for, they would have had to injected to get high. now they can snort it and get the same high. they get addicted and then they start injecting. high because of that concentration, a lot of people who have gone through detox have gotten off of it. they have a relapse, they take it -- it is too powerful, it leads to an overdose. this article just appeared this morning. the state of massachusetts has declared heroin addiction a health emergency. the governor declared a health emergency over the rise of heroin addiction in his state, saying that 140 people have died of heroin overdoses recently.

guest: right. i am sure that is not just -- a singular event for massachusetts. many states are experiencing this. it is laudable that governor patrick has made that statement. that we can talk about more in the course of the program. there are things that are being done. there are things that communities can do. there is now a growing awareness. that is the beginning of doing something about it. it is pointless for people to stand around clucking and feeling helpless. there are a lot of things that communities can do and are doing. we know that we cannot legislate these things away. there has to be a concerted effort among people who are willing to take response ability. not just in addressing the problem of the addiction. preventing it for the future.

, thiskristina lindborg tweet from kiki. she says, people are using heroine to replace pain pills. some people have legitimate problems. the u.s. makes it impossible to get help. is there a shorter treatment facility? guest: you know, that was not the only line of my inquiry. the people that i did talk to -- i did not get that feeling. sensa --nce, the governmental agency. if you go to their website, they have a lot of different links that can pose new -- point you to agencies that can help out. even google how to get help with addiction. it will come up with tons of things.

looking at what we have available in massachusetts, a lot of the people i spoke with, including recovering addict in various stages -- they have gone that route. i think if you want to find help, you can. i do think that that is one place where communities can pull together more and do something about it. make this more apparent for people who need help. there is an awful lot of stigma that people are burdened with. both families of -- who have loved ones who are addicted. they are ashamed. they do not want to talk. they are also shocked by friends. and startet over that an honest dialogue, this is everybody's problem. this is not some alleles of town are some real skids. this is our problem. we have to work on it together. that is the most positive thing

that i was able to find when i -- when i spoke with people at different levels trying to start coalitions in their towns. trying to get different towns together. it does not stop. it does not have a border or a boundary line. what goes on in your city or town -- left right, it is bound to be there to. that is important point to remember. host: we will put the phone numbers up on the screen. if you would dial in and speak with kristina lindborg, christian science monitor you can see a divided by region. you can also send a tweet. estimated number of u.s. heroin 669,000er a year, up to

in 2012. from twitter, christina lindberg, where does most of the heroin come from? >> the drug enforcement agent that i spoke with said they mostly look to mexico and colombia. again, i really wanted to look at the people most directly affected. there is a great story there to follow the trail, but that is not what i wanted to pursue with this. i wanted to talk to the people who are most affected. is one of the people you talk to -- who is anna? guest: i spoke with several kids at a recovery high school, and they are very forthcoming.

they are willing to share their experiences, not so much with adults. the kids that i spoke with, i was reviewing my notes earlier, and i was remembering, it was astounding to me, most of them started something when they were 12. most studies safe -- say freshman year of high school is when experimentation starts. they all have the same story, starting with drinking or smoking marijuana, that led to the payrolls, and for most of to thehat was the trail heroin every single time. i think that it also begs the question then, too, because one person that i spoke with who works at a youth center said we have a huge problem now with legalizing marijuana for medical

use because we are telling kids do not do this, it is bad and could lead to other things, and now there is a sense that it is medicine. that is what i heard from a lot of doctors, too, in terms of -- i will not say a lot of doctors -- but one specific doctor who spoke out about the need for better education for doctors to have in terms of opioid prescribing. have -- sorry, i cannot remember where i was going with this. there has to be that sense of what it is they are taking. it is not a medicine that is, you know, taken lightly. i think that is the most important thing. you: kristina lindborg, report in your article that more than 12 million americans

reported using prescription painkillers in 2010 without a prescription or just for the high that they cause. nearly three out of 10 drug overdose deaths are caused by prescription painkillers, and in 2008 14,800 deaths were , moreuted to them pills than cocaine and heroin combined. guest: that is right. what does that say? the most interesting question -- i will throw that back to you, what does that say about us as a society? i do not know. that is certainly not a question i could answer as a reporter. it and find the right people that gave it thought, but the numbers speak for themselves.

--t: american hero tweets what is the treatment for heroin addiction? guest: i think it is a multi--stage thing. i would urge who wanted to find out more to do that research. my inquiry was talking more to people who were on the road to recovery. , kind a lot of them had of, gone back and forth. it is definitely not easy. you need a lot of support from family, loved ones, you know, the community. important thatis whoever is trying to make that road to recovery does not feel shunned, isolated, were made to feel shame. we all make unfortunate choices

, and everybody needs to be supported to help the community and the nation overcome this. host: two things you talk about in your article -- one family spent $80,000 they were going to use to remodel their kitchen for their daughter's addiction, and you talked about narcan. narcan is a measure, when people respond to an overdose call, that is administered to bring the overdose victim out of it. it does not last. within 40 minutes they have to get the overdose victim to the hospital. that is not a cure. that is just saving somebody from dying right at the time of.

what was the other part of the question? familyou talk about one that spent $80,000 on their daughter's rehab that they were going to use to remodel their kitchen. guest: yes. they felt that is what they would take -- that it would when she was at the rehab that they had found out she had been doing heroin all along. they had been assuming that it and smoking marijuana. they were floored. they had no idea. she came out of that, and if i remember correctly, there were still some ups and downs. it was not necessarily a fix, as it were. there has to be that understanding it might take several times, it might not. more noteworthy is the man that i spoke with in the article,

who started his own organization because he had gone through the whole, you know, ups and downs. he had been homeless and living because of heroin addiction and he did not want his family to have to there that, you know, that urban. thatyer that, you know, burden. it is not easy to do alone, and there are people willing to help. if everybody is doing their part -- i feel i am doing my part somewhat by writing the story, and you are doing your part by having me on the show -- the people willing to talk to me were doing their part because they feel it is important to try to help other people going through this. host: jim from illinois. please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: thank you for taking my comment.

youth-oriented business is located in rockford, illinois, right where the needle exchange used to be, in a year after the needle exchange was shut down, my retail dropped i 70%. i am involved in a lot of activities that take my venting to music events, and i do not think parents quite understand that there are other drugs out there, research chemicals that are being mixed with heroin because it is so cheap. that aread od's heroin-related and music events around the country, let's see they were taking ecstasy, or ly.t is called mol what is happening on the front is people are dying from other

things mixed in with heroin. it is long as a heroin debt, but what it really was was an inside amine mixed with a depressant, and you can imagine what that would do to someone's heart. what is tested as a drug test only comes back as opioid. we have a huge problem in this country with a culture where people will use these drugs, and a profit incentive for people selling the drugs to get people addicted to heroin when they do not even know they are being addicted to heroin, if you follow what i mean. guest: absolutely, and in fact, the drug enforcement agent that i spoke with reiterated that. the people selling, they do not care about the family, the community. they are just out to make a profit, and unfortunately, they do.

the other thing that is in terms of add is just marijuana, it is no longer straightforward marijuana. it is often mixed with something as well, and that increases the likelihood of leading to other things. that is a good point. host: you quote anthony pettigrew as saying the perception used to be that heroin was mostly an urban problem, then now there are no geographic areas immune from heroin, and this tweet from news lindborg,g why is heroin addiction so high in the rural and suburban areas? >> -- guest: i do not know the why. from talking to police chiefs, they all say the same thing. there was a time when you could

almost identify a heroin user, but that is not the case. it could be a wealthy high school kid. housewifee a suburban . it does not matter. a lot of that goes back to -- because of the prescription painkiller addiction. one of the police chiefs said there is a high number of functioning addicts because they can't afford to maintain it, so they are out there, and -- and afford to maintain it, so they are out there, and you can be heroin addict and not know it. it is no longer identified as an inner-city problem. it is everybody problem. in order to have a solution, bob, it will be everybody's part two see what they can do -- solution, it will be everybody's solution.e the

host: gavin. ohio. -- caller: this is the most important subject you have had on your show. i want to say to parents, if you something, do not lie to yourself. kids poisoned themselves. , at: kristina lindborg response? guest: thank you. that is true. it begs the other question, if we were to talk about prevention and education, where does that start and when? you cannot just start in high school. by that time it is too late. they have made decisions about what they are going to do. in these kinds of conversations have to start before middle school.

the kids i talked to started doing things when they were 12. it has to come from different sources. the people that i talk to in youth services say the same thing. it cannot come from one place. it has to be schools. it has to be the community. it has to be at home. whether it is a church, a synagogue, a mosque, whatever, it has to come from different sources, not just the drugs are bad, in my opinion, but giving a positive sense of the value of what an individual has to offer to society. as kids start getting that sooner, when they have the temptations later on, they will probably look at that differently. the other thing that the agent andrew pettigrew said it is you have to talk about the kids about having answers in place

because every kid will have somebody say to them, and it will be a friend, not a stranger, ask them if they want , andoke pot or take pills they should have their answer, whether it is my parents would not like it, or i have to get up early -- whatever it is, have your answer in place so that you can bypass the moment where you feel you will cave in because of peer pressure or whatever. 40 says it isn easier to steal opiates from their parents bathroom then tracked on a drug killer for heroin. in your "christian science monitor" article you write what happened in 1996, kristina lindborg?

when perdueis released the oxycontin opiate. been prescribed for anything other than end-of-life situations. was touted as something and something --sicians could prescribe touted as something physicians could prescribe for moderate pain. they were ill advised and it was totally a marketing campaign. during that time, a lot of things did get out. i do not think that explains why thee is such a glut on market as there seems to be, but more importantly, the initial question or comment -- yes, that is where kids get their pills. if you do not know what is in

your medicine cabinet, you might want to check it out. cities are doing now in terms of forming coalitions to address the problem, is making sure there is a dropbox, 24/seven at the police station, no questions asked. if you have old pills hanging around, something you prescribed years ago, do not leave them there. not necessarily your kids, but your kids friends, people coming into the house. i have heard of stories of when people have open houses, trying to sell their houses, addicts will go in, or maybe those that want to sell will go through medicine cabinet and take things. do not leave things like that hanging around the house. get rid of them. take them to the police station, a drop-off spot. that is another small way that individuals can do their part. host: deborah, chicago, good

morning. caller: good morning. here i am a 53-year-old got here fromnd i where she is talking about with my heroin and the children. what happened to me was my came up, you know, under a much more better society where opportunities were there. there were social programs to ,elp my children after school then,ce those were cut, you know, with the help from daycare my children got up into years, 14, 13 years old, and they had summer jobs where my children could

work, and they could look forward to taking their money and buying school supplies. all of that, by -- myme i children children got to be 16 years old addicted to heroin, but in my community we call it crack. they started with smoking marijuana, and then they would put in bombing fluid -- embalming fluid to give you a more potent high. for theborah, thank you background. in your view, what is the current status of the situation?

guest: the situation -- caller: the situation is they have to get back to putting children in more afterschool programs, they have to get their children -- with the housing market crashing and their lifestyle be enough time -- upside down, the children have to find some kind of way where they could say ok, that is because the house is falling down. .ost: kristina lindborg guest: absolutely. there has to be more support for kids in all kinds of ways. something that somebody brought up about cutting back -- and this is in a prosperous community, two, cutting back on , in high school you could take art, but not do athletics. that is insane.

at a time when kids really want to test their limits in all sorts of positive ways, why can't those things back and force them into -- why can't those things back and force them into a more negative mode of experimentation. it seems crazy. afterschool programs are very important. another study said kids are far less likely to do a lot of experimenting if they have a lot of conversations with adults that they can trust about things like drugs, or whatever. there has to be a dialogue. it is parent. there are a lot of parents that have to work in several jobs. if they cannot be there to do that, there should be some sort of backup so that the kids feel .hey are being taking care of that is a very important point that she made.

host: "christian science monitor weekly" here is the cover -- "heroin's long reach." kristina lindborg

and regularly filed reports with the fbi. americans had no idea that that kind of informing was taking place. they were untrained informers. on march 8, 1971, a group broke into an office in pennsylvania and stole every document in the building. the story sunday night. mr. speaker, i rise today out of concern for you, all of us and the concern for this house. as one that has been involved in the reform movement for the year i have been here in congress, those of us interested in reform are interested so that -- are interested just in that reform. we do not want to bash this institution or our collects. but all of you at home, you have

talked your constituents. they are outraged. congress today stands at it lowest esteem in the polling of this country. because the american people look at us as ineffective and unaccountable. if we are sincerely going to do something about reform in this congress, those are the issues we have to address. accountability. on the effect of this issue, we know the problems of committees and the proliferation and the rules under which we operate. it is broke. one only has to look at what happened last year it during the consideration of the banking reform legislation. we could never get our arms around it. look at the problem with health care. we need reform and that is why many of us in this house are supporting the resolution to set up that committee. when it comes to accountability, we really fall down question

mark congress is not willing to have americans follow the rules. congress is the first body to want >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> i yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds. >> today we have an opportunity to take an independent step to set up an independent body to put this house on the right step , to take the first step towards real reform, which will increase the credibility with the american people, which will once again start the process of

building some faith and confidence in our constituents so that one day, our constituents can have respect for this institution, the greatest institution in this democracy. more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. >> live coverage here on c-span.