g medical marijuana. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. both the house and senate back in session this week. this week, talking about the budget. you can expect questions on the latest controversy, a drinking incident. net neutrality and the agency's relationship with the obama white house will be fine center. the sunday morning, march 15.

last night, the president attending the grid iron dinner. he joked about how the presidency has aged them. in two years, he will join the presence club. involving former presidents, first ladies, and their staff. we will get to your cause and comments on c-span's "washington journal." should taxpayers continue to support former president's? (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. if you're an independent, (202) 745-8002. by the way, we will also take your comments on our twitter page, @cspanwj. on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. or send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. for some background on what is

the former president, passed back in 1958 to maintain the dignity of the presidency. based in part on how poor henry truman was when he left the presidency. it provides pensions and funds for travel, office space support staff. their annual pension for former president, about $200,000 per year. a widow of a former president receives $20,000 per year. tarini parti is joining us from politico. for clinton inc., $16 million since leaving the presidency. break down the numbers. guest: that's right. $60 million have been spent on

bill clinton's pension, travel office expenses. what we have found is a lot of these salaries were four people who also worked for the clinton foundation. we think that there might be some overlap between money spent , using taxpayer dollars, and the clinton foundation donation money. host: were you able to track down who is getting what as far as staffers, office space, etc.? guest: the breakdown gets a little tricky, but we know $96,000 per year has been allocated to salaries, one person who is a long term a also worked at the foundation. host: i would go back to the act passed in 1958. you include a mention of former president harry truman, who

wrote a letter basically saying that without some federal assistance, he would be trying to keep ahead of the hounds, referring to the bill say he was occurring. guest: there is a interesting history here as to why presidents need taxpayer money. it has been criticized a lot particularly from the republican side, saying it is completely unnecessary. you think the cleansing sample, the advance for his book was $50 million several years ago. many people question why presidents still need this given they are making so much money of books, speeches, etc.. host: and bill clinton is not immune to this. there is a story with reference to george w. bush who also benefits from his pension some salaries for his staff. of course, former president

jimmy carter, former first lady reagan, and others benefit. guest: that's right. the taxpayer money that has been spent for bill clinton exceeds the amount. it will be more than $60 million by the time 2016 rolls around. host: they also get secret service protection. is there way to figure out how much that is costing taxpayers for all former president? guest: that gets harder. the agency responsible for this i'm sure has been getting a lot of requests based on this act and the breakdown for the specifics. host: how transparent or open where former president clinton staff when you asked about the taxpayer dollars? guest: they're are obviously not as open about something like the headline, on politico.

they did say that none of the money was -- that has been debated regarding former secretary of state hillary clinton's e-mails. host: they said the server was protected by the secret service in her home. guest: that's right. it was built originally for the former president at his e-mails. host: you are following the story for political. that is available online. the headline -- the taxpayer time for the clinton inc. $60 million. i will get to your calls and comment on this question. should taxpayer money go towards

former president's? many of you already weighing in. john says, no. but is not just presence, we should not pay pensions our public officials -- for our public officials. kenneth says no. one person says, i've never seen a poor ex-president. mark says, in terms of security, yes. karen has this point on her twitter page -- there was a time when presidents left office poor but not so today. they don't need continued taxpayer support. maxime is joining us from new york city. good morning. caller: i feel that barack obama is going to be the richest

president ever because he is our first black president. he is a great president. if he had help from congress and of e-mails that had to help them, he would go down as the best president ever. i know a lot of pr haters will call in this morning and say, he is black, he does not need money. stop hating on people that make honey. host: thanks for the call. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. as we look at former president clinton and former president list with president obama in the rose garden, we are asking if taxpayer money should continue supporting former president? good morning. caller: good morning.

i think the president should be means tested as well when they leave office. most of them have legal degrees and if they choose to work, can make quite a pretty penny for themselves. that's all i have to say today. host: tom, thanks for the call. later this morning, we will check in with former governor and former pastor bill richardson. we will talk about negotiations beginning today. secretary of state john kerry is back in switzerland to possibly work out a deal with iran. of course, this follows the letter signed by 47 republicans. secretary kerry said he was in utter disbelief regarding the letter. this morning, inside the "new york times" this piece --

again, details this morning from "the new york times" coming just a few days from the elections in israel. poll showing that the party led

by benjamin netanyahu, slipping in the polls. chuck is joining us in illinois. democrats line. your take on all of this. caller: good morning, steve. glad to speak to you this morning. indeed, they should be paid. they have the secrets to the world. we must pay them to keep the secrets at bay. host: we will go next to mike from white plains, maryland. you are on the air. caller: white plains, new york state. it's very simple. our president should get a pension. they should be paid in office. as far as secret service, there should be a limit. what the clintons also do good

works with their organization, they make a lot of contributions. i can't blame them. i hope obama, when he leaves office, can rehabilitate himself and become like jimmy carter and prove that he just got a couple of bad breaks. host: thanks for the call. begin president obama, his longtime aide telling reporters she will stay until the last light is turned off. longtime aide and close friend of the obama's. this week in "then your time -- the new york times" sunday magazine. caller: i thought was funny. a couple calls ago someone was saying how we should it be counting other people's money

and we don't know the situation. it seems like, they had to bring up mitt romney and his wealth. i'm just kind of wondering why it's critical for democrats to make money, but if someone does in the private sector, it is an evil thing. host: you're looking at details thanks to the congressional research service. up until harry truman, former presidents did not receive a pension. it was passed in 1958. andrew is joining us, houston texas, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm gay, so -- host: we will go next to jacob. i think obama and any other president who leaves office, i don't think they deserve money from the taxpayers.

they should get a job. i'm sick of all these democrats playing the race card. who cares if obama is black. those democrats need to remember that woodrow wilson was a racist years ago. i hate him too as much as i hate obama. host: this from dd. it might be nice to know they need our help and were in office to serve the people and not to cash in. this from "cq weekly" on senator ted cruz, rand paul, and -- we have been tracking the candidates including rick perry and yesterday former governor jeb bush. the cover of "weekly standard"

is on scott walker. see scott run is the piece on the wisconsin governor's presidential bid. in case you missed it, from "time magazine" -- the clinton way. our next caller from miami florida. should taxpayers continue to support former president? caller: yes. but i have a question, why all of a sudden is this question coming up now and not the president is getting ready to retire. all of them deserve what they have worked for etc. i don't think there should be a problem with this. host: the reason we are opposing this is because of a new story from politico on the amount of

money that the clinton has received. this headline, "taxpayer tab for clinton inc. is $60 million." this morning, in "washington post" -- looking at a building as emk prepares to open later this month.

again, the essay by david and matt bennett. next is called, joining us from michigan. independent line. good morning. caller: hi, steve. how are you this morning? host: find, thank yor. e -- fine, thank you. caller: i am surprised by the story are covering this morning. this would be a new low for congress. they say, he's black, etc. they hate him. they hate the idea of a democrat in office. host: this has nothing to do with barack obama or the color of his skin.

this have to do with the institution itself. we are not focusing on barack obama or bill clinton but all former president. i don't want to get off track with this because some other people have made reference. caller: i understand what you're saying, and i don't think that it is that either. personally, i think there should be some kind of retirement home whatever. yeah, whatever, they are worth millions when they get out. but the idea that it stops here is crazy. host: janet napolitano, now the president of the you receive california system has this piece in "washington post" -- college is not in crisis. her piece also available online. roy is next. cambridge, massachusetts. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i think is ironic that harry truman, who refused to sell the office of the presidency, went back to missouri and turned out to be the precipitant of this abuse of paying former presidents. i think the solution is its that easy, but you have to find people with more integrity to run for office. host: you might find it interesting as well, available online there are three ways that a president can leave office -- death, and assassination, and impeachment. of all the presidents, william henry harrison had the shortest presidency, he died after one month.

for most of history, presidents have been given a pat on the back on their way out in p out of the presidency. that change in 1958 after harry truman. roosevelt had -- since presidents can't receive personal against, anything prince and to -- presented by former heads of state belong to the american people. president taft went on to become chief justice of the supreme court. he preferred the judicial over the executive. john quincy adams went on to serve in massachusetts saying, there's nothing more pathetic than a former president. this is don joining us from baltimore. good morning.

caller: good morning. i just lysate, first of all barack obama is half filipin filipina and and half black. george bush junior and barack obama will now have lifetime -- not have lifetime protection from the secret service. host: that was the case that you would get protection for 10 years after leaving the presidency, but in the post-9/11 world, you do get secret service protection for life. fyi. caller: one more thing. i'm a democrat, but i believe in corporate america. i think we need to get back to the great america that we once were. let the government out of the way and allow the private sector to come in and do what it does best. host: thanks very much for the

call. we have been tracking the presidential candidates, or would be presidential candidates. james pindell will be joining us from "boston globe" later on. rick perry said he will likely decide in the coming weeks whether to run for the presidency. he spoke on friday evening as if he had already declared. three years ago, i got in late i was wrong. that's from "union leader." caller: good morning. think for taking my call this morning. in reference to, i guess comments that were before about people, republicans mainly,

blocking obama on everything he did, i would like to remind them of eight years ago when barack obama first took office. they had a democrat controlled congress and they still couldn't get anything done because the party didn't agree. in reference to the topic being talked about, should taxpayers continue to support the president after they retire, i would say yes. because of the fact that being the president of the united states is a full-time job. host: thanks a lot for the call. we will go next to heather from carson city nevada. how are you? caller: good morning. i think the president should get a pension because government employees get a pension. if you want a pension, go get a state or government job. that's all. host: we will go to dick in

iowa. good morning. caller: i would say, the president deserves a pension a lot more than congress does for what they are doing. i think congress gets a pension, right? host: they do, but it depends on how much time you have sir. it does not come automatically. increases over the years you've served. caller: it would be the same thing. if it is ever pension, the president certainly does. host: this response, by the way from former president bill clinton's office with regard to the political story. former president clinton has allocated money for an office salaries, benefits for staff. foundation official said, his office is allocated nice 6000 -- $96,000 her year for personal salaries. gary is next.

caller: talking about pension, i served for over 30 years in the military and i get a meager pension, however, because i get disability my pension is offset a certain amount of money. i just think that he served eight years, he should get meager pension also. maybe a couple hundred dollars per month. host: gary from north carolina. last night, the gridiron called held its annual dinner. the dinner is close to cameras but we were in the lobby. among the speakers, governor scott walker. he was attending the dinner and delivering remarks.

scott walker referred to the number of staffers leaving the white house. valerie jarrett is the subject of the piece in this morning's sunday magazine from "then your times you go -- "the new york times." caller: when i heard what this was about, i had to call in. even though i am a staunch republican, the reason this came in is because he was broke and wouldn't sell the office. since i'm pretty sure the only president -- former presidents that we still have are the bushes and the clintons, and all of them are as wealthy as can be, i think they need to keep the security detail, but they can means tested like they want to do everything else. someone just now mention the

congress -- i do think they should cut their pensions, and maybe that would prevent them from staying 40 or 50 years. there is -- host: there is a great story by harry truman and his wife driving back to washington dc after leaving the white house. it became a pretty popular book that we focused on. caller: is funny, they say if you live in your, you never get to the statue of liberty. i live a mile to a half from his house and i've not been. host: you have to go there. what's the name of the street is on? like mainstreet? caller: i think it is spring, or pleasant. it is a beautiful house. host: we will get the answer just a moment. caller: one more thing.

do you have a picture of dorian gray somewhere in your attic? i have been watching you for about 20 years and you have not age one day. host: thank you so much. appreciate it. back to your comments and calls. from "time magazine" -- the best jokes from the gridiron. from barack obama, if i did not love america, i would have moved here from kenya. terry macola, who spoke for the go democrats, bill o'reilly wanted to be here but he was --

wolf blitzer also in attendance. our camera in the lobby as those of ride for the close cameras of vents. there is former secretary of state, madeleine albright. david from kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say a few things about the presidents receiving their protection and pensions once they leave office. that has become a part of our morals and values that the people who came before our generation were -- you know when all the women went to work roving bombers, and all the men were in the war fighting the war, that is what made us on america and the greatest generation. you know, another thing, with

any president, he has information inside his head that is very sacred and no one wants to let that get out. you should definitely give every president protection and security. he did his term. every president i see, when they come in office, their hair is all colored perfect. when they leave, they look like they have been in there for 20 years because the stress on our job is so unimaginable. most people don't even realize. a lot of people, they don't have morals and values. all they care about is the root of all evil and that is greed. host: we will go next to bruise from ohio. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. they are right, you do look very young.

hello? host: roots. -- ruth. caller: why would like to say is, of course they need their security detail. we are in a more dangerous time now than we have ever been in history. yes, they deserve the pay. if the lady wants to make a comment, this is more about the clintons than anyone really. i find it ironic i hope hillary doesn't run. also, the bushes have a lot more money than the clintons ever dreamed of. i think that is right too. the president's office is a 24 hour job. they are on call all the time. i guess it's really all i have to say.

host: thanks for the call. there you have the three presidents barack obama, george bush and bill clinton. nancy reagan does receive a pension as a former first lady. former first lady of jimmy carter also benefits from the present act. steve harrison has answered the question. truman's house is on the intersection of truman road and delaware road. i went there last week. he lived there until he passed away. we of course visited the truman library and focused on all of the presidents on our american president series. you can check out on our website. "seek q -- cq weekly" host: -- presidential bids roil the senate.

robert is joining us on the democrat line. the question we are asking should taxpayers continue to support former president. good morning. caller: on this deal of the presidents getting a pension, i don't think they should. when i worked on a job for eight years, no one gives me a pension. the same thing goes for the senators. if they set up, they should not get a pension also. most of them stand there too long. host: lloyd is next from ohio. caller: first-time caller. my question is to the clintons how much about $16 million will be used for hillary deco that is a conflict of interest i don't

want my tax dollars for her. i don't like hillary clinton. she is achieved. she is just not what i want my money to be spent for. host: we should point out, what she receives is only as a former si first lady. if she does run for president, she cannot use that money for her staff for a presidential bid. caller: but the clintons get $60 million. how much money as that you think he will let hillary use? host: just to be clear, $60 million is from when he left office through today. it is not per year. thanks for the call. by the way, the clinton way -- from "cq weekly.

we will next are caller from texas. good morning. caller: i believe the pension should be means base. i think the secret service are only be given to them for 10 years. look at jimmy carter, we could be giving him secret service for 35 or 40 years. to be honest, most people the country don't know who jimmy carter is. i think we need to cut it off and i deftly think we need to means test their income because a lot of them are very wealthy. don't give it to them if they don't need it. i think it was originally set up because when the president was leaving office, they didn't have the money to set up their homes and home offices. we put in years ago and never change it. host: thank you for the call.

a book by erik larson review this morning. but, he said, she is too fast for any submarine. by the way, we're focusing on nonfiction books all weekend at the tucson festival of books. our live coverage on c-span two gets under t weighed today. live from the rest of arizona, the site of the seventh annual tucson festival of the books. also, chance for you to call in. live coverage getting underway at 1:00 eastern time. charles. caller: good morning. i'm just calling in regards to this news of what they give to

present state how about george w. bush. i haven't heard you talk about what he has coming and what his staff would be paid. can you do that? host: there is actually a piece from cnn.com -- being a president can be a lucrative gig. the annual pension is $200,000 per year. after leaving office, george bush was paid a hundred way $5,000 for a speech. jimmy carter has been 14 books. george bush earned $7 million for his book, "decision point." again, this is not aimed at any president, but all of them. your take on that deco? caller: thank you.

host: nexus film. caller: good morning. i think the president shouldn't get the money. they are rich. after all, people in congress, they shouldn't get pension either. half of them are rich. their health care subsidized. but they take time to cut our stuff. our subsidies, our housing, or workmen's comp.. disability. they take from us and give to themselves. i'm one of the people that if they have secret service they should pay for. if they're rich already -- for pete sake, they go out and make speeches and make thousands of

dollars. we subsidize that. we have to stemcells sizing their big corporations and our senators and representatives. it is ridiculous. it is out of hand. we don't have money for anything, you get, we can give it to them and they can take it. i don't understand it. it is backwards. host: if you're just tuning in or listing on c-span radio, we are focusing on the question whether a taxpayer should continue to support the president. this from one of our viewers saying, first lady should not get money for staff after office. hank aaron, formally of the atlanta braves, one of these celebrities in attendance for the dinner. it is a traditional white tie and tail. cameras are not allowed inside the dinner. it is one of the few close door

media events. we did do a couple of interviews this last week with the historian of the gridiron club. the current president of the gridiron club. if you want to check it out on her website, it's on c-span.org. the president joked about clinton e-mails, scott walker, and marijuana. nine years after he made his gridiron debut, he took the podium sounding wistful about the passage of time. say, just a few years ago, i couldn't imagine being in the 50's. and when it comes to his ratings, he still can't. he said he was considering the tech savvy white house and

hillary clinton has a server in her house i didn't even know you could have that. that is the tradition of the gridiron dinner with skits and songs. details online at washington post.com. next call is joy from asheville. republican line. caller: good morning. on the president's receiving a pension, i do not agree with it. whenever hillary was talking -- whenever they went out of the white house, they were broke. they lived in the governor's mansion for 12 years. they didn't have to pay for anything. they had food, travel, a place to live. then, eight years in the white

house. if she can't manage a family of three, how the world that she thinks she can run the country? look how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they get for making beaches as a former president. some of them are better presidents than others, just like any other job. host: to be clear about hillary clinton, we're not here to defend or criticize her but she was referring to the legal bills that they had. herb reference to being broke. guest: you know what, if i had to pay legal bills, it would be my problem, not the taxpayers problem. host: joy from north carolina.

this morning in "the new york times" -- at these with reference to the e-mail address at the former first lady and former secretary of state. she concludes with these words and her piece, you seem like an annoyed clean, radiating irritation to anyone who tries to hold you accountable. you are of lesser toward the -- less rhetorically talented then bill, but more controlling. no drama obama and his advisers are clearly appalled to be john into shadowy shenanigans, just as al gore once was. whatever else you say about the president, he has no shadows. we hope this letter and bridges your knowledge of our constitutional system. sincerely, america. john from kentucky. republican line. caller: hello.

i don't support the pension for the presidents. host: we are getting a little bit of a delay. if you do get through, we ask that you turn the volume down on your set. the other piece that we want to draw attention to is -- it was obama's iran overture like nixon's opening to china? coming up in just a few minutes, and after bill richardson will be joining us a talk about that. mike from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. it sounded like the taxpayers paid for bill clinton. and the secret service is protecting it. i remember when the clintons left office, we had to send a

moving truck to get half the white house back. maybe we forgot to get the server? number two, lady from texas talking about that man the president from georgia. certain presidents need more protection than others, like the one from texas. they all need protection. thank you very much. host: thank you for the call. again, the conversation continues on twitter, @cspanwj. a lot of you weighing in on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. c-span's newsmaker program will have a conversation with ben cardin.

bill richardson will join us next. then, james pindell. first, a look at the conversation with ben cardin. [video clip] senator cardin: i do not know how that letter could have been sent. any center can do what he or she wants to do. but, for 47 to do that, it undermines the united states and the ability of the president to negotiate on the behalf of the united states. it is certainly something that never should have happened. it was clearly partisan. no question about it. it is not helpful to the negotiations taking place in regards to the iran nuclear capacity. it is something that was not helpful. i think we have to move forward. clearly, the bad guys in office let's make sure iran doesn't become, a nuclear state. the president has some very

difficult negotiations coming up in the next few weeks. he should've had the full support of the congress doing that. i'm very disappointed by that letter being sent. >> you believe that congress should weigh in. you have signed on to letter saying that you will consider options, but not vote on them. do you think the kind letter has affected that group of democrats? senator cardin: i think has made the environment and the senate much more partisan. it should not be that partisan. this was clearly a partisan effort by an overwhelming majority of republican senators. it does make it more challenging. the bottom line is congress is engaged. it must be engaged if there is an agreement. we impose the sanctions. there are statutory and sanctions.

the only way to have that -- they could be removed if by congressional action. congress has to be involved if an agreement is reached with iran, and we should be involved. there is a appropriate role of the executive and legislative branches in this. you don't change the ways to be before the deadline for an agreement. host: we hope you to an end. c-span's newsmakers program follows washington journal every sunday at 10:00 eastern time. our guest this week's democratic senator and a member of the senate foreign relations committee, ben cardin of maryland. joining us from new mexico former governor of new mexico and former u.s. ambassador to the united nations. let's talk about secretary of carry -- secretary of state john

kerry back in switzerland to work on iran negotiation. the white house saying to congress to hold off on anything until this deal is worked out. what's happening? post here in washington and in switzerland? guest: what's happening in washington is foreign policy partisanship needs to stop at the water's edge. -- used to stop at the water's edge, it doesn't anymore. this negotiate with iran has gotten intensik politicaly. for 200 years, america has been governed by the executive branch and for negotiations on a bipartisan basis. this has been undermined.

when i was in congress, in the executive branch, we used to get things done. we used to get along. now that is over. what is happened with the negotiations on iran is right now there's a deadline. band of march. they have the concluding agreement. i personally have reservations, but i want to see what secretary kerry and the administration, up with in terms of a potential agreement that curbs iran's nuclear ambitions. i want to see iran's behavior and the region retained. they should be responsible. and lastly, i want to see iran returned the marines and journalists that they have in prison. who knows that there will be an agreement. i think the administration deserves the opportunity to make an agreement presented to the american public and american congress, and go from there. host: center cotton and others

have said they had been shut out of the process and simply wanted to warn iranian officials that any agreement that does not get the approval of congress will be nolan boyd when a new president takes office in 2017. guest: that p letter was irresponsible. it was reckless. it sends the signal that america cannot honor its commitments. the president has the right to conduct these sensitive negotiations. congress has an important oversight role. a role where you send members of congress to inspect american programs overseas. treaties it approved ambassadors, but conducting sensitive negotiations, such as these negotiations is not the role of the congress. i sending a letter to basically a leader who is an enemy sends a signal to our allies also, the germans, french, british

chinese, that the united states cannot honor its commitments. no matter what you guys negotiate, we will not approve. it gives the iranians a weapon. a political weapon in internally and internationally to say, we are negotiating with a country that will not keep up with this commitments. this letter was irresponsible. sam nunn, who is probably the most bipartisan national security leader has said that. across the board, conservative newspapers have said this was an irresponsible action. host: a piece from "the washington post" -- is obama's overture like nixon's opening to china? he says, the president is hoping that iran's leaders, much like

china's leaders mao will put aside mistrust and step through an open door that could alter the geopolitics across the region. your assessment. guest: there is a difference. the nixon overture, the kissinger overture, china if we recall, it was totally secret. it happened all of a sudden and calm a native with a visit by president nixon to china. it was all, i think, an example of how the executive conducts negotiations. along with the end of the vietnam war. these were agreements negotiatied without congress. i haven't seen the article but if they come to an agreement, this is my hope, that they behave better in the

region. that they stop helping hamas and hezbollah. that they curb their nuclear ambitions. that they stop full minting terrorism in the region. that they stop attacking israel, both verbally and undermining israel, our best ally. i think that's the hope that if iran concludes the agreement on nuclear issues, that will strech to nuclear other matters. other countries, in europe and asia, that they will be responsible players in the international arena, which they have not been. host: what would a good deal look like for the u.s.? to paraphrase reagan, how do you trust and verify. that is the sticking point. verifying what iran is or is not

doing. guest: first, i want to see an end to the nuclear proliferation . i want to see that they do not develop nuclear weapons. i don't want to just see curbing of nuclear weapons for some sanctions release. i want to see some very strong sanctions remain as a verification. i want to see international inspections, not just by the international atomic agency, but by some of the countries involved in the negotiations. i would like to see american inspectors go in there. again, i mentioned iran's behavior in the region. i want to see the in. i also want to see iran released that american marine that american journalist, and that american in prison in iran for over 15 years. i think iran has to take several steps that are critically imprinted -- important. for me, i want to support this

deal, but for now i have reservations and i'm someone who is generally supportive of the obama administration for policy across the board. i want to see an agreement that is strong and verifiable, before it can support it. that doesn't mean that i don't think the president should have the authority to negotiate it. he should. congress should stay out. not send any irresponsible letters like this. let's see what the administration comes up with. we will know very soon, by the end of march, unless they extend the deadline, which i think is very possible. host: not only did senators write the letter, but the invitation from speaker boehner to israeli prime minister benjamin nine netanyahu just two weeks ago. polls are showing that his race has tightened. netanyahu's party falling behind.

what seems to be at the start of a coalition government that could potentially be formed in israel. again, voting will take place on tuesday. do you want to weigh in on what is happening in israel? guest: i have been there many times. the israeli public wants to see a strong israeli-american relationship. they don't want to see partisanship. they don't want to see in israeli prime minister come in and speak with a republican congress and speak without consulting the executive branch. president obama. i think that was attacked acquired that is hurting benjamin netanyahu. however, israel is a friend of the united states. we'll get over this. israel will still receive substantial financial, military, and other support from the united states. they are our key ally in the

region. i think these political differences between leaders they will remain until president obama is in office, and yet yahoo! -- netanyahu if he gets this election. the republican congress, by making this inventation, stuck in the eye of president obama. look, i want to see bipartisanship. when i was in congress, i thought was important to work with republicans and to anything i was doing. this has been abandoned since, i don't know how long this bipartisanship has ended. right now, it's at that were stage that i've ever seen. it has to stop at the water's edge. it has been our tradition. every republican president every democratic president. it is abandoned now. it is terrible.

host: i want to come back to that point. first, some background on i guess, bill richardson. he said 10 years in the house of representatives. he said as u.s. ambassador to the united nations before becoming energy secretary in the clinton administration. also served two terms as governor of new mexico. mark is joining us from chicago. good morning. caller: good morning. i love love love c-span. thank you for your service. i just have a quick, and quick question. mr. richardson, i feel like the letter was completely out of bounds. k this is another -- how do i say -- schooling of the president from the senate and from the republicans, which is totally out of bounds. i remember watching netanyahu and obama on tv and i remember

netanyahu going off on obama. people just not trusting what our president is doing. doing. it is kind of shameful. my question is, if these talks fail, who will be blamed for the failure of these talks? host: thank you. guest: the blame will be on the united states. our allies, germany russia, china, they are involved in these negotiations or they will be perplexed by america's failure if these talks collapsed. another effect is going to be right now iran's nuclear efforts are frozen.

if negotiations and end the talks collapse, they can continue to move ahead developing a nuclear weapon and we do not want that. that is going to be the aftereffect. the real damage is just going to be in the american public around the world would we say how can we negotiate an agreement with american president when half of the senate sends a letter to the opponent of the country we are negotiating with, and say that we are not going to verify or support it? that undermines the negotiation. i do not think that is a logan act violation, that is illegal no one has been prosecuted under the logan act, which says that

an american citizen cannot willfully negotiate with another country to do harm to united states. it is a very irresponsible and dangerous act. to have said that letter. i am not condemneding every senator, but it included some presidential candidates who will not want interference from the congress in a situation like this if they are in the oval office. host: article two of the constitution requires the advice and consent of the senate in negotiations and treaties. by using their role is after the treaty is formulated? guest: right now, the president

through the constitutional authority he has as commander in chief can negotiate an agreement like this. a recent agreement, when the u.s. and russia went ahead and stopped chemical weapons in syria, the distraction of those, that was an executive agreement. congress has an oversight role if any money is appropriated for anything related to the sanctions. the congress is an important player, but when it comes to the executive agreements, this is the prerogative of the executive ranch. host: a caller from florida.

caller: good morning. i have a question, we are bashing the republicans, what about when senator kerry went down to nicaragua, ted kennedy sent a representative for russia, and nancy pelosi went to syria to meet with alice harper shard -- to meet with leaders there? how long have we been in negotiations with iran over nuclear? how many times has it been pushed back? as far as the president drawing the line in the sand in syria it did nothing. you can keep your health care plan, he exceeded his authority on immigration, basically, why

should we trust him to negotiate? it is all right if the democrats do it, but if the republican senators doing it is. bad. guest: here is an example i went to give that does not agree with this gentleman. senator rick mccain took a trip to syria to observe operations in those countries. that is perfectly appropriate. the congress represents the american people. nancy pelosi strip to syria, i go to north korea not officially sometimes, sometimes unofficially to advance our

interests, to get a soldier out of prison. recently we were able to get a war hero out of prison who made a wrong turn and get him out. i was negotiating among a lot of families that have american prisoners in overseas situations. i think the congress has a rightful oversight role. i think sometimes it is controversial. but at the same time, the main negotiations, when it comes to increasing of our troops -- a basing of our troops, diplomatic breakthroughs, we have a statement part in a department of defense. we have an executive ranch that constitutionally should do this. the congress should backup but

not interfere. host: 12 you are saying stop the treaty -- one viewer saying stop the fox news lies, and treaty negotiations. guest: republicans and democrats cannot agree on a war authorization to fight isis you have the republicans wanting to have the president have more authority so he virtually sends troops, and then you have democrats say do not give him too much authority. the president can move in against isis, the airstrikes,

what he is doing but what he wants is for the congress to send a message to the world and to the american people that we back this military action of the united states by whatever means necessary against isis. but they cannot come together on a resolution. this is incredible what has happened, this lack of bipartisanship that has dominated our foreign policy for the last 200 years under democratic and republican presidents. host: another viewer, you guys got up in arms when nancy went to syria. selective limbaugh memory. get a brain. guest: i did negotiated with the north koreans, i was able to get a few listeners out -- prisoners out.

sometimes the executive branch does not want to get involved in these negotiations. they either send the citizens, or like myself, i gone unofficially sometimes, this is a role that nancy pelosi when she met with assad of syria, we have all tried on different times to get assad to stop the mass killings. senator mccain, senator below they go in and they meet with a rebels that is an appropriate role. to watch what we are doing in the executive branch, that

is the role of the congress. but not to engage in since sensitive diplomatic negotiations, or to undermine the president when he is engaged in sensitive negotiations with iran. host: our guest has founded the richardson center for global engagement he is also a professor at columbia university, and he has been four times nominated for the nobel peace prize. caller from kansas, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a registered democrat in the middle of a republican state. i have to tell you honestly, i feel like those 47 senators that signed that bill were speaking on the half of the constituents

of their state. i do not trust iran. you say i hope it is this, i hope it is this, i hope it goes. i have no faith in this government of iran that supports so many networks of terrorism throughout that part of the world. and that part of the world attacking jewish, catholic christian, muslims if they are not the right kind of muslim and we're supposed to cross our fingers and hope that president obama will know when the line is in the sand. we heard that the line was in the sand with syria and assad. that did not happen. right or wrong i do not think

he has a foreign policy. he seems to be guarding from behind. host: thank you for the call. caller: i think the lady makes a point that i agree on. she makes the point that we cannot trust iran. i do not trust them, i worry about these negotiations. but i want to give the president and secretary kerry a chance to move. let's see what they come up with with ending nuclear weapons in iran and many other facets that you pointed out. my point here is let's see what emerges. there is no shrieking, there is nothing we can comment on that is in writing that has been concluded and -- nothing in writing, nothing we can comment on that is in writing that has been concluded.

regardless of the partisanship that happened with not now hope visiting -- netanyahu visiting. let's find a way to ensure that any agreement with ron is verifiable, that our allies are part of this. to make the judgment before a negotiation is concluded, and then iran continues to develop their nuclear weapons, because right now their nuclear program is frozen, stopped, and the sanctions are biting. that is where i disagree with the lady crosspoint -- the ladies' point. host: if this negotiations fall through, then what? caller:guest: right now the nuclear

development is frozen. they have a lot of crippling sanctions on them that have obviously made a difference in the iranian economy. they are hurting from the sanctions. if this agreement is not concluded and the talks collapse, they are going to continue their nuclear development. they will continue to be a bad player in the international situation. the only one area where i think we secretly are hoping that iran continues is a are fighting isis -- they are fighting isis. we are basically on the same side of what we are trying to do, but we are trying to separate ourselves on that. that is the only good thing they are doing worldwide. host: republican line, good

morning, pat. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. richardson, i'm one of these every day american people, you are a lot smarter than i am. we had an election because we american people are tired of the way things have always been in washington. we are tired of the way the politicians -- so and so did it, so and so did that. everyone else is doing it, your mother and father would tell you that they did not care about everybody else, the only cared about you. we are tired of the way that things are always done in washington. president obama, in his negotiations, has that right. but he should have kept our foreign committee, you must

trust, you elected them to be in oversight committee should -- in oversight. he should have kept them informed. i do not think one man could do it without the representatives that we elected. the oversight committee says you cannot do that, i applaud them for doing oversight before we spend money . host: thank you. guest: she makes a very good point. i do not have a problem in seeing the obama administration should do a better job of consulting the congress, especially the foreign relations committee. they elected republican senators, republican representatives and they have to be part of the process.

all i am saying is they should not interfere the way they did on these iran negotiations. it has always been a situation where the congress feels they are not in on the takeoff they are in on the landing, and they want better consultation. that is the main complaint against be executive branch. i feel they should do a better job, but you have to be concerned about potential leaks. you have to be concerned about situations where the negotiations go public, the wiki leaks situation where negotiations with foreign leaders are all of the sudden all over newspapers. that undermines all americans, republicans and democrats. on these iran negotiations, i'm a supporter of the president, of

this foreign policy. but has anyone called me and said this is what is going on? they are not even good with their friends at telling you what they are doing. my point is there has to be a better way right on foreign-policy issues of this magnitude. isis negotiations negotiations with iran, they have to eliminate this partisanship that used to not exist when we were dealing with foreign policy and military issues. the gulf war. i was in congress would not was approved for the first president bush -- when that was approved for the first president bush. i do not know what is happening in washington, and i share your frustration.

host: this piece in time magazine as called empire of fear. a dramatic picture of where boris nemtsov was goingunned down, with the kremlin in the background. they say this was no accident, it was planned by whoever killed him. rumors popping up everywhere but the russuaian spokesperson saying he is fine. what is going on? guest: i think he is playing games. i think he needs a distraction from the bad things that are happening in russia like the boris nemtsov's assassination.

the ruble, the russian currency is collapsing. oil prices are hurting their budget enormously. you have the russian economy investment leaving. you have huge international criticism over what he has done in ukraine, and you also have crippling sanctions even from some of their partners like germany, france, on a lot of economic issues that are hurting russia. my guess is putin is saying let them talk about my absence of the do not talk about the others. he is a healthy guy, i met him once, he knows his issues. i do not think he is a friend of the united states, or someone we should trust, but at the same time i do nothing there is anything wrong. there is a press distraction

and that is the reason he is doing it. my speculation, you may have to ask russian experts who have better explanation. host: our conversation with former ambassador, governor, and congressman bill richardson. our color, denise. caller: i listened to reports out of the middle east of palestinians fighting with rocks and bottles and the israelis dropping bombs. today israel has nuclear weapons, iran does not. israel is a sovereign state iran is also a sovereign state. israel has the right to protect

itself, iran does not. the problem in the middle east is that iran has always been against the illegal occupation of the palestinian land by israel, and not only the illegal occupation of the total mistreatment of the palestinians. host: your response? guest: i do not think i totally share her view, but she is talking about the intense turmoil that were years ago existed in the middle east that exists today. israel is our ally, but you can understand israel's concern over iran because if you look at their neighborhood, they have hamas, hezbollah syria. egypt has been, over the years a friend of israel, they certify

the military relationship, but now it is not as strong as it used to be. you have iran eventually developing nuclear weapons. you have al qaeda, isis, israel is encircled by a bunch of bad neighbors. they are allied with us. the palestinian authority has not taken advantage of negotiating with israel on a two state solution because the palestinians are split between the terrorist element in the more modern element. this turmoil exists, and this is where we have to stick behind our friends. this is what perplexes me, why prime minister netanyahu went to the united days, angered a lot of democrats, anger a lot of

americans for going ahead with this speech to the congress on a legitimate issue that he cares about and israel cares about we should all care about, the nuclear proliferation and iran. it has not played well, which is the message is do not mix domestic politics with foreign policy. it will come back and bite you. host: that election is on tuesday. let's go back to what the senate foreign relations committee is dating with regard to our negotiations with iran. any deal undergoes fall congressional -- full congressional review. there will be no suspension of congressional sanctions for 60 days and the presidential assessment of iran's compliance is wererequired.

senator rand paul, one of those likely 2016 candidates, defending his signature. senator paul: the message was to president obama that we want you to understand the separation of powers. if this agreement anyway one of five legislative sanctions, it will have to be passed by congress. that is why i set supported senator corker's legislation but i think that is the law anyway. cannot undo legislation. why do i sign this letter? because i find to an administration that does not listen. to an administration that every term tries to call around

congress because you do not think you can get your way. the president says the congress will not do what i want, so i will do what i want. the letter was to you it was to iran but it should have been cc'd to the white house. host: that statement from senator rand paul before the foreign relations committee. our next caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. part of the difficulty is not knowing who you are dealing with , and their history. in 2012, a worker for pbs.org was allowed into iran.

at the closing of his travel log, he was allowed into the main mosque into terhan. he was there while they were in prayer. he said you will see the sheet behind him, and in farsi he said quietly, that says death to iran . i went and i studied the koran . in the koran it says it is not a sin to lie to the infidel or the

pig. host: we will give the ambassador a chance to respond. guest: the gap between us and iran is huge. we've had a very bad history between the two countries, we are probably each other's mother let me -- mortal enemy. i support an effort to try to bridge gaps. i think we should talk to our enemies, as long as they are not terrorists. i think iran is on the border, but i support the concept of these negotiations. i think we need a good deal. senator paul was totally wrong he sent a letter to the leader of iran he did not send it to the president saying we are not going to approve an agreement that we are negotiating with you

because you're a bad guy and do not bother doing it. he is a thoughtful guy so he should not have signed that. he is trying to have it both ways. this gentleman served our country honorably, he is skeptical, i am skeptical of these negotiations. but i am saying do not undermine the president, let's see what comes up. let's see the agreement on a radium -- uranium, sanctions verification. we do not have anything to look at except a bunch of speculation. host: negotiations phase a late obstacle to a deal, the headline in "the new york times"." our last call is carrie on our

republican line. caller: good morning. the problem with democrats this president holds us in contempt. our voices inconsequential to him. netanyahu was a man that got up there and spoke from the heart about his country. this president is in contempt of this country, when he speaks about this country. it is trust. as democrats, we do not trust you. if clinton would have done his job, that would towers would be standing today. guest: iv i vehemently disagree

with this man, and his mind is closed that is a problem. he basically thinks there is a republican solution to every problem. there is good in our system, republicans and democrats need to work together. president obama won two presidential elections. we lost the house of representatives, democrats still control the senate. we are a divided government, that is a signal the american people of given to our political system. part of the system is to work together, and that is not happening. when you get callers like that when their mind is totally closed, we're not going to get very far. i do not want to pile on that guy, he cares about his government, he called you at 7:30 a.m. the morning, but i do

not agree with him. host: some photographs of you when you were in the country. can you envision north and south korea reuniting? how would that happen? guest: i think it will be a wild. i think the north korean regime is firmly in power. they are an oppressive regime. the economy is going to be such that north korea is virtually bankrupt. they have repression there south korea is a vibrant democracy. you're going to have an example of east germany and west germany, it will take a while. but it is going to be up to the leaders of north and south korea. russia interestingly, is making overtures to north korea because of their hostility to us so it

is a new geopolitical arrangement. but my view is that you talk to the north koreans, you try to make sense of them. we have has some agreements, they have broken them, but that does not mean you isolate each other and you bomb each other and have military hostilities . the best power of the united states is strong diplomacy act by military power. use diplomacy first, but do with on a bipartisan basis so the world knows the republicans and democrats are united. and when you send a letter like this, that does not help. let's stop this stuff and try to reach understandings on foreign policy, and be tolerant of our political system that right now has a divided government. host: finally, and a personal

note, those pictures addressed your own weight loss. what have you been doing? guest: i have been swimming. i swim every day. my diet is a lot better, but i was carrying a lot of weight. a little diet and exercise but by no means in my perfect. -- am i perfect. i don't like to talk about it, because i do not want to sound like i am preaching. i swim every day and i live here in santa fe, new mexico. i'm not there with attention in washington, so i'm having a less stressful life, but i stay involved in foundations and foreign policy.

i am out of government now, so i'm a private citizen. host: always a pleasure, thank you for your expertise. we appreciate you coming to speak. guest: thank you. host: we are going to turn our attention to presidential politics. we are still in new hampshire, covering ted cruz and he is in lincoln, new hampshire. next james pindell joins us from the boston globe. you are listening and watching "washington journal." a live view of the capital as the sun rises. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> tonight on q and a, the

director of the georgetown medical university watchdog project on how pharmaceuticals lobby congress and doctors. >> the promotion of the drug starts seven to 10 years before the drug comes on the market. while it is illegal to market a drug before it is approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. sometimes drug companies have invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of conditions, or the particular mechanism of a drug. and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and

the minds of consumers to protect -- accept a particular condition. >> tonight, at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on q&a. tonight of the communicators fcc commissioner on the neutrality ruling, and the broadband program. >> what i'm proposing that we do is overhaul the lifeline program, make it then current engine sink -- they get the current --- make it coke current and in sync. get those providers out of the certification business. that is the number one problem we have been seeing with notes of positive had -- the not so

positive headlines. >> that will be on the communicators, on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is james kendal - pindell from the boston globe. i want to begin with governor scott walker, with nine events but only one public event. can you explain? guest: we are 11 months away from the iowa and new hampshire and something called the invisible primary. there are ways of knowing whether a candidate is winning, losing, or in third or fourth place.

money is easy to quantify, easy to understand. polling is also easy to understand from you are there in first place or seventh. third is harder to get your head around, what kind of campaign are you putting together? in new hampshire, i took a look a couple of weeks ago these super activists that are very important in the process of the new hampshire primary, you gstart to quantify who has the feet on the ground. if you are jeb bush, or scott walker you spend a lot of time one-on-one or in smaller groups with these activists.

it is a very important endorsement to you, and of value to you. this is going to be the 100th year anniversary of the new hampshire primary and they expect to spend a lot of time with these people to size up who will be running for president. host: i want to share with you jonathan martin was in measure of the weekend, he says it is an historical perspective. the headline is new hampshire shaping up as a free-for-all gets early republican attention. a longtime political observer and practitioners believe that new hampshire is is uncertain as any new hampshire republican primary decades, perhaps the the 1964 campaign, when henry cap lodge junior, the american investor to south vietnam one as

a write-in candidate. guest: when mitt romney was thinking about running for president, it could have written out new hampshire entirely. it is almost like hillary clinton running in new hampshire at this time. but right now it is a free-for-all. most internet, it is a must win state -- candidates, it is a must win state. rand paul, chris christie, jeb bush, they all must do well in new hampshire. you can make arguments about others, but new hampshire right now there is no clear indication about who is the front runner and who will remain a front runner. it is a couple of points between jeb bush, rand paul, and scott walker. host: the only public event

recovered live -- we covered live. here is the risk of the republican. >> our clearest risk right now is isis. it is clear what their intent is. it is not to stay in the middle east it is eventually to come back to american soil and to cause harm against americans because they have identified a threat theree. just like a virus in a computer, we need to go to whatever like this were tired to make sure that we eradicate radical islamic terrorism wherever it is that -- it is at.

i do not think we need troops on the ground, but i do not think we need to signal to our enemies how far we will go. they will just wait you out. first and foremost you need to consult with the congress, listen to those who advise you get a real feel for what is going on as well as your intelligence committee. we need to branch out and reaffirm our allies. working with united kingdom germany, with australia, with canada. increasingly, in light of what has happened in the last several months, they are partners in the coalition we can drawn from the air world, because of what has happened to their own citizens and have a true coalition force. and when to take action depending on where appropriately

designed. host: rick perry very critical of the president and his handling of foreign policy. how big of an issue is this? guest: as a political reporter, obviously one thing you were looking at is the candidate. i spend a lot of my time at events like that when watching the crowd, and what fires them up. i might think what fired up this audience is hearing scott walker talk about his tenure as governor, how he took on the unions, made some light jabs at jeb bush, and he really stresses his humble background.

that is not what fired up the crowd. that little clip you showed, was the first time in a 15 minute speech that the crowd got motivation. foreign policy is really emerging as a strong issue among republican primary voters. we are losing the war against isis, they feel like president obama is not a strong lrsf eader. it is a subtle shift. they really want to hear about the economy, they really want to hear about the health care law. this time, the fire in the belly seems to be on for policy. -- f foreign policy.

host: james pindell is a graduate of drake university, and is formerly the political director at the abc affiliate in manchester, and is a columnist with the new hampshire union leader. he is now the political reporter for the boston globe and a contributor to new hampshire magazine. our phone lines are open. join the conversation on our facebook page or on twitter. rick perry was in hampshire late last week and he said he was a little bit arrogant in 2012, as he has learned from that. what is your take on that? guest: the difference is the way

he came into the race in august of 2011, and how he came into the race this time could not be more different. when he came in the race last time, he was the immediate front runner everyone was looking to him to be this alternative to romney, to be the republican nominee. in his first trip to new hampshire, he had hundreds of hundreds of people at the very home of the deputy house speaker. it was a very big event. this time he has been more humble, he is scrapping it out. he says he was a bit arrogant last time. he said he was enjoying the greatest three hours of his life. night you have the 2% or 4% in the polls. even among those who supported him in new hampshire now they

are holding back their endorsement. they like him as a person, they like him as a politician, they like his ideas, but they say that field is a lot bigger this time. a lot of these candidates who come for the second time, they are better candidates, and a build off of what they built. rick perry is starting from scratch and he knows it. host: here is what the former texas governor had to say. >> i think americans are so sick of the gridlock in washington dc, people talking past each other, not getting anything done. walking on the floor of the senate or the house, and then walking away and taking your toys and leaving and that is

not acceptable. one of the reasons that i do think that our nominee and i'm obviously biased about this, but the executive experience of having to get things done -- governors do not have the luxury of giving a speech and walking away. there was not one big thing that occurred in the state of texas not education reform, not those major budget issues that we have to deal with that was done with just republicans. there were democrat chairs, democrat leaders that we had to work with. i think that the next president of the united states, and i'm critical of the president, and the divisiveness we have seen pitting individual against individual, gender against gender, pitting economic groups

against economic groups. we need to be working to bring this country together. to reach across the aisle. host: governor rick perry in new hampshire this past week. joe was on the phone from trusted, south carolina -- charleston, south carolina. caller: i'm calling as an independent, iv constitutionalist. this is one of my favorite subjects, republicans need to be very careful as they move forward. you mentioned scott walker, but you also mentioned next year will be foreign policy. you know scott walker was elected twice, but right in the

middle of that, they voted blue. they voted for obama. i'm talking about simple math. we know that california has 55, we know that new york has 29, florida is always a tossup. but throw in those labor states, look at our economy in the labor states, and consider that, and tell me your opinion if you think scott walker could ever win in the face of that considering his stance on unions? guest: right now he is playing to get the republican nomination. this is something that they are definitely talking about. this is where hillary clinton is very important in this conversation preview except the premise that she is the

democratic nominee, republicans are talking about for who we put up -- what does that mean for who we put up? just lining up democratic states and republican states that are reliable, democrats have an advantage. republicans really need to thread that needle. you talk about what role unions could play, and that can be an important factor. this goes back to hillary clinton. talking about unions or non-unions, or a broader conversation about middle-class anxiety. we are praying that on the trail, that they have these popular tendency.

this is a populist movement against banks, big government and against elites. what scott walker has been trying to do is say that he's is a guy from a small town in wisconsin, does not have a college degree, he is one of you. he is raging against the elites in washington. a couple of weeks ago marco rubio said if you have a problem of this dynamic against wall street against main street, consider hillary clinton that would probably raise more money from wall street than any other candidate ever. that may be true. if it is just few days, we can have a detailed conversation about ohio, certainly michigan, and wisconsin, and iowa, these midwestern labor rich swing states.

when you do have a broader conversation about what is the middle class doing right now then scott walker may be back in the conversation if it is hillary clinton on the other side. host: we're talking the new hampshire primary with james pindell of the austin -- boston globe. caller: during the last several campaign cycles, gas prices were higher, we were in two middle eastern wars. foreign policy and domestic policy were very connected. that was a dominant issue, our energy policy. with regard to your discussion of foreign policy dominance in the republican primary new hampshire, going forward, do you

think with us exiting these wars in the middle east, do you think this will no longer drive the foreign policy conversation? things like iran and russia will take over the conversation? guest: that is a very smart question. i think right now, we have not seen energy play the role it has. this is very early in the process, we are in the first quarter. candidates are just trying to introduce themselves. but to that callers point energy has not been a very big topic of conversation. i think one of the reasons why is because of this explosion of domestic shale oil, and production that has gone up so dramatically that people are becoming more a] - energy

independent. when the seedtime time we do not have a national energy plan -- but at the same time we do not have a national energy plan. it really has been focused on russia and putin and iran and nuclear weapons. it has been about israel, and issues around the globe. it has not been specifically about energy policy links to national security. host: we get this question every four years who gives a dam about the new hampshire primary selection? they do not speak for the rest of us. how do you respond to that sentiment? guest: understand that new hampshire is never handed the first of the nation primary. when they first did it back in

1920, it was because other states had backed their primary, and it just happens that way. over time, over the decades they are not representative of the country as that it is not very diverse. what it does is a stop candidates, which is based in money,, and says he is a senator, governor, and you hang out in these elite circles. not a knock on them, that is the way they live their life, but it makes them leave the premises

behind. you actually have to engage with real people before you become the leader of the free world. that is what the activists and voters in new hampshire to start in an extremely serious way. they talk about who should not be in the final swing. new hampshire, and i will not very representative in terms of where people live, but they can because they are small and have a tradition of this, that the candidates -- vet the candidates in terms of character and who should win. just for a moment, they create a small pause. host: this week we covered senator graham and tonight we will cover senator cruz. last week we were governor rick

perry, senator paul, and scott walker. caller: good morning. i have been watching politics and presidential politics, and it still comes down to me as a likability thing. i go back to when obama was running in the primaries and you had that question, oh, hillary you are likable enough. the think i am wondering about is this -- why these candidates don't devote themselves instead of saying, especially my republican candidates, oh, we got problems here, here here. hey, why not go back to the

reagan thing of being the happy warrior. i would like to know instead of favorable and unfavorable ratings, how about likability ratings? host: your final point? caller: well, basically the reporters opinions -- does he have an opinion of which of the republican candidates might be or might come out to be the most likable candidate? host: two i. governor -- thank you. governor scott walker made reference to his sweater which you purchase for one dollar in kohl's. he has made that reference in the past as well. you can get some good deals at kohl's. he is trying to address steve's point, i am just like you. i am not some high tooting saluting governor or senator. i am keyed into how the middle-class lives in their lives and i shop at kohl's.

in terms of likability, one thing that really struck me was i was with jeb bush in iowa last weekend and the new hampshire this weekend and he is different in terms of how he comes across. generally, these candidates when they come to these early states they really fit into dr. different boxes. the over prepared and overeager ambitious type who wants to wow you when they first show up. oh, my goodness. then there is a second type, he wants to charm you learn your kids name, name your dog where'd you vacation? where do you go to church? gain a personal report. third is a candidate who is aloof. going to the paces, maybe john kerry or mitt romney. they are smart but not aware of what is going on. then there is the fourth, they have no idea what they are doing

and they wish someone would tell them what to do. i will not name those names. we will be nice. when i hung out with jeb bush it really did not fit any of the categories where his brother was of the wild type three. his brother and father wanted to charm you. they wanted to create a personal relationship. the best way i can articulate is that jeb bush is very zen and comfortable about what is happening. he understands the issues. he is not in a hurry. he is just the bare. he is jeb bush and he is a fine with that. at a time when he is trying to show that he is not his brother or his father, he is his own man. it is a pretty good part of winning the argument. we cover that health party in dover, new hampshire, --

host: if you haven't seen it, you will want to get a real sense of intimacy at the home of the former chair of the state republican party. he is also writing a book on new hampshire's role in the primary process. this morning, a piece from "the washington post" with the headline -- joining us from london, england your take on all of this from across the pond. caller: oh, hi. i think it is quite strange for the republicans. i am sitting here in london i don't see what the policies are

and they seem to be obsessed with obama. everything he says and does is opposite to what they say. they just say no, they have no policies at all. what is the republican policy and their vision? what are their policies? they don't seem to come up with anything at all. what is their vision for america in the next war years? guest: this is something that jeb bush, the former florida governor and rand paul, have talked a lot about on the trail. they say, look, we cannot be the party of no, we have to be a party of ideas. marco rubio laid out his visions in a book. they say the same thing. as peter points out, the biggest thing they talk about is how they are not obama and they do different things than obama. this is an open seat and they are trying to appeal to republicans.

we have not heard the vision thing yet, largely because it is very, very early. for the most part, it is solid republican principles. lower government, strong national security. this collection comes at a time that is actually really fascinating to watch the republican party. they have lost twice in the rope for the presidential race and they are trying to redefine themselves in a different way. they think in the reagan three leg it still that the republican party stood for. strong and conservative fiscal policy. strong national security. right now, all three of those legs are being questioned. in terms of the social policy, a lot of people are becoming more libertarian. when it comes to gay marriage or abortion, they do not want to talk about it. that is the case for rand paul. when it comes to economic policy, there is a definite split between wall street and main street. something we talked a little bit about earlier. and when it comes to strong national security, look, rand paul is forcing the situation

about how integration -- how interventional should we be as republican party. these core questions will be sorted out in the course of the next year. host: let's do this pretty quickly. the piece this morning and "washington post", yes, no, or maybe question mark does he get in the race? guest: why not is the answer. i don't know a lot how long he will last. mike huckabee, why not? he is making steps. he is been more serious. the dynamic for him is that they are iowa caucus winners in the past so they will have to figure out how that will work in iowa. it could be pretty epic. host: what about governor chris christie? guest: yes. all indications are that he is running. if you were a stock, i would buy him. i do not know how you would go up, but i would buy him right now. host: senator lindsey graham who

was in your state sunday and monday? guest: i don't know. he has been a crowd favorite though. he has to be really happy with some of the responses he received in the earlier states. if he doesn't, that may mean that the south carolina presidential primary is written -- is irrelevant. host: what about rand paul question mark they change the role in kentucky, is he in the race or not? guest: i think he is in the race. host: let's get back to cause. jeffrey from michigan, good morning on the democrats line. caller: good morning. the way the republicans want this last election was not about issues. you got the republican party that has come about the last 20 years and they are --

[indiscernible] it is all about race. i am not a day fan of obama. i voted for him the first time, but you got chris christie, this clown down in new orleans -- who wants to vote for them? these people have no politics at all. all of their policies are about lies. [indiscernible] host: let me jump in as a democrat, do you like hillary clinton or do you want to see someone challenger? caller: www.c-span.org --

[indiscernible] elizabeth warren. guest: yeah, elizabeth ward has repeatedly said no and no. that may not be something she wants to do at this time. maybe she wants to stay in the senate and continue in that path. right now, it is hillary clinton's race to lose. look, president obama was very popular last fall and he is going up in approval ratings. that is a major factor in swing states. host: james from long beach california, good morning. caller: i am so excited to be a caller on c-span. i have two serious questions and stay with me on this. first of all, i don't think isis -- i heard scott walker talking about prices -- he basically assumed -- about isis and he

assumes that america needs to be there. this is not our monkey or our circus. but the people over their fight if they do not come over here. how come the chinese and russians can get after them? why does it have to be our children and our treasury? second question, the elephant in the room. a serious question. scott walker has a bald spot. you guys might overlook it, but the ranking voters are going to look at every little thing in the republican party is going to wonder how does a guy with a bald spot and up being high on the ticket? they should clean that up now. either he goes all door he gets that taking care of. host: thank you for the call. want to take both points? guest: first off, on the bald spot. we may have the first president who wears glasses. if we are going to get into characteristics. jeb bush wearing glasses all the time, ben carson, elizabeth warren.

if we are going to go off looks -- i'm just joking. in terms of crisis, -- in terms of isis, one of the reasons in has been so important is the decision on whether or not we put boots on the ground. isis has been taking over areas of countries in the middle east. scott walker yesterday in concord said he would not rule out putting boots on the ground. that will be one of the key questions asked of these presidential candidates are your. how far will you go to take out isis and how closely will you work with iranians and working through that channel on how to coordinate and how to take out isis. host: governor walker did change his opinion on immigration saying yes, and some are calling him a flip flopper. guest: yes, and he said he was on immigration. he said he listened to people

and changed his mind, but he said it is not a pattern. i think jeb is people are trying to show it is a pattern for him. that will be one of the key questions with scott walker. he has never really had the national spotlight like this before suddenly he has won three elections in the last four years and has been in the spotlight, but not like this in a national sphere. everything he said in the past will be put through this test on whether or not he is a flip flopper. we had a conversation with him when it came to if he change his position in 2006 when he ran for governor and he had a radio ad against ethanol subsidies and it now and i what he is for them. so, he will be put through a lot of scrutiny and it will be interesting to see how will he answers that. host: governor walker in that one dollar kohl's sweater to a white tie and text last night. among the speakers at the annual gridiron club dinner at the renaissance hotel. this is so rival at the main lobby.

it -- the dinner is close to cameras. alex is joining us from new hampshire. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. host: it all begins in your state. caller: yes, sir. i wanted to thank you quickly for using democrat as opposed to democratic. scott walker has a line of winning. to my friend across the pond, small government, lower taxes free mark and i wanted to clarify something. i thought i heard you say that elizabeth warren was for small government? if you said that, are you kidding me? host: no, i don't think i said that. caller: oh, thank you. guest: i did not say that, i

don't want to believe that. [laughter] host: another caller, good morning. caller: this is to another caller from south carolina about electability of scott walker. he fails to recall that i am a union member calling on an independent line and typically vote republican, i will clear that up. i say independent because republican is not always the case for me. there is a lot of disgruntled doing members over obamacare. we pay $10,000 a year for insurance and no republican ever, ever contemplated loving a 40% tax on your -- union members . that is the ahead that he took out of our budget. the caller from south carolina has to remember there are a lot of union members who are unhappy that they have to pay $4000 in cash for insurance costs.

as soon as the costs go up and percentage goes up as well. host: thank you. guest: the taxes very controversial -- the so-called cadillac tax for premium health care. it is very controversial and some unions do not like it at all. it is something we have not heard a lot about on the trail. maybe that is something that the change in the future. host: harold, you get the last word from virginia. democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you. host: find, thank you. caller: i appreciate you taking my question. i have been an attorney for 30 years. i believe that problems can be solved in america and i think that is why people live here. i think that the biggest problem with politics currently is money. i understand the difficulty. here is the question -- is we have a system in which

according to citizens united, and unlimited funds committee provided to some of these campaigns, at what point because campaigns are so constant, do we find a hole in that in order to fix the problem? host: money and politics, james? caller: i don't know where it is going, but this is where we are at. you have a few candidates who would have these super pac's right? you would have the campaign apparatus which does have limits on how much you can raise. i do not know how much you can spend, but how much you can raise. and then you have the super pac. an outside organization and technically these organizations cannot talk. right now, candidates have super pacs and they do not have campaigns. potential candidates anyway of jeb bush, rand paul, chris christie started one.

eight candidates i believe have a super pac up and running. they are no longer this novelty or how is this going to work. it is a must have if you are running for president. the super pacs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money and that will be one of the key factors that will be different this time. what that means is that while this process is starting a little bit later and republicans , in particular, the republican national committee tries to shrink the process to and faster. if you are a candidate that has a super pac like rick santorum was last time with one guy who wants to spend a lot of money to continue to keep you in the race, you are in the race. you can lose iowa, you can lose new hampshire, you can lose south carolina, and you do not have to worry about what that means for confidence and donors and for you to be able to put tv ads up in later stages. if you have one person with the ability to do a super pac and run ads on your behalf, even if you cannot control what the ad says that is going to be a game changer and may elongate the process. where we go in 2020 and 2024,

and if there will be someone to eliminate, i do not know. daily, at some point there are diminishing returns. at some point, you have so many ads that it does not mean anything. host: we will be checking with james over the next 11 months and joining us from boston. his latest work to win the new hampshire primary first, you need to win over the activist. his pieces online at "boston globe.com" and we appreciate you being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we turn our attention from road to the white house 2016 to medical marijuana. joining us in a minute will be shawnta hopkins and dr. john bedeau. first, advocates for medical marijuana are speaking on the issue, including katie hints of new york city talked about her

daughter's medical history and the right for access to medical marijuana. here is a portion. katie: morgan is four years old and she suffers from a severe form of epilepsy. she has seizures almost everything with a. her seizures started at nine weeks old. upon her first admission to the hospital, she was started on an anticonvulsant medicine. within 10 days, we had added a second. within a month, they had added a third. i was forced to watch as morgan became unresponsive and lifeless from sedation. what doctors did not tell us was that over 30% of epilepsy patients have caesar's that cannot be controlled -- have seizures that cannot be controlled with treatment. morgan depends on a feeding tube because she cannot eat or take her medicines by mouth. she cannot sit, stand, or crawl independently. she does not speak and requires constant supervision from a nurse. she has trialed and failed over 10 different seizure medications. yet at best, morgan has only ever gone for weeks seizure

free. at this point, we will never know what has affected her more. her uncontrolled seizures or the mountains of medications she has taken in her short life. there are thousands of families in the u.s. living under similar circumstances. some patients having one seizure a day and some having hundreds. but some of these families are living in states with existing medical marijuana programs. because they, too have tried most every available medication, they decided to try something new. medical marijuana that is selectively grown for specific profiles are proving to be a safe and effective treatment in treatment resistant epilepsy's. so promising are the results most of the leading children's hospitals in the u.s. are involved with some sort of cvd clinical trial. this news spread like wildfire through the epilepsy community. the momentum to gain access has been unprecedented. many families instantly pick up their belongings and headed to colorado and are now dubbed

marijuana refugees. other families have quietly began to travel back and forth transporting medication across state lines to their children and loved ones. thus committing a federal crime. some families like mine, turned to state government for help. although a few states have successfully passed medical marijuana bills, most of them are fragmented, over thought, and overregulated because they have no guidance on a federal level. today, with introduction of this bill, that can change. individual state programs will never succeed until they are supported at a federal level. host: part of a news conference that took place this past week on the issue of medical marijuana. joining us at the table is shawnta hopkins. the founder and ceo of the medical marijuana advocates group. thank you for being with us. and dr. john bedeau who is a practice -- private practice physician. dr., i will begin with you. what are advantages? guest: there are many advantages

of medical marijuana. from patients with seizures, anxiety, depression, chronic pain fibromyalgia, and other conditions. marijuana is very effective. host: are there disadvantages? guest: uhh very few disadvantages, but more advantages and disadvantages. host: how is it a minister question mark do you smoke it? other ways you can take it? guest: it can be smoked, you can use it as an oil inhaler, and it can also be used in forms of oral administration such as cookies, candies. it is edible. host: new legislation introduced this posse to make it legal and we will hear from some lawmakers behind the legislation. what kind of opposition is it likely to face?

guest: i think the first opposition will getting it out of the committee because from what i understand the committee is a staunch opponent to medical marijuana and that may be one of the first opposition's. however, there are so many people that feel like marijuana has no medicinal purpose and value, so that still is a very, very strong belief. they still have a very strong voice when it comes to people saying that it adds to the crime rate and things like that. when really, the problem with the crime is salvation of marijuana. that is still a very strong argument. host: three senators, booker of new jersey, jill of new york, and senator rand paul, republican of kentucky. certainly a cross-section ideologically. guest: absolutely. i had heard that this was going to happen, but when i finally

heard the night before that it was actually going to be introduced, it was really, really exciting news because we have been hearing things like this for a really long time and to actually see that it is still being introduced -- a bill being introduced, a bipartisan bill it was really, really encouraging news. host: why did the current laws need to be changed? an announcement from booker as he was joined by gillibrand and paul. currently, they are prohibited from getting the medical treatment they desperately need to relieve pain and suffering. parents are unable to get the medical treatment their children need to relieve their pain and suffering. high trained officials in our country doctors, scientists medical personnel are unable to prescribed and recommended drugs that could alleviate the pain and suffering of their patients. otherwise, law-abiding americans bankers business people

veterans, families they are fearful of unnecessary expensive, like disrupting investigations and prosecutions. today, we join together to say enough is enough. our federal government has long overstepped the boundaries of common sense, fiscal prudence, and compassion with its marijuana laws. these laws must change. host: senator booker this past week and shawnta hopkins, what laws are in place to allow you to use marijuana for medicinal purposes? we know the law just change in d.c. guest: there has been a medical marijuana law on the books in d.c. we have had open dispensaries since august of 2013. dispensaries have been operational here in the district since 2013. the new legislation initiative 71 which they are saying is

legalization, allows for the the cultivation of marijuana at home . it does not allow -- it also removed any penalties of a decriminalization was passed in the district. it has been criminalized for a year but the new initiative 71 takes away all penalty, so there is not even a civil fine anymore for people or adults over 21 who are found in possession of less than two ounces of marijuana. however, the difference with the medical marijuana law is that it allows patients who have seen a physician and seen recommendations and they were have gotten licensed through the district of columbia held to purchase medical marijuana through one of these license dispensaries in the district. host: our phone lines are open as we talk about medical marijuana and attitude of guest at the table. 202 is the area code 748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8001

for republicans. we do have a line set aside for those of you who either have or advocate the use of medical marijuana and that number is 202 748 8003. 202748 8003. gary is joining us from sterling, virginia. caller: thank you for letting me share. i've got six concussions and one is subdermal hematoma and cerebral malaria. i told my brain surgeon and my neurologist that marijuana alleviated my headaches. and the only thing they told me was, don't get caught. but the four things i was told by the stoners, a loose affiliation of hot dealers p --ot -- pot dealers was told to get your head on right, don't kill anyone, and love your wife.

anything you would like to tell me? guest: no questions of particular, but have you used marijuana before? caller: yes, sir. guest: and if it benefits you and you use it? do you have a license? no, sir. guest: what state are you in? caller: virginia. host: thank you for the call. guest: for patients like gary in virginia where they do not have legal merit -- medical marijuana , the situation is heart wrenching. we receive calls from these types of patients where they are using medical marijuana to treat a condition. it is really unfortunate because with him being so close to the district where medical marijuana is legal unavailable it is unfortunate that he does not have access and is currently

using as a treatment and it seems -- based on what he is saying -- it is effective. those are situations and examples of people who definitely need to have access to a legal program. host: another user is greg who joins us from columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i used to live in seattle, washington, and that is where i became a patient to read -- patient. i am a veteran also. i am part of the v.a. and part of medical marijuana has made difficult it out there. my psychiatrist had oppositions anxiety medicines put me to sleep and they were just really weird. one of the best thing for anxiety was marijuana. the point is, now i am in ohio and i am not only a patient, but

a criminal and i am a veteran. i don't bother anybody. all i do is stay home collect my disability, stay out of trouble, do volunteer work. but i am a criminal. i like to mention that c-span made a mistake by having to do and americans represent this because it will have a negative outlook. there are a lot of conservatives that will see two african-americans as your experts and they will -- host: the first point, dr., would you like to respond? guest: the first point -- host: the benefits and that he is -- that he feels he is a criminal and ohio. guest: the benefits you get with marijuana, especially -- there are two double major that we see

in the marijuana. the fact that you see with thc is not seen with the other component, such that anxiety is a good indication. it is also good as an antidepressant so that being considered a criminal because you use the drug is very inappropriate because it has good medicinal values and compared to tobacco, it is much better use of drugs and more effective drug than tobacco in terms of effects and long-term

problems. host: shawnta hopkins, what is in the marijuana that provides medicinal purposes? guest: like you say, thc and tbd -- cvd. that is used primarily in situations where patients have seizure disorder and that is the active agent in the medicine that treats -- that helps to treat the seizures. the thc is more of the drug that helps patients who have things like anxiety or depression and tends to be more mood altering. there are some other points i like to touch on from the collar. some really important things that he said should be addressed. for example being in ohio specifically, i think everybody needs to be aware of what the malls -- laws are in their state for example marijuana -- not

medical marijuana, marijuana is decriminalized in ohio. what that means is to a certain amount, i want is three ounces. it is not considered a criminal offense he cuts it is decriminalized. you don't necessarily have to have a medical marijuana program to have that security that you will not be a criminal for possessing marijuana in small quantities. access to marijuana is a huge issue for veterans, even here in d.c. where medical marijuana is legal and available. veterans have a hard time accessing the treatment. they are patients at the v.a. and they don't receive consultation from the position -- from the positions regarding the use of medical marijuana. i have veterans that call quite often and they received our information do our out the -- our outreach efforts and it is not even a discussion that they are able to have it that the a. i think that is one of the things that is really critical

in our business focus is on getting that information and providing outreach services for veterans to have access to the medication. reduced fees so they can afford to pay for it because insurance does not cover any part of it, so we have reduced fees so veterans can have access to the medication. also something to remember, you need to know what the legislation in your state has about whether or not the criminal record would argue from the program. here in d.c., it does not matter. if you are a patient and has been approved by your physician and received a recommendation for marijuana, your criminal history does not meant -- does not matter. you are eligible if you are a d.c. resident and able to prove and establish your residency. you cannot be a caregiver with the criminal record, but a patient, you are allowed to hold a medical marijuana card.

it is really important to know the legislation in your state. host: we're talking about new federal legislation on the -- on legalizing medical marijuana. our guest, shawnta hopkins and private physician dr. john bedeau who is a medicine on expert. john from liverpool, new york. on our line from democrats, good morning. caller: first of all, god bless the good work you people are doing. keep it up. this happened to me about 40 years ago was the first time that this happened to me. i had a sick friend, she was dying of cancer. the nurse told her to try to get some marijuana and she convey this to me and i said, look, i will give you some for free. several other times in my life this happened to me where i had

a six rent -- sick friend and they benefited from the use of marijuana who had terminal diseases, cancer. in these cases it was cancer. that is the last thing a sick person needs, to not be able to get their medicine. thank god for rand paul. i mean the republicans can't not been very good on this issue, so hopefully we can get some republicans on board of this issue. the bottom line is, god bless the good work that you people are doing and stay with it. thank you. host: john, thank you for the call. let's move on to stephen from grand rapids, michigan, a user of medical marijuana. good morning. caller: thank you. back are real quick, in 2010, i have migraines and in 2010 someone told me that cannabis could help my migraines. i went in to look or in michigan and i went looking for a doctor with a ton of questions.

it was virtually impossible were i finally ended up -- i paid $600 for about 10 minutes of a consultation with a physician over skype. then they faxed over my recommendation and i want to this day and got my license. i was thinking to myself, this is really how you have to do it? by 2011, i started company called healthy partners for cannabis consultants. the goal was to essentially help usher in candidate -- cannabis use to permanent professionals in practices. what we do is started out centralizing in grand rapids michigan, and we worked and our group was advertised doing medical met -- medical marijuana

recommendations. any doctor should really be on our site if they want to be found by patients because people are bending over backwards looking for good positions for all different ailments they have. i have seen thousands of patients get their recommendations to use cannabis and housings of patients either reduce or eliminate their need for current over-the-counter prescriptions. the quality of life just changes. host: thank you for the call. we will get a response. dr. bedeau. guest: that is quite true. it is easy to have access to a position for medical marijuana -- to have access for physician of medical marijuana. patients come into the office

and we get a history and physical and based on information provided recommendations. we send a recommendation to the department of health and patients later received a card within two to three weeks following the application. after that, they are eligible for medical marijuana through one of the dispensaries in the city. host: in this e-mail from a viewer, as the pharmaceutical industry against legalization or do they see an opportunity? guest: i think -- that has not been stated, but based on information, i want to believe pharmaceutical companies would be against this recommendation because for one thing, they standardized the dosage for marijuana because most of it is

smoked and the dosage would not be really standardized. the drug would not be patented with pharmaceutical companies and that is where they make their money. they own that patent. host: in raleigh, north carolina. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have to say something and i'll make a quick as possible. having worked in school system for years i have seen how marijuana has destroyed our young people. i have also seen how marijuana also slows your reaction time down. now, as we legalize this product, how are they going to control people driving cars, especially at busy times. how are they going to control

people operating machinery? there is a horrible downside to marijuana, and i would really like the gentleman to answer the question that was asked before. what is the downside, the negative side of marijuana? and how are we going to control people that are high on marijuana because marijuana is addictive and how are we going to control in our society people driving, people operating machinery, and i will hang up now. thank you. host: thank you. dr. bedeau. guest: marijuana is not a very addictive drug. in the treatment system and we

have a detox center in the hospital. marijuana use and abuse, i have yet to see a patient going through withdrawals for marijuana. they may be high, but addiction is less likely. host: if you're interested, there is a piece in "the washington post" that is available online and outlines the details of this bill, which includes three senators, a plan that would make it legal for medicinal purposes. again, senators cory booker, gillibrand, and rand paul, two democrats and a republican. from high word, ohio -- from howard, ohio. connie is next. caller: good morning. i'm a registered nurse. i am also an epileptic. it took me years of fighting just to be able to get my registered nursing license. at the time, i was on

medication, which controlled my seizure activity three however after being on the only drug that controlled it for 20 plus years, it caused stage for cirrhosis of my liver. i had to come off of the medication and the only medication they had was kepra. it is not fully control my seizures and i am no longer able to function as a registered nurse. i do know for a fact that marijuana -- once a seizure starts come i can take three or four hits off of a joint and my seizure will just stop with an approximately seven to 10 minutes. all signs of that seizure comes to a halt. my thing is, i am fighting. i am in the state of ohio and i want control of my life again. i want to be able to live the quality of life and do things i cannot do because i am always at risk of arrest or anything for any amount of the marijuana that i can have on me for this purpose.

host: let me stop you at this point because we had a couple of other talkers -- collars on ohio. let's be clear on the law, stay on the line. small dosage, is it legal in ohio? guest: not legal, decriminalize. she does not have to worry about criminal prosecution so it is -- the legal would mean she could go into a medical marijuana dispensary and purchase, but for small amounts -- because i know for sure in d.c. it is two ounces, i believe in ohio it is up to three ounces , she does not have to worry about criminal penalties because small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in ohio. host: connie, are you still with us? do you want to respond? caller: i understand that part, but i also understand -- i'm a christian and a lot of people do not get how i can stand behind the legalization of marijuana. as a registered nurse if i have

any job working and i have marijuana in my system, i will either be terminated from a job, i can be put on suspension for my rn license or i will not be hired by anybody with it in my system. and all my jobs drug screen. host: ok, response. guest: that is why legalization is so critical and not just do criminalization. it does not offer that protection for people on their job, people on probation or parole, if you're housing could be affected. that was an excellent, excellent point she just made. you do not have to worry about terminal penalties and i think it is really important from the previous caller, that we note that while -- even for the initiative 71 that was just passed in the state, operating vehicles, operating machinery being under the influence while doing any of these activities remains illegal. it is the same as alcohol.

is it legal to possess, legal for adults to use it in their home, but it is still illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence. the same as with alcohol. host: one of our viewers saying under four ounces in ohio is like a traffic ticket. you can join on the conversation at www.c-span.org. from colorado, charles is next. good morning. caller: yes, he is right. four ounces or less in ohio is just a misdemeanor but, yeah out here what we have seen is when it all started up, all of these bad things are going to happen and all this stuff, and now that we are in full swing with recreational marijuana, it was the evil that never came. there are no problems, a little uptick in school use, but we are not seeing big arrests. what we did see was the emptying

of our jails. and things for marijuana finds but you know, life goes on and nothing has really changed here in colorado. you don't see any big headlines anymore or anything about it. it is just life as usual. and what we have also noticed -- i have noticed personally -- people out here that run the dispensaries, there are two types. they're coming out with levels of how much thc is in these plants and there is actually some guys down in boulder colorado who are growing marijuana that has almost zero thc. that is the ingredient that makes you high. what they are doing is growing it with this and giving it to children who have massive seizures. it does not get you high, it just kills the seizures. there are a lot of medical staff on us that is being ignored and

of course, the drug industry wants to ignore it because -- as the other gentleman said -- they cannot control dosages. the medicine cannot give you relief that actual medical marijuana can. they cannot make any money. host: thank you. guest: that is quite true. thus xtc with the thc is not seeing with the other comp annoyed -- cbd. there are diseases that benefit from the use of medical marijuana. host: washington -- new jersey

thank you for joining us. caller: good morning. i work with a group called patients out of time. we are having a wonderful medical marijuana conference in may this year. it is medical cannabis.com or patients out of time.org. i myself was a patient. i have been using medical cannabis for 41 years. i have -- i was given codeine pills when i was 10 years old just to take them every time i was in pain. my mother would say, oh, take one of your pills. i carried my coding around with me. once when i had the worst horrible attack and could not eat or drink for one week when i was on vacation, and it puts you sort of out of your mind because you are basically -- your entire

system is being poisoned. all the poisons are going out into your body. someone came in with a very small joint and i was like, i had tried it before and i was like a 19. i was like, oh, i am not in the mood for that now. and he said, i heard it helps. i smoked about half of it and i actually sat up and i smoked the rest of it and i went out and had some soup after five days of not being able to eat, drink, or move. i was so excited that iran ran back to tell my legislatures about this amazing wonderful cure. as we know, it has been 40 years of trying to get -- well, not even the medical establishment because i think they are very aware now of the benefits. host: how do you feel today?

caller: i feel great and a thing is, a lot of people say -- i heard people say every machinery -- heavy machinery and this and that. but people don't take in the idea of tolerance. that is why people need more and more opiates to feel the same way, so why wouldn't they think that is the same way with cannabis? as prescription drugs because i am sure that other people, i have an older daughter that does not smoke marijuana at all. it has been around her all the while she was growing up and she does not have an interest in it. perhaps if she smoked a joint, she would get high, but people -- what people call as high, but i don't. i feel, physically, fantastic and i think smoking -- and i have been smoking for that long.

i did move to oregon for a while to become a legal patient and have access to really good clean, p or, unadulterated trash pure unadulterated medicine where they don't use pesticides. people could learn a lot from what the oregon program. if you go to medical cannabis.com or patients out of time.org come to the conference. we have doctors, researchers from around the world because as your two guests know, there cannot be research in this country get and we have to import our researchers from israel. host: thank you, we are short on time. i want to give shawnta hopkins a chance to respond. guest: she made so many important points. having a legal medical marijuana program means the products -- the actual medicine -- is being regulated.

everything that is sold in the dispensaries here in d.c. is grown at a licensed facility. i want to also go back to what one of the patients said earlier. the face of marijuana, i can tell you, people would not expect it. you cannot put an age on it. you cannot put an age on it -- a race on it. you can't put a profession. what we do at my job, is to find positions for patients and we see patients from the ages of seven up to patients who are 86 and being brought in by their children who are so thankful that they now have access to this locally. they have been going to places like colorado and it is a federal crime for them to go and get this medication. now they are able to access this treatment here in washington dc, safely legally. they know what is in the product and they can feel safe about what they are giving to their children or their parents or

their 86-year-old mother. i think it is really, really important for people to number one, know what the laws are in your state so they know what protections they have. in states where you have a legal program, make sure that it is -- it is really important for people to understand how to access the program because it is not easy. that is what medical marijuana advocates group does. we assemble a huge network of physicians who are willing to write recommendations and we have internals, team management doctors, psychiatrist. we have a number of different doctors, but it is not easy to access these doctors or find doctors who are able to recommend unless you find a program like ours or you have a physician who was willing to ride it for his patients. there are so many things that are very important that people need to be aware of. for example, some states have a reciprocity program where they will accept a card from

colorado, oregon, california and in washington dc, they do not. if you -- even if you are legal patient in another state and traveling to d.c., you are not able to obtain your medication from the dispensary. the law is -- the law varies greatly from state to state. it is important that patients are people who want to become patients find these organizations such as ours or other resources within their state to know what is legal and what is not legal because people who need this treatment and if they are able to obtain it safely and feel comfortable with at the source of the medication, they need to understand that they will not face criminal penalties for using this medication. so this is really, really important that people understand that. host: shawnta hopkins is the mother of a special needs and she is the founder and ceo of the medical marijuana group. and jack -- and dr. john bedeau who is a graduate of howard university and has a private

practice and maryland. they are here to talk about the issue. another minute or two left. let's go to brian in michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. host: we are short on time so quick on comments or questions, please. caller: being here in michigan, i want to say that medical marijuana has some very strong allies in the chemical companies. in the alcohol companies, and the tobacco companies, in correction officers unions, all of these things have come forward with donations to our current -- to our attorney general here in michigan. him being a relative of a previous, i feel that they have lots to learn, especially ingrained feelings by police officers where it will be hard for them to get away from the seizures, the things that support their local police force

. it is a horrible thing going on where people are still getting in trouble for it for little amounts of marijuana. i believe it is a healing and should not be just medicinal. i think responsible adults should be able to choose what they want to do with their bodies. host: thank you for the call. final thoughts. guest: medical marijuana is effective and is recommended for patients with conditions that are treatable by. -- treatable by thomas a what people need to do is identify where it can be provided and go to the protocols of obtaining it. guest: again, everyone watching needs to take away to know the legislation in your state.

if you do not know where to find it, contact us. we would be happy to put you in touch with resources in your state. if you are in washington dc or in maryland, contact is that medical marijuana advocates group. we can assist you with obtaining a position, in maryland, it is important that people understand while it medical marijuana is legal, it is not yet available. however, it is a decriminalized and on the books as an affirmative defense for small amounts if you have a note from your doctor. know the laws in your state is my final words. it is very important. host: if they want to get more information, the website is -- guest: debbie debbie debbie. -- www.mmjadvocatesgroup.com host: thank you for being with us. we will continue the

conversation tomorrow morning on "washington journal." the editor of "weekly standard" will talk about negotiations with iran. the elections in israel, william kristol is here. kimberly lenard on the enrollment prediction for the affordable care act and the cost production. we will follow your money, the 16. -- 16 dollar school lunch program on "washington journal." thank you for joining us and we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. "newsmakers" is next. i hope you have a great weekend. ♪

>> next, "newsmakers" with maryland senator ben cardin. then, the senate hearing on combating isis. then, we will show you king abdullah's speech to the european parliament. susan: i guess on "newsmakers" this week is maryland senator ben cardin. center, we are glad to have you on "newsmakers" this week. senator cardin: glad to be here. susan: let me introduce the reporters. burgess everett of politico. niels lesniewski