on his stance on immigration. later, claire suddath of bloomberg businessweek joins us to discuss maternity leave in the u.s. ♪ host: good morning. it's tuesday, february third, 2015. this year's budget battle is officially underway on capitol hill. one area where there might be some room for agreement between the white house and national republican may come in the billions of dollars in new funding the president is seeking for the defense department after several years of flat or declining budgets. this morning, we will break down obama's $585 billion defense spending request for 2016 -- 42015. -- for 2015.

we will have special lines for republicans and democrats independent, and active and retired military. the numbers are on the screen. you can also use social media on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us. a very good tuesday morning to you. two charts to help understand the piece of the budget puzzle that we are talking about this morning on the first front -- first 45 myth of "washington journal" and that is the 585 -- the $4 trillion request.

what we are talking about this morning to my want your thoughts on defense spending and the increases that the president is seeking. here is a comparison of the department of defense spending request to some other agencies on the hill. this is according to "washington post" this morning. the president's budget plan came out yesterday, and of course, all of the agency heads and undersecretaries holding press

conferences to talk about their agency's budget request for fiscal 2015 -- fiscal 2016. secretary of defense spoke about how the $585 billion request is still a stretch for the military. >> even at the president's budget level, which is above sequestration cap, trying to achieve a healthy balance in capacities or size of the force, the capabilities of that force what it is able to do and the readiness of that forced to respond to challenges will remain a constant challenge, and this is especially true with regard to maintaining our technological superiority in the 21st century. >> one of the publications that covers the department of defense military budget is defense one. marcus weisgerber is a reporter with defense one.

he joins us by phone now. we are talking about the $585 billion. break up that -- those pots. guest: good morning, john. there are two basic product. it used to be called the war supplemental but much of that is going toward the fighting in iraq and afghanistan. host: what are the biggest items outside that overseas digits the operations budget? what are the biggest items in the base dod budget? guest: in the base budget, one of the largest areas is military personnel, the cost of health care, the cost of pay. one of the other big things is operations and maintenance, that is for training. and that is stateside. and that -- and then you have your modernization budget.

over $100 billion for that alone. we are not -- we are talking new fighter jets, ships, tanks vehicles, stuff like that. there is a big increase this year, $21 billion over last year's plan. because the military says a lot of their stuff is old. they have been fighting wars for 13 plus years now and they need the money to buy the stuff. host: one of those projects referred a lot about over the years, the bowling of the f 35 joint strike fighter. what piece of the budget high does that take up for the budget this year? guest: it takes a racist angela park about $10.6 billion. -- it takes a substantial pa rt about $10.6 billion.

there have been many troubles over the years in development. a lot of that has been straightened out. they've done a lot to restructure that program in the last two to three years. those jets will be flown by the eight navy, air force command marine corps and a number of international countries. host: we saw robert worth a few minutes ago framing the request the 585 billion dollars request. the wall street journal is noting that this could be one area of compromise between the white house and congress. what do we see in the immediate reaction as the president released his budget yesterday? guest: there is agreement on both sides of the aisle on the defense budget for the most part. you have on each side those who do not want any kind of spending increases.

but for the most part, they agree that spending should go up. the problem is not defense side. it's the domestic spending and other items, social security and things like that that are preventing them from agreeing on where to increase the defense budget. host: and the increases in nondiscretionary's admin, is this something that will be linked going forward, or is there a chance that defense than he could be increased without the increases on the nondefense side? guest: well, it depends on who blinks first. the republicans are holding firm that they do not want those increases in other areas and the democrats are holding from that they do want those increases in the nondefense areas. host: certainly, a storyline that we will continue to watch. moving ahead, markets weisgerber is with -- marcus weisgerber is

with defense one if you want to check out his work. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: we are talking about the increases for the defense budget. do you support them? your thoughts on defense spending over the years. the numbers are on the screen. and a special line for members of the military, active and retired. we will look for those calls and of course, tweak and e-mails as well. i want to show this piece -- your tweets and e-mails as well. i want to show this piece noting that the 2016 budget is notable because of all of the talk about how the end of the wars in iraq and afghanistan would reduce spending but the government is

still seeking money to fight conflicts abroad. that is just some from "the new york times" piece on this. i want to show you some comments from our facebook page. kevin lincoln -- i'm sorry, cap the bowl that no more, congress has dropped the hammer on the vets. they have already for -- for lizzie made. -- they have already frivolously made.

just a few of the comments on our facebook page. you can also give us a comment on twitter or give us a call. dana is on the line from bloomington, on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. your question on facebook says do you support races in the defense budget? my answer, -- raises in the defense budget? my answer is no. this will likely be approved with congressional approval with militant -- with miscellaneous added to it, as is expected with any goalie comes before congress. however, i fear this will be a long-standing moment in our history with regards to policy. i would like to let everyone know that the convention is -- the convention of states movement is occurring. article five is making noise around the nation and as i think it is something to take watch as right now is the time when

things are being said and becoming firm for where we are headed. host: for those who are not familiar with what you're talking about, quickly explain what it is. caller: specifically, just where people are gathering together to apply to the date legislators for nautical five convention of states as they are -- for an article five convention states . i will call it a constitutional convention at this moment, some people will understand more kind of, in their own dictates what it is. however, i will raise the point now that an article five has never happened and when the articles of confederation was amended, it was done rightfully and then was changed. and many things in the united states constitution were in the articles of confederation. host: that is daniel in bloomington, indiana. we are talking for the first 45

minutes about the defense department budget, some of the billions of dollars of increase that the president is seeking in that budget. wade in colorado springs, -- wayne in colorado springs, colorado. life for democrats. wayne, good morning. caller: i have a question about the war on terror as opposed to kind of alleviating and working toward alleviating that that problem. i'm wondering what is really being done in the budget proposals to empower women in these mother -- these muslim extreme countries? and also, what are we doing to promote secularism? because religious extremism is part of the problem, whether it be islamic extremism -- extremism in religion is a problem and we need to address that. any ideas or suggestions on what we are doing in that fashion? host: it is something we can

talk about later in today's show. we have two members of congress, one of which sits on the budget committee and goes through the budget request. we can ask him about it, that is built escrow from new jersey. -- bill escrow from new jersey -- bill pascrell from new jersey and also later with raul labrador. i want to get your take. here is a chart on the budget request they came out yesterday from usa today. the total request just under $4 trillion, $3.99 trillion. the expected receipts in fiscal 2015 is $3.53 trillion which leaves a deficit of $474 billion. there is also a chart of projected deficits since president obama took office. you can see at the start his first budget was about 1.4 $.2

trillion dropping to the $474 billion -- $ 1.412 trillion and dropping to the $474 billion. speaker boehner said, like the present previous budgets, this plan never balances ever. as we said, the papers today noting what area of possible agreement on this budget is some of the military spending, some of the increases for military spending. we want to do your thoughts on that. potentially $485 billion chunk of the 2016 budget. a special line for those active and retired military.

willy is waiting on aligning colorado. caller: good morning. here's my problem. i think half the problem, with cutting the number of military which is to a pretty unsafe number is they use political correctness to cut. number one, there are far many -- far too many admirals and generals that there needs to be. and number two the women in the military. i don't want to stomach a neanderthal. -- sound like a neanderthal. when i first went into the murdering core everyone was considered a rifleman, no matter what your military specialty was, you were considering they rifleman -- you were considered a rifleman. now you have a whole group that are counted as heads, but are not combat ready. that would be my comment.

they use -- host: go ahead, willie. if you have more to say, go ahead. caller: if they used discretion as opposed to political correct this to set up the military, it would function a lot better. people may ask if this is working -- i mean, the number of rapes alone in the military have quadrupled. that is my comment. host: willie in colorado. billy is on the line from independents. good morning. caller: i feel like they're going to need the money, because in this program right now, most of the time people believe rates are between men and women, which is not true. great -- rape is a power movement. and you have program were a lot of straight men and gave men

were raped with i a lot of other straight and gay men. i think the dot needs to have somebody go through it and really revamp it. you've got too many fat old white generals running the place, and they have no clue what is going on. i appreciate your show. host: billy in miami, florida. willy before him brought up the size of the active duty military force. under this proposed budget for the army, it would cut the army to an active duty force of 475,000 soldiers, down from a previously proposed reduction of 490,000 following the end of the iraq and afghanistan wars. those numbers courtesy of "the new york times" as they go through the budget proposal. we are asking our viewers on the ir take on specifically the budget proposal for defense.

another possible round of base closures is underway. this is from usa today. a few of the pieces of the dod's budget by. robert -- budget high. -- budget pie. robert is next. on the line for democrats from oklahoma. caller: i do think they need to be upgraded. as far as troop strength, i don't think now is the time with hostilities all over the world with islamic terrorism breaking out all over the world, i don't

think now is a smart time to reduce our fighting force. thank you very much. host: before you go, as far as our warbirds aging, which ones are you concerned about? caller: the attack aircraft. the atm, it has been up there for a long time. although it is based on a good airframe with titanium and stuff, i think we need something better. to replace that with something that is little more agile and with as much fire power as that present time. host: would you be in favor of retiring that now or having it stick around for a while specifically the a-10? caller: i would like to see it stick around until there's something better. host: did you fly or is this

just a topic you are interested about? caller: no, i try to keep up with the military and our fighting force and stuff. i think it is very important. i go with the adage, walk softly but carry a big stick. host: specifically on the a-10, congressman -- congresswoman nick sally freshman -- congresswoman mcsally was talking about the a-10 yesterday.

that is martha mcsally in her statement yesterday about specifically that part of the defense budget. we are happy to talk about any of the defense budget, the pay raises for the military, rounds of base closures, or other big-ticket items that are on this budget. there will be 16 p eight maritime patrol aircraft if this goes into effect. those stats compiled by defense

one, if you want to see their reporting on it. we are taking your comments and calls. cornell is up next from new jersey on the line from democrats. -- for democrats. cornell, are you with us this morning? caller: good morning. no, i don't agree with them increasing the defense budget because we have spent 10 times more on defense than our closest competitor. the only problem is when you increase the defense budget, the only ones that make out are the lobbyists and the contractors that siphon and a bottom feeders who take from the american taxpayers. the bottom line is, i've been paying into social security for over 21 years onto jobs -- on two jobs.

now, most americans pay into social security, but they want to increase defense spending because the lobbyists and the contractors, like bechtel and halliburton -- and the bottom line is when george bush senior, and i'm talking about the father, they asked him why he did not go into baghdad. he said, if he would have kept going any further, we would have been in there for life. and the problem is -- and for that reason, they've been fighting for centuries. you get into too many factions. and we are into something where we are constantly pouring money into lobbyists and contractors's pockets at the american taxpayers expense. host: all right, that is cornell in waterworks, new jersey. in mentioning spending by our

closest competitors around the world, here is one story today in the "washington post" about that in china. it was reported by what is in: overenthusiastic local government official command and subsequently deleted on websites. let's go to walk -- robert woodbridge, news virginia -- woodbridge virginia next. robert is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i appreciate you taking my call.

i'm opposed to the downsizing of the military. you can't run a war without combat arms. with all the stuff going on now with them cutting off heads with isil and all of the crackling on in the middle east, this is the time to downsize the military? it's ridiculous. i'm just wondering if the leadership is trying to purposely sacrifice our military. host: a few tweaks on this topic as well this morning. that conversation -- a few tweeets on this topic as well as morning.

don is up next, henderson nevada, our line forward to vote in -- our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i support our present -- president 150% on the defense budget. host: we will hear from the president can actually. he spoke a little yesterday on his positions on the defense budget and his proposal. here he is at the department of homeland security yesterday. [video clip] >> my budget will in the cuts and fully reverse the priorities in 2016, and it will match the

investments made domestically dollar for dollar with increases in our defense spending -- defense funding. just last week, top military officials told congress that if congress does nothing to stop sequestration there could be serious consequences for our national security. at a time when our military is stretched on a range of issues. that is why want to work with congress to replace my list austerity with smart investment -- mindless austerity with smart investment and in a way that strengthens america. we can do so in it with as fully responsible. i will not just be in lockstep sequestration going forward. it would be bad for security. i will not sever the vital link between our international security and our economic security. there are some a capital who say they would be willing to increase defense spending, but

not investment in infrastructure , for example, or basic research. well those two things go hand-in-hand. if we don't have vital infrastructure, if we don't have broadband across the country, if we don't have a smart grid come all of that makes us more vulnerable. host: that was the president yesterday talking about the defense budget. we want to hear from you on this morning's "washington journal." entree is up next. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i feel we need to educate the american populace in regard to how much we spend on defense spending in regards to the rest of the world. and how are they should -- how absurd it is for us to think we are any safer as it relates to a terrorist attack he needed out on our soil. it's more likely you would your

head in the bathtub or to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist. the hysteria surrounding defense is foolish. if we look at our infrastructure and if we look at the contractors in the military generals who benefit as a relates to the kickback that they get from the contractors, to push this hysteria on war and killing. and you mentioned this article on china and then boosting their military. any nation that looks at another superpower and sees the aggression and how they come and they take and do things. and i'm an american i was born and raised in america. i just did the social biscay -- the social decay and the way in which we are being raised where we are so bellicose and belligerent to one another as humans, it plays into the suicide of a great nation. host: andre in columbus, ohio this morning. sandra is up next on the line

for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to comment on decreasing our military any further. it should not be done. russia putin is starting his push to start making the old ussr again. and isis is telling us that they are going to come over here and kill us. and iran is getting a nuclear bomb, because obama is diddling and not taking care of america. the middle east is on fire. we have enemies all around us and he is decommissioning equipment, giving our military equipment to other countries

giving other countries in the middle east billions of dollars to help them. why don't we keep some of that money at home? and pay down our national debt. host: you talk about wanting to pay down the national debt. this budget that the president is proposing about $474 billion deficit, if you want to increase spending for the military, would you take that away from other programs and agencies? and if so, which ones? caller: over 50 jobs programs in the federal government over 50 jobs programs. we need 50 jobs programs? -- who needs 50 jobs programs? there have been over 150 federal employees put on the payroll since obama came into office.

we don't need a bloated government. we need a lean government. host: to your point you were just saying career as a front-page story in today's "washington times" you might be interested in will stop -- you were just saying, here is a front page story in today's open the washington times" you might be interested in. one more tweet from peg. pegged does not support increases in the defense department budget. janice is up next into the dough, louisiana, line for democrats. caller: good morning. i'm against too much money being spent on the military. we should not plan for future wars. there is too much money planned to give to the military defense. host: what is too much money? you say you are against too much

money, do you think the amount under sequestration, the budget caps that were put in place at the president is looking to raise, do you think we should keep those cap or cut it further? caller: i would cut it further. we should have a service military, not an offensive military. until i we or our -- until we or our allies are attacked. ohio was right on in his comment. host: that is janice calling in from louisiana. we are taking your calls on this for about the next 10 or 15 minutes or so here on "washington journal." the numbers are on the screen. we will get back to your calls in just a second. but we also want to note the appearance of senate minority read -- minority leader harry

reid on the floor yesterday. rollcall noting that he was scarred and damaged -- and bandaged. he appeared for his first speech of the year after that exercising accident in his home. aside from the bandage, he was his old self. that appearance by minority leader harry reid also got "welcome back" tweets from other members of the u.s. senate. here is sheldon whitehouse. time for a few more of your calls. bob is up next from washington,

line for democrats. what do you think about the increases proposed in the military budget? caller: i think we've had enough military spending. over my lifetime, i'm almost 60 come a week spent trillions and trillions of dollars on this military. -- i'm almost 60, and we spent trillions eventually died dollars in this military. -- we have spent trillions and trillions of dollars in this military. it is time to put our trust in god. and president obama is asking for more money for defense to go kill people in other countries. we've got to stop. america, wake up. host: before you go, it is president obama himself that propose the $38 billion increase for defense spending, somebody's pushing as well as members on capitol hill pushing this as well. caller: i look at that and i say

that obama is trying to a pe's the people on the right, all of the republicans. -- trying to appease the people on the right all of the republicans. 63% of the people did not even vote this last november. that is kind of lazy on our part. we need to get out and show that we really do care about our country. there is lots to do moneywise. like lady said, we could spend down our debt. we could put people to work. we have broached projects we could do. we have enough in our own country to take care of, let alone sticking our finger in the eyes of people in other countries. host: of course, the military budget doesn't include funding for the department of veterans affairs. that is a separate budget item. the "washington times" reporting on that, noting the fiscal 20 16th budget for the v.a. is 168

billion dollars, including more than $70 billion in discretionary spending to my 7.8% increase over last year's request. we will be going through the budget items in this segment, as we have members of congress, including a member of the budget house committee bill pascrell joining us in just a few minutes. stephen on the line from ohio, on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. don't you think obama has done more to ruin the security of the united states than any of the president combined, and we would not be looking for money for the military if you would not be getting us in all of these troubles? host: all right. robert's rating -- robert is waiting in san antonio, texas, on the line for active and retired military. caller: i'm concerned of the

method for the department of defense. the freedoms that we have have not been just given to this country. wars have been fought to make sure we have those freedoms. i support the increase in the budget. and i also would like to know why we have all of this anti-defense people in this country. i think history should show us that each time we end a conflict, we reduced our military, and within years we are hurting again for personnel to go fight a war. please, don't hate the military. is a you support us, then support us. host: robert, what would you say to some of those folks, and it was pointed out a more the stories that we read earlier, that there was an expectation

that defense spending would go down as the war in afghanistan winds down and the war in iraq was winding down. but now we are seeing increases because of what is happening in syria and iraq with isis will stop -- with isis. what would you say to those folks that the debt has been racked up? caller: the debt has been racked up. we will keep having this debt if we keep assisting other countries in the way that we do. when other countries need medical care, they sentiments terry when they cannot really do anything else about it. when other countries -- they send the military when they cannot really do anything else about it. right now, talking about ukraine, we are right there on that continent taking care of that conflict. right now, everybody's saying let america lead. let somebody else lead for a while. everyone's talking about obama

leading from the rear. i don't think so. how many times have our troops been on deployment? think about that when you think about cutting the military. when a person has been to afghanistan, iraq for five times, they are not going over there just because there's nobody else to go, but that is the reason, because we don't have a big military. you don't see our enemies cutting. host: robert, where did you serve? caller: army. host: and where did you serve in the army at the -- in the army? caller: germany, hawaii and then on twice, and different locations here in the states. -- vietnam twice, and different locations here in the states. host: i want to play out what is happening in the republican potential primaries. what is happening with those that are being looked at for

possible primary candidates. here is a story on the democratic side, a front-page story in today's usa today on hillary clinton. if you want to read more on that story, it is in usa today. and one other story on hillary clinton, noting a super pac supported the not yet declared presidential campaign of secretary of state hillary clinton raised nearly $9 million in 2014. of course, we will continue to follow all of the twists and turns of the past heading to -- the path heading to 2016. kevin cerilli is with the hill

newspaper. take us through first the affordable care act some pretty heated exchanges in last night's rules committee hearing on that boat will stop what is the -- on the rules committee hearing on that vote. what would be looking at today? guest: thank you for having me. here we go again. the white house has threatened to veto the legislation. the key part is president obama's domestic policy agenda. the larger debate here is there are some parts of obamacare that democrats would perhaps be able to -- that republicans would be able to take up some democratic votes on. of course, talking about the 40 hour work week, which would increase the requirement from the 30 our work week to the 40

hour work week as far as having to provide homecare, as well as the medical device tax. on the whole that is not what we are seeing today. this is a repeal of obamacare. it is the first attempt at a republican controlled congress to repeal obamacare. if this fails, it will likely be a veto. i would expect perhaps a more piecemeal approach and chipping away on obamacare as we keep going into the new congress. host: do we know what number vote this is on the affordable care act if we combined votes from last congress to this congress? guest: that is a great question. i don't actually have the number off the top of my head, but i can tell you it's been dozens and does's of times -- dozens and dozens of times, as we all

know, that they have tried to repeal obamacare. what is interesting is that, if they were to do a piecemeal approach -- and again, there are aspects that democrats would be willing to support in tweaking obamacare. but a lot of the more hard-line republicans have said they don't want to do that, that they just want to repeal the whole thing. i'm interested to see that play out with republicans. because again, there are things like the medical device tax that senator elizabeth warren, who is very progressive supports repealing the medical device tax. host: in our last minute or so, a shift over to the senate side of capitol hill, a vote today on funding for department of homeland security.

how does this play into the larger budgeting debate going on? guest: yes, i don the immigration debate, too, right? -- and on the immigration debate, too, right? this is on president obama's executive orders from last december. that is set to expire in just a few weeks. there is a huge vote today for funding those agencies again. this is an immigration vote, really between the tea party and the centrists republicans. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. host: you can watch all of these votes on a seat in networks and read about -- all of these votes on the c-span networks and read about them on the hill. thank you kevin cerilli. up next, we will be joined by

democratic congressman bill pascrell to continue our discussion on obamas 2016 budget . and later, congressman raul labrador of idaho will talk about his newly formed conservative freedom caucus formed on capitol hill last week. but first, some news out of the supreme court. supreme court justice sonia sotomayor has been backing away from her pre-confirmation position that cameras in the supreme court might be a good thing. a quote in today's "washington times" noted that to use this report as a stage rather than a courtroom meantime moving more closely to saying that i think it might be a bad idea. for more on cameras in the court and c-span's role in the court we want to turn to justice kagan's statement of policy when

she was asked about her need cameras in the supreme court. [video clip] >> i used to be solicitor general and i used to go up there for not only my own argument but because they were people in my office with different argument. i was there day after day in the front row, kind of getting this front row seat to this institution. we used to think, this is really quite amazing how well this institution operates, and if people were able to see it, you know, these nine people with a differing range of views about legal matters, but all coming in and taking their seats on the bench so well prepared, who asked such excellent questions and who in my mind really look as though they are trying to get it right, then it would be great if everybody could see that. there are lots of good reasons.

you know, because people should serve as a checkpoint on institutions, but also that people should see their institutions working well. there is another side to it, too. the other side is that cause the institution -- that because the institution works well, you are weary of ascending it did i make -- upsetting the dynamic of that institution. you can say, well, you are all grown-ups and you should behave the same way once there are cameras there. if you look at different experiences when cameras coming to a place, the nature of conversation often changes. -- when cameras come into a place, the nature of conversation often changes. i don't think congress is a great advertisement for this. host: for more on the supreme court's role in cameras in the

court, go to www.c-span.org. and a day after president obama's funding request, we are joined by congressman bill pascrell, democrat, from new jersey. i want to read you this tweet from tom cole, a close ally from speaker -- of speaker boehner. he said this budget is dead upon arrival on capitol hill. is this budget dead on arrival? guest: tom has to say that. it is a beginning. it's a long process. serving on the ways and means committee and the budget committee, i get it from both sides. so i understand, but nothing is ever dead on arrival. what we want to do is start the conversation about what our spending should be and where we will get the revenue to afford any programs that are within

that budget. i think the president has done a great job getting this started will stop no one thinks this is going to be the final product. it never is, for any president regardless of which party they belong to. i'm very hopeful this year. i'm looking at what chairman ryan has said, chairman of the ways and means committee. trickle-down economics doesn't work -- i mean, these are his words. they are not mine, though i support them. we need to sustain the growth that has happened in the last six or seven years. i'm optimistic about it and i'm working in both committees to make sure we have a budget and then it gets passed. host: when that final product comes, what can you come -- compromise on and what can you not compromise on? guest: i think the president has given us a very interesting scenario on both the spending

side and the revenue side. on the revenue side, we are talking about -- we do see certain things, corporate tax for instance. i think there are many democrats and republicans who would support that. on the other hand, i think we need to understand that we need to go back to 28% of taxing certain commodities, which was the case when ronald reagan was the president of the united states. you know, it's interesting that the amount of spending with regard to the gross to mystic products which is very important to look at -- gross domestic product, which is very important to look at in any year regardless of who controls congress, it's the same now in terms of spending. in fact, it's lower. when people talk about tax and spend democrats, tax and spend president obama, you want to look at the context of what has happened in the last 30 to 40 years. i'm willing to do that. host: you are talking about

getting the capital gains rate guest: of 228%. guest:yes -- the capital gains rate up to 28%. guest: yes. and that does not mean it is written in stone. we give a little on the corporate tax and we give a little in terms of increasing the capital gains tax. the president also asked for an increase -- you know, asked for us to take a look at corporations who have their money offshore, and using that back here in the homeland where it can help middle-class americans. we need to sustain the growth in the economy by helping the middle-class. we've seen our wages for the average person have been stagnant over the past 20, 25 years. i think we can do something about that. and i think, give money to people, or create an environment where the middle class can do better and be part of this. even paul ryan said they before

yesterday that the middle class has basically been left out in the growth in the economy. for him to say that is what we have been saying for six years. that this growth has been basically geared toward one part, one segment of our economy. and those are the folks that make the most. we want them to make a lot. that is good. this is not envy of those folks. host: envy economics being the term that gets used. guest: it is very meaningless when you look at what is really happening to the middle class. host: we are talking with congressman bill crespo -- bill espascrell from new jersey. we are talking about issues in the president's budget. the numbers are on the screen.

before we leave the tax revenue proposals, i want to do your thoughts on that fee that is being called attacks on being too big to fail, the fee being put on big banks, about 100 big banks that have assets over $100 billion. guest: i think we are beginning to get a hold of what really happened back in 2006, 2007, and 2008. and that is, the banks -- these six banks control 95% of all the assets. is that too big to fail? what i'm concerned about is we need those banks investing in the economy. we do not need that -- need them putting revenue off to the side that will not be touched by the federal government. in other words, we are all in on this. they have to pay their fair

share, just like you and i have to pay our fair share. host: is this something that is setting a part of the debate going into 2016? guest: if we have a knee-jerk reaction, then forget about it stop -- forget about it. just as, if i have a knee-jerk reaction with reviewing entitlements. i don't have any problems with that, by the way. maybe we can get into that later. host: what would you give? guest: at least in that era simpson bowles did a great job of reviewing what will happen 10, 15, 20 years from now. i also grew with mr. paul krugman who says, what are we worried about the long term for? let's deal with the short term. i think he is partly right. i think with these inks, we can work together if we start off with an open mind -- with these things, we can work together for the start off with an open mind. how many times has that happened? not many times. host: let's get to calls.

tom is the first in concord indiana, on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. all of these talks about budgets, they seem to never work. by the time they get it going they take things away from the kids. that is what it should be all about, our kids. guest: this budget calls for tripling the tax credit for children, which i think is very important. some may have just missed that out of hand, and that is dead on arrival. that is just one of the areas that i think it would support. host: but to his point, is the

budget process broken? guest: well, it has been in the past, regrows of who the president was an regardless of who is in control of congress. i think paul ryan when he announced he was not going to run for president, really focuses as the chairman of the ways and means committee as the tax committee. i expect a lot from him. i thought he was civil and i thought he was fair, the former chairman. i think paul ryan is moving in that direction. the comments in the last few days gives me hope that we can come to some reconciliation. even on the question of sequester. the question of cutting back did not work. paul ryan would be the first to admit it. chairman rogers would be the second to admit it. why are we hurting ourselves converting hurting our defenses, hurting homeland security

hurting our discretionary parts of the budget? i think the president is very wise and taking that off the table. i hope we can reach agreement on that, too. host: on the line for democrats, mike is calling in. caller: i just want to make this comment. the republicans keep repeating the notion of trickle-down economics, which hasn't really baird out over the years -- hasn't really borne out over the years. when will it start trickling down? it turns out when the government steps in and paste people a living wage to be able to live

while you are working. this whole notion of republicans calling in and complaining that their wages have not increased over the years, you have to go out and build these policies in. guest: i think when some republicans talk about the democrats being interested in the class warfare game, that to me is a very stupid statement. i don't know any other term or how to identify or describe it. when you talk about where most of the gains in the economy have gone over the past six years coming out of the steep recession, they have not gone to the average middle-class individual. they certainly have not been proved -- improved a lot of the poor in this country. and we are not talking about giving away. we are talking about creating an atmosphere where people have equal opportunity to put bread on the table, to afford to send their kids to school, college perhaps someday. i think that is a fair shake. that is all we are asking for.

that is all the president is asking for in his budget presentation. fair and equal opportunity for everybody, so that we can share the wealth. not through a socialistic system as has been defined by right-wing republicans, but a system where everybody has a shot. that is all on asking for. we are not giving people money. we are not taking away. let's deal with a system that is fair to everybody. host: jean is that next on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: every time i hear democrats talk about raising the capital gains rate they say, this is just reagan's rate. i wish we would go back to reagan's rate of 28% on actual income. if you guys are not going to do that why don't you just shut up about it? >> i will not shut up at i will tell you this, what we want is fairness.

if that is increased, the capital gains is increased to 20%, we are reducing the corporate tax. you give and take and that is how you come to a compromise, unless you are an ideologue. i do not think the folks have been on the budget, whether it be mr. price or mr. ryan, our ideologue. i think they want reconciliation as well. it is fine to state your line and say, this is it and we are not crossing the line, but it is also great for america for we come to an agreement on the budget. don't you want that? host: we talked about the increase in spending for the defense department budget. $585 billion. going through the sequestration specifically for the defense department, how do you feel about that? guest: i am against sequestration. host: regardless whether it is defense or not defense? guest: regardless.

i think we can come to agreements about what should be cut. there is no question in my mind that the rate of growth needs to be reduced. that is what is happened. -- has happened. we reduced the cost of health care and that will have an impact on the budget forever. whether the aca had something to do the -- with that, i think it had a lot to do with it. we reduce the cost for government and i think that is very important. >> the vote on the aca today on the floor? >> i am voting no. >> i thought you might. jack is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. the reason why i am calling is i worked on wall street for 30 years and i reached the level of middle management. upper management was reserved

for a financial elite. the point i want to make his capital goes to where it gets its greatest return regardless of who is in power. that is the normal flow of money. i am with you as far as getting money back here offshore. but, you have got to keep tax rates reasonably low for companies to want to invest. you take a look, for example at the state of texas where my brother works. my brother got a job there as a software engineer. he got laid off but he got a job right away. he got a job. and he is happy because he does not have to pay a state income tax. i want to just go over a couple of issues with you and see what

you think. one other point. 19 86 when ronald reagan was president of the united states, in march of 1986, i could be wrong, that month over one million jobs were created. i could be wrong on that. guest: stay on. that was the year we had tax reform, finally. we had not had tax reform since reagan put together the program. i am supporting tax reform. dave from the ways and means really put effort into putting away tax reform. i think chairman ryan feels the way -- the same way. i think we need tax reform and i think the president is supportive of the test reform. he wants to put everything into finally doing this after so many years. i think this will help in terms of revenue and it will also put spending in a different

perspective. i support reducing the corporate tax rate to 25% to 20%. i think you are understood -- i think you understand what i'm trying to say. what you spend, you have to pay for. you cannot compare us to the other side. we believe in paying for things. if you put a program up, you will pay for it. we have had plan b prescription drug release, never paid for. two words, never paid for. these tax extenders they wanted us to pass never paid for. you cannot operate the government that way. let's look at everything in perspective. that is what i am asking. host: 2016 budget request, just under 3.5 trillion dollars.

2016, 3 $.5 trillion, a deficit of 4 trillion -- $4 billion. 1.4 trillion back in 2009. >> that is a very important point you're talking about. the deficit has been reduced by two thirds since this president raised his hand in january of 2009. that is the fastest any deficit has been reduced. you know when we had the stimulus act of february 2009, that money was there because capital is not being invested by the private sector. it helped us. if we did not have that, if we did not pass that in february 2009, we would have gone into a depression. host: if this is a good thing and you want to keep it up, why lift the sequestration cap snout?

guest: it is artificial. we are doing it indiscriminately. when we talk about cuts, i want those cuts to be categorical in the specific areas that need to be cut. not say we will cut everything by 2%. some things are critical to the economy. some things are critical to national security. i think to discriminate -- to be indiscriminate about cutting everything, that sounds wonderful but it hurts those parts of the budget that americans need day today. host: up next richard, line for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just have a question about the deficit. you talked about cutting the deficit by two thirds. but we still have an $18 trillion deficit we are not addressing. guest: that is the debt of the

country. caller: how are we going to address that? a few years ago, republicans were having a cow about an 11 jillion dollar deficit. now we are at at&t or what will we do? guest: i know -- at 18. what will we do? guest: i know what the president inherited. more than the president of the united states and the congress of the united states as well. i think the president is very aware of what the overall debt of the nation is and i would like to see more work done than that the to other area. you can have lower medical costs , you can reduce increases every year, but until we get into entitlements and it may be strange coming from a democrat until we get to entitlements, i do not think we will ever see an appreciable reduction of the

debt that you seem to be talking about. that does not mean you cut the benefits and social security, or reduce the benefits of medicare. but you have got to be a lot smarter about how we spend the money. they are a huge part of the federal budget. >> to show exactly how big a part of the federal budget, here is a breakdown of the 2016 budget. . social security, medicare and medicaid, the entitlements listed under mandatory spending, each one $1 trillion, part of the budget pie, much higher than nondefense spending and defense spending in the budget. notably, paying the interest of the debt, 2016, that will be paid for just paying interest on the debt, $283 billion. guest: over the next 10 years that that the president has addressed in the budget, the relationship to the gross domestic product, it will be

doing very well but not good enough. i think it moves from 75% to 73% in relationship to the gross to mastech roddick. we are going in the right direction but we have a long way to go. host: maxine is up next, the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to talk about regarding the middle-class, don't you think what has really hurt the middle-class has been technology? i work for a large company. i was in middle management. a lot of those jobs were paying like 21, 20 two dollars an hour for you go with no degrees. however, when technology came in a lot of those jobs were cut and replaced by technology. so i think that is another thing that has heard the middle-class. guest: i agree with you. not only does cheap labor in

other countries hurt the workforce in our own country but also technology, taking jobs away. that is why we need an aggressive program to get money reinvested in the united dates of those corporations that have gone overseas. we have got to make it attractive for them to come back and invest in america. we pay the moving cost of corporations. that is ridiculous. i would rather make it in america and make americans get back to work in good paying jobs . it will take a while to get many of them back that were lost in the recession. host: michigan, erin is waiting on the line for independents. caller: good morning, bill. guest: good morning. how are you? caller: i am doing good.

got a foot of snow the other day. i have a comment about what you said with this budget. this was a president that, when he was campaigning back in 2007, he was promising to decrease the military budget, get our troops out of iraq and afghanistan. the only thing i see now is, even from the war that bush started, the only thing i see now after saddam left was they are creating a power vacuum in the middle east, and then you have the shia and sunni muslims killing themselves and the only thing we're doing is funding them to have them kill each other. guest: what are you suggesting here? caller: what i am suggesting is, you know, this is what obama

promised us. now we have $4 trillion we are adding to our budget, and we are already $18 trillion in debt. you know, the only thing we are doing is giving our department of defense more money. how come we are not auditing more people? guest: the president kept his promise about afghanistan in iraq. -- and iraq? . did that leave a vacuum? we see the terrorists need to be responded to. they spread their wings. the budget calls for this. we are not going to back down. we are not going to let terrorists decide what our life or what our freedoms are. i think the president has been realistic about that but he has

kept his promises. have there been vacuums? absolutely. we cannot control the world and we cannot be the world's policeman. john and i were talking briefly before the show about the ukraine. the president is now making some changes about how to respond. we need to make sure these people are no longer slaughtered their they have to be able to defend themselves. we need to help this country against mr. putin and his soldiers. these are things that come update today. this costs money. you cannot do it for nothing. host: a headline on that topic from "the wall street journal." -- the u.s. government -- the story is in "the wall street journal" if you want to read that here it jeff -- read it.

caller: chilly in the nation's capital, as they say. my question or comment is twofold. first, you had spoken about, you want equal -- for everybody to have an equal chance. guest: yes that is not egalitarian is a him. it is equal opportunity. we do not live in an egalitarian society. that is a basic communist and socialist society. we certainly do not do that. some people can do better than others depending on opportunity and luck. it says, this is a deep gash equal opportunity society. that is what it should be about. caller: you are right and my point to that -- and i will get to my question is this. you say that and i am a perfect example of, i dropped out of high school in the ninth grade heavily addicted to every

substance possible. i pulled my head out of my but and got with what i needed to do and got the help i needed and got into a career by my own choice and my own doing. no one gave me a handout. i never collected unemployment, food stamps, or anything. i am a six-figure employee today. my question is this. why do we need the systems of so much handouts when you have women that are on welfare collecting -- i agree, if they need the help, they need the help. but if you have one child on the program, fine. then you have || five, and you get paid for that? guest: the president has talked in his budget about hard work.

there is -- even the program he is recommending in terms of community colleges to make the first two years something dollar free, so you get started and you have that opportunity, so many thousands of people have taken care of their own needs, as you did in a different fashion by either going to community college come you get an associates degree and going to vocational schools, technical schools, just as important for your colleges. committee colleges, vocational schools and the technical schools, are the new engines for the economy to try to help the middle-class. there is no question self initiative is what we need. you cannot be expecting the

state to take care of you. that is the debate we have. does the government do too much our not enough -- or not enough? we are trying to reach a balance. host: north carolina, a line for republicans. brian, good morning. caller: good morning. i am an attorney who deals with veterans disability benefits. so i deal with entitlements all day long. my question is regarding double-dip verse --double-dippers. i have got a lot of veterans who get social security disability and v.a. disability benefits. when you get 10 or 20, it is marginal. i have some veterans who are making 100% benefits from the v.a. 3300 dollars a month,

non-taxed, plus social security benefits, 1013 -- and i feel like that is not including other benefits they are getting. some of these veterans have free housing and other things going on. guest: do you agree with that? caller: i am not talking necessarily about entitlement reform and benefits, but is there anything anyone is discussing regarding double-dipping? maybe putting a hard cap on the maximum benefits available per year per person? guest: finish your question. host: go ahead. guest: i think, brian, that the v.a. in that area has done a pretty good job separating those who need and those who are did

-- deserving and have benefits coming to them and their families. but i think you agree with me we could never do enough for veterans, particularly the ones who put their lives on the line for you and for me. we have gone through some hard times in these last few years zeroing in on those facilities who have not done the job, who put people on waiting lists. we do not want anyone to game the system, but we want people to be getting what they deserve and what they signed up for whatever service they went to. i think the president has addressed that. we have had tremendous increases in veterans benefits. we are looking for fraud if any exists in that you're the greatest majority of veterans are great americans and are only getting what they deserve, if they're getting it at all. that is my job to make sure they get those benefits. host: to put some numbers to what we are talking about, the administration's is a request asked for $168 billion for the v.a., which includes 70 billion

-- $70 billion in discretionary spending. that represents a 7.8% increase over last year's request. ron is waiting next in kentucky on the line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. for one, i am a veteran. i spent four years in the navy. two bronze stars and a silver star and two tors in vietnam. guest: thanks for your service. caller: i am pretty sick of being punched. i don't know why, you know, i have been moral, ethical, responsible, and yet i am punished. you know, i see these -- host: in what way? caller: with taxes, for one. i happen to have a lot of kids.

i was born in rural appalachia. i have seen poverty on a wholesale basis. i literally pulled myself up from my bootstraps. as soon as i was old enough, i went into the service. i got myself situated around. i am a small business owner. i am not about to make $1 million, but i want to live comfortable. the harder i work, the more i get taxed. host: what do you want to see from members of congress? caller: we have been regulated to death. from the epa on down. they was giving us ecstatic about the runoff on our building. you know, i cannot control rainwater. there are two other issues i would like to ask you about. one is the 84 program and the other is section 5210 of the

aca. guest: what about 5210 of the aca? caller: why do we need 20,000 troops? what does obama need with 20,000 troops? (202) 737-0002-- guest: what troops? caller: i have no idea. it gives him 25 troops to employ in the united states? guest: i don't have it in front of -- in front of me. what are you inferring? that there is a conspiracy here to put down the defenders of liberty? is that what you're saying? i have no idea what your point is. host: ron, do you want to talk about those regulations? guest: there is a debate in

congress that we are overregulated. every time he moved to a specific regulation, you see the consequences. it sounds wonderful, deregulation. but we deregulated, for instance, the cable television business. we did that many years ago before i got to congress. now people complain that their rates go up at somebody sneezing. you cannot have it both ways. we need regulations in banking. we needed in cable television. we need it in trucking, etc. the question is when you go too far. that is something congress should decide. i agree all regulations should be reviewed. host: about five minutes left with the congressman. rick is calling in. good morning, rick. caller: good morning. how are you, gentlemen?

-- quite a couple of years correct? guest: 18 years. caller: i am from south jersey. i believe everyone from new york , maybe two south jersey, nose and saxby what happened a couple of years back, maybe 13.5 years ago,. coming out of we hawken, new jersey. -- weehawkin, new jersey. i figure you are an educated man. new jersey, 13 years ago, there was a gentleman by the name of dominique. his company was found with explosives, basically connected to 9/11. how can you tell me you represent me, my family, and my state, and you not look into this?

guest: sir, i will have to review my notes on that one. i do not know the name. i was one of the originals along with senator menendez, starting on the homeland security committee, select committee at first. spent a lot of time trying to put together what the reverse is -- the resources needed to prevent this from happening again. i assure you, you will not find a more dedicated person to doing what we can do to defend our nation. that is the first part of my oath when i got sworn in last month to my 10th term. we pledge ourselves to defend the nation against foreign and domestic folks who are trying to do us harm. i can assure you look at my record, i have tried to do that

to the best of my ability. i will look into this. i will look into this. host: we have got time for a couple of more calls. carl on the line for republicans. guest: good morning to you. caller: good morning. i worked a full-time job until i was 71 years old. but i look around me appear, -- up here, and i have one neighbor who is 51. he got on social security disability. he told me, you are crazy, man. you are out here busting your but. get on social security, disability, food stamps, and then you run your little business, and he's doing a lot better than i am, getting on social security now. i recall what john kennedy said about, ask not what your country can do for you. it just turned on its head now. there are too many freeloaders

out here. i have two neighbors on social security and disability and i talked to both of them. they say that is the way to go. you can run a business under the table, get a check from the government. guest: everybody has got to pay their way. there are no free lunches. i agree with you 100%. it does not make any sense does it, in what republicans have attempted to do in the last years. in some instances, we went along with them. we do see the manpower at the irs, the fraud -- who review fraud and many of these situations. you are on target. worst thing you can do is when you are working your pet off and other people are not and they are getting the benefits of the greatest country in the world. i would anger me also. we all have neighbors like that. we hope that these people are exposed because it really drags down everybody else. host: a call for more funding for the irs? guest: yes. the president puts more money into the budget -- host: how much do we have for

the irs? do we know? guest: i just sent that number. i'm sorry. i do not want to guess. it has increased. host: california, our line for democrats. william. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to be to the point. each and every time there is a budget, they say that they will give so much money to the foreign countries, and they never return anything to us. what i cannot understand, i am 71 years old, the only answers i get from any members of congress or the senate or my local politicians, it does not make a difference, they say it is only 2-3% of the budget. we are broke. we have $300 in deficit. it does not make sense to me. he have people on all the corners with homeless signs and

their mentally disturbed in their vietnam veterans and other veterans from these recent wars. you explain to me, i want an actual answer other than it is just only 2-3% of the budget. why do we give these countries all this money? guest: it is 1%, actually. your question is a good faith question. i think much of the foreign aid goes to countries that help us and are our allies. we cannot isolate ourselves. we cannot insulate ourselves either. not with modern technology. those countries helping us, much of the aid goes to countries that are not helping us. those need to be reviewed and what we have done is has sanctions with these countries or reduced their foreign aid. every budget should be a review of every dime we provide every country. host: what are some examples of

that? what are places where you personally push for reductions? guest: i think our collaborative efforts with the russians have been reduced tremendously since they have become a bunch of wise guys, mr. putin and the tribe there. i think that is an example. taking a look at the middle east as to who our friends are and who are not our friends. to get money indiscriminately is not really foreign policy. it is bribery. you have seen when i have been in afghanistan, i have seen people carry bundles of money. we were basically bribing foreign countries to be on our side. this is not foreign policy. this is simply short term game -- gain. that's it. host: tony from new york. the line for republicans. caller: good morning. guest: fire away. caller: i have often wondered

why the debate concerning tax rates does not focus on certain brackets. here's is what i mean. certain industries could benefit from lowering taxes. certain industries would not be affected by increasing taxes. for instance, general motors could very well benefit by lowering taxes a cousin could put more money in r&d, increase its workforce, increase its salaries. certain high-tech companies, however, could not give you the same kind of productivity even if their taxes were increased. i will just hang up and listen to your response. guest: thank you and i think it is a great question. what the president proposed in the budget is lowering corporate taxes, increasing some of the taxes in terms of money that corporations that put aside so

they are not taxed, i think that is a fair way to go. there is no question in my mind that if we have lower corporate taxes, there will be more invest in and perhaps more jobs. this whole budget is geared to helping the middle-class. the average guy and gal out there working their butts off paying their taxes paying their dues, and not see any relief at the table. this is something the president has been talking about for six years. we need the cooperation of both parties. this should not be a partisan issue by any stretch of the imagination. i hope we have test reform that will help the middle-class and corporations. host: certainly debates that will play out in the ways and means committee and the budget committee, two committees that bill pascrell is a part of. guest: it is an honor to be here. thank you for having me. host: up next, raul labrador

joins us from idaho. he is a member of the newly formed freedom caucus. we will talk about the immigration debate, the budget to bake, and his legislative priorities for 2014. later, bloomberg businessweek's claire suddath joins us for her story about how the u.s. has messed up its system. we will talk about her proposal in that area. first, we want to show you the exchange monday between kongsberg hastings -- in the house hearing on the latest health care repeal bill. [video clip] >> in your state, which i think is crazy. he does not have the time. i have the time. >> i know that.

>> reclaim my time. i think that is the procedure here. [indiscernible] >> a very inflammatory statement to my state and i will not stand here and listen to it. >> fine. you don't have to listen. you can leave if you choose. i told you what i think about texas. i would not live there for all the tea in china. that is the way i see it. for all intents and purposes, i know what my state date, which is, in many respects, coming close to be just as crazy -- to being just as crazy. they did not expand medicaid. for that reason, i particularly take umbrage with all the thought about the 860,000 people in my state -- i particularly feel it is because we are not being reasonable as democrats and republicans with each other with all the brainpower that is here, we could very well have done all that is necessary to

ensure that americans are not in the position they are in with reference to health care in this country. >> i will await the gem and positive college he. i yield back. -- the gentleman's apology. i yield back. >> you will wait until hell freezes over. i would apologize to you if i was directing my comments to you or i was commenting about the state. i will not apologize. >> the gem is from texas controls the time. -- the gentleman from texas and trolls the time. to not see the value about the member hurling -- toward a state the people and its governor. it is uncalled for and there is no reason any member of this committee should do that.

host: we are now joined by raul labrador, republican from idaho. congressman, for those just learning about the freedom caucus, what is it? guest: we have a great group of house conservatives who decided we need to have a smaller, more nimble group who can work with leadership, set an agenda, talk about some freedom issues that we have all been concerned about. we can talk about the american people. we have a concern that both parties come to washington d.c., saying that they're working for the little people, but when they get here, what they really do his work for special interest for the people who give more money to their campaign. we want to represent the people back home and let the american people know that we believe in the things they are saying and we understand the frustrations that they have. we are just as frustrated as they are. host: house conservatives

traditionally joining the repair but -- the conservative republican committee. how is this different? guest: some of us are concerned about it but it still has a mission. it seems like in the last few years the rsc has become a debating society where people go in and talk about issues but they do not push leadership for more conservative or more freedom legislation. that is what we want to do. we want to make sure we are the voice for the countless americans who are frustrated with washington, d.c. every time i go home, no one is really excited about what is happening here. it does not matter what party they belong to. independence republicans libertarians, democrats. they do not feel washington, d.c. is listening to them. host: does caucus have anything

to do with the new chairman, conversely of texas? guest: not necessarily. several of us were talking about doing this for the last few years. not the chairman of the caucus at that time. some of us believed the group had grown too large to be effective. it is very difficult when you have a group that claims to stand for the conservative principle that the republican party is supposed to stand for and it is really just as big as the rest of the caucus. host: before joint dollar budget hits the budget yesterday. how does the committee feel? guest: we will have a budget task force in the freedom caucus. some people are experts on the budget committee and they will be getting together. but the initial impression is just more of the same. this president is not serious about what is happening in washington dc he seems to misunderstand the

message the american people made in november. the american people want less spending, less government, less regulation. this president wants more of the same. when he did the state of the onion, he took credit for the improvement in the economy. i admit there has been improvement. but he fails to tell the american people is that the economy improved over the last four years that we took over the house of representatives. what we did is stopped his spending and overregulation and some of the things he wanted to do. he has a budget that goes on without ever balancing. he grows taxes, he grows spending. it is incredible he does not understand those other things that bring down an economy, not just things that resurrect an economy. host: if you want to talk to congressman raul labrador, the phone lines are open. --

we will get two calls in just a second. we began today's show talking to our viewers about the increases in defense spending. is that one area you would be ok with increases over the sequestration cap already in place? guest: i think not. sequestration was not something i voted for, but we need to stop spending in washington, d.c. sequestration has been the only thing this president has done that has actually decreased spending, that has actually tried to bring balance to what we are doing in washington d.c. i would not be for that unless you are replacing it with something else. what happens here in washington is you have both parties. the republican party has its sacred cows and the democratic artie has its sacred cows and

they both agree not to touch each other's sacred cows. that is why we have the kind of spending we have. that is why we have the kind of deficits and the kind of spending we do in washington dc. host: increases in nondefense discretionary spending. do you think both of these moves are together? guest: i think that is what the president will try to do. he will try to get republicans to agree. you increase spending in defense and democrats will get the decrease desk increase -- the democrats will get the increase in spending in their programs. that is why we have to be careful with what the president is suggesting. host: in georgia, our line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you all feeling this morning? guest: doing great. how are you? caller: representative, if you

had a nation on the raft, and a qb in -- a cuban on the raft, why would you send a haitian back? and my next question, sir tell me, you all say [indiscernible] none of them would tuck up. [indiscernible] tummy, the keystone pipeline tell me the jobs bill, tell me -- then we can pull it up and understand what it was. host: a couple of big issues there. immigration, keystone jobs. guest: the first one, i actually agree with the caller. i do not the -- think there should be a difference between the two. i think we should have an

immigration system that works. the cuban crisis that elicited the current policy we have, i think we need to rethink that. i do not think we need to have -- i think we need to have a feet on the ground policy for cuba and that should change at some point. it does not mean we have to change the policy for haitians to be the same. i think we need to treat haitians and cubans the same, and it should be they go through a proper immigration system. the second question was? host: asking what other bills besides the keystone pipeline. guest: this is one of the reasons we started the caucus. we all agree, every member of the house agrees it is a good idea. but it seems like it has become the energy policy of the republican party to do the keystone pipeline. that is just one component. all the sudden we have elevated the keystone pipeline to an energy policy. we need to do much more than that here we need to look at all the different energy sources we

have and we need to make sure we are not doing anything just for special interests. that we're doing something for the american people and the american people are demanding that we do different things on energy. it is a first step, something the senate has done, but it is not the end-all and be-all. and it is just because washington dc does such a good job of making small issues larger than they should be, but they should be the only energy policy we have. host: new jersey, conrad is waiting on the line for independents. you are on the line with raul labrador. caller: hello, congressman. the president did reconcile -- the economy did get under his watch. the reason he did get better is because two years ago -- not two years ago, six years ago, he passed the stimulus package to get projects going. a few of them did get going. despite of him having six years

having a congress that is nothing hostile -- nothing but hostile towards him, he managed to get that done. i recall not last year but the year before, john boehner said he wanted this congress to be known by the billy did not pass as opposed to the bill it would pass. they have been dipping into the president and for him to do -- for him to persevere is something i am proud of. host: you are calling in on the line for independents but you do not sound one. you consider yourself a democrat? caller: i consider myself on the left, but i am an independent who leans that way. -- to the left. this president gets quite a few thing past and accomplished. guest: conrad, first, when he passed the stimulus package six years ago, the economy did not improve. it tanked during that time did it was when republicans took over two years ago that the economy started improving.

there was a study that just came out last week that shows the reason we have so many jobs last year is because we stopped some of the president's his agenda. a year ago, people like yourself were complaining that we were not going to spend on unemployment benefits. people like yourself were complaining that this was going to destroy the economy and destroy jobs. the opposite happened. when we did not extend unemployment benefits, people actually had to go out and get a job. that was something that was good for the economy, which is what we as republicans said. by stopping the president's his agenda, which is what we did, we actually improve the economy and we saw more people finding jobs, more people being employed and more people actually benefiting from the benefits of being american. i am proud of the work we have been doing as republicans. sometimes, there is a belief that more government actually gives people more opportunity. that is not true.

less government gives people more opportunity, more ability to find employment and improve their lives. host: albuquerque, new mexico is next. debbie is on the line for independents. caller: i have a question. i am assuming you are a lawyer and that is why you are in the house. which means you are not an economist. and i do understand economics just a little bit. you republicans keep talking about tax breaks and the jobs will be there. when you look back at the 1950's and the 1960's when the economy was going good, it was basically because of socialistic programs that brought up the lower-class into a middle-class. you can sit in a business that has state-of-the-art everything. if nobody comes in to buy the business -- to buy the business fails. you say that taxes are so high at 39%.

nobody in the top bracket pays 39%. host: let the congressman respond. guest: i do not think i have said that in the whole time i have been on the show. i actually agree with you. i just disagree probably on a small issue, but i think we need to get rid of all the loopholes. there are too many loopholes and it is part of the reason we started the freedom caucus. there are way too many loopholes in the tax code that benefit only the rich. you have some companies, some corporations in the united states, that are making billions and billions of dollars and they end up paying absolutely no taxes. i think that is fundamentally no fair. we want a fair system for all americans. we want all individuals to be paid and all corporations to be paid the same amount. whether you are a large corporation that gets to come to washington dc and talk to your congressman and do special benefits for your congressman or whether you are a small mom-and-pop shop back in idaho you should be paying the same

amount of taxes. you should not have special loopholes and the tax code. the difference is, when i want to use the money that gets rid of the loopholes to reduce all-american -- all americans'tax rates democrats for the most part want to get rid of the loophole so they can increase spending. i disagree with that. i think we are spending enough in washington dc and i do not think we have a problem with our spending. we have a problem with saving. i want more people to have money in their pockets and i do not want special interest groups to be receiving all the tax loopholes they receive. host: the caller brought up your background, certain member in idaho and before that, a member of the state house of representatives. you established a law practice before that. a law degree from the university of washington and with us for about the next half hour or so taking your calls and questions. kevin is up next, pennsylvania the line for republicans. caller: yes, good morning.

good morning congressman. pleasure to speak with you. i will tell you, when you started off, talking about politicians supporting positions that donors contribute to was music to my ears. it seems the oligarchs, the billionaires, are really determining the direction of our country. you know i am a reliable republican. my family is. most of my friends. to be honest with you, when we talk, many people vote for republicans because they're not democrats. neither party appears to really represent the american people. if i could, i have a comment but i do have a question. i think one of the things you referenced was the fact that the president's his position with respect to immigration, i do not

believe he had the constitutional right to just legalize 4 million people. in any event, i tell you the truth, many republicans seem to -- to support last year's senate immigration bill, which would have more than doubled immigration, legalize all the illegals, and i think congressman, you know that a number of the labor participation rate is so low, it will -- the lowest it has been since women started entering the workforce. we had so many people earlier call and talk about people going on disability. i do not know whether you are aware but technology is reducing the jobs, the number of jobs that are available. i have seen estimates, a study from oxford university something from yale, where they are talking about 50-75 percent of the current jobs in jeopardy over the next 20 years. host: we will let congressman

labrador jump in. guest: you are right. a lot of people vote for the republican party just because they do not like the democratic rdp or i think that is why we won the 2010 and the 2000 14 election. i keep telling my friends on capitol hill that you need to understand that the american people are not really excited about republicans. they are just less excited about the democrats. we need to make american people excited about republican ideas again. i agree with you there. on immigration i opposed the senate immigration bill. i opposed it because i think they put the cart before the horse. they put the 12 million people that are here in the united states illegally ahead of a good, modern immigration system. i think we need to fix the immigration system we have. we have this president not enforcing the law. we need to make sure that we have an interior enforcement system that is working. we need to make sure we have a border security that is adequate

for the 21st century. once you do that, the economy will start growing. once we stop the inflow of illegal immigration, we can talk about what we need to do with illegal immigration. we need to talk about what programs we need for the 21st-century. what we need to have an immigration system that is fair, but most importantly, fair to the american people. a lot of people here in washington, they talk about an immigration system that is fair for the 12 million people that are here illegally. it should not be fair to them. it needs to be fair for the american people and then we can discuss what happens with the people that are here. host: in the near term, we have a debate playing out for funding for the department of homeland security that has wrapped up this debate. how will that play out? guest: it will be a difficult fight. we need to show the american people that we are willing to put them first. what this president is doing, he is saying he wants to put the border security with -- the security of this nation at risk, because he wants to grant 5 million will illegals work

permits. like the color just said, we have proms with employment -- problems with employment worker per dissipation numbers at the lowest level we have ever had, and we have the president saying he is willing to risk the national security of united states, to shut down the government if we do not give him the ability to give 5 million people guest worker status. in a way, that is illegal. he went around congress. can you imagine if a republican president had done the same thing with the estate tax? if the republican president had said, you know what, i don't like the estate tax so i will tell you many people they do not have to pay it, and dv have not dated in the last two years, i will give you amnesty yet i will give you a free ride. can you imagine what the american people would have said about that? how it is ok for the president to do that on immigration. host: you talked about how the american people feel about the two parties. recently, we had the president

of tea party patriots on and she responded to a part -- to a question about whether there is just one republican party in the country. here is a bit of what she had to say. [video clip] >> there are people across the country who expect the republican party and those elected as republicans to live up to the republican platform. the tea party is nonpartisan or trans-partisan. we hold both parties accountable. i used to be partisan and now i consider myself american who wants more economic freedom and a debt-free future. host: the idea that the peak -- the tea party and these groups beat up on john boehner, is that a fair statement? guest: the tea party movement started because we were so concerned about the government. our government was spending at out-of-control levels. we are $18 trillion in debt. we want to see congress do

something about it. we started because we are so concerned about the debt and the spending. specifically about the stimulus bill. what we have seen now, six years later, congress and the administration continue to spend. congress and people will get elected claiming to want to address the problems that exist today, but they are not doing anything to address those problems. our donors across the country donate to us so that we can help apple fire their voices and hold congress accountable. that accountability is uncomfortable when you are not doing the job you are elected to do. host: congressman, how do you respond to those concerns? guest: she is right here the problem we haven't watched the d.c. is that everybody goes back home -- in washington dc is that everybody goes back home, and they campaign on less spending and less government and less regulation, they campaign on the fact that they will try to balance the budget, they will

try to bring down $18 trillion debt and then when they get here, they realize it is hard. i am not saying it is not hard. but they realize that it is hard and they are not willing to make the tough choices we need to make to make washington worked. then they come here and they try to make excuses for not fighting hard for the principles that they campaigned on. this is why we formed the freedom caucus. we want to show the american people that there is a group of republicans that believes in the republican platform, and we believe in keeping the promises we made to our constituents. that is why you have the tea party. sometimes, i hear the media say the tea party started because obama is president. they forget the history of the tea party. the tea party started because you have george w. bush in the white house and you have a republican majority not keeping the promises they made to the american people. that is why the tea party started. they were so frustrated with the republican party. the one-party they thought maybe would stand for something.

that is why they started the tea party. that is why we are starting the freedom caucus. we are telling the american people, our constituents, we believe in what you believe in. host: if you want to learn more about the freedom caucus, where can you go online? guest: we are just starting up and we do not have a website yet. host: expectations to get up to possibly -- guest: we have nine family members but over 30 members already in the group. host: congressmanlabrador here with us for the next 30 minutes. good morning. caller: good morning. you made a statement earlier with this bill, after it was enacted, to cause the economy to change. i think the records show that did not happen the way you said it happened. let me get to another point here.

americans realize we need to invest in america. all this money -- defense contractors are getting rich. we are not at war right now. i am a veteran. [indiscernible] we should always be ready for anything that can happen. we have to invest in the american people and education. we need to invest in children and provide for them so that they can have a better life. we are spending our money on things that will make our defense contractors rich. guest: again, i do not disagree with the collar. i disagree with the first statement. i think the evidence is pretty clear that after the stimulus, the economy went down. if you want to look it up, he confounded -- he can't find it. host: the president looking for nearly $500 billion over the next six years in infrastructure reinvestment. where you stand on that?

guest: i have not looked at all the details of the budget. there are some things we can invest in. we also need to look at transportation. i just met with the secretary of idaho. why is it that we are spending so much money on nonsense -- non-transportation needs? those are things we need to look at. he is right. i'm speaking as myself as a representative from idaho, and not as the freedom caucus, but we need to look at our war policy. we had been in a prolonged war for over 12 years. we need to figure out what exactly our mission is. this is one of the reasons that silly republicans have been weary of going into other conflicts. the money that we're spending and the lies that we are losing, the people have seen -- have sacrificed for the freedom of

this nation. we need to reconsider some of our foreign policy. i do not necessarily disagree with his statements. i do not want to be here just to give contractors more money. i want to make sure the economy grows and that the american people feel that they are value out of their members of congress . i am not here to make sure that any special interest gets more money. host: let's go to canyon lake texas. caller: good morning. i've been listening to obama and these democrats. they act like they treated president bush so great. stop lying, democrats. obama has taxed and regulated and spent more money with his congress than any president in history. that is a fact. another fact is that regulations

and all the spending that he has done, we will be paying for that as taxpayers for over 100 years just like we have paid for democrat spending over the last 200 years. it is amazing what obama said -- he was elected twice. so what? so was bush. i'm tired of listening to people tell us, like that idiot hastings, talking about texas. i have news for him, he is a more on. guest: he makes a good point. it amazes me. if you remember six years ago when democrats took over the senate, the headlines were "republicans need to work with senate democrats p ago now, we take over the senate and the headline is that we need to work

with the democratic minority. it almost seems like we always have to work with the democrats. the democrats never have to compromise with us, we have to compromise with them. host: on the issue i want to bring up a recent comment that you made on the immigration debate and the leadership in the senate, saying that senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is already sending a message that we lost the auto on immigration. can you talk through that? guess and let me throw -- finish my thought first on bush. he also made another great point. the democrats act like the bush years were this nirvana when they were constantly working with george w. bush. if you remember, they actually filed articles of impeachment. not filed, but drafted articles of impeachment.

they constantly complain about bush. they constantly calls an illegitimate, and illegitimate president. now, they act like this is the first time that a party has opposed an opposing president. it happens everything all time. whenever you have divisions between the president and the congress, you will have these conflicts. if you remember, clinton was in peach. -- impeach. ed. on this issue mitch mcconnell and the senate, i have been frustrated that he decided to go to the american people as a campaigner and say that he was going to do everything possible to stop the president agenda here in the senate with regards to his you legal amnesty for his executive action. as soon as he became majority

leader of the senate, the first thing he said was we only have 54 votes so we will not be able to do anything about the actions. that was wrong. we were able to pass reforms in the senate when new gingrich -- newt gingrich was bigger the house. we need to take our message to the people. we need to let the american people know what the president is doing. he is putting 5 million illegals ahead of the security of our country. mitch mcconnell needs to pick six or seven portable democrats and talk directly to their constituents and say, this person could be voting with republicans and stopping the president is legal amnesty, if he were willing to. that is what mitch mcconnell, as leader of the senate needs to be doing.

host: have you seen him on capitol hill and talk to him face-to-face? guest: i have seen him. i have not talked to him face-to-face. host: will is waiting on the line from tennessee. caller: good morning, gentlemen. we think a lot of c-span. it gives us an open window to our government and what is going on in the background. let me say three things. first, i was once a democrat. there are reasons that i left. i guess the main reason is that there is not much being done but needs party, whether democrat or republican. here is where i see the difference between democrats and republicans. democrats, through history, have always been humanitarian. if it were not for the title

program, we would be lost. minimum wage is a joke today. it is because neither democrats or republicans seem to care. it is that top 2% is getting the money. there is no way out for the poor. number two republicans are of course what we call capitalists. they are for private enterprise. that was good at the turn of the century and we needed the industrial revolution, that is all pass now. what the republicans ought to be doing is what is best for the american citizens. they are not doing that. host: congressman, you would take on the history of the two parties. guest: it is interesting. it was a republican party that freed the slaves. it was a republican party that helped pass civil rights legislation. it was the republican party that made sure people became better.

i came from nothing. i came from puerto rico. i moved to the mainland in high school. now, i am the congressman from idaho. think about that story. i became a republican because i believe that republicans believe in the individual. the individual, through his or her efforts, and can become something in society. they can play by the rules and become successful. it is the republican party that believes that more than the democrat party. if you look actual policies, when republicans were a control in the reagan years, we had unprecedented economic growth. when republicans were in control in the new gingrich years, we were able to balance the budget. the economy improve.

we were able to do welfare reform and bring more people out of welfare than we have ever done in history. it is not just saying that you believe in helping poor people. it is actually the policies that matter. under this president, more people are in poverty, more people are losing jobs, more people are out of the work world. even though this president says he cares for poor people and the less advantaged, and the disadvantaged, his policies and actually got more people down than any president in recent history. his policies do matter. it is not just that he says he cares, it is the things that he does that are actually not helping the american people. host: an independent from idaho falls. judy, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to get down to the nitty-gritty. idaho is a recipient state.

we see more in federal funds that we pay and federal taxes. let's say you get what you want -- and title with a cut in half agricultural subsidies are gone military spending is down, mountain home is close. how do you imagine life in idaho after that? guest: i do not think i ever said that i wanted military spending to go down or ford mountain home to close. the reality of why idaho is a recipient state is because we do not have the ability to use our federal lands. we have over 65% of idaho -- think about your state, is 65% of it were owned by the federal government and if there were restrictions on that land. what kind of land would you have?

host: the department of the interior. guest: correct. they are managing our lands in our state. we want to get rid of that management. we want to make sure the state manages our lands. that we are in charge of our mineral rights agricultural rights, forest land. if we could do that, we would not need money to come into the state. as you know, most of that money is coming in because the federal government has taken over much of our lands. yes, i would like to get rid of that. then we would be able to do very well without that federal money. we cannot misunderstand what is happening in idaho. if you look at massachusetts less than 1% of massachusetts is controlled by the federal government. we have about 65% of our state. that is the difference between the two states. host: maps from the nash --

national atlas showing idaho lands under control of the federal government. those are the green areas. you can see some of the federal land is division in idaho. june is up next from wisconsin. caller: good morning. i am glad to have c-span. i would like to -- i do not agree with republicans on a lot of things, but i do agree with them on this immigration thing. this immigration thing is way out of control. it is absolutely horrendous. it is herman is what is going on in wisconsin and other states. it used to be that they were here doing jobs that black people, white people, and asian

people would not do that is nonsense. there is a bunch of work out there for white people. i believe that republicans are on the right track. these 12 million people have to go back to their home countries. this is getting ridiculous. we can barely afford for our own citizens of the united states. guest: what you're hearing from him is frustration that we are hearing from all american people. you have a president that has society he will give 5 million people. ability to work in the united states at a time of high unemployment. he will not make them go through the legal system. he will not make them go through the procedures to determine if they are people that we need any united states. i think that is what is wrong with what he is doing. i think republicans and democrats are frustrated on this issue. that is why i begged our

republican leadership, both in the house and the senate, to take this issue seriously. not to worry about what the president is saying, how difficult this fight may be. the american people stand with us. host: he is talking about the way majority leader mitch mcconnell is working on this issue. what do you think about speaker boehner? guest: it is out for mitch mcconnell to take it out in the senate and force a vote. and to go to the american people , to states with bone all -- with bone democrats -- with vulnerable democrats. there are probably millions of people just like the caller who are frustrated with the president's actions. host: we does have a couple minutes left with the congressman. ron is work -- waiting on the

line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. it is an honor to speak with you. i find it absolutely laughable that any republican can come forward for the american people and say anything about that or spending since in 2008 when obama first raised his hand as president, there were already $9 trillion in deficit. most of that has been used to pay to bail out the banks and housing industry, and try and save what little economy was left after the republicans crashed into the oven eight. -- it in 2008. guest: you do realize that it was a democratic congress in 2008? go ahead and finish with your thought.

caller: the president then have the power, just like now. congress did not have all the power. guest: it was the democratic congress that pass legislation that got us into the debt. it was the democratic congress that passed the stimulus package. it was the democratic congress they did all these things. if you're going to call someone laughable, let's make sure you have your facts straight. it was the two years of democratic leadership that brought us to the brink of an economic collapse. it was also, if you think about it, that bush tried to change housing laws, and he was not allowed to change them because of many of the problems he was having with congress. he told the american people that there was a problem with the housing bubble. this was because of democrats. democratic policy got us into this mess. it was the democratic leadership in the house and senate they got us into this mess.

i am not excusing republicans. if you remember what i was talking about with the tea party. the tea party rose because they are so frustrated with republicans in washington dc who were not keeping their p promises. that is why i came to congress. i came to congress to make sure that we have a party that just -- does not just talk about its principles, but acts on its principles. that is why we have the house freedom congress -- caucus. host: i want to get in bernard, waiting in florida, independent. caller: good morning. i think god for people such as c-span. i want to say to this congressman, as a black independent, i find it disingenuous for person like yourself to come on and lie like you have been.

it was the republican party with their wars who got us in this mess, not president obama. also, for you to say that the republican party freed the slaves -- you never freed the slaves. host: i want to give you a moment to respond. guest: the history is clear, it was the republican party who freed the slaves. it was abraham lincoln, the father of the republican party who freed the slaves. it was the republican party during the reagan years that brought about more freedom in the world than any other previous president. it was under reagan that we had less poverty more people out of problems that they had. we believed in the american people. we believe in the principles that bring more freedom and liberty. the more you shackle people with

more government spending and regulation, it brings about less economic freedom. those are the things that we believe in and that we fight for. i think that it is unfortunate that the democratic party, and many people out there, try to tell a different story about the reality. it was al gore's father who fought against the civil rights act. it was george w. bush's father who fought. host: congressman labrador from idaho. a sounding -- founding member of the freedom caucus. up next, we will be joined by claire suddath on her recent story on the maternity leave system. we will be right back. ♪

>> the political landscape has changed with the 114 congress. not only are the 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house. and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate. there is also the first african-american in the house. keep track with the congressional chronicle page on our website. new congress, s access on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio and c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: one of the issues in president obama's recent state of the union address is the

maternity leave policy, or lack there of. claire suddath is a writer for bloomberg business. her new article is titled -- “can the u.s. ever fix its messed-up maternity leave system ." you argue that the maternity leave system is not only failing women, but children as well. guest: the u.s. is one of two countries in the world that does not offer any federally funding -- funded partial maternity leave. it is pretty crazy when you think about it. there are a lot of studies about the benefit to children's of maternity leave. they take the more frequently to doctors visits for checkups. and make sense. they would have time off work to do so. also women, when they get maternity leave, they tend to

keep their jobs in higher numbers. they have higher salaries when they return to work. also, that affects the family as well. host: lets talk about the state of the current system in the united states. what is the current federal policy and what states obion the federal policy on maternity leave? guess them what we have right now is called the family and medical leave act. it was passed in 1993. it grants people up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year. they can use it for a number of things like if they were to get sick. there are a number of regulations, such that you have to work for company with 50 or more employees. you have to have been there for over one year and be a full-time employee. if you are contracted or freelance, it does not apply to you. that means that less than half of americans qualify.

the other half would be entrepreneurs, small business owners, they do not qualify and have nothing. also if you talk about paid leave -- that is completely unpaid. only about 12% of american workers have paid leave. that is usually because they work for companies that voluntarily offer it, or they live in one of three states. that would be california, new jersey, and rhode island. those are the only states that have a paid leave policy in place right now. host: what are the policies in the states? guest: california is the first one ever passed anything. they passed in two dozen to -- 2000 and two. if you are in california, you get 55 percent of your paycheck for six weeks up to a certain income limit.

i think it is $6,000 per week. it does not include job protection. if you are not covered by fmla you do not have job protection in california. this puts people in california in a weird position. when i wrote the article, i talked to number of women who lived in the state and qualify but since it did not give job protection, they did not take it. then, new jersey and rhode island looked at their policy and tweaked it a bit. the percentage of pay is a little different, but it is premature same. host: we will be talking up his topic for the next half hour or so before the house in. i want to let you know that our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. i special line if you're currently on maternity leave

(202) 748-0003. as we said, president obama mention this in a state of the union address. he said we are the only advanced country in the world that does not guarantee paid sick leave or paid maternity leave. i'll be taking new action to help states adopt paid leave laws on their own. what can we see on the horizon? guest: he first mandated that federal workers would get six weeks of paid sick leave. he has at -- ask congress to pass another six weeks of that. he has also allocated about $2 billion to help states assess their own paid leave programs and start their own. that is great and it made headlines, but is actually something he has been pushing for since 2007.

he has included various amounts of money in his budget going back to at least 2011. it always gets written out before it is ever passed. while it is great, i'm not clear on whether or not congress will actually do anything about this. host: why have congress not pick this up in the past? how have they treated this in the past? guest: it is very interesting. it is something i looked into a lot and talked to a lot of people about. when you look at the number of voters eventually support this, it is widely supported. men and women, democrats and republicans. i think about 70% of the and 80% of democrats say they would support a candidate who supports paid leave. it is generally understood that this is something that people want. they understand that the system we have in place right now is not very feasible. whenever you get to a point when you're talking a specific bill you have intense clinical

fighting. small business association chamber of commerce, the usually come out against the spirit this is not been something that congress is willing to pick up and fight. i think it is really a shame. it is at least the conversation we should be having. host: we are with claire suddath for the next half hour or so. we will go first to steve who is waiting in california. republican. good morning. caller: i just want to find out what sort of maternity leave does communist china offered citizens? host: he is talking about comparing leave policy around the world. guest: i do not have china's number specifically on hand. i can tell you that most countries offers six months to one year. generally at least partially paid, or fully paid. host: we won't share a list of

countries that have paid leave policies from around the world. you can see, the green bar being paid leave and the total number of days going down from estonia to poland, spain lithuania. the united states all the way at the bottom with zero leave -- zero weeks of paid leave. you can also check out claire suddath's story from bloomberg businessweek. marianne is waiting on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. e to let you know -- first of all, i would like everyone to be paid to stay home for any reason. that is not practical, obviously. i would like to point out that the workload does not decrease. that workload, that is not being performed byker who is

offer many mode -- months, falls upon their coworkers. it is very difficult for coworkers. most companies are not going to hire people to fill in that boy. it just falls on the coworkers. that is my only point. it is part of the equation that has not been mentioned in most of these discussions. g hos and -- host: do you talk to coworkers in your story? guest: i have sought to business owners as well. that is something that comes up often. it came up in california when they were talking about what they wanted. the california chamber of commerce called it a job killer. they said it wouldn't be impossible, -- it would be impossible, especially for small

businesses. it is something that really concerns people. there have been some studies done to see what it is really like now that it is in place. it is something along the lines of 99% of businesses that have said it has not hurt their profitability or productivity. it does seem to have an expect when you have an extremely small business, like three or four employees, there is just not much you can do about it. for the most part, work it shifted to other colleagues. work is put on hold, if possible. obviously, if you have a place like a hospital where you really have to be fully staffed at all times, it is a bit of juggle -- of a juggle. regardless, if you are a business, you have to come out with -- come up with a contingency plan whether people are out paid or unpaid. it is a problem and something that should be talked about.

i think the answer depends on your business. host: if you want to join the conversation, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. a special line for those of you if you are currently on maternity leave and want to talk about this policy in the united states and at your job. (202) 748-0003 is the number for you. matthew is up next, tennessee independent. caller: good morning. i think it is odd that you cite communist china as someone who provides maternity leave. i just thought that this is what we went to war for so that we would not have kings and have -- and be servants. i get that people would love

maternity leave, and have someone to pay for it, that is the point of being free. someone does not just take care of you constantly. that is a price that we pay for living in america. i do not get why everyone konsyl he want someone to take care of them. host: i will let you jump in. guest: i think that is one way to look at it. i think another way to look at is the fact that women make up 40 -- 47% of the workforce. you have two thirds of women with m children under the age of six. another portion is the sole bread earner. i think if you look at our workforce, what we have now is different than what we have had in previous generations. whether or not you will leave the workforce, i think the problem will become more

diffuse. it is not just women. most of these laws are gentle neutral, four mothers and fathers. i think as a society we have come to the realization that new fathers need the time to just as well. especially if you have both parents working, parents need to be old to adjust their home life and work life and figure out what they need. whether or not they should be -- the level at which we want to paint below while they are out or support them in any way at least guaranteed job protection if they take time off, and expanded to more than 50% of the workforce is an option. i think there are number of different solutions that we can have and we need to figure out exactly what we want as a country. as it stands right now, the women who i've talked to, and i talked to a little over 2000 women who recently went on maternity leave within the past six or eight years they said

that they did not realize that it was this way. it was much harder and much less useful for them to continue their jobs at the same piece. host: the story is in need bloomberg businessweek. the headline -- “can the u.s. ever fix its messed-up maternity leave system." we're talking with claire suddath, the author of the article. our next color is from florida democrat. caller: good morning. first of all the first caller on your program, to try and impair the united states to china only exemplifies the ignorance of some people in this country. first of all he is practically proven wrong because probably china gives their women who have

children far more benefits than he would be willing to give people in our country. i think that is pathetic. in the year 2015. how austere do you want to be? you want to punish women because they had the brilliance to give earth the children? it is really ridiculous to listen to people speak that way. i thank you very much. host: that was sewing at -- sonja from florida. jim is up next. caller: first off -- our funds, are taxed funds are paid by working americans are wasted on foreign aid. also on welfare and illegals.

a whole generation of people are being raised on welfare when that money could easily be going to people who earn that money. but people who have jobs. they should have maternity leave. they could help those people who are working. more people are on welfare now than working. that is the problem. everyone who is working should benefit from those tax dollars that they are paying. go over the welfare and foreign aid. host: i want to ask you, how is california funding their maternity leave program? how will it be federal government funded if it were to move forward on it? guest: that is a great question. when california first started talking about this, they propose a tax that would be a payroll tax those on businesses and on employees. when it was ultimately passed, because of such of a pushback, it

was just on employees. right now, in california, if you are an employee, you have a payroll tax and that goes towards funding the california maternity leave program. what has been proposed, proposed in 2013, is something called a family act. it would be eight point 02% -- .02% tax. it would be funded through the social security administration and go into a pot, and pay for parental leave for men and women. i think what the senator has opposed is 56% of people's current pay for up to 12 weeks. that is the proposal. it has been sitting in the senate on debate, for over one year. it has not really been taken out or change.

that is currently what we've got. it is the most confidence of solution at the federal level. host: what committee and the senate would take this up if it were to start moving? guest: right now it is in the senate finance committee. it has been sitting there since the and of 2013. as far as i'm aware, it has not been moving. host: and what is the name of that legislation? guest: it is called a family act. it also covers a number of other things including sick leave. for the most part, it is for parental leave. host: that he up next from louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment first time in my 70's. the young lady who is talking i remember when there was a pot for social security. i remember there was a pot for

transportation. there was a pot for a lot of things. there are holes in those spots. they take money out and spend it which ever way they want to spend it. later on down the road, you have shortfalls. like the transportation fund right now. all of a sudden, all of that money that was put in there we cannot maintain our roads with that money. we need more money to do it. do you think in 10 years or 15 years, all that money put aside to help women take maternity leave, that money will not be there. you have to deal with the system you have. if you talk about california, look at the state of california them. -- then. you learn a lot of things in my life. you do not always get things and you have to figure out ways

to do what you want to do around some of the problems. society right now has so many problems. all the answers are let's pay a little more. eventually, no one has anything. guest: i think that is a good point. i think the answer to that is sort of a giant overhaul of the way the government works. i will say that what we have right now -- women do take maternity leave. it is often times unpaid and through a patchwork system of using vacation time, sick days -- . if they live in five states, there is disability insurance programs so that they can have partial wage replacement in the weeks immediately after giving birth. that is physically giving birth,

so any other sort of parent would not be covered. they do take it. i talked to a number of women who take six weeks off unpaid because i is all they can -- that is all they can afford. it would dip into their 401(k) and into savings. one woman essentially put her maternity leave on her credit card. they were married, their husbands worked. they had pretty solid middle-class jobs and this is what they had to do. that is what is happening right now. host: we have a special line in the segment for people who have taken paternal leave. that line is (202) 748-0003. otherwise, we will run through our standard lines. carol is room -- waiting on the line for republicans. caller: if you cannot afford to take time off to have your

children, i suggest that you do not have any. the government cannot pay for you to take time off to have your children. the government cannot pay for all of this giveaway. you need to grow up. you need to realize the you can do without a lot of things in this world. host: claire suddath, in your story you talk to a lot of women who wait until they can afford to have kids. talk through their expenses. guest: it is interesting. there are a couple things. if you are talking about people who can spit -- specifically not afford it, they figure out a workaround. they dip into their savings or put on their credit cards. honestly, if you want to start a family, you will figure out way to do that. also, a lot of women who have

careers that they love work really hard to get to a certain point in their career. it would then be more feasible for them to take time off for work fewer hours when they would have children. it is very common in the legal field. the general rule of psalm is to work hard and find a partner first, then have kids. the problem with that is that people often meet their partners in the late 30's. that is often too late for women. i talked to one woman who knew that was what she should do, but when she was 34, she was still a mid-level associate and decided that she be at the start. she didn't. she works really long hours and suffered from exhaustion. she worked for a nice law firm and the idle and ask a got decent maternity leave, but it was still a huge struggle to come back after a few months.

and figure out how to have this high-powered job and raise children. part of this is not feasible that is part of how life is. also, i think that we should reckon is the fact that this is something that a lot of women struggle with and do not always find a solution. host: again, if you want to read the story in bloomberg businessweek, the story is -- “can the u.s. ever fix its messed-up maternity leave system ." nancy is up next. caller: good morning. this is another part of government overreach, again. these people should land for their kids. we should not have to pay for them. the working people should not have to pay for them. this government has too many of these programs that we do not need. we do not need to be spending our money foolishly, especially

when we are $8 tr t debt. welfare and stuff, disability has to stop. host: claire suddath was talking at the beginning of this conversation about comparison to other countries around the world. and the fact that the u.s. is very low on the list that we are showing our viewers now of countries that have paid leave policies and protective leave policies, and the number of weeks. does that matter to you, nancy? the comparison to other countries. caller: it doesn't. if they can afford to do that, go forward -- go ahead and do it. we cannot. we are in debt. what are we thinking? we are a baby state. everybody wants a free handout. stop this.

host: nancy from texas. our next caller is from marilyn's. caller: i do not understand why people are so irresponsible to have children when they are not in the position to have them. other american citizens have to pay the bills for that decision. also, i question what the constitutional position of the u.s. is being used to pay for these personal decisions. it does not seem to be a legitimate function of the central government. finally, there are many people that are unable to work because they are sick. that is not a decision that they make. whereas, becoming pregnant is a personal decision.

for people who are sick and you are unable to make money because they're sick, nobody is reaching out to them. you heard a couple of concerns the last two callers. any thoughts? guest: i think a couple of things. if you do not think that people should be paid while they are out of work, that is perfectly fine. i think the conversation that we need to have -- it is a conversation that we need to have. what we have now includes unpaid leave for sick people. the fmla law applies to people who are parents people who are caring for a sick person, and people who are sick. people usually take off a few weeks, not months at a time. it is unpaid. it still only applies to half of all up workers. you still have the other half of

workers who get nothing from the government and are unable to take time off to take care of this. there is a lack of some sort of support for people who have these family and personal problems. whether or not we want to pay them is something we need to talk about. unpaid leave is not even available for many people. there is that. on top of that, i think we need to decide what we want to do and how we want to support our workers. ideally, as a country, everyone would once and be able to afford to have children. if they have a good job and are working, and that seems to be very hard for many people. we need to figure out why and what we want to do about that. host: we have about 10 minutes left before the house comes in. we will get a few more calls.

our next caller is calling from connecticut. good morning. guest: -- caller: we have added new workforce of women out in america working with men and in every company so that they can make art companies and economy go forward. a lot of people do not seem to understand that. these are benefits that should be paid by certain companies for employees. i would appreciate if people could be more appreciative towards women. they are trying to help us out in everything. guest: i think that was pretty well stated. i will say, to go back to what the previous caller had said i thought to several women who could afford to take time off

but actually able to take time off because it did not exist for them. i thought the woman in california who worked in the television industry and she was a contract worker. even though she worked in major television studios for several years and was paid well, she actually did not get maternity leave. she cited time it so that she would have her kids in between tv seasons. she succeeded to out of three times. the third time, she had a c-section and had to be back on the set. if you have had a c-section that is very strenuous. she said she did not know how she got through it but she did it. i doubt to some women who did not have any leave it all. i talked to one woman who was a lawyer. she owned her own business and represents clients in court. she scheduled her own maternity leave for six weeks, unpaid because she owned her own

business. then, she got called into court because one of her cases was not postponed. she had to show up in court with her baby because you cannot find any day care center that would take such a young child because it was unvaccinated. it is not just a question of how much we want to pay people out of a pot of money. it is why we cannot take time off work for something like this. host: for companies that provide paid maternity leave on their own, what industries are most likely to do that than others? guest: if you think about it, it was mostly business finance jobs. even so, it is 26% of workers in those industries who get it. in silicon valley, things are doing very well. facebook google, those types of companies have very generous policies. the highly competitive and for

the most part fully paid for men , women, and adoptive parents. sometimes, i would have to look, by think google's policy is over four months fully paid. they ask he started -- or, they changed it when he looked at the number of new mothers who are leaving the company. they noticed that a lot of women -- new mothers were leaving, so the update. -- they upped it. hosthost: next caller. caller: i have a 10 month old myself. many have -- of us have worked in our positions for a long time.

if you have a health issue after taking maternity, you could possibly lose your job. more than the pay, i think we should focus on the extension of those 12 weeks of job protection. host: adding on the line for a second. claire suddath, you said you would talk to many women who took maternity leave. what kind of questions would you have for a color like jennifer. guest: when you take maternity leave, if you work for company you have to figure out what your company offers. you have to figure out what your state offers. most women tend to know if they are planning. they know in advance. maybe one year or so in advance. they stop taking vacation, forge sick time, and lump all

their days together. then, you have to look at your personal finances and whether or not you can afford to be unpaid for -- three months is a long time to go without a paycheck. if you are married can you rely on one paycheck. if you're by yourself, how will you fund that. these are the questions that women asked. a lot of women that i found grew up in an age where was expected that they would go to college and take a career. they thought all of this was taking care of. maybe they should not have. but they did. a lot of them talk to me about how they were surprised about how there is no system for them in place. when they get to this place where they're looking for what is available to them at whatever company they work for, they are often shots. -- shocked. or they find out that in six

weeks or 12 weeks of maternity leave, they think is paid or partially paid. they find out later that it isn't. i had someone call me at work the other day, in a panic after reading the article. she said that she was four months pregnant and that she thought she had maternity leave, it turned out she didn't. she asked me what do i do? i told her, i wrote the article i cannot change the law for you. i walked her through what it is like and who she could talk to to get a handle on what exactly she should be doing. host: jennifer, are any of those experiences that claire said familiar to you? caller: i was familiar with it. i was familiar with my company's policy on leave. my first pregnancy -- i have other children also. i was surprised the first time

around there only 12 weeks. i was very lucky that the company i work for offered to pay me during my leave. that was very helpful. that relieves a lot of stress. i was very fortunate to have that. again, as you have a problem with the pregnancy, or you need a longer amount of time after c-section, that you can possibly lose your job or position after 12 weeks is very stressful. host: thank you for the caller. just a couple minutes left in our show today. jim is waiting from florida republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i am actually surprisingly for it. you know, if they cut out the amnesty, they could pay for it.

my wife and i tried to work until we could afford it. it ends up being too late. a nurse in my doctor's office got an attitude because she had to go on maternity leave. i think the woman should be able to get maternity leave. these people who say we should not pay for it, it is wrong. thanks for taking my call. you guys have a good day. host: can you talk through the expense of the fathers here. what the policies are for them. guest: almost all the policies passed in the u.s. and in other countries are gentle neutral. they apply to women and men. in sweden, for example, which

has the most generous policy they have certain numbers of months reserve for men. in canada, they have a certain number of months reserve for women. the time for men is created to encourage them to take leave. if you are an employer and thinking of hiring someone if you hire a woman of general childbearing age, would i have to offer this to her. it levels the playing field a little bit. even so, most of the leave that is taken is taken by women. in california, we're talking 10 years out -- about 26% of women who apply for paid leave our men. even so, they may be only take one or two weeks, when women take multiple weeks, i think six

weeks is the maximum. men, it is generally understood that this is something they need to. it is hard to be a parent. regardless of who you are. you go to work, your tired, you come home, maybe don't sleep very well at night. this is not something that is specific only to win it. there are obviously added problems for women in terms of they are the ones who give you -- give birth and breast-feeding. it is something we need to think about her father's as well. since we have the majority of two-parent households have both there to work. host: the house is getting ready to come in. can the u.s. ever fix it's best that maternity leave system? we appreciate your time. guest:, thank you. host: we are taking you live