e agriculture and judiciary committees, will discuss the future of the nsa information gathering program, the work in the house on immigration, and the role of iowa and the 2016 race. host: good morning, it is the "washington journal." today the senate holds a procedural vote that would change some nsa actresses concerning the collection of data. you can see that process play out today and by the way if that vote passes today a final vote on the legislation could take place by the end of the week are you senator rand paul has been getting much attention because of his actions on sunday. senator paul is running to be president of united states and

in our first 45 minutes we were to get your thoughts on his actions. q think they will help him or hurt him as he runs president in 2016. give us your thoughts on the phone lines today. (202) 748-8000 four republicans. (202) 748-8001 four democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you identify as a libertarian , (202) 748-8003. you can also make your comments on whether his actions will help him or her to him on our facebook page and you can e-mail us, too. leading up to the actions on sunday in the senate which led to the expiration of some of those provisions. senator paul tempted them on his presidential -- touted them on

his presidential webpage. he says the illegal spy program has ended. he says they successfully ended the nsa illegal spying program on may 31. if you go to rand paul.com you can see that. on that page as well there was on young ads on the site talking about the patriot act and senator paul's response to it. [video clip] >> are we to trust government to collect and hold every american's phone records? i believe your phone records are yours. i say the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their business. i believe you have a right to trial that should be protected.

>> so there is a campaign ad. the patriot act and the nsa -- will it help him or hurt him as he runs for president in 2016. today in the senate, a bill being considered, it deals with collection practices done by the nsa and looking to make changes to that. that starts today and here to tell us more is julian from the hill. mr. haddam, good morning. guest: good morning and thank you for having me. host: could you tell us exactly what happens today. some of the stories we read about some of the amendments that senators what to see added to it.

guest: the senate has been stalling on it. this is a bill that would renew the underlying revisions of the patriot act which expired sunday night because the senate was not able to move forward but at the same time it would end the national security agency's book collection of american phone records which is the controversial program that rand paul talking about. senator paul has a post this. use procedural tactics to hold this bill up but that ends for the most part this morning. they're trying to get 60 votes to proceed with this bill to move forward and there is a lot of indication if they do have that then there is this question of the amendment. he had asked to introduce a

couple of minutes and then said he would back off and allow the bill to come to a vote. mitch mcconnell locked him him if using his amendment and instead mcconnell had introduced a couple amendments of his own that undermines the support this bill has received in the house. these amendment would change a couple of provisions about the bill. one would give them a year to give up the phone records program as opposed to six months. another one would require the government to certify that the new program works so essentially the and a faith -- nsa would not give up the phone records program until the officer of national intelligence cigna -- certifies that it will work. the final one has attracted some criticism and would change the bill's role and creates this new

court added to a special court that oversees foreign intelligence activities. under the new bill will hear some expert opinions from outside counsel. there is some criticism bobbies. house members on both sides of the aisle have said if they are adopted they will dilute the house and the senate would have to go back to the house and it remains to be seen whether that will actually the crew -- true and whether it could indeed delay this process. as i mentioned in the background all the while these underlying revisions have already gone and no longer exists. so lawmakers on both side of the aisle say the senate should just move toward and not drag it out. host: there is the expectation

that he will get the vote and if that happens when we get the final? guest: it is my understanding that that depends. rand paul still has some procedural tools and lawmakers in the senate say that they want to get this done today. a member of the intelligence committee was saying he went to wrap this up today but there might be some indication that it could get pushed back to tomorrow depending on how this last fight plays out. host: i know that you covered national security when it comes to rand paul themselves how does he fair the state in congress particularly when people talk about his residential ambitions and last few days. host: he is not a hugely popular member of congress these days. while he certainly has captured a number of headlines and some would say he increased his political clout by his opposition to the bill, a lot of

lawmakers especially republicans have been verrilli critical of what he has been doing. they say his jeopardizing american national security in order to andres for his political campaign or it democrats say you should have seen this coming niche but rand paul has really been under a lot of criticism for what he has been doing on this legislation and it is really alienating him from some members of his own party. host: that is julian hattem joining us today. thank you for your time. your thoughts and senator paul's action on what it might do to help or hinder his residential ambition. -- presidential ambitions. we also want to hear from you

libertarians. we will start on the libertarian line. adam is up first. what do you think about the actions of senator paul and his presidential ambitions. caller: i think it is a great move for three reasons. it is not only popular, most people are suspicious of the power of the nsa but i also think it is the next step in his ideological theory. he has been a big opponent of this for a long time and this shows how he can get going. third i think it is time for us to reevaluate white was put together in the first place. host: is he someone you would seriously consider in 2016? caller: absolutely. he is in my top three. i lived in wisconsin for a long

time and scott walker and his dealings with the unions was really impressive so he is up there too along with marco rubio. host: let's hear from robert. on the independent line. caller: i am with rand paul. i'm tired of the concept of people in the senate and the house not going according to the constitution and the bible. this is a problem in america. we are not following the word of god and we are not following the constitution. people up there went to make it what they wanted to make and the change anything to what they want. we don't need the federal government anymore in our lives. i would like to name the senators that are sending kids over to iraq to fight for this country. host: what do you think it will

do for his ambitions to become president? caller: i have no idea. the republicans wanted their way and the democrats wanted their way and you cannot have it both ways. you need to follow the constitution. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. (202) 748-8003 for libertarians. there is a story in "politico taking a look at some of the reaction on the senate concerning his actions and that presidential ambitions. senator john mccain being quoted that senator paul had missed a number of meetings and contended there was on young -- and will

-- an obvious political reason. i know what this is about, is this some degree of -- a higher priority for fundraising and political ambitions than he has for the security of the nation. let's hear from jim. we are asking folks about senator paul on the nsa and if it will help or hurt him. caller: my only issue is if the patriot act goes away then some other government and the hold 9/11 thing -- what would it take for someone to set up a lone wolf to orchestrate an event

because trusting of my government i am not. and they will say we needed it look what happened. this is a man who wants to help us take back our country and they could hurt him as a scape goat when there are events of terrorism. host: if the scapegoating from the public or members of congress. it was only meant to be temporary. and bill this morning saying it is paul brand saying just like his dad, cannot hurt him now. won't help them as we moved on the road. we also have a line for republicans, democrats and independents. they all start with a 202 area code.

ed, how are you? caller: swell. i think this is going to help rand paul. i think that democrats are a bunch of commies and most of the republicans are a bunch of neo-nazis. we need a libertarian like paul discussing all of this stuff about the national screwing. host: how do you think it will help him? caller: just like a snowden he is trying to tell the people what is happening. host: republican line, help him or her to him? caller: help him.

host: why so? caller: treat acted -- one thing that the patriot act did -- host: i think we have a bad connection so if you want to try back and give us a call will free to do that. republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call on what to express my gratitude to senator rand paul. i have learned more from him and edward stored in -- snowden about what is going on and i've learned my own congresswoman and senator. i think what he is doing is courageous and i hope that usa freedom act is stopped in its tracks. i want to learn more about the secret leasing going on in this country. host: what specifically did you learn? caller: i learned that there is something called sneak and peek

at her a police can enter my apartment and go through my stuff and leave without telling me they were there. i've learned that data collection is going on on a massive scale without warrants and there is no one revenue -- representing the public. it goes on and on and the revelations are horrifying. host: when it comes to people you vote for president would senator paul the on that list? caller: definitely. he also has a moderate stance in regards to foreign affairs. host: matthew is in maryland and he identifies as a libertarian area how are you? caller: i just wanted to say that a leader like ronald reagan would recognize that spending a lot of the national budget on hold data collection you not actually provide results that make us more secure and it may in act be better to invest in

infrastructure, education and sound government. this is on young intrusion into american privacy but also into their pocket books. host: when it comes to presidential politics what you think ultimately what senator halted does for him? caller: i think he is more sincere about attacking individual liberty that a lot of the other politicians that are running on a standard platform of let's help people with low wages rather than making the country stronger. host: when it comes to senator paul if you think his actions will help him or hurt him you can give us a call. john mcardle on twitter says

rand paul was grandstanding for personal gain and added no substance, just emotion for this great. you may agree or disagree. give us a call on the lines. on the independent line this is james. caller: rand paul is just grandstanding and this will hurt him but there is one question i have been asking to everybody is talking about the security of america. who allowed those people in 9/11 -- host: as you go on, back to rand paul what you think it will hurt him? caller: he has done not done anything since he has been there. host: philip from new york on the libertarian line to caller: -- libertarian line. caller: thank god for the libertarian line again. every once in a while i have to

switch to republican so i can vote for somebody. i will vote for rand paul. i believe in everything he says and i think this country needs libertarian. too bad new york state will hardly let a libertarian get on the ballot in host: when it comes to -- on the ballot. host: when it comes to what he said in the usa have you think that plays out to his campaign going on. caller: i am supportive of what he did on sunday. we have to get rid of this police state if we can possibly get rid of it. we're getting toward a dictatorship and we need libertarians to put a stamp on this move for the military-industrial complex. rand paul will do it and i will support him anytime i get a chance. here is dave on the independent line. caller: i stand with rand and

his break with the political stranglehold on this country. that is really what has upset the leadership and the rest of the status quo in washington is the fact that he is breaking with tradition and this political science grip on all of us. i stand with him and i hope that he succeeds and i will vote for him. host: when you hear senator mccain say things like this is on young effort to fund raise for his campaign, how do you react to that. caller: it is just rhetoric coming from the right. there extreme the upset about what he is doing because it breaks with tradition. and we need to break with this tradition that has governed us since the 1940's. i stand with him completely and i think that we will see a complete upset in the elections

because america is pretty upset at the way this government has been operating. i am 56 and it has been operating like this since i was born. it doesn't represent the people. it seems to be representing transnational corporations and their investments around the globe. if you take a look at the latest news with the insurance companies raising rates 29% how many more times are we going to be bamboozled? as consumers we were told that auto policy rates with lower everybody was required to have mandatory insurance another told the wool over our eyes one more time. it is all political and driven i this science and is about time america woke up to the fact that it is really the scientists behind all of this and the philosophy. host: from the hillary clinton

campaign on young announcement date being given saying her first major rally will be held on the 13th of june. she will lay out the main principles of her campaign and that rally will be followed in the subsequent week. a rally on roosevelt island shows a shift from a deliberate low-key. the event will include her first campaign appearances by her husband and her daughter chelsea clinton and it says clinton will also travel to iowa immediately for a meeting with organizers after the announcement and her address will be simulcast to similar meetings across the country and she will campaign in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and nevada. caller: i don't have a problem with the government tapping our

phones if it is for a good reason and i think in the long run it will certainly. i think he is grandstanding and i think he has on young agenda -- an agenda. host: what is the agenda? caller: his agenda is to get rid of all government and went home is a joke to me. host: sam from arkansas on the democrats line. caller: i don't think it will help or certain because this is what they are doing now. have done it always. it did at the time of martin luther king. i don't understand why people are so upset when they can go to history and find out that. i don't understand it. host: omar from alexandria virginia on the go-ahead. caller: we need take actions not

take names. host: what do you mean by that? caller: big actions not big names like clinton and bush. host: senator rand paul, his actions on the nsa and the patriot act from earlier this week. you think it will help or hurt him yucca -- hurt him? the magazine "the week," on young -- an op-ed by peter weber. he sacrificed his campaign for libertarian principles. in a crowded field he is betting that he can monopolize the libertarian caucus. it is a gamble.

his larger political victory is that he took ownership of patriot act opposition. peter weber continuing his thoughts saying it angered public and colleagues whom he is happy to anger are you you may have watched some of the proceedings that took place sunday night. it was senator paul who love the charge on sunday night and here is a bit on sunday from what he had to say. senator paul: this is a debate over your right to be left alone. justice said the right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights. it is the most prized for civilized men. let us be clear. we are here tonight because the president continues to conduct an illegal program.

the president has been rebuked by the court and the president has been told in explicit terms that the program he is conducting is illegal. the president opines on television he wants to say it is anybody but me but you know what, the president started this program without congressional mission. even the authors of the patriot act say that the patriot act in no way gives authority to the president to collect all of your phone records all of the time. if there ever was a general laurent a generalized collection of information from people to which there is no suspicion this is it. we are not collecting the

information of spies. we are not collecting the information of terrorists. we are collecting all american citizen's records all of the time. this is what we thought the revolution over. host: senator paul from sunday. he can watch it on our website if you want to see the total speech. marietta ohio, independent line. caller: i think this will help rand paul. i had my doubts about him when i heard he was going to run but it is about time we had somebody that sticks to principle and just doesn't pander to certain groups to get their votes. we have a president all of a sudden who has evolved on gay rights and every election style they all tell the environmentalists or whoever they are talking to exactly what they want to hear. this is a man who is doing something that he truly believes in.

i saw an interview last night with one of the authors of the patriot act and he said himself they are going too far. this is not the way it was written and not what it was intended for. i say kudos to rand paul. it is about time somebody stuck up for their principles and actually took a stand based on principle and not on what people want to hear. host: were you seriously considering voting for him before and did action of recent days change that. caller: i try to keep an open mind and he was not on top of my radar but after the last couple days he has truly moved up. i would have no problem voting for this man. host: guy from maryland on the democrats line.

caller: us is the problem. i think it will probably help them in the moment but in the long run it will bite him in the but. a lot of people saying [inaudible] you cannot have it both ways. host: your thoughts added to the list of people on rand paul if it will help him or hurt him in 2016. the transportation security administration coming under scrutiny. the department of homeland security on monday resigned the acting director of the tsa and

order the agency to revise security or seizures after screeners failed to detect weapons and other prohibited items 95% of the time in a covert test it jeh johnson said he took the finding very seriously calling on the tsa to restrain airport security officers retest screening equipment and increase the use of covert testing in airports. undercover agents were unable to get security items through checkpoints in 67 of 60 instances. let's hear from john in kingston pennsylvania. caller: i am for rand paul and i stand with him. i think this nsa program is like missing the trees for the forest. without content before they access any metadata a name has to come to them in the first

place. i think they should just get a warrant and then surveilled. there is a period after the fourth amendment, no comment and no but. i won't vote for anyone who is supporting this metadata. host: is senator paul on top of your list? caller: he is up there. i just want this stuff stopped. to be honest with you i am horrified by the overreach of the government just what big government does. they're looking for terrorists and they drag everyone and they don't bother to warrant the terrorists. like the boston bomber who was in russia and russian intelligence that word over and we didn't do anything about it.

and the guy from fort hood, he had all the text messages and they didn't do anything. i think they are missing the trees for the forest but this overreach is common with big government. it is the same thing when they try to solve gun control. they make everyone registered guns in the whole country but criminals don't registered guns. it is the same thing with the nsa overreach. they wanted dragnet everyone but they miss the terrorists. host: stephanie from maryland on the democrat line, go ahead. caller: i think this will hurt -- hurt paul but help the country. i really didn't take him seriously prior to his stance. i have to agree from a few colors back from ohio that it is definitely overreach and definitely something that grew way beyond what the legislators intended.

i think a prime example of how it ails this with what is happening with the tsa today. fix that. host: before you didn't take him seriously, what is your view now? caller: i am a democrats i could not vote for him in a primary. my dream edits that it's our elizabeth warren and bernie sanders. maybe al franken if he were up to it but i respect him, i called his office last week to thank him for taking this stance, it is not and will easy thing to do and i think it will undercut his campaign but perhaps he is willing to sacrifice that for the good of everyone in the nation. host: the insurance rates and

those who received health care under the law, talk this morning of increase in the near future saying health insurance is asking federal and state regulators to sign off on double-digit rate hikes increase that are being driven by skyrocketing -- drug costs. it was on monday that the obama administration posted premium hikes from a wide range of carriers and the rate requests provided the most comprehensive preview of what insurers expect in the 2016 enrollment season and a given specifics thing that some health care plans are seeking major hikes. the blue land all once to see increases of at least 30%. that story on politico. john in maryland, high there --

hello there. caller: i do not think his stance will hurt him for help him he is like a hero to his ideological base followers. i personally believe he does not have a realistic chance of clinching the presidential nomination. jed bush is likely going to be on top. in co--- in terms of the patriot act talk about overreaching, the terrorists are overreaching to the government has a duty to protect entire cities. talking about overreaching of the presidency. we have to understand the overreaching of the terrorists.

cyberattacks and all kinds of things to harm citizens. host: that is john and maryland you may have heard about concerns over air and they are malfunctioning. it is the subject of a hearing in the house today. it features a hearing on the takata airbag's safety. a story in the new york times saying in written testimony in advance of the hearing, on young -- and will executive said they would stop making that shape repellent wafers that would not switch away from its chemical compound that experts have said could become dangerous if exposed to moisture or swings in temperature. it 2:00 this afternoon on c-span three. arthur, you are on.

caller: i think it will hurt him because he is not presidential material. he is really a joke. host: why is that? caller: you can listen to him. he doesn't sound like a president. he sounds more like a congressman. host: matthew on the line for libertarians. caller: i would recommend that some of your listeners look up history. rand paul is correct. it is human nature for people to overreach. i just heard you guys replaced the church commission saying in 1975 the nsa had new electronic technology and we had to be careful. what he was afraid of is the government would turn it on us. for people who don't know the need to look up j edgar hoover.

collecting information on people should not have been collecting information on. things that he did with martin luther king and a lot of other people. if you listen to and since's recordings you can hear and see how these guys overreach. people need to realize what people in government are doing. they are not for us, there only for themselves. if they were or us with the government would be doing is going after these people who collapse the entire world economy and then nobody went to jail. i go to jail for stealing $140 at these guys still trillions of dollars but nobody went to jail or it i suggest that the people listening to your station -- or maybe you need to plate more history because the king can do whatever he wants. we don't have kings anymore. we're supposed to elect our

representatives. stop saying that if you have nothing to hide you would not worry. wait until it happens to you. the legal system is about lawyers railroading us. politicians playing us for fools and from what i can see most of us are fools. host: that is matthew from georgia talking about senator rand paul and other topics. for the next couple of minutes rand paul and actress from the last -- if his actions in the last couple of weeks will help him or her tim as we look at 2016. a little bit from lindsey graham yesterday. a senator from south carolina announcing his intention to join the field of people looking to be a presidential candidate. rand paul coming up in this story saying he will likely serve as a foil to senator paul. and recently said that the hawks

in the republican party for strengthening the islamic state terrorists that have led to regional instability in arming rebels. he made this speech yesterday. here is a little bit as he runs to be president. [video clip] >> it is said for me to report to you but barack obama has made us less safe. simply put, radical islam is running wild. they have more safe havens, money and capability and weapons to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11. they are large, rich and entrenched. as president i will make them small, poor and on the run i am afraid that some americans have grown tired of fighting them. i have bad news to share with

you. the radical islamist are not tired of fighting you. in partnership with others we must take the fight to them, building lines of defense is over there so they cannot come here. host: you can look for that complete announcement by lindsey graham on our website. if you go to the philadelphia inquirer, a hearing that will take place centering on amtrak. lawmakers are to grow amtrak for the first time since derailment. that hearing takes place in front of the housing and infrastructure committee at 10:00. let's hear from dan in illinois. what do you think about senator paul? and his 2016 ambitions? caller: i think he is truly an

american icon and is thinking not of himself but of the american people. he kind of threw himself in the fire a coming out and taking a stand against his own party. i think that the media will beat him down and in most people's eyes the media will portray him as losing in the polls as they already are now but i think america is that -- fed up with all of this lying and agencies and the eta coming out now saying they control every bit of water into the united states. at what point are going to stop the tyrants from telling us this is how it's going to be? matthew from georgia summed it up quite well. you can go back through our history and look at all the incidents of abuse to american citizens by our government and a lot of the other colors had it right, too. if you're collecting this much

data how can you track the actual terrorists when you're trying to wade through all of that information. the fourth amendment clearly states no general warrantless searches and that is what we are dealing with. plain and simple. you cannot kill the truth and i applaud rand paul for taking a stand. it might hurt him eventually but i think a lot of people are in his corner in this country. host: independent line, hello. caller: i agree with the guy just on the air. people need to go back and read about the church committee in the 70's. the nsa started in the 50's and they were doing everything back then up to the president -- why didn't they stop at 11 and rand paul is not a warmonger. that is one of the reasons that i would vote for him. we didn't have any trouble.

we didn't have any isis. all we had was the saudi arabians that attacked the united states and we went over to iraq and stirred up the middle east and we are responsible. thank god for rand paul. host: muriel, new haven connecticut. caller: i thoroughly agree with the previous caller and i have been a staunch supporter of the president. however, rand paul is a man that has the courage of his convictions and i can tell you i was astonished the other night listening to senator burr on the floor of the senate talking about secret meetings at secret

this and secret that like it didn't make any difference to those of us who were watching on the television. we are not a country of secrets. we are a country that helps one another and as far as secrets are concerned, they are a thing of the past if we ever had them. our young people -- hello? host: you on, go-ahead. caller: i never know if i am on or not you we sent our young people to war and it was based on lies. you can take those lies and skip all the weight back to 9/11 and god knows what really happened then so i can tell you i am thinking over very carefully who

i am going to be voting for in this next election if i am still around. if i am still around i can tell you i will give enormous thought to rand paul because i think he is a man of courage and man of ideas and a man that is standing up for people that have been saying what he said on the senate floor for years and nobody listens. host: you identify as a democrat and are still looking at senator paul? caller: absolutely i am. it is time that the senate and the house do their job period they are not doing their job and if they are not doing their job there is no reason for me to even give any one of them a first thought about reelecting

them for any office. host: that is muriel in north haven, connecticut talking about rand paul on the nsa. we will change topics and be joined by one of two legislators. first we will hear from democratic congressman gerry connolly talk about the current debate over the nsa and later on steve king from iowa talking about an essay and immigration. all of that as "the washington journal continues after this. >> this weekend the c-span cities to her partners with time warner cable to learn about the history and literary life of

lincoln nebraska. >> she was one of the most important writers in the 20th century and was given almost every literary award in her life for she died. she was known for some of her masterpieces like "the professor's house," "the lost lady," and many others. in 1943 she had made a will with the few restrictions. one of which is she did not want her letters to be published or quoted in whole or in part and left behind at least 3000 letters that we know about now. furthermore, she left one other important thing to the soul and uncontrolled discretion of her executor and trustee to decide whether or not they enforce her preference and they believe as educational organizations that she belongs to our shared heritage and we ought to know

more about her. an important historical figure in nebraska's history was solomon butcher. >> he was a photographer in western nebraska. he took photos from 1887 86 until the early 1890's of homesteaders and was able to tell the story of the important development in american history. i will show you one of my favorite images. it is actually a photograph of the chrisman sisters it is four sisters who each took a homestead claim, this shows women homesteaders. it was the first time that women could own land on their own. it did not belong to their

husbands or their fathers single woman -- women could own their own land. each of these sisters took a homestead near their father's ranch they each build a small house on the homestead which is part of the homestead act and they would take turns staying in each other's house and working each other's farm period --. the sisters altogether and made it in the brassica. >> watch all of -- made it in nebraska. >> watch all of our events. >> "washington journal continues. host: senator jerry o'connell,

democrat from virginia, good morning to you. guest: good to be with you. host: the front page of "usa today," sang there is going to you meeting between the united states and allies talking about isil, tell us your current thoughts on the strategy and what you think the plan being executed now? guest: candidly, one of the fundamental weaknesses we have seen is the reit -- weakness of the iraqi military. the united states has been training and equipping the iraqi military since the overthrow of hussein and the fact that they melt away all too often in the face of any kind of military onslaught is very troubling and obviously we don't have the option of going in ourselves and or with our allies. air attacks alone clearly have

not sufficed to deter or rollback the isil threat. the fall of ramadi is a very significant development in getting together with our allies and rethinking what the strategy needs to be and how best we can play a role in responding is long overdue. host: how do you change the mentality of the security forces to become more aggressive? guest: i wish i had and will easy answer -- and n is the answer -- easy answer. it is trying to create a military that functions on merit as opposed to who you know. it is a question of sunni versus shia. it is the question of how does

one identify it with nationhood in the new iraq? how do you make sure the government is functional and not corrupt? and isn't engaged in one kind of ethnic battle or the other. those are all huge factors whether or not the military works. host: what kind of resources have we given and who oversees that to make sure we do not see the results we are currently seeing? guest: hundreds of millions of dollars have been put into iraq to overthrow saddam hussein for this purpose. the reconstitution, re-equipping and retraining of an iraqi military. one of the big things that time was i paul bremmer who made two

very fateful and very wrong decisions. one was to essentially demilitarize the military meaning that we had hundreds of thousands of iraqis unemployed and armed who are now unhappy about the invasion and saying that anyone who is a member of the other party could not serve in the government and that decision was also fateful because everyone had to be a member of the baath party if you're going to get a government job. it didn't mean they were all ideologically aligned with saddam hussein. by doing those two things we created a huge country -- cadre of discontent that has morphed into isil today. we are trying to recover from those very bad decisions made during the bush administration.

host: here on the line if you want to talk to our guests. (202) 748-8000 republicans. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independenta. as far as the administration is concerned him a is it being aggressive enough in coming up with a strategy? guest: i don't know whether one can answer the question but i will say that many of the critics of this president and his administration and his policy -- if we followed their advice isil would be even stronger and better equipped today. we don't have easy choices. who is the enemy? who is it we are trying to deter? when you place your bet -- the

guy with the white hat, who wears the white hat? how do you separate the white hats from the black hat? if it is that simple let's exercise support but a lot of the folks that we thought were going to be favorable influences democratically inclined and so forth have in fact lead into iso--- isil or jihadist insurgents not aligned with the pro-democratic values that we espouse. i don't think we have a lot of good options. i don't think it is that easy for us to exercise leverage and i think that those critics who suggest otherwise are doing a disservice in terms of public perception. host: the first call for you comes from robert in kentucky. caller: let me say this.

i was a longtime democrat and i still somewhat support their ideology but i say, as a former muslim that isis is a mindset in these talk republicans who think that you can blow up people who already want to die there is no way you're going to destroy a people who believe they are going to paradise by killing. in islam itself you are not to be an aggressor. those people who believe they are glorifying a la but chopping heads off -- that is like the kkk being representative of christianity. once you find out what true muslims are -- this has been a so-called christian country and racism has been the order of the day. all people are not created

equal. isis cannot be weeded out by being violent. you need a strategy that will talk to people and engage people and have muslims from this country who are peaceful, like minister farrakhan who can bring peace. there is no way you will bomb people who believe they are going to heaven just by being violent. guest: it is a good reminder. i don't know whether a military response alone is going to suffice. you make and will underline point -- you make an underlying point, it can and is perceived to serve people's needs.

that is a problem in iraq and syria, also the fact that you have a large sunni population that feels since the overthrow of saddam hussein that it's interests are sacrificed in favor of somebody else. those politics and those tensions are real. we need a government in baghdad that reaches out to the sunni population and isn't perceived to be favoring a shia over a sunni. it is that sense of satisfaction and distrust that has fueled isis which is a sunni led insurgency. you are right to say that we have to look beyond a military response which has limited effect and i don't think is necessarily the ultimate solution and trying to deter the threat isis represents.

there is no question this government has pressured the predecessor government in this government to be more inclusive. but not to great effect. there are hopes this government will do better than the one it replaces but time will tell. frankly, the distrust allowed to build up based on good reason in terms of dissemination favoring shi over sunni is hard overcome. host: here is darren from washington d.c. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i love c-span. it helps me become more politically astute. i have two things.

i know you are from virginia. i don't know much about your district and where you are and what your district encompasses by want to make a comment on the struggle in iraq. i don't know what we are going to do because it is kind of too late. iraq and iran were adversaries for years. they fought a war for the whole of the 1980's. we just went in there and messed it all up. not saying saddam hussein was a great guy. he was a dictator and cruel to his people, but as far as american interest, they were a counterbalance to each other. we shouldn't have gone in there. there are other countries even worse. china is not much better than iraq, and my opinion. north koreans are not much better, and my opinion -- in my

opinion. we buy chinese products every day. it is just as bad maybe even worse, because they have the technology to overreach to their people. they can't even organize. you can't even have more than a couple of people in your house to have a meeting for anything. the government is all over you. we consider china our friends and partners. we went in there and tour iraq apart -- tore iraq apart, and it messed everything up. we opened pandora's box. not just the middle east. we have africa now. conflicts all over the world because we went to iraq. i don't know what to do. host: we will let our guest

respond. guest: you have given us a tour of conflict and difficulties. it is important to put it in perspective. i don't know if we live in a world that is more conflicted than previous generations compared to parts of the 20th century. our challenges are at least contained and definable. i don't know that we live in a more dangerous world, although the stakes get higher because of access to major weapons of mass destruction unfortunately continue to grow. we have to be ever vigilant. it is difficult for us americans as the world's only surviving superpower to understand we are musclebound. it doesn't mean we control all

events or the outcomes of events. sometimes, we don't have much leverage. it is a very hard proposition for us to accept. we ought to be able to go in and clean something up or fix it or make sure it turns out our way. that is part of the frustration we are encountering in the conflict in the middle east. we can't separate good guys from bad guys. it is hard for us to define what our interests are in events. we don't control a lot. it is a very hard thing for us to accept. i understand that. it is a frustrating thing. it fuels some of the criticism coming from those who want a more robust policy. what is the policy? if we adopted a year or two ago given what we know today, would that not have strengthened the

very wrong elements we want to see defeated? host: the cia director was on the sunday show and talked about isis saying this will be a long fight. you think the american public is ready for that kind of length? guest: i think we are, by think leadership always needs to be informing the public. i am old enough and you are old enough to remember the cold war. that was over half a century of vigilance and investments and going toe to toe with a very clearly defined adversary. ultimately, we prevailed. that worked. those investments in retrospect like the marshall plan and truman doctrine and the creation of nato, holding our ground and responding in the turkey-greece crisis in the late 1940's and korea in the early 1950's, these were pivotal moments.

it is a little harder and a lot murkier to do that now but have every confidence in the u.s. has the collective will to recognize a threat when it sees one and respond. host: from alabama, here is michael. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i wish -- congressman way back in 2003 when we were going to war with iraq, i stood and told my class what would happen in iraq, and it seems like these people are so smart and they were so gifted that they -- in the area, we

destabilized the region. china is out there in southeast asia trying to take over islands and militarize. that will be another area that we have these idiotic people standing up every day talking about god knows whatever. then we have senator rand paul standing up for the people, somebody who believes he is standing up for the people. the patriot act has not stopped one terrorist. i would like to know why the democratic party is not shouting through the roof about getting rid of this monstrosity. guest: there are a couple of different thoughts buried in your question. first of all, i completely agree

that the decision to go into iraq and topple saddam hussein and occupy that country was a very flawed decision. i think some advocates for the invasion misused intelligence and in some cases significantly distorted intelligence to make their case. we went in based on fabrications, distortions, exaggerations. it was a very flawed narrative arguing for creating the rationale for the invasion. secondly, we didn't prepare properly. if you are going to make kind of invasion rumsfeld continued to

press military planners to ratchet down the number of troops required. we went in with barely enough ability to compass the immediate goal of toppling the government. the occupation and the transformation of the military and the government did not take place properly. huge lo occurredoting -- huge lotting occurred by the broad iraqi public. our ability to maintain law and order -- what was the purpose of our invasion. it went downhill from there. we are paying a high price for a flawed decision in the previous administration that still has ramifications today. that and afghanistan are the two longest wars in american history .

it is not at all clear that we have clear demonstrable gains made by both of those wars. that is tragic for america. i think it ought to be a cautionary tale about when and how we get involved again militarily. i am probably more on the hawkish side of my own party but you have to have clear and convincing and compelling reasons to ask young men and women to go in harm's way on behalf of the country. i don't think we have them at all in the original invasion of iraq. host: the caller brought up senator rand paul. where do you stand on the freedom act? guest: i supported the usa freedom act. i did as a contrast and substitute for the patriot act.

i voted against a permanent reauthorization of the patriot act because i don't think it dealt with privacy concerns, the government overreach concerns, the lack of accountability and transparency. the usa freedom act addresses all of that and fairly well. that ends the collection, provides more transparency and accountability so that decisions made by the support will be available to the public. there is a process that can be created to counter a request that comes in before a federal judge charged with making decisions about yea or nay on a national security request. i think the protection is built into the freedom act, and they affect the right balance. we have to have a rigorous process to protect the country and it security. none of us want to see something

terrible happened because it fell through the cracked because we did not give ourselves the ability to monitor. on the other hand, i do not accept, and i don't think most of my colleagues except in proposition that in order to protectable civil -- to protect our civil liberties, we must give them up. i don't accept that at all as an american. and a think anybody should have to i don't think anybody should have to. i am fairly confident it will pass today or tomorrow in the u.s. senate. host: if the senate amends it makes additions to it, then it comes back to the house. what happens then? guest: it is obviously the other body's prerogative. we will have to look and see if the amendment's strength of the provisions i was talking about.

if it does, hopefully we can accept that. if it erodes, some of the protections we built into this legislation will be a different matter. host: have you heard anything that might let you think it might be eroded? guest: talk is one thing. action is another. especially when it comes to the u.s. senate. i will wait and see what they produce before we pass judgment. host: because we have had certain aspects of the patriot act lapsed because of sunday, are we less safer because of that? guest: well, the official word is it took eight hours to shut that down. the operations of that process are present. in real effect, i have to believe that agencies engaged

can see what i can see and you can see. it is in process. the senate is about to act. dismantling it and going away assuming there will be no reauthorization at all highly unlikely. i am not worried about that. if the senate fails to act, it does create a hole that will need to be addressed. host: you heard his thought on the nsa and the patriot act. richard from massachusetts on the independent line, you are next. go ahead. caller: thank you. isis was trying to overthrow a sod and we sold them weapons. in benghazi, we were going to ship weapons to isil one assad put an end to that.

we are try to overthrow every country around the area for one reason, for oil. until you people start telling the truth to the american people and american people get their heads out of their butts and pay attention to what our government is doing to us. have a nice day. guest: thank you. i don't know that the u.s. is attempting to destabilize every country in the middle east region from our protected zone in baghdad. i think most of us feel that we are operating in a lot of shadows in which our leverage is very limited, and our ability to control events is equally limited. look at libya, egypt syria, and

iraq. it is pretty self-evident that if the u.s. could control events and outcomes, the current situation would look a lot different. i just don't think the conspiracy theory about the ability of the u.s. to really in some grand manipulative scheme control outcomes, especially on the point you are making that it is all about oil. i would certainly agree with you the oil is a very important subject. always has been since its discovery. however, you have to remember that right now the u.s. energy production is rivaling that of the world's largest producer, saudi arabia. we will soon exceed saudi arabia if current trends are sustained. we are looking at exporting gas and oil because we have so much supply here that we are

producing. that an part is because of fracking and other techniques. it is harder to get oil -- where harder to get oil and natural gas are now easier to get. u.s. energy dependence on the middle east has plummeted. we aren't that dependent on them anymore for energy supply. our desire, our appetite for oil that you suggest in your question driving everything is a lot less so today than ever before. i don't really think -- it is a factor. host: virginia on the republican line, this is eric for our guest representative gerald connolly. caller: i want to thank you for your service and thank you for c-span. guest: thank you.

caller: i really appreciate your candid comments. i think there were some flawed decisions. to keep it short, we have not done a good job as nationbuilding since the days of macarthur. i think most people would agree with that point. guest: yes. caller: i am a desert storm veteran, and my son is a current veteran. we know firsthand what types of things we engage in when we go overseas. what i would like to see is a congress that stops the bickering across the aisle. it is like we one party with two factions. we need to stop with the ad hominem arguments blaming everything on this or that person and pull together. let us take some divisive action before it is too late. let us protect the american people.

all the possibility far exceeds -- i know it is hard for you but we need you to pull together before it is too late. guest: thank you. i thank you for your service and that of your son. i have a nephew from massachusetts in the national guard service. two tours, when in iraq, and one in -- one in iraq and one in afghanistan. the constitution was, by design, something that created an arena in our government whereby ideas philosophies, values, are debated and clash takes place. that is a creative because out of that clash comes action.

there is nothing wrong with debate, vigorous debate, and the fact that differences are sharply contrasted. the constitution envisions that and encourages that. it helps democracy. the piece about it then leading to action is what has broken down. the political system increasingly rewards the perpetual debate and punishes subsequent action. the old-fashioned compromise which is how government happens, how action happens in our system, has almost become a four letter word. we have to repair that piece while celebrating the other piece. i think you are right to be frustrated with the latter. we shouldn't confuse one with the other. vigorous debate is a good thing.

it generally shows a healthy democracy. you don't have that kind of vigorous debate in some countries in the world because it is not allowed. you can get you in big trouble. it doesn't get you in trouble here at all. beyond the debate, what next? how do we come together? the usa freedom act as an example of our coming together. to get 338 votes for a bill in the house of representatives tells you a lot about active vigorous debate. we don't always get it right. the process, i think, has been badly broken for all too long in washington. i am committed to trying to find common ground where and when we can and working to make that successful. host: you can make a thoughts

known on the e-mail and twitter and facebook as well. there is a story in this morning's "new york times" about the stockpile says with one month left your thoughts on that. guest: i read that also, and i need to know a lot more about that. if that is accurate, that is troubling because it suggests iran is trying to find ways to circumvent the agreement we have in place. putting that aside for a minute,

the agreement or framework of the agreement as far as we know it is something that achieves many of the goals we like. all of us would prefer iran to completely disarm, completely rid of any nuclear development of any kind, and become a peaceful player in the region. i don't think we will achieve those goals. when we look at this agreement we have to also say to ourselves in lieu of what? candidly, many of the critics of the agreement, which many experts believe is a lot more robust and achieves a lot more by rollback and freezing the enrichment activities in iran that have been expected -- than had been expected.

if you don't like that, what is your answer? candidly, the only answer is a military one, or what our military calls a kinetic option. i believe nobody is prepared to invade i run come military strike to try to take out nuclear capability will achieve only partial success no matter what we do. frankly, it will generate guarantee and accelerated development for nuclear weapons. we don't know what we are going to set off when we do that. this is not like other targeted the street -- targeted discrete strikes. i think we need to pursue the negotiations. we need to make them as rigorous strict as possible.

evaluation inspection will be keys to success. we will have virtually unlimited access to inspect at any random time. if that kind of inspection regime is in place, we can be fairly assured the life of the agreement that the iranians would be cut if they are cheating. i really think that is a much preferred option to the u.s. and allies going in militarily. our rhetoric here in washington is that we talk as if we are the only actor with sanctions. we have allies that we have brought along, including russia, and putting some strict sanctions on iran.

we have to keep that coalition in place. if we do something unilaterally or we walk away from our own negotiations and framework agreement, can we keep china and russia and the u.k. and france at the table with us? will they continue to coordinate with us on a sanctions regime that has been tough? we have to keep that in mind. our actions have consequences not only with respect to iran, but our allies and adversaries. that is a piece that often gets missed when we are talking about here in the nation's capital. host: jerry from the independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am calling about the patriot act in this new vote on the so-called freedom act. the constitution and the bill of

rights designed to guarantee certain freedoms and protection, with agencies like the cia and fbi, why do we need to collect every person's data? why can't we just do specific warrants for specific people instead of collecting everyone's data? no you think we would still have the power to chase down the bad guys using specific warrants set of collecting everyone's data e-mails, and all of that stuff? guest: one of the reasons i voted against the permanent reauthorization of the patriot act was precisely the point you just made. i thought it was real overreach and a lack of justification for the mass bulk data being collected. the matter what people say, want to have access to that data,

summary somewhere will misuse it -- somebody somewhere will misuse it. we need to protect our right to privacy. it is a balancing act, especially now after 9/11. we know the threat to america is not hypothetical. it is real. we don't want to revisit that tragedy. we want to do everything in our power to prevent that from occurring. that requires a fairly substantial investment in intelligence gathering and strategies to deter terrorist activities. that balancing act i think we did a pretty good job of in the usa freedom act as a those to the patriot act itself. that is why it has to haltingly and i was confident enough to vote for it because it controls and ends the book collection data.

it creates new rules of the road that will limit the government's ability to access it and give us more transparency. we didn't have that before. i think those protections can help us as we move forward. host: virginia, judy you are up next. caller: i called in initially to agree with gerald connolly and i have now begun to disagree. i think the american public and the republicans need to grow up. we are facing an unprecedented threat. i don't think the kind of stuff they are collecting can really be used against anybody. do people realize how many other nefarious types can hook into everything you post on facebook or twitter to use it against you

and get your social security number online, your bank information? we just have to adopt -- anything collected and be used in regard to terrorism not of some fat cat is calling his lawyer and say how can i get around this irs law something. people need to grow up and see we are facing monsters and nut cases. at some point, they buy a throwaway phone at family dollar. the have another phone they can jump on. the people against this need to have terrorists blow up the house. they really are not looking at what we are facing. talking with iran is better than not talking with airan. i am getting very angry at

republicans. the hallmark was being a strong american, fighting wars, being against terrorism but they are doing somersaults to get out from under supporting our commander-in-chief at his job which is to keep us safe. guest: well, you have managed to touch on a live subjects there. i certainly agree with you that it is better to talk to iran than not. disengagement, silence unremitting hostility for 30 plus years not a particularly successful set of policies. in the cold war, the u.s. recognized soviet union had diplomatic relations all that time. they were our most great adversary after world war ii.

for over 50 years, enormous resources invested in that competition, which at times flared into violence and war. korean war and vietnam war, for example. if we could talk to our adversary for the party of that time. , surely we can talk to iran to change behavior more to our liking. i think that is always better. your other points, think we have addressed during the course of this interview. i think protecting that line of what is privacy is being pushed in a different direction technology itself, not just by the government. you are right to talk about that.

technology is going to make data more and more available. sensors built into devices we have, whether it be a coffee pot or a new wristwatch or whatever it may be. for uses that data -- who uses that data? do i acquiesced to give away that data when i buy that product? privacy will have to be studied carefully about the limits we want to put in the public and private sectors. we are having the end of now in the public sector, but we need to have it eventually in the private sector as well. host: long beach california. you are the last call. caller: what i understand is there is a statement to the effect of a nation divided or a household divided cannot stand.

you already have our democracy is the greatest organization the government on the planet earth yet russia was our friend for a while. now there is only a g7. we have you guys flying all over the planet and talking about we need to have climate agreements in our thinking. yet, you guys pollute the planet as a small group 1000 times more than us. we all what you guys like you are a lot of winners -- are lo tto winners. you have the patriot act being replaced by the freedom act and we are supposed to buy this rhetoric as this is the wisdom of the people running the nation. i don't know why you can't look in the mirror and get a little humility. as my comment -- that is my comment. thank you. guest: i assure you that every morning when i look in the meurer, i get a good dose of

humility. host: memorial bridge being closed off for repairs. talk about not only with this bridge does for commuters in your district and others, but what it says for the larger infrastructure picture. guest: memorial bridge connects washington d.c. proper with arlington cemetery. it also functions as a major routes in and out of the city. two major lanes will be closed for the next six months. it is emblematic of the disinvestment occurring in infrastructure. this country is spending only about 1% of its gdp and infrastructure. we used to spend four or five times that.

china is spending about 8% or 9% on its infrastructure. if we will stay a competitive nation, we have to invest in roads, bridges, airports transit systems, ports. host: representative gerald connolly joining us. thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: we will hear from representative steve king from iowa on similar topics we have dealt with this morning. "washington journal" continues. >> this weekend, the c-span cities to our is partnered with time warner cable to learn about the history and literary life of lincoln, nebraska. >> one of the most important american writers of the 21st century -- 20th century. she was given almost everyone

award in her lifetime i suffer the nobel prize. she was known for pieces. in 1943, she made a will which had a few restrictions. one of which was she did not want her letters to be published, but to be quoted. shall at at least 3000 letters we know about now. fortunately, the biggest collections are in nebraska. and her will, should left one other important thing. she left it to the uncontrolled discretion of her executors and trustee to decide whether they can force her preference. they believe it belongs to our shared heritage, and we ought to know more about her. >> an important historical figure in nebraska's history was solomon butcher. >> solomon butcher was a pioneering photographer in western nebraska.

he took photos from 1886 until the early 1890's. he was able to tell the story of important development in american history. i am going to show you one of my favorite images of the butcher collection. is a photograph -- it is a photograph of four sisters who took a homestead claim. this shows a woman homesteaders. was the first time women could only and on their own -- could own land on their own land. that was a big deal with the homestead act. each sister took a homestead near their father's ranch.

they each built a small house on the homestead, which is part of the homestead act. they would take turns staying in each other's house and working each other's farm. the picture pulled together. >> watch all of our events from lincoln saturday evening at 6:00 on c-span twos book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: as promised representative steve king republican of iowa. good morning. the senate considers the freedom act, where did you stand on that act? guest: i voted no on the final act on the judiciary committee.

we brought that through committee twice in the last year. each time, i offered an amendment that would allow the nsa to negotiate with the telecoms to extend it. -- to extend the time which they keep that data. it news to be somewhere. with verizon and other companies holding that data -- we seem comfortable with verizon and other companies to hold that data. they can query the data under a warrant consistent with the fourth amendment to the cost to ship -- to the constitution. i voted no because i think the act makes us less safe. the director of the fbi and his testimony could not tell us that it makes us more safe. he could not tell us that. i don't think we should then be

reducing the safety for the american people as long as we can protect our constitutional rights. host: how long are they required to hold the data now under the freedom act? guest: there is no requirement for them to hold the data. there is not a standard in the industry. we are thinking of it consumption only -- conceptually in 18 months. when when you consider it took us nine and a half years to catch up with osama bin laden, i do know there should be any kind of statute of limitations. i would want to know how fresh does this data need to be? how long to you need to hold it? have a number of cases they have result of the have protected americans. at least 13 that the intelligence community has reported.

four have been declassified. host: the senate might add amendments. what happens if it comes back to the house? guest: it depends of course with the amendments might be. there is an amendment that i think will be the pivotal amendment to get out of the senate this week. that requires the telecoms to give 180 day notice to the government if they are to change their current practices or policies. that would give congress enough time to react. if they would only hold phone bill data months rather than facing an opportunity to power the nsa to go in negotiate with the telecoms and asked them to hold it longer and perhaps pay them to hold at longer. host: is that something the

house could go along with? guest: think so. that would be helpful to me, and i would be closer to a yes on that bill. host: here are the numbers. if you want to ask questions of our guest representative steve king. did you have problems with the bulk collection of data? guest: i think it went beyond what we anticipated as far as the statute is concerned. the bill itself is written in they brought enough way that it is arguable whether the heavy the legal authority to collect the data under the patriot act. we are at a place that was politically the public will not tolerate it. it is more of a policy change than it is a constitutional change. the data that has been collected

has been decided in a case in 1979 that telephone records and billing records, there is not an anticipation of privacy. once they have gone into the possession of a third party, you don't get to claim them as secure in your persons and homes and effects. instead, this -- the public demands more privacy. they don't want the government to have that data. i put it into a metaphor that fits a little better for me. i wouldn't want the federal government to have a record of every gun in america the serial number of every gun, and the location of every gun. i don't trust our government not to usurp that right. we have a lot of people in america not willing to trust the government without that privacy, even though that data is accessible constitutionally. host: guess we just had on said

that technology is driving the change. is that correct in your mind? guest: yes, i think it is. i just asked the question, could you get in a car and drive to los angeles without leaving a data record? it would be difficult. if you shut off your cell phone and took the battery out, if you did not have a cell phone, you paid cash for gas and truth to los angeles, you would still be on the surveillance camera and the gas stations along the way. they can track you through the surveillance cameras. they contracted through your credit card transactions, your cell phone records. the data trail we leave goes on and on. their is a certain amount of our society and culture that will change because of the realization that we are not going to be as private as we have been expected to be.

i don't know how that shifts our society, but i raised our sons this way if you don't like the way you are, don't put up a facade to fool people. you have to change for you are inside. for public officials live your life every day as if you are in a fishbowl. host: because we are now currently under expired portions of the patriot act as of sunday, is that a concern for you? is a great a sense of urgency to get something done on this legislation? guest: it is a concern. i don't think we should be thinking in terms of five minutes or an hour or a day or two is going to leave us exposed to some kind of plot or attack. the urgency is for the congress to get something done quickly this week. if we can put it off for a month or two or six, that leaves us vulnerable. there is a political urgency to do it now. the senate will act this week

and spin this back over to the house. the mood of the house, we shall see. there are a lot of people invested in the usa freedom act. when i brought the amendments two years in a row, the deal was already made. the house, democrats and republicans agree to the language in the bill. and in matter how good the idea might come around for -- it did not matter how good the idea might come around for an amendment. should always be willing to consider ideas and consider whether they are better ideas. the only argument i heard was that it was not part of the deal. i have proposing to allow nsa to negotiate with the telecoms to extend that amount of time so data is accessible under a warrant. that should be something everybody could be for.

host: first call for him is from louisville, kentucky. this is everett. you are on. caller: thank you congressman king and c-span. i want to commend you. i am a big admirer of yearsours. of positions on immigration and asserting bill rule of law on those issues have been an inspiration. america has over 700,000 legal immigrants in this country every year. some are from countries that have terrorist activities going on. i would like to see a much better screening.

again, thank you so much for your sacrifice and service to our country. you have been a great inspiration. guest: thank you very much for calling in. we appreciate those remarks you have made. people come to the city with the privilege of serving americans. i counted as a privilege an opportunity to serve. as a young man, my father was in a law-enforcement business. a give me a respect for the law and the constitution itself. if i did not like the laws, there is a method to change them. meanwhile, abide by them and live by them. i took a love that's a heart -- i took a lot of that to heart. i would add to this there is a big debate going on in

washington and the capitalol. sometimes it looks very contentious, and that will happen again this week. out of that is to come good public policy. the kind that even though we argue and debate here, we don't have to fight in the streets of america. i'm grateful to be part of that. host: lewis, you are up next. caller: a lot of times i agree with you, but i know you are a good man. i don't like this act. it in stop the boston bombers -- it did not stop the boston bombers. maybe i am wrong. guest: it is true that we are not going to be able to

intercept every plot with this information that is there. there are cases that have been reported where we were successful with this data. is lost in bombers, the russians -- the boston bombers the russians seem to have more information than we had. i sat down with the russian former kgb. the first members of congress to go over there after the boston bombing. they had a letter they sent to the fbi. the information in there with the information in the press that we learned about them. they knew a lot about them. we didn't seem to know much about them. i am for intelligence overseas and strong protection here, but i want attention for our privacy rights under the fourth amendment. we are not going to catch the ball, but we have intercepted some of them. we have intercepted someone who

has plotted a terrorist attack against americans. i look at that headline and read the first three sentences and say i am glad that is done and move on. we don't pay attention to the work being done out there. we have been fairly lucky for a long time. i don't think any of us thought on september 11, 2001 that we could be sitting here in june of 2015 with having so few large attacks against americans anywhere in the world. host: beverley in illinois on the democrats line, hi. caller: good morning. my favorite republican, although i am a democrat. i hear republicans always say never think coming out of their mouth is about isis, the third world countries and how they are an enemy of ours, but why

do you make them such a boogeymen when all the gunshots and violence are here in this country. six people ran into those buildings and they were homegrown. everything is happening in this country. last friday, i am sitting up watching 1000 motorcycles gather armed to the teeth going to a mosque using the word " if islam." i didn't see one tank like you put out for the black people when we are being killed and shut dot down? you are letting people walk around with guns.

all people have to do is look at you and shoot you, but you are worried about isis. what about protecting us here in this country? could you answer that? thank you. guest: beverly, thanks for calling in and speaking up. the point you bring up about the violence in america, those are the tragedies we don't focus on nearly enough. week before last, sitting in the judiciary committee some of the testimony was from the sheriff from milwaukee county, wisconsin, to i thought did an excellent job. luis gutierrez of chicago made the point that there were 45 shootings in chicago the weekend before. nine were murdered, if i have my numbers right on that. by don't give my family inside because i live in a safe neighborhood. two or three days before, we saw the multiple murder within 2.5

blocks -- within 2.5 blocks of joe biden's house. the violence is a tragedy. the loss of human life is a tragedy. the net asset value to our culture and civilization of people their ability to be productive wiped out in an instant. part of it is the culture. we need help. i am probably not the guy that can go there and give a speech and change it, but i will ask you to continue to help and continued to speak up. if more people do, we will get more closer to solving the problem. host: recently, the administration took a ban to some of the weapons for placed apartments. guest: i am not one of those people that believe the riots in baltimore or ferguson missouri

were because the officers showed up in military garb. the riots were taking place when the officers showed up. it diverts us away from the problems we have. some of the testimony in the same hearing i was talking about, there was an expert with the seattle police department who said she had written and contributed to a report released in march of this year where the obama administration cited the baltimore police department for the progress they made as a model police force. her document was that the police force in america is rooted in a warrior mentality, and they need to shift to a guardian mentality. i asked her a specific question in baltimore, when people retreated, it looked to me the police had them outmanned and outgunned, but they retreated from the rockthrowing mops.

wouldn't it be better to have a warrior mentality? her answer didn't come to that question. i don't know that they need all of the equipment they have but neither do i think it is a wise thing to tell the police force we will disarm you and we don't want you to engage. i think you need to collect the best respect the police force respect the uniform, respect the officer there. host: here is john from maryland on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a quick comment in question. you point to russia as a good example of intelligence gathering, and i don't think that smart because they are allegedly assassinating people with the intelligence. if we have the telecom companies hold the data, who will foot the bill? will it be the american people? host: it was about russia and

the intelligence gathering and how they use it. guest: and then who will foot the bill? at a appreciate the way the russians used that data -- i don't appreciate the way the russians used that data. i look across at the kgb people and wonder how they were promoted up to the top level of the fsb. the tsarnaev brothers, the surveillance on them was that they were in chechnya. they went to mosque in dagestan. when they were in chechnya, they worshiped at home. they read it to me, and i wondered how did they know they were worshiping at home if they didn't have surveillance on the tsarnaev brothers in the home they were living in in chechnya. it is fairly intrusive.

on the other hand, in this country, we need the limits of the constitution. who will pay for the data? we can't ask the telecoms to maintain data for a long amount of time at an expense and direct them to do that. that would be an unfair and did -- an unfunded mandate to the private sector. i believe that would be a legitimate investment. it would be substantially cheaper to ask the telecoms to maintain that data than it would be to build a $2 billion data collection and maintenance center in utah. host: joe from maryland, you are next. caller: good morning. are you familiar with the russian subsidiary to the atomic --

guest: i am not sure i am familiar. caller: it is the majority owner of uranium one including mines in the united states. how did we let that happen? what kind of controls to we have in place to make sure they don't sell uranium to our enemies? to me, that is a bigger threat to the safety of the united states than this individual exercise right now. guest: i do follow you. i follow it to some degree though i am not deeply into that policy. i'm am aware the secretary of state signed off on that, and allowed that to happen. i have asked questions around that on the actual supplies we have and what we could open up for uranium supplies. i believe we are at 50% of that being operated. there's other resources out

there that have not been tapped yet. that does not justify this. i would never let any uranium supplies go to a foreign country. i think the united states needs to control hours, and we ought to be in the business of seeking to control it in different places around the world. i am troubled by it. i think it puts us at risk. when i look at what's going on with the russians and the chinese, it looks like they are building up and arming up and becoming more and more belligerent and i'm very concerned about the asian continent and what might be facing our children and our grandchildren if we don't keep ourselves in a position where we can be very strong militarily around the world. i watched us retreat from that, and i'm very concerned that we elect a president who understands there is an economic and shia political chess game going on in the world, and we had better be willing to play in it if we are going to be the lone superpower, and it would

rather be the lone superpower. sharing our with the soviet union put us in peril for 45 years. host: david, you are next. caller: good morning. i have a clarifying question regarding the provision under the freedom act about bulk collection of data. in the previous segment, representative connolly said paul collection would end. now i hear representative king saying collection would still be conducted by the telephone companies, but that there would be some kind of provision whereby the government had to go through a fisa court to access that information. what is the situation now? can the government get that information by just asking? is it going to end? how is that specifically working? guest: representative connolly

would agree with me. when he says ball collection would end, he means -- bulk collection would end, he means collection under the federal government. i agree with that. that's what he would agree with. but the telephone companies have to have data in order to do billing, so they record the date and time and duration of calls where the call begins and ends. that is bulk collection of data. they do that for business purposes, and the public seems to be ok with that. i don't know how you run a telephone company without it. to access the data, under the usa freedom act that will be reconsidered by the senate this week, it ends bulk collection of data by the federal government but does not prohibit the federal government from going to a fisa court to get a warrant and to ask to warrant to query

telephone data held by the phone companies. there is no guarantee the phone companies will hold the data or for how long, so we are exposed to a time period that is undetermined at this point. i think the senate is likely to act this week, and i think we will end up with an amendment that would notice the federal government that tthe telephone companies are about to change their bulk collection storage policy. guest: ryan for massachusetts, good morning. caller: i have a couple questions. one, do you support sending troops to iraq? the second question, one of our biggest, i think it is the worst thing going on in this country. last year, we let in 10 million

people on visas. the last five years, 40 million. the economists keep track of whether people leave when they're supposed to -- we don't keep track of that. i can't believe we don't do that. we will have more illegals in this country. i can't believe it. why aren't we keeping track of that? guest: do i support troops in iraq, the first part of the question and visa was the second part. troops in iraq is a pretty general question. here's what i propose we should do in iraq. we have isis and radical islam islamic jihad has declared war against the united states. that's pretty plain and pretty clear. i don't want to tolerate a caliphatye anyplacee -- a cal

iphate anyplace in the world if they will project terror at us or americans anywhere in the world. and they will kill americans anywhere in the world where they can. i see what's going on in iraq. we invested a lot of treasure and blood in the part of the world, and there is a way to come through this with a solution that is constructive. i would arm the kurds and give them the airpower and support they needed, and i would put some special operations people on the ground to target that air support that needs to go in. i would make sure the kurds had all the weaponry and equipment they need. the kurds would never go all the way to damascus, and never all the way to baghdad but they would go as far as the limits of their tribal zone, northern iraq and northern syria. i support that operation, and i would encourage the kurds to care about your own sovereign country, and if you can hold alliance with the sunnis in anbar province, go ahead and do

that. i believe that is the best solution. that squeezes isis down against assad in damascus. i'm not concerned about assad. he's not a threat to us any longer. let that take place as it will. with overstaying on visas we are back to 1995 or 1996 -- congress passed legislation requiring an entry-exit system. we have the entry system, but we don't have the exit system, as you very well know. so we have 20 million, 40 million, whatever those numbers are, people who come into america on a series of different visas, and then they are simply loose on the streets of america without any record keeping on who is left. so we have records on who came in. but we don't have records on who left. that's a big problem. we have not been able to get that implement it, partly because we have not had an administration determined to do so. we want these people come through, we register them coming

-- we watched these people coming through, we register them coming in. i watch them coming out two hours later, they do not bother to swipe the card on the way out because we don't have the exist system. i support that. if congress can pass laws, we have to have an executive branch of government that is determined to take care that those laws be faithfully executed. we have had less and less enforcement of immigration laws with each president since dwight eisenhower. host: on may 26, the fifth circuit made a decision about the president's immigration plan. they overturned it. briefly, tell us what this was about and what the decision means. guest: i was pleased to hear that decision. it was in reaction to an appeal of a case that was a decision decided by judge hainan. he concluded the president's policies for dacca were

unconstitutional. the president decided he would order i.c.e. officers not to enforce the federal immigration law and essentially give a pass when it came to something like 5 million people. the president was relying on a 33-page opinion that advises the president and what he can do legally. president obama went to the limits of that opinion from the office of legal counsel. the judge rejected it, and the appeals court essentially granted standing to the 26 states that have signed on, led by now-governor greg abbott of texas. we are looking at the obama administration that needs to decide whether they will go up the chain, and they could ask that this directly to the supreme court. it sounds like they will not. it sounds like they will argue

the case on its merits in late summer and probably not get a decision until june of a year from now. which means that for the president to implement his policy by the end of his administration, however the courts decide, looks like he's going to be very short of time to be able to do that. which is fine with me, because i took an oath to uphold the constitution too and the president himself used to give lectures on the constitution as an adjunct professor. i will agree with the opinion he had then, not the actions he has taken now. host: we had a discussion a few days ago about deportations. with alfonso aguilar formerly of the office of citizenship currently with the organization on principles and action. here's part of what he had to say -- mr. aguilar: the idea that the only way to fix this is by deporting them is ridiculous. first of all, there is no way

that we can deport 11 million or more undocumented individuals. let me to you something. the republicans, what you are saying about republicans is a generalization that is not true. steve king, senator sessions do not represent the majority of republicans in congress. i think they want to lead, and i am hopeful that perhaps even in this congress we may be able to get something done. host: your reaction, especially since he mentioned you by name? guest: he said that steve king and jeff sessions don't represent the majority in congress. each time i brought an amendment up on immigration, there have been the votes for that amendment to pass. each one of us, democrats and republicans, take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states and the law.our founding fathers imagined that each branch of government, when they set up the three branches of government, they knew that there were gray areas

in between the legislative executive, and judicial branches of government. they knew that.they anticipated that each branch of government would jealously protect constitutional authority, and this congress has to some degree abdicated authority. the president has reached in and taken legislative authority some of that, especially on immigration but also on obamacare and others, for itself. this congress has not stood up to reassert constitutional authority, and that's a big part of the problem. when a president doesn't enforce the law when he has taken an oath they do so, that's another big part of the problem. go back to 1986, when ronald reagan signed the amnesty act. at that time, there were about a million people in the country illegally that they wanted to grant amnesty to in exchange for full enforcement of the law thereafter. that number of one million became about 3 million. the full enforcement of the law did not take place thereafter and the problem has grown and grown. now we are not only threatened

with, we now have millions of people in the country who are here unlawfully, overstaying their visa or committing the crime of unlawful entry, and that is a problem for our country. the bigger problem, and i would pose to each one of our presidential candidates, democrats and republicans, if you seek to grant amnesty for those who are unlawfully present in america then tell me how you are going to restore the respect for the rule of law in the aftermath of that amnesty. ronald reagan couldn't do it. i have been struggling myself to restore this respect for the rule of law ever since then. i think a country that's going to be predominantly at the top of the world, as the world's sole superpower, or if china and russia become superpowers, then america can become a super-duperpower, then we have to have rule of law and a society that respects the rule of law. host: good morning, go ahead.

caller: praise be for c-span. representative king, i want to have a request and then a question. my request, could i recruit you to support john kasich be candidate for the republicans and my question is, a couple weeks ago walter jones representative walter jones and james mcgovern formed a new constitutional study group. are you aware of their group, have you participated, and can i get you to recruit my congressman dennis ross to join in that study group which says that instead of building schools and roads in afghanistan that will be blown up by the taliban we built them here in the united states? can you support kasich, continued join that study group -- and can you join the study group? guest: i will work back from that. walter jones is a great friend and honorable man. he believes in the constitution. when he takes his oath, he takes

it seriously, down to his bones. i have not sat down with him on the citigroup. -- study group. when i see walter, i will talk with him. john kasich i know from a long time back. i have a black t-shirt that has a lion on it that he handed to me in the 1990's that says "back in the black." he was chairman of the has budget committee when the congress got back in the black and pay down some of the national debt. i like john kasich. i heard him gave a heartfelt speech in nashua, new hampshire several weeks ago. i'm not ready to make an endorsement. i will just tell you that if you are behind him, you are behind a good man and he has an a lot for this country in congress and a lot for the state of ohio as governor. we will see what he will do in the upcoming months and years. host: florida, george. hello? caller: congressman, you are one of my favorites, the other being my congressman down here in florida.

as i have been swimming through this sea of stupidity, listening to a lot people, what they have been saying -- the patriot act it seems to me, was working. you just didn't know what was going on because they didn't publicize it. obama, it's like obama's transparency. they have to keep some secrets to protect the united states. i don't understand. we have people grandstanding in the senate to propagandize, i can think of one in particular from kentucky, rand paul. it seems as though that man doesn't care about anything more than propagandizing, and needs more money in from his e-mails that went right out after he made that speech there in the senate. what do you think about the old the old patriot act, as opposed

to the new one they are proposing in the senate? you might have to go in conference about. do you think it's going to work? what should we do?what's your opinion ? guest: i want to put in a conger -- put in a plug for your congressman. good people. what works out better, the administration does have to keep us safe. if you go back and look at barack obama when he was a senator he was cool on the patriot act. but when he becomes president, he defends the patriot act and asks we continue to allow him to have that authority. the old patriot act i am more troubled by the public's reaction to this than i was by what i saw. i should remind people, i go into classified briefings. i go into the security room.

when edward snowden did his data dump, a series of data dumps almost two years ago now, i went into the security room multiple times and read through all the material available to meet most of it two times. the first time, you don't get enough. i can take notes in the room but i cannot take them out of there. that gives me a brain full of things that at least theoretically are not acceptable -- accessible to the public. what i was able to find is the data enabled by the patriot act was used in a way to usurp -- what i was not able to find was that the data enabled by the patriot act was used in a way to usurp privacy. we have moved politically to a place where this congress will shut off the collection of metadata and we are looking for the best way to protect americans within their constitutional rights. i think that method would be, if

we can't get an amendment that will allow the nsa to negotiate with the telecoms to maintain that data longer so that it is available under a fisa warrant, if we can't get that done -- we have moved to a place politically where the patriot act has expired as of midnight, may 31st, and now we have to put this together on the best path we can. some of the decision is political. some of the decision is national security. that is the big debate that's going on. i come down on the side of the constitution and national security. others come down on the side of the constitution, with national security being more secondary in their analysis. so what we are going to get, i think, the usa freedom act amended by the senate. hopefully the house will pick it up and pass it, and we can go back to securing america. host: connie is the last color.

jump right in. caller: thank you. i appreciate c-span. i would just like to give maybe a micro-history lesson. in february of 1933, a mentally disabled dutch citizen set fire to the german parliament building. hitler used that event, that tragedy, to spread propaganda and convince the president at the time of germany to establish an act. the act suspended the provisions of the german constitution that protected basic individual rights, including printing of the press -- freedom of the press, freedom of speech freedom of assembly. the decree permitted increased state and police intervention into private life, allowing officials to censor mail, listened to phone conversations and search private homes without a warrant. i just think that those who

forget history are doomed to repeat it. i think a lot of people think that this is impossible in the united states, but we need to because isn't of it. that's all i'm saying. thank you. guest: i appreciate the refresher, the history lesson. having stood in that place at the reichstag multiple times and contemplating that significant event -- we look back in history and it is hard to compare data points now. i'm not suggesting there isn't a lot to learn. there's a lot to learn. in the weimar republic they had inflation through the roof, and people were desperate in germany. it was a fertile field for -isms to be established. poverty and hunger are fertile filelds for many -isms to prosper.

communism and nazism nazism won out. there is a lot to be learned. the most prospering country in the world with the longest constitution is ours. is there because we protect rights and have freedom. people come to america legally inspired by the freedoms, so let's hang on to this constitution. host: a quick response to the recent story we saw about the straw poll many key republicans planning on skipping it questioning the viability in these days. is it endanger? guest: it is in some danger, because we had two high-profile candidates announced they won't participate, jeb bush and mike huckabee both good candidates. we have a whole list of terrific candidates for president of the united states. we have never been in a place in my memory where we had so many good candidates, nor such a

difficult process sorting through them. we only get to nominate one. we need the straw poll to be a winnowing process. it has been an effective winnowing process. despite the arguments to the contrary they have been self-rationalizing arguments. there are two people who have won both the struggle and the iowa caucus and -- strap hole in the iowa caucus and gone on to win the iowa caucus and the presidency, bush 41 and bush 43. so jeb bush has the least rational reason to skip it because his father and his brother proved their worth. they would argue that michele bachmann won last time and then finished fifth or sixth. no one says the straw poll has to pick the winner. if they had done so, the critics would say the straw poll has too much say. this time, we don't need just one straw poll to win of the field. it will take one or two more events to win of the field down

before we get into the caucus in iowa, the primary in new hampshire, and the primary in south carolina. this will be a really exciting process going on, and i'm encouraging these candidates to come to iowa. it is important, it is essential, and i would ask jeb bush and mike huckabee to please reconsider. i would love to sit down and have that conversation with them one-on-one. if you can't sell your campaign in iowa, where can you sell it? what better way than the iowa straw poll. host: representative steve king of iwatch running us. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: a story looking at the minimum wage. what has been a hypothetical question may soon become a real one. what would the national economy look like added 15 doormen way? seattle, san francisco, and most recently -- look like with a $15 minimum wage? seattle, san francisco, and most recently los angeles. after years of stagnant wages and a general dissatisfaction

for the slow and uneven recovery since the great recession officially ended in two dozen nine. we want to talk about wages. not only wages when you started, but what you are making now what growth you have seen, and what the government should do about improving the situation. here's how you can call in about your wages over the years and your thoughts on that. if you fall within the ages of 21 to 35 -- if you are 36 to 50 -- if you are 51 and over -- your wages over the years. we will continue on that discussion as washington journal continues after this. ♪ >> this summer, book tv will cover book festivals around the country and top nonfiction authors and books. this weekend, live at the chicago tribune printers row

fest, including a program with father lawrence wright. the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library. in july, live at the harlem book fair, the nation's flagship african-american literary event. at the beginning of september, we are live from the nation's capital for the national book festival, celebrating its 15th year. that's if you of -- that is a few of the events this summer on c-span's book tv. this weekend, the c-span cities tour partners with time warner cable to learn about the history and literary life of lincoln nebraska. >> willa cather is one of the most important writers of the 20th century. she was given almost every literary work possible before she died, except for the nobel prize. she was known for her masterpieces like "my antonia,"

"death comes for the archbishop," and many others. in 1943, she made a will that had a few restrictions for one, she did not want her letters to be published or quoted in whole or in part. she left behind at least 3000 letters that we know about now. the biggest collections are here in nebraska. furthermore, in her will she left another important thing. she left it to the sole and uncontrolled discretion of executors and trustees to decide whether they should enforce her preference. they believed that cather belongs to our shared heritage, and we are to know more about her. >> an important historical figure in nebraska history was solomon butcher. >> solomon butcher was a pioneering photographer in western nebraska. he took photos from about 1886

until the early 1890's, of homesteaders and houses, and was able to tell the story of important development in american history. i'm going to show you one of my favorite images of solomon butcher. it is the photograph -- four s isters who each took a homestead claim. this shows women, the first time women could own land on their own. iutt did not belong to their husbands to their fathers. single women could own their own land. that was a really big deal with the homestead act. so each of these sisters took a homestead near their father's ranch. they each built a small house on the homestead, which is part of

the homestead act and they would take turns staying in each other's house and working each other's farm. the sisters really pulled together and made it in nebraska. >> watch all of our events from lincoln, saturday evening at 6:00 on c-span's book tv. sunday on c-span 3. "washington journal" continues. host: in this final segment, a look at your wages over the years. i'm interested in hearing from you about where you started, where you are at, and what happened since then. 21 to 35, call -- if you fall into the 36 to 50 range, -- if you are 51 and older --

back in 2014, the folks at pew research looked at the topic of wages. at the time, the average hourly wage was about $20.67. you could see by the graph it increased greatly, yet it's spending power -- its spending power remained flat over the years. that is some of the statistical data. we are interested in hearing about you, especially your situation and how your wages have changed. the numbers will be on your screen. maybe you are out of college and in the workforce, maybe you are further than that. here is your chance to let us know about your situation when it comes to that. marty in michigan, you are up first. since you are first, tell us a little about your history when it comes to wages. caller: well, not to give the drawn out deal, i started working in nascar and eventually created a missing children's

organization. i was making decent money doing that. over the years with the economy really taking a whack, i have pretty much had to let go of my missing children's organization and am down to a $12 and our guy right now -- a $12 an hour guy right now. i supported the children's organization with my own money and my own funding for the sponsorships i was able to procure through nascar. host: on the nascar side, were you mechanical, operations what did you do? caller: marketing publicity media relations, driver relations. i was also a certified tire specialist. host: can you give us a sense of what you were making back then? caller: i was working as many as three races a weekend. it's really hard to calculate. i was just driven to make money and work, work, and i did it for

almost 20 consecutive years. a lot tapered offering the bush era, and with obama coming in i was annihilated, between the two. host: are you still in marketing, or some type of field? or something totally different? caller: i am a roofer. i am off today because i'm sick. host: how is the work for roofing, nowadays? caller: it seems to be great. my boss is probably doing about $800,000 in the next five months. work is good, it's just hard. i was hoping i could speak towards income inequality if it is possible. host: go ahead. caller: i find it funny, you know. there's a big attac -k -- i am poor at this point. i find there's a big attack on

major corporations billionaires people with corporations, like ford motor corporation. did not take a bailout. then you have chrysler, that the uaw in michigan takes 54% ownership while everyone else does not get a bailout for nothing. my point is, to me income inequality is created by two things. the democratic and republican parties. they borrowed so much money. $180 trillion of unfunded debt. we have borrowed the money inflated the money, and the cost of living goes up while the dollar drops. this is government-created. i find it funny that one specific political party is out here attacking when they are part of the reason that created income inequality, because the cost of living is shut down. host: that is marty.

asking about your wages over the years. new york, martin, hello. caller: thank you for having me on. i think we cannot forget about the importance of jobs for students, whether they are in high school or college. i might even propose investigating if there's a way to tiwer the minimum wage by age to create an incentive for young people to get hired and create original work experience. so that the young people don't fill the entire market allowing for wage growth for people who really need it. i think that is an important idea and something we should talk about more. not just have one-size-fits-all but allowing it to kind of go back and forth and let students get that much-needed work experience early in life. host: linda from michigan. we are asking about your wages over the years. give us a snapshot of where you started, and where you are. linda, how are you? caller: pretty good. i started out making $3.35 an

hour working at a dry cleaner. over the years, i basically worked primarily in manufacturing. i can tell you, people that think if you live in michigan you are making big money, you are not. we have become basically manufacturing by temp service here. lowest common denominator money-wise. how few hours can we give you? that's basically where we are right now. if you were to look at the michigan works job bank, everything on there, manufacturing, is temp services. that's it. host: as far as what you do now what kind of employment do you do? caller: basically cable assembly, usually related to automotive. host: that is linda from michigan. we will hear from vick, in illinois. caller: i have been in the

retail business from was 35 years, with the kroger company. when i started, minimum wage was $2.90, and kroger paid $4.75. i went to work for them and climbed up to the ranks. i look at people asking for $15 an hour, and i cannot feel sorry for them. 90% of them could go to college, and won't. i don't care if you are black white, asian, hispanic whatever. you can go to junior college from was free, then go to regular college through the military. 450 dollars a week to start good pay for the average guy. but they won't sign up for that. those guys on minimum wage, those of the guys i went to high school with who slept through class, quit, or smoked so much pot and drugs they didn't know who they were. now they want us to bail them out. i say, don't bail those people out. they need to go back to college, go back to school and everything, get a job.

that's just the way it goes man. we cannot bail everybody out. you're supposed to bail yourself out. that's it. host: as far as your ability -- you have been with the company a long time. what is the ability to move up like in companies like yours? caller: it's easy. show up, be aggressive, do what they tell you, and if the average guy is putting up five boxes or whatever, you need to put up more. 6, 7, 8. do the job they tell you to do. show up. believe it or not, the work ethic and people 35 down to about 18 is terrible, man. we give these people jobs. they ask for hours, and then call in. i'm telling you you actually need to be in the business. i'm not even -- i am in middle management, not even one of the upper guys. part of the thing is that i wasn't politically correct. that's another thing. be poetically correct. -- politically correct.

that's pretty much it. when you look at them, the guys at mcdonald's, i would like to bring him to the kroger company for one day and have him putting away a produce truck. this is what happens. there's 800 pieces on these average trucks, three to 50 pounds apiece, and one guy puts those out well in -- while everyone else is on the floor. miguel that guy $8.25, and the top pay is $10 -- we give that guy $8.25, and the top pay is $10. ask if one of these guys can put away 800 pieces. 32,000 pounds. host: from p oreo, illinois. up next, elizabeth in michigan. how are you? caller: i am 80 years old. when i was in high school, i took commercial classes.

i applied for a job at a real estate insurance agency, and my boss hired me because i had experience of commercial classes. he said he interviewed the valedictorian of my class, and he thought that i was more of what he needed for his agency. so i worked with an accountant and after a year i asked for a raise. i didn't get it, so i applied for a job at alcoa and the person who interviewed me asked if i was willing to learn on the job. i said, yes. so i was a key punch operator, verifier, for ibm and worked in the accounting department. when i left, they gave me $1000 severance pay. i love my work. -- loved my work.

i think children today should experience some of the things i have experienced in the past. i think education makes a difference. i have always done that. i attended community college. i also did a lot of volunteer work. i was not paid for that, but i worked as an advocate for persons with mental health problems. host: before you went to alcoa what was your wage like? caller: i can't tell you. my memory gives me a problem nowadays. i would have to look in my notes from the past. i do not remember. host: charles is next. your wages over the years, charles? from north florida. where did you start, and where are you now? caller: i started in the food service industry when i was 13 years old, in the baltimore seafood market, cleaning fish and steaming up crabs at 13

years old, making $.75 an hour, which was the minimum wage at the time. i'm still in the food service industry. i'm actually working as a chef. in florida, in the food service industry as a whole, just trying to make a decent living is rather hard. $15 to $20 an hour tends to be the average. some employers want to pay a little less, even for quality skilled workers. i find it incredible that they are pushing for this $15 minimum wage aspect, because i'm wondering how is that going to affect people that are skilled labor who have gone to call in her school and have years of qualification? does that mean the small businesses or independent restaurants and owners regardless of the food service industry or other small jobs

business owners and entrepreneurs, how will they absorb those costs? if you bring in a guy and pay him $15 an hour, what is that skilled worker going to say? he will say, i want $20 or $25 an hour because i have more talent and skill. this will be a complete mess if people try to instill that. i have to agree with the color from illinois. i higher guys all the time -- hire guys all the time who come in. they call out the first week they are there. they want an advance on their pay. when they do show up, you are lucky if you get a full work day out of them. whether they are on their phone or texting or calling or outside smoking a cigarette. half the time you spend their time either -- your time either time to track them down or getting them to perform the job you hired them to do. and when you call them to the carpet about it, they look at you like you are crazy.

it's a must like an entitlement of that generation, that feels like it should be given to me. a lot of that unfortunately is the fault of the baby boomers. after we grew up, we had kids and decided we are going to hand them everything, whether it is a new playstation this year, the next model next year, the next phone, and as we kept giving everybody everything, the expectations were that, hey, i should have it given to me. take that same philosophy, bring it to the work ethic. host: you heard some of the calls we have had already. your wages over the years, what we are asking you about. tell us about your history, where you started, where you are, what industry you do, what changes you have seen. you heard callers talk about personal experiences, especially moving up in the workforce. the numbers are divided by age. you may be out of college.

interesting to know that in 2014, an organization known as the national organization of colleges and employers took a sampling of starting wages for those leaving college, breaking it down by industry. they found that the average salary for a college grad at the time, $45,000. if you go to the individual employment sectors engineering you made about $62,000. computer science 61,000. a business major $53,000. if you were an educator, your average starting salary, average college graduate in 2014 $40,000. you may fall into one of those categories. you may have another one you want to talk about as you talk about your wages over the years. tim, from california. go ahead. caller: a pleasure to talk to you. i started at the age of 16 in 1965, washing dishes at a little restaurant. as soon as i could get a work permit.

over the years, the things that made the biggest difference in my wage scale and the money i was making were outside factors and inside factors. the outside factors were the loss of jobs in america, and the internet, the ability to buy things over the internet. the things that also impacted my willingness to learn, the opportunity to learn. those opportunities came when i got a bread and butter job another minimum wage job. i started making $25 an hour in 1977. by the time i got done, i was making about $45 an hour as a quality assurance inspector for an aerospace company. because i had the opportunity to

learn. because i was trainable. i have the desire to earn and support my family. you cannot support a family on a minimum wage job. i have a comment to the cai about hiring people -- the guy about hiring people to move all the weight that he is talking about. the guy is not a horse. if you wear him out, he will be on medicare someday and you will pay him for it. you can't treat people, as mitt romney wants to say -- they are not human capital. they are human beings. you can't treat them like a horse, or else you will be paying for it later. host: next, jessica in texas. hello, jessica. how are you? caller: i'm great. how are you doing? host: well, thank you. caller: i have been working -- i am in my late 30's.

when i started working my first job, busing tables at minimum wage, that was $2.90 an hour. i went to college, and even with my college degree i got a job as a federal employee and had to work to full-time jobs just to make student loan payments. even now, i still work to full-time jobs. i noticed a lot of people my age have to work two full-time jobs. i don't think it is right. i have chosen not to have a child, not to own a home, to meet my student loan obligations. i think that you are going to lose a great deal of the population, because people cannot afford to do anything living near a major city. you can't afford an apartment, you can't afford a house. so i think that the minimum wage should be race. host: one of the decisions handed down but is up in court yesterday dealt with employment issues. you may have heard about this.

the supreme court ruled on monday that companies cannot discriminate against job applicants and employees for religious reasons, even if an accommodation is not requested. a victory for workers who want to exercise their religion on the job, from wardrobe to transportation to time off. the court ruled that a muslim girl denied application in 2008 had another chance to make her case. abercrombie & fitch refused to hire her at the time because she was wearing a black headscarf. it has since changed its policy. your wages over the years. paul is up next, in ohio. where did you start off as far as wages are concerned? paul from ohio? caller: i am 68 years old. when i got out of the service back in 1976, no, 1968, i went

to college and got my degree. i got a job at a private school making $18,000 a year. i worked there for seven years and my wages went up to $22,000 at the time. after finding out about a bunch of corruption in the school, i quit that job and went into roofing for $10 an hour. over the years i pretty much mainly was minimum wage, or a little bit of both. my last job before i got laid of f when i was 56 years old, i was making $12.25 an hour. one of the points i want to make now about the minimum wage increase, we have a lot of people like me who have to take early retirement. i get $750 a month, a fixed income. the cost of living we get from the government is only 10 or 12

dollars. if you give people 15 million -- $15 of minimum wage, prices will skyrocket. host: on twitter -- this is an individual weighing in on discussions about wages. richard, port st. lucie florida. how are you? caller: thanks for allowing me this opportunity. i wanted to say i feel -- hello? host: we, where did you start off as far as wages are concerned? caller: i started off -- i am 20 years old. i started off with a flooring company, and i had a slew of jobs. i went to school and got my management degree, and now i'm working with the union.

if it were not for a union job i don't think i would have a fair shake that i have now. i actually purchased my first home. i have a pension. i have a lot of things that a lot of workers are not being afforded with these jobs out there right now. especially people in my age group. they don't have the pension. they don't have the opportunity to advance like the gentleman working with kroger. i look at the stats of the jobs for each industry that you had. a teacher does not actually make $40,000. that may be in california or new york, but not here in florida, not in the right to work state. i just know the millennials are not getting a fair shake. we do have very, very good work ethics. it just depends on, it depends on the atmosphere, the morale, the work we are doing.

so i don't think it does us justice to say that younger workers are not able, are not dependable, are not reliable. host: richard, what have you learned being employed now from when you first started being employed? what lessons have you learned that you would pass on to those just starting in the job market? caller: i would tell anyone to be persistent. follow your dreams. when you get knocked down by your supervisors, by the upper echelon in the company, look at it as a training mechanism. so that way, you can build yourself and build your portfolio so you can advance, whether it be at that company or elsewhere. host: sandra, from livermore california. good morning. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: i am in the over-50 category. i probably started out

business-wise at an early age in hospitality, at around $12,000 a year. before that, i had worked in the food and beverage industry, cocktail work while i was in college, and i worked twice that. i took a pay cut because i saw opportunity in the future for myself, where staying as a cocktail server or bartender i would always be a cocktail server or bartender. my wages went up exponentially with my desire and my work other. -- work ethic. i ended up in a six-figure net wage capacity when i retired. i was in the kind of work where i interviewed people and gave people jobs. trained people for their jobs then promoted them if they did well. through my eyes, i have been able to see thousands upon thousands upon thousands of job seekers, and thousands upon thousands of employees.

i have been able to watch and assess their job attitude. i do notice over the years, if it is not the government, it is the unions holding up people who need to hold themselves up by the bootstraps more. they either don't have what allows them to go out and seek and better themselves, so they rely on the government to increase their wage, or they rely on the union to increase their wages, and it takes away from the individualistic characteristic that causes gives you the ability to go out and seek to improve yourself. so that you can be more valuable in the work environment. host: sandra, where the things you learned in your earlier jobs that you applied in the jobs you did towards the end? caller: absolutely. they work skills like how to produce something. they were skills like how to

dress, how to behave, how to come to work, how to do the best job he possibly can for the time you are at work. how to treat other people on the job. how to be always looking for a way to improve yourself or improve the job environment, and offer solutions to problems. there's always going to be problems in the work environment. just complaining about the problems doesn't help upper management. but helping out upper management by giving them some possible solutions to those problems fixes the problems and puts you in a position where upper management says, well, this person might be someone we want to help along here in management. they are giving us good ideas. host: that is sandra. let's hear marty's experience from virginia. go ahead. caller: i started off working as a soldier.

i made $68 a month, which is around $830 the year. i worked hard for 26 years and ended up at around $4200 a month, little under $50,000 a year. in 26 years of serving our country as a soldier. host: what lessons did you learn during that time as a wage earner? caller: as a wage earner, the dedication you are taught in the military is the kabul schmidt of the mission, no matter what. you always meet or exceed the mission, because you have got to. lives depend on it. money was a secondary issue. it is significant, but it is not what your mindset was. you have to work hard, take care of your buddies in the foxholes with you, serve your country with honor and distinction. i was proud of my career. the money was a secondary issue. host: that is marty from

virginia. don't forget, a couple points -- events today on c-span. at c-span3 at 10:00, a hearing on looking at the amtrak derailment. hearing from executives from amtrak about the issue. maybe you heard about it in the news the last couple of weeks. you can see that on c-span 3 at 10:00. on the senate side, debate over the patriot act, a procedural vote. and the takata saairbag recall hearing. if you want information about these events taking place around capitol hill today, go to our website at www.c-span.org. caller: thank you. i wanted to say, miss california and the guy in georgia were right. part of america is wrong.

regionally, $15 an hour would partly be wrong. how do you tell someone in georgia and someone in new york and someone in california, when regionally house prices and other things would be different? and yet, union prices, when the unions -- my husband worked for 30 years as a journeyman. went to college, worked to try to get to twain dollars an hour -- $20 an hour. under the obama administration, gave up benefits and things to finally get to $20 an hour. 30 years to get to $20 an hour.

now, they are finally going to hire someone at $15 an hour. do you think, after 30 years he's going to finally stand by and let someone get$15 an hour, after 30 years of experience? do you think he's going to stand by and let someone with no experience, after 30 years as a journeyman in the state of georgia, be hired at $15 an hour? taking his job, in the state of georgia? do you think, at $15 an hour when house prices are $80,000 in georgia, it compares to $300,000 for a studio, compared to the state of georgia, to new york? host: that is kelly in georgia. we have been talking with you folks about your wages over the years.

again, if you want to continue on posting your thoughts on our twitter page @cspanwj, you can post on facebook as well to keep those conversations going. our activity now turns to the u.s. house. the house about to come in. to take care of its business today. again, keep an eye on the senate side, on c-span2 for issues concerning the patriot act. for now, we go to the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room washington, d.c., june 2 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable randy hultgren to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: