part of our spotlight on magazines this series, new -- "new republic" contributor will talk about her article on fate hanley leave -- pa him ♪ host: good morning. after eight years debate 23 republicans joined 53 democrat to pass the usa freedom act yesterday by a vote of 67-32. in the approved the bill ending the nsa's bulk data collection. president obama signed into law last night. we will begin with your thoughts on this fight in congress and reforms made under the new law feared republicans (202) 748-8001 republicans and democrats

(202) 748-8000 and independents on (202) 748-8002. the headline in the face eyeing powers. back. congress gave final approval tuesday to the sweeping rollback.

in the front page of usa today on thoseis -- they write this -- there it is on your screen. that was that was at the heart of the debate. it is actually paid to 15 -- 215 has been changed so they cannot collect if your phone companies will hold on to the information. it is required to get a court order to obtain the information.

this represented a major victory for privacy advocates in congress. the senate majority leader majority leader mitch mcconnell foxcatcher to renew the patriot act without any change in. republican, daniel. [dial tone] sorry about that. wrong line. are you there? caller: i am here. good morning. freedom can live to fight another day. our security has an opportunity to not shrink. i know there was a big battle waged into the extension of the provisions in the patriot act. i really hope that senator ul can let the most valued opinion when he says we can have both

freedom and security. there is a lot to be done. the usa freedom act takes a step poster to the direction that senator paul is eyeballing. i humbly believe that we are closer to that point to where we have both of them and he can admit it. host: do you that senator rand paul accomplished what he set out to do? i mean -- caller:caller: i don't know if any of us could ever get to that point. that wondrous quote that keeps giving thrown around from benjamin franklin comes to mind immediately "if you can keep it."lino leaders is not keep it to the systematic way that our bond as a nation

was set. the tone was not set in a way that everyone feels it should have been. we took our security. it was delivered not to the same extent as what british occupancy gave. in time, those leaders knew it would come to where we are at now. host: daniel, republican indiana. getting your thoughts this morning on this site in the senate. the house overwhelmingly passed usa freedom bipartisan vote. last night the senate did move forward on the nsa provisions. the restored the expired provisions last sunday night. bypassing the was a act they have reform to this data collection program.

we're getting the thought of that this morning. but listen to a little bit of the senate for debate yesterday. here is senator patrick leahy the longest member of the senate. this is what he had to say about the was a freedom patrick leahy senator patrick leahy: it has significant privacy protections. it is a long and difficult road that i am proud the u.s. congress has achieved. that is how democracy is supposed to work. congress is ending the bulk collection of american private records once in front. [end video clip] host: that is the center from vermont praising his colleagues for moving forward. the president with the signing

that fell into last night after the provisions of the patriot act expired on sunday because of senator rand paul of objecting to fasting the usa read him act. he objected. it was a merely seven-hour speech that brought it to sunday, midnight. that within six fired. now they have been restored and reforms have been made. we your thoughts on that tomorrow -- this morning. u.s. surveillance in place is sharply limited here is what they read four. signals a cultural turning point for the nation. almost 14 years --

jim, republican and bloomington illinois good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. the only republican county in the state. i just wanted to mention two things. one, ov on the nsa thingerall,

i feel positive about what we have done. i have not done all the homework and wish i had done. i did want to clarify one ring. the previous caller mentioned franklin's quote " if you can keep it." in his entire context it means more. republics as opposed to other forms of government have always in experiments and have always failed. franklin is said to have been leaving right after the congressional meeting. a lady said what type of government have you given us? his response was a real public

madam if you can keep it. he was clearly aware that the whole structure of a republic can tailspin out of control into what we have come awfully close to in the last 8-12 years. we may call it a republic it is has become more of a the lines between the different branches of government are blurry. if we let that happen we will not keep our american spearmint and it will fail -- experiment and it will fail. host: do think the nsa program has contracted to the tailspin? caller: i am going to sound like a politician. it has not helped. anytime the federal government

especially in a republic form of government, any time it gains more power than the balance beam would allow. that affects the republic negatively. a great deal i am aware that when 95% of the people who try to get the tsa in the airport get through our federal government is not even real good about sticking their nose in our business all the time. so i think the nsa efforts have

then well intended but not well executed. just like a lot of things within the federal government. there is always what they call the unintended consequences. (202) 748-8000host: nancy, what do you think? caller: how long is this act going to go on? for years and years? when this came into being i called a republican senator. they told me that my questioning what my government is doing actively called an enemy of the state. this upset me so much. no matter who i called, i got the same thing. not everybody is talking about it. can i call the senators and enemy of the state?

i think the hypocrisy of all this is just not my government any longer. host: usa today said that the usa freedom act these provisions of the patriot act, the post-9/11 patriot act, are extended to 2019 when congress will have to take up this debate again. it is something they have periodically done since the september 11 terrorist attack is is the patriot act passed. they have had to renew it and extend these provisions for the just the debate most recently in the house and senate. now they have done so again extending provisions of the patriot act but that section 215 or many have been opposed to the full data collection, now the data remains with the

telecommunication companies and the government needs to go get permission to look into an individual or a group and request the data from telephone companies. gerald in louisiana, democrats, what do you think? caller: good morning to you. people be talking about the federal government and this is wrong and this is wrong. all right. don't do that anyway? that is how we get all this junk mail. every day we get this job mail. they know your address. they send you all your things. they are collecting data anyway. why are they complaining about the government collecting it? the state collects it and sales information to other will. i do not think it is right for one person to do something wrong

and another person do it and they are run. host: are you looking for the government was doing? caller: you know, i am ok with the government because the state is doing the same thing. host: i hear your point. robert, missouri, independent. caller: good morning. anyone that has a cell phone has lost it. they have a navigator on there. it tells you where you are where you are going. most everything. i do not see any sense of what they are raising all the hullabaloo about. if you have a cell phone and navigator, in knows who you are and where you're going. host: listen to what folks

said including mitch mcconnell who was opposed to changing the patriot act, opposed to changing section 215. here he is on the senate floor yesterday about the was a act. mitch mcconnellsenator mitch mcconnell: they are not reporting it to cnn. i am concerned about my security. my view is that the efforts to fulfill campaign promises to resident back in 2008 reflects an inability to adapt to the current threat here and inflexible will view of past grievances. a policy to believe the next president and a weaker position. mr. president, i cannot support

passage of the so-called usa freedom act. it is not enhance the privacy protections of american citizens and the surely undermined american security by taking one more tool from our war fighters in my view at exactly the wrong time. [end video clip] host: senator mitch mcconnell link of his opposition to the freedom act. it 23 republicans disagreed with him and joint 43 democrats and one independent to approve the usa freedom act and the president signed into law last night. we will get your thoughts on that this morning. the new your times reports this about the workings of the patriot act. they will be required to declassify some of its most significant decision--

it goes on to say that in a heated meeting of house republicans one of the architects of the false 11 patriot act angrily told senator john brothel of wyoming to deliver a message to his senate holly. any change to the house bill will be flatly rejected. jerry, democrat, what are your thoughts on this? caller: the patriot act as it

stood was probably too broad. think what they should have done was they should have made a provision that if someone was doing, even if they committed a crime of some kind, that should not be prosecuted. they should use it for some of them committing a terrorist act. we do need protections. we are kind of laws a you f blaise. the american people need to be protected from being prosecuted for something unrelated to terrorism. host: all right. back to the new york times. repeated studies have found evidence of intentional -- no evidence of intentional abuse for personal or political gain by the nsa bulk data program but

also found no evidence that it has ever thwarted a terrorist attack. what is your thoughts on this debate over the patriot act? the senate acting now to pass a bipartisan bill that was supported by over 300 members of the house last month. the present quickly signed it into law. it reforms data collection programs. four lines are open. continue dialing in. want to get to some other news in the papers. we will begin with two front pages of the clinton foundation. first the washington times.

mr. clinton personally pocketed a record $750,000 speech the

a lengthy piece in the washington times about that. then you have the washington post with their own reporting on the clinton foundation. this too is a lengthy piece. it reports how they built a $200 billion local charity. started in 1997. this is how they started. chevy chase was on the plane with bill clinton. so was the former president of new mexico -- of mexico and chunk whose=john cusak --

that is the front page of the washington post this morning. many details on how big and 10 foundation came about and the idea for it. matt in michigan, good morning to you independent. what do you make of usa freedom act passing and doing away with section 215 of the patriot act? caller: i am not at all comfortable with the way that i understand the bill. because i am not sure that i trust the phone companies anymore than i trust the government it i also wanted to

comment on the senate majority leader's comments yesterday. i heard him talk about how we have to be prepared because every time there has in a war in this nation's history we have been unprepared. i understand that. at the same time, it makes me wonder how long are we going to be on a war footing? are we ever going to be a few flipping nation again? that really concerns me. it is a concern that i have. host: james, new york republican. go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a comment on they make a big deal about the in assay and the tsa but yet they keep the southern border porous and they cannot even keep track of the people coming here with their visas never leave the country. he can have these terrorists coming in on a visa and standard everything they want to do. host: ok.

take a look at what the reaction was on the speaker of the house. we told you he has aligned against the senate majority leader went o'connell with democrat and a bipartisan group of the house judiciary committee. he put up a statement yesterday. this legislation is critical to keeping the americans safe from their civil liberties. the president signed it into law last night. he said in his own statement that the delay for passing this was unnecessary. that from the president last night as he quickly sign this into law. he said i have called for reforms that better safeguard the right to see and civil liberties of the american people will want ensuring our officials

retain tools important to keep an american safe. that is like today i welcome the senate passage of the freedom at which i will sign when it reaches my desk. marie and oregon, what do you think of all this? host:caller: i am wondering how much the data collection department of the nsa costs? how many people they were hiring to operate it. just exactly how much money are we saving? host: the budget is classified. congress since the september 11 terrorist attack has let them know the top number four intelligence. we do not know how the money rate down when it comes to the

different agencies and the different programs. that is considered classified information. caller: that sounds really weird. that sounds really unnecessary to be classified as far as costs and financial issues. i do not understand that. gary in new jersey, what are your thoughts this morning? host: hello. i feel all the business community and every tie by a car or something they all want your social security number. host: you do not a thing wrong with the program? caller: no. host: what do you say to people who say they do not want the government knowing their private information assurance their phone calls -- information? their phone calls. caller: look.

host: we are listening. caller: when i think. wait a minute. host: all right. we are not communicating well because you got your television of the reminder to the viewers that if you call in and it should return to top, dr. the phone. georgia, republican. caller: good morning. what are your thoughts on this? at what point do huge rock the line of the amount of civil liberties? at what point do you stop? there may not be in the data. i am sure the patriots the

british abuse everything. host: did you agree with what senator rand paul was doing filibustering this? caller: absolutely. at least something needs to be done. host:6 what did the sensor accomplish? -- what did the senator accomplish? caller: lec is making an effort. he is one of the first ones to speak your data would not been for him i do not think it would have gotten there. host: did you give him money because of his effort? caller: i do not have any money to get him. host: are you going to vote for him? caller: right now he has my vote. host: republican in dublin,

georgia. rand paul begins to make believers out of his father's supporters. it was no accident that on the night he railed against the nsa for 11 hours his campaign sent out a picture on twitter.

jerry peters with the new york times on that. the financial times weighs in on the stand against the usa surveillance state. they write this.

lawrence and arlington virginia. independent. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. the last caller touched base on what i was thinking. i do believe in the freedom act. it may be less real. host: you think that when congress labels a bill "usa freedom act" it means the opposite? caller: it seems that way. that is my observation. host: did you agree with what senator paul was doing? caller: what do you mean? host: his filibuster

opposition against this? his letting the provisions expire for less than 48 hours? caller: to a certain extent. it seems like there is no opposition. host: would you support senator rand paul in 2016 because of this issue? caller: he is a good guy. i am skeptical. i am not sure. host: you are an independent. you are not sure. caller: i need to see a lot more of what he really believes, you know? i need to see a little bit more evidence. host: all right. for you to see desk it is

support -- for him to get your support you need to see more. california republican. hi, kevin. caller: good morning. i feel strongly about this. i just think the nsa is out there to listen to this conversation. the conversations they are looking at our focus on people who are trying to hurt americans. there are people out there who are planning. they're trying to hurt as at home. that is what the nsa does. i do not even know if it is possible to look at 320 million people's phone calls every day. what they do is spark appeared i support them. host: republican in california. what do you think about rand paul's filibuster here? do you think it hurts him in the republican primary? caller: i do not know.

i do not think it hurts. there's a little you can do to surprise us. host: new jersey, independent. you are on the air. caller: i agreed with the older version of the patriot act for the simple reason it did not impact my life in a negative way. i do not care what they look at my cell phone. my concern is safe to. we have become so complacent that everything the government does is put out there. people do not understand the telephone companies do not have the ability to recognize people who are calling from outside of this country to make connection with the people in this country.

they do not have that ability. only the nsa has the ability to lead those people out. we have left are so very vulnerable by all this talk about freedom. it has not affected our freedom in any way. we need to focus in a that this is for the best of this country, to keep us safe from people will like the isis organization. they have found better ways to connect with their feet will because all of this infighting. we have made this country vulnerable. host: michigan, another independent. share with us your thoughts. >> good morning.

i am a retired telephone person. i did watch the hearings. he was giving his talk. there is one thing he said he is learned so much other than what was going on. there are a lot of ways. the phone companies only collecting billing records. they do not reflect if you call me and i forward that call to new york. i can hang of. the call is still of. he billing records show a call between you and me.

it is all software. what i understood originally as they were looking for patterns in calls. not listening it was just patterns. they start talking to telephone people. talk to the people who do the work and to know what is going on. there is no need for all of this. you're not going to get a true picture.

they know how to get through the edges. they know what they are doing. that is a food for thought. thank you. host: this article i want to share with you about phone companies have six and it -- expanded. this allowed them to collect them in bulk and then hold all this for years. it can only be access after the agency received approval from the foreign intelligence court. the agency started on their own databases. now all the records will be controlled by the phone

host: a little bit of help is be working. anthony, arizona, independent. you are on the air. caller: good morning. good morning. i support the president signing. i am against the bulk collection. one particular point i would like to meet is when you have to

collect information on everybody to protect anybody been we are going down the road. i am a combat veteran. if you take a sniper in the city and our enemy is here tried to take them out and we bring a tank around the corner and fire rounds, they are clapping their hands. you realize how much it costs to get that one out to kick out one sniper then we cannot afford it. host: all right, anthony. combat veteran there. we will keep getting your thoughts here for a few more minutes. i want to share with you some other political news. while the gop lacks a front

runner, this takes a hit. that is on hillary benson. favorability ratings are the lowest since april of 2008. she was running for president the first time. 41% of americans say she is honest and trustworthy. 22 point swing in the past year.

there are more people getting into the 2016 bid for the white house. today the governor of rhode island will be announcing his it for the residency on the democratic ticket at 5:30 p.m. eastern time we will have live coverage on seascspan3 c-span radio and c-span.org. rick perry will be announcing his presidential bid. that is like thursday at 12:30 p.m. eastern time on seas cspan3, c-span radio and c-span.org.

house republicans move on a state budget to cut over benghazi. they set a budget plan and withhold nearly 700 million or 15% of the operational funds until requirement to proper management are met. the request is what the special committee on benghazi once on the state department. they are holding out lending or the state department over this issue. the wall street journal this morning is the least transparent administration. they turn stumbling into an art form. -- they turned stonewalling into an art form. a court order was needed to get it removed.

these have more than doubled since president obama took this. they are looking the request of the agencies that have the blog. we'll go to michelle and connecticut. a democrat. the morning. what do you think about this freedom act that was signed into law a? caller: i'm happy to see the other went on. i feel horrible when i feel like government is this thing to everything. but do not want to live in a country where i have no freedom. i do not like that. it is a horrible feeling. i was in washington when i met brand all. i am impressed as a democrat and women. i think we need more women in politics. we do not have enough.

we need more. i wish more democratic women would be running for president. we have a lot to smart women. we are working on that. that is my opinion. i think it should be gone. it was a definite overreaction to 9/11. we do not need that kind of waste of money, time resources. an invasion of our privacy in this country. we do not need it. it will not keep us any safer. i think we need to be careful of what we do and let our government not have that much power. we do not need that big of a government. we need less, not more. host: you are a democrat. caller: i am. host: would you cross over and support center rand paul for president? caller: out had look at all the issues the work i do that. i think it is it that we have voices with opposite opinions. host: you should know that he

voted no on this he was a freedom act. he wanted more reforms to the nsa them along with senator tammy baldwin a democrat from wisconsin. caller: right. i do not agree with that. i do not spirit i would -- i do not. i would like to have less government, less waste of our money, less taxes and i was i to get back to the beginning of this country. when we were four people and not parties. -- when we were for people and not parties. it was not their bill. this is not about your party. it is about the american people. host: the new york times, here is a developing story out in michigan. a town will be billing taxpayers 1.4 million dollars for a police

settlement. property owners are getting the bill for a man being repeatedly punched in the head by a police officer. they said it would fund the settlement with the man. it allows for payouts only about $2 million to a resident who has property with a $40,000 market value with paying about $130 more than usual. that is a developing story on the "new york times" website. we will do to judy next in hawaii. go ahead. with your thoughts on the nsa program. caller: yes. i am very sad to see that this thing past spirit host: the usa freedom act? caller: i was with rand paul all the way. i think we should have done away

with it completely. host: you are a democrat? caller: i am a registered democrat. i have not voted democrat for the last two elections. i consider myself more of an end of and now. i'm so disillusioned with all of our rights being taken away from us. our founding fathers gave us these rights for a reason. there are abuses that can happen. if you look at how the governments are run dictatorships, a lot of it comes down to controlling the government. if the government can slide the government through surveillance they can maybe steer something in a telephone conversation or find some dirt on a senator and

use it against him. then you have blackmail of library -- or bribery going. host: i want to go through some quick headlines about the auto industry before we wrap up this conversation. consumers are pay 4% more crime of those than they did last year. that is on the front page of the detroit free press. then you have this in the business tech section of the wall street journal, as talks near uaw steels for strike. they will begin negotiations on a new deal of the fee contract deadline after years of being far from striking against the

companies because of the bailout of them. -- host: all of that happening in the automobile industry. many of you know the airbag company has had the largest recall in u.s. history testifying on capitol hill yesterday were officials and regulators questions on massive airbag read all. we covered that. we're going to show you a little bit of that coming up. we're going to switch topics in the to a democrat of oregon. we're going to talk about marijuana laws.

oregon will become the fourth state to legalize recreational use. we will talk about that along with trade issues. first a little bit from the hearing on capitol hill. they are looking at the airbag recall, the largest recall in history with an estimated 34 million vehicles in impacted. here is a little bit of that hearing. [video clip] >> all of the vin numbers of people need to be checking. they may be driving with a to causeakata airbag in their vehicle may be recalled. it is not online right now. >> that is correct. >> people should not feel secure but they should keep checking.

i wanted to talk about one of the authorities that would the in the vehicle safety improvement act. that would be to give them more authority than self. the first known takata airbag rupture occurred 11 years ago in 2004. months after the national recall takata has finally relented. it is within their authority. this has the authority to take him action even in case defects are known and there are strong risks of immediate injury or a deaths. they call searching vehicles with driver-side airbags taka

has refused to conduct of theta recall. i know you are not there at the time. do you think the agency, we put it this way, would you have used it with regard to takata? >> thank you for the rephrasing. i have used every tool available. if a minute available to happen and available we would have used it. [end video clip] host: we will begin with this debate in the house. it will happen over marijuana's date lost it -- marijuana state laws. they are overseeing our government drug laws. what is this debate about today with the marijuana state laws? why is it necessary? caller:guest: we went late into the

night with some limiting amendments. as you say, the department of justice is in a difficult spot. it is charged with overseeing laws of it on the federal level no longer work. the majority of americans think state should be able to do it they want. states are doing that. over 200 million americans now live in jurisdictions, 3/4, that allow some form of legalized marijuana. we have four states including oregon that have legalized adult use. we are still trapped in time. there are really stupid things. for instance, the debate we had last night was on industrial hemp where anybody can get perfectly legal products that use he,p but the hemp has to come from canada or europe they cannot comfortable

american farmers. this is goofy. it's something that george washington did. it is something the american government promoted during world war ii because it was a strategic material. we are in the process of trying to get the federal government to do what most americans think should be done and that is not interfere with what voters and legislators want to do at the state level just like we treat alcohol. host: what is the justice department doing that lawmakers like yourself do not like? how are they interfering? guest: it is dea. i mentioned it betghehe hemp. we have 13 states that went to another farmers to grow hemp and there's interference in terms of the ability to get the

hempseeds there is a cloud. over whether it willbe enforced. there are other things that take place. right now because of a court in federal statute -- quirk in federal statute, people involved in perfectly legal marijuana businesses cannot deduct their business expenses. we force them to be all cash businesses because there is a cloud over their ability to use basic banking services. these are things the federal government should step back from. we had some momentum in the last congress. we had five expressions of support by congress. we recently last week in the u.s. senate had a committee advanced a bill that we almost passed in the house that would allow veterans to be able to use their v.a. doc ins states

where marijuana is legal. it passed it should be on the war in the budget in the senate. times are changing. at the same time there is a revolution taking place in more states across the country. host: that language you sponsored nearly defeated. it could come back over. caller: i fully anticipate that as more people understand it, we are eight people accident, it was approved in committee. the more this settles in and people focus on it we will the incremental changes. i predict within the next five years this decision will be over. the federal government will let state do what states want to do and will stop interfering and will do a better job of regulating and keeping it out of children's hands and focusing on things that are more important. host: on this issue of the irs and taxes by legal operations

with have recreational use, here's the denver post. -- guest: i am hopeful that we do not have to wind our way through the course. i have legislation i've introduced in the house. my friend and colleague, ron wyden, has a companion bill. to be able to fix this anomaly and allow these legal businesses

to not be penalized with taxes four times as high as they should be. it was interesting that i was joined by grover norquist, the noted activist who i do not always see i to eye with who has been an eloquent spokesman saying the federal government should fix it. i'm hopeful we will in this congress. host: in 30 days, oregon will become the fourth state to allow recreational use. explain the process? july 1, citizens of oregon will be able to grow up to eight plants. carry up to one ounce and possessed of to eight ounces are you january 4, retail sales applications will begin. guest: this shift taking place so we are not interfering with individuals want to take advantage of it, the state has been working in a deliberate fashion to implement and measure

that was approved. marijuana in oregon got more votes than any politician other than me on a statewide level. the initiative sets forth provisions to try to make sure it is done in a responsible fashion. the oregon liquor control commission, which has responsibility for alcohol, has had hearings with over 3000 citizens turning out. legislature is trying to do fine tuning. we want to make sure this is done properly when it is rolled out. about a year from now, there will be retail facilities in oregon people will be able to take advantage of. host: this debate over legalizing marijuana for recreational use. a couple dozen states have legalized medical use of marijuana.

we want you to weigh in on the debate with congressman earl blumenauer. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. how will oregon record -- regulate? guest: just like we do with alcohol, make sure the people who are authorized follow the rules, background checks. make sure there are -- mature they are being careful about to whom it is sold. -- making sure they are being careful about to whom it is sold. right now, junior high students can go to a part of a downtown corner and be able to buy a joint of marijuana and nobody checks their id. nobody selling it has a license

to lose. by establishing a retail network of responsible business owners for the first time there will be an opportunity to really deal with regulations. it will be easier to keep it out of the hands of young people, rather than having this vast array market. -- graymarket. 20 million americans every month who use marijuana. you have this network of illegal supply feeding mexican drug cartels. as is a major profit center. we have an opportunity to legitimize the business, have better controls, and be able to deny terminal elements a source of funding -- criminal elements a source of funding. host: how much will oregon tax at? that money will be spent on what? guest: the texas to be allocated. -- taxes are to be allocated to

deal with people with addiction. more resources. some is dedicated to law enforcement and education. we want to be looking at the level of taxation. i have legislation at the federal level we are in the process -- we want it to behind enough -- to be high enough that you get the resources that are necessary. you do not want to make it too high so it prompts a black market like you are seeing in some instances in some jurisdictions with tobacco. taxes that are very high so it becomes profitable for people to take the risk to skirt it. we have work to do as we drag this industry out into the light, see how it works, look at consumer behavior, so that we had the level right. we have time to adjust to make sure we do not have unintended

consequences. host: let's get our viewers involved. sandy, a democrat. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my concern is, i have been an rn for years. i follow the situations that are going on. one thing that concerns me, the fact that 10 million people the last 15 years have died on the roads as a result of trauma with a large contributor being alcohol. you are adding another depressive agent that they are talking about trying to legalize. i am so concerned about our children.

there needs to be -- i understand the half-life is longer with marijuana than it is with alcohol. i really feel strongly that we are adding to the problem. what is going to happen as far as financially, the government is going to have to pick up the pieces financially as far as emergency room bills. god bless all of the people that are going to buy from -- die from lung cancer. they are smoking it. the decreased narrow affect -- neurological effect that marijuana has him a body. host: the compass minerals respond. -- the congressman will respond.

guest: there are 20 million people a month that use it now. there are one million americans that are authorized to use medical marijuana. if you talk to the experts and police officers, they are much less concerned about someone who has smoked a joint and driving. they will not be involved with aggressive road rage. they are more likely to pull over to the side of the road or buy a bag of doritos. these are not the people who are the dangerous drivers. there is a real problem of mixing alcohol and marijuana. this is real and there are some people who are clueless. one thing submarine down -- of marie dowd, the columnist who showed up in colorado evidently having her shibley and edibles

and had a start experience. there is public education to be involved. as a practical matter, if people are choosing between a recreational use of marijuana or drinking, the drinking driver is more likely to pose a problem than one who has used marijuana. it has not been a problem in colorado. i don't think it is a major problem of the future but we should not have anybody driving who is impaired. this is an opportunity for us to continue public education and strict enforcement. host: todd, an independent. your next. caller: bills sitting in congress and we cannot get a vote on. a vote for scott walker is a vote for prohibition. anybody out there that gets

medical marijuana now, scott walker wins, you are probably going to lose it. just so everybody is aware. guest: the medical marijuana train has left the station. we have a couple dozen states in the district of columbia. -- and the district of columbia. a dozen states now that have a version of medical marijuana. most common, it deals with treatment for children with severe epileptic seizures. a number of states have adopted that. as i mentioned, over 200 million americans are in jurisdictions where medical marijuana is legal and available. part of what we need to do is better research to be able to understand how to use it. this needs to be carefully done. we need to be able to have product safety, to find out what the impacts are. i think the evidence is

overwhelming that there is medicinal benefits. i have talked to hundreds of people that use it to deal with symptoms of multiple sclerosis or chronic back pain. we are aware of people who have used marijuana to control nausea of chemotherapy. i've talked to several people that said it was a difference between life or death for them. there may be politicians who think they can score political points campaigning against medical marijuana but i think the case is clear in most areas this has been approved by a vote of the people. starting in california in 1996. this is something people feel strongly about because it works. host: the darker green states are those states that have medical marijuana legalized. the bright green are the states where marijuana is legalized for recreational use.

oregon will begin july 1. the voters have approved it. there are other states -- guest: there are other states where they had a modified form. of medical marijuana. it is something that is growing in momentum that people feel strongly about. host: frank in new york, a republican. caller: a couple of comments about the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. that could possibly help out with our unemployment statistics problem. as i understand it, people stopped looking for work, they get off the rules of the unemployed. i would think if you get relaxed enough with our economy the way it is, you could sit home and feel really relaxed and recreate

all the time and not worry about going out to look for a job and get on the dole. guest: i assume that may have been done -- that may have been tongue-in-cheek. this is an opportunity for enhancing employment and business. we have hundreds of millions of dollars of opportunity for hemp related products. what we are seeing in the state of colorado, the taxes on the legalized marijuana exceeded what they thought. they are in the process of refunding some because it exceeded their tabor limits. there are thousands of people who are involved with making this into a sustainable industry. i calculate conservatively this is going to make $100 billion difference over the first decade we are able to do this. in part, by savings from a

failed policy of prohibition. we still arrest or site over 600,000 people a year for something that a majority of americans think is legal. we have got people who are in jail on marijuana related charges. it does not stop. there is a big marijuana business in this country. unfortunately, it is controlled by mexican drug cartels. being able to stop expending money on failed prohibition and being able to have economic opportunity and taxation is going to make a big difference. you are seeing it in colorado. we will see it in the other state that of legalized. medical marijuana is big business in a number of states. host: house lawmakers beginning debate over these marijuana state laws. part of the discussion they are having over funding for the justice department. both on that taking place in the house today. you will see this conversation

continuing on the house floor at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. c-span coverage, right here. we talking to earl blumenauer about this debate. pat, a democrat. caller: hello. i want to thank you for this program. i wish they would have this program for two or three hours in the evening every day as well. it gives people an opportunity to hear the voice of america. i would like to say, i have been a 45 year user. i use it for just with the gentleman said, chronic back pain. i was injured as an orderly in the hospital when i was young trying to lift patients. i am not very big. this is an issue of freedom. if you ask people why alcohol which is a dangerous drug, is legal in this country, they would say it is a freedom issue.

we settled that with prohibition. and its repeal. with marijuana, it seems like people are selective about ganging up on it as a drug abuse. i would like to say, we have had three presidents now in a row who have admitted to using this drug, yet still allowed the justice department to prosecute others for this. this is very hypocritical. it needs to change. i will close by quoting mark twain, whenever he was asked about his alcohol and tobacco use. the temperance society was critical about it. mark twain said, it seems like there's nothing quite so simple or aggravating as another fellow's that had its. thank you for your time -- another fellow's bad habits.

thank you for your time. host: critics say it is a gateway drug. guest: tobacco is a gateway drug. if we were reclassifying the drugs today, starting from scratch and looking at harm marijuana would not be a schedule one drug, tobacco would be. it is highly addictive and it kills people, including people in my family. the notion that it is it a gateway drug, dragging it out of the shadows -- the way it is now with the vast illicit market, if it is a gateway drug, it is easy for that person selling it to a junior high student illegally if you like that, let me show you what else i have. i think, tax it, regulated, be able to enforce our laws is a better approach.

we have a disproportionate amount of energy expended on this. the obama administration has dialed back a bit. they acknowledge -- the president said he has bigger fish to fry than fighting against the states that have legalized it. we need to straighten this out and we need these votes in congress. host: the debate taking place in massachusetts as well. the boston globe reporting that the mayor, martin walsh a passionate advocate for those struggling with drug addiction says he will fight it in massachusetts because he says it is a gateway drug. let's hear from bill in ohio. caller: good morning. i had questions for the representative. we had debates going on in ohio about that. the way they have it wrote up, it is going to be only 10 people

allowed to control this market. how is that going to be fair when it is just going to be almost like the cartels? nobody else is going to be allowed to be in production of this. the hemp is not even on the way they had it wrote up in ohio. guest: i cannot speak to specific proposals in ohio. i know there is interest in having broader legalization. i think what has happened in some states is they are looking at -- as they are transitioning from an unregulated black-market to something they can keep track of and control, there have been efforts to try and have different models for production and distribution. that is part of what is going to happen state-by-state.

we will have people experiment with what works best for them, just like we did with alcohol. we found out that prohibition failed. we had more speakeasyies at the height of prohibition and saloons we started. each state was given authority to regulate as they saw fit. that is the evolution we are going to have. there will be experimentation. people will learn from one another. we have learned in oregon from what happened in washington and colorado. ultimately, states will decide the things that work best for their citizens. host: ray, a republican. good morning. caller: hi there. this drug, marijuana. i've never smoked it. i have known people that do. this is definitely a gateway drug.

they take this stuff until they can't get higher and go on to other things. these people that smile and tell you they are going to do this and that and take care of this a problem right now with people laying in the streets in the parks. all these politicians -- the money, the taxes so he can spend it. if you was in another state, he would not have a chance of being dogcatcher. guest: first of all, he is wrong. the areas where this has been approved have been by a vote of the people, including most of the medical marijuana in the four states that of done it. i have been out front in terms of, i think the failed prohibition is worse than taxing and regulating.

the prophets of doom can go to colorado and find out there are not people collapsed in the streets and drugged up. you can see that in virtually any major american city right now. in terms of drugs -- illegal drugs and things that actually kill people. legal prescription drugs overdoses for heroin have exploded. i think what we need to do is have policies that work, that are enforceable, that we do not enrich drug cartels. that we allow people to be able to make choices that are right for them. the majority of americans now think it should be legal and the overwhelming majority say states ought to be able to decide policies that work for them. i think as people look at the experience with medical

marijuana and recreational marijuana, they will find there is a path forward. five years from now i think the debate is over. host: here's a tweet from one of our viewers. keeping limits on growing and possession, doesn't that give law enforcement the power to down doors? guest: these things have to be done in a reasonable fashion. you can make the same argument dealing with the control we have from alcohol. it is taxed and regulated in various states. since we eliminated the prohibition of alcohol, we do not have quite the problem of illegal moonshine. we do not have revenue ours out in the proportion in the past. we have been able to figure out how to do this. american public has moved on. they will do the same thing with marijuana over the course of the next decade. host: the trade debate happening in congress.

the trade promotion authority could come up next week. are you a yes vote? guest: i was one of two democrats in the house ways and means committee to vote in favor of trade promotion authorities. i think it is an important first step. i've worked with my friend and colleague, ron wyden, who i credit with crafting trade promotion authority. it is what people say they want. in terms of transparency, there will be no agreement that can be signed by the president if trade promotion authority passes that has not been made public for 60 days. it will not be acted upon by congress for another three months. i think these protections are important. once we enable people to get down to the final cases for the tough issues, this agreement has not even been finalized and then

people will be a book to look at it and see if it is worthy of support. until that happens, i will be working to strengthen provisions with things i speak to -- things that speak to what i've heard over the years. host: the washington post says congressional aide says president obama will need to deliver 25 democrats to ensure passage in the house next week. are you one of the 25? guest: i voted for it in committee. i explained to my colleagues in our caucus meeting yesterday why i thought the trade promotion authority that has been passed by the senate and are ways and means committee is a remarkable improvement. something i feel comfortable voting for. i think most people, actually reading it, will feel comfortable. that way we can shift the debate to what is in the agreement and whether it measures up.

i think there is probably three dozen democrats that are supportive. it should not be as close as people predict on both sides of the aisle because there are people that are having the rhetoric take place. people are against trade promotion authority because they have concluded they are going to vote against the transpacific partnership before it is even concluded. you may make up your mind in advance, regardless of what is in it, but that is not a reason not to vote for the trade promotion authority. host: the east coast states and trade with the asian pacific country. i read in the papers that you earned a limo ride with the president when he was out to talk at nike headquarters.

what did you say to him? guest: in a limo, i was talking about infrastructure. the quickest way to put hundreds of thousands of people to work with family wage jobs is for us to have a robust, secure highway bill. i've introduced legislation to late -- to raise the gas tax which six republican states have done this year. i think we need to invest in renewing the country. i agree with the president that this is a remarkable opportunity for my state. the jobs in the traded sector pay more and have been growing faster. when i talk to people who want -- who manufacture bike components they want to be able to move that oversees or cell line overseas. -- or sell wine overseas. it is not unique to oregon. if you look at the major metropolitan areas around the country, they all are part of the global economy. the united states is only 5% of

the global marketplace. if we are going to grow, we need to be able to sell our goods and services across the country and frankly, having some lower-cost imports, help raise the standards of living here. we pay less for foods clothing, electronics then we did 30 years ago. some say that has raised family living $8,000 per family. there's a lot going on to benefit. host: the washington post reporting tech chiefs in silicon valley backed president obama and want more democrats on board. back to our calls. greg in eugene oregon. go ahead. caller: i am from oregon and it is mixed to watch this. this is my representative. i think it represents oregon well. this does probably have to happen. to come out in this fashion as

though this is this wonderful thing, it is so self-serving. there is money involved. they are doing it because there are hazards with illegals, but ignores all of the real harm it does to people in their lives and the abuse that will come. paints this picture like there's nothing wrong with it. there are a lot of problems with alcohol as well. this is our representative. he should have a higher standard. he should represent something a little bit better. to come out here with, this is a real hazard. a lot of things involved with this. to protect like he is doing something wonderful, it is sad. there is real problems this nation. there are people laying in the gutters. he is up here pounding his stump

for marijuana like he is doing something good. guest: first of all, i never pretended that there are not problems associated with it. i've never smoked marijuana never will, but i will tell you if a member of my family was suffering violent nausea because of chemotherapy, i would consider it. 40 years ago, i voted to have oregon be the first state to legalize marijuana because it made no sense to me to have a prohibition against something that is not as dangerous as tobacco and cigarettes and mess of people's lives for no good reason. i want to regulate. i want to tax. i want to prosecute people who put it in the hands of kids in a way that we do not do now because it is so pervasive. i never said there were not problems associated with it

just like i would not say that about tobacco or alcohol. i do not believe in road mission for tobacco or alcohol -- in prohibition for tobacco, alcohol or marijuana. host: euclid, ohio. allen, independent. caller: thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts. i think so many of the people calling in against it, talking about people in the streets and the nurse that is indicating the children, these are people that have other problems to begin with. if they are using marijuana or alcohol or anything like that, it can exacerbate those issues but i think that a lot of the people and a lot of the problems that naysayers are talking about are not true. the man from tennessee did not know what he was talking about. the nurse and the paranoia about the children. my son is a policeman and i raised two children and i do not

see how marijuana is that much of an issue for safety. channel 8 news in cleveland several years ago did a show and the guy was driving and smoking pot. it made him more of an attentive driver. those issues really need to be discussed more. i think the laws are so uneven around the country that children are getting mixed messages. a judge in ohio that will just about crucify you if you're found with a seed. host: i want to take up your point about sending mixed messages. guest: the mixed message issue is profound. i have campaigned against having this in the hands of children. one of the things i'm concerned about is that virtually any child has an easier time getting marijuana than buying a sixpack of beer because there is nobody

that checks id now. nobody has a license to lose. there is this unregulated black-market. kids get mixed messages. according to federal statutes, marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine or methamphetamines. it is a class one, those are class two. it has no medicinal features. that is patently false. voters across america have voted the other way. how do we expect kids to take drug enforcement officials seriously if they cannot be honest? i've looked those folks in the eye and asked has anybody died of an overdose of marijuana? there are people that are dying now from prescription drug overdoses, from heroin, cocaine. meth is destroying communities in small-town america. we need to be honest with people

and set our priorities straight. host: i want to hear from ron in illinois, a republican. the morning to you. -- good morning to you. caller: good morning. i found it interesting about the education of the children. what is good for society and what is bad for society? the representative said stopping societal problems by stopping cartels would be good. children getting drugs now on the street is bad. a lot of bad things. there are laws for all of these things. what we should do, i would think, is to provide adequate laws to stop them, not add something. alcohol is in the society, we have to live with that. it is bad in general, sibley looking at it.

-- simply looking at it. you cannot stop alcohol. they tried that in the 1930's. you have laws. something bad like alcohol promotes seatbelt laws, airbags and things like that. so many people that have car accidents. this helps society if you care about it from the financial standpoint because you are helping society with money. the laws on marijuana exist. the goal now has to be to stop their poor usage. how can we help society by simply putting in -- drugs are bad. what is the benefit of promoting legalization of something that is bad? guest: the caller answered his own question. they tried prohibition of alcohol. it was a failure and created the

modern mafia and widespread disrespect for the law. we have cut use of tobacco by adults by two thirds since i was in high school, not by outlawing it, but by education and dealing with products. this is what we need to do with marijuana. the reasonable, do what people want. allow various states to experiment with what works, but not do something that promotes a failed policy that is not keeping it out of the hands of kids. host: i'm going to squeeze in linda, in tennessee. we are running out of time with congressman. caller: i would like to recommend the cnn cable news network show, high profits. what happens in the state when they legalize recreational marijuana. a young couple trying to be entrepreneurs and open a retail recreational marijuana shop on main street.

all the problems about trying to run a cash business in the 21st century. it is as much about local government democracy in small-town america as it is about marijuana. if you want to question, the question is, does oregon law a law local musicality's to approve things like -- municipalities approve things like zoning? guest: that is part of what is being worked out now in terms of what will be the amount of regulation. how dispensaries for medical marijuana or sales operations, that is part of what we are looking at now to hit that balance. host: huntsman earl blumenauer. -- congressman earl blumenauer. coming up next, we'll talk with congressman thomas massie. we talk about this nsa surveillance program and the legislation that passed into law

last night. and later, the cover story of the new republic about paid family leave. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour 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. given almost every literary award possible in her lifetime before she died. except for the nobel prize. she was known for some of her masterpieces. the professor's house, death comes for the archbishop, and others. in 1943, she made a will that had bush friction. -- she made a will that had

restrictions. left behind at least 3000 letters that we know about now. the biggest collections are here in nebraska. in her will she left one other thing. she left it to the soul and uncontrolled discretion of her executors to decide whether they enforce or preference. they believe we ought to know more about her. >> an important historical figure was solomon d butcher. >> a pioneering photographer in western nebraska. he took photos from about 1887 until the early 1890's of homesteaders and was able to tell the story of development in

american history. one of my favorite images of the solomon butcher collection. photograph of the chrisman sisters. it is four sisters who each took a homestead claim. this shows women homesteaders. the first time that women could own land on their own. it did not belong to their husbands, their fathers. single women could own their own land and that was a big deal with the homestead act. each sister, each of the chrisman sisters took a homestead near their father's ranch. they each built a small house on the homestead which was part of the homestead act. they would take terms -- take turns staying in each other's

house. sisters pulled together and made it in nebraska. >> watch all of our events from lincoln saturday evening at 6:00 on c-span 2 possible tv -- on c-span 2's booktv. washington journal continues. host: we joined by covers meant thomas massie -- by congressman thomas massie. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's talk about this nsa debate. you were in the senate chamber when senator rand paul filibustered this legislation. you have been with him along the ride. what did he accomplish? the usa freedom act passed in the senate and the president

signed it into law. guest: we are asking that too. what did we accomplish? one amazing thing he accomplished is he got 20 of his colleagues to change their position just by holding his ground. the first vote to proceed with the freedom act in the senate only garnered 57 votes. that is before the weeklong recess. they came back and had eight hours to solve the problem. rand paul stood his ground. they went into the expiration period, at which point the senator majority leader said, i guess we will do the freedom act now. 77 senators voted for the freedom act. that is amazing for one senator to get 20 senators to flip their position in a week. host: let me read the financial times editorial on this. rand paul's stand against the u.s. surveillance state. they write, two lawmakers like

yourself and the senator. it must take more seriously its constitutional role of reviewing their operations behind closed doors. there is little sign it is prepared to take that will more seriously. mr. paul's fundraising antics may or may not enhance his chances of winning the republican nomination. there must be a better way to protect u.s. liberty than this. the senator should spend less time in front of the camera and more time holding the agencies to account in day-to-day operations. that is the role of a legislator. guest: there was a point raised in the article i would like to comment on. some people said, did senator paul do this to raise money and get attention? if you have known senator paul for any length of time, you know this is his issue. this is in his wheelhouse, civil liberties. in 2010, when he ran in a republican primary in the state

of kentucky to become our senator, this is what differentiated him from other candidate that was the establishment pick. senator paul said, you have got to respect all of the bill of rights, not just the second amendment. the first amendment, the fourth amendment. when i ran for congress in 2012, i had fixed the economy, lower taxes, standard things. i had this thing that said repeal the patriot act. most people did not know what the patriot act was and they looked at my push cards and said, what is he talking about. for folks like senator paul and myself, this has always been an issue for us. it is not something we are doing for attention or to raise money. host: he did though, raise money off of filibustering the patriot act. was that appropriate? guest: clearly, grassroots

people are passionate about this issue are going to donate to him when they see him doing his job. i think it is unfair for the other senators to say him he is doing this to raise money. they are raising money from the moneyed interest. senator paul does not get that much money in washington d.c. his money does come from all 50 states. the senators that were castigating him because people were donating to him for doing his job, i think they better look in the mirror. host: the president signed into law the usa freedom act which passed in the house. it ends section 215, bulk data collection by the national security agency. guest: it is the tip of the iceberg. we need to go much further. i took the same position senator paul did that we needed to do more than the freedom act. the freedom act, they stole the

name from a bill that just in a mosh and i and 150 other congressmen introduced that had strong reforms in it. we had 150 members of congress sign up. they took our bill and kept the name and took it to the intelligence committee and said, how can we make this work for you. they changed it substantially brought a congress and said you're not allowed to amend it. we were never offered amendments in the house, whether in the committee of jurisdiction or on the floor. if you go back and look at what senator paul was asking for before the program ran out, he was asking for votes on amendments. that is all he wanted. he was denied any amendments just like we were in the house. host: let's get the calls. chris has been waiting. go ahead with your question or

comment for congressman thomas massie. caller: good morning. i am thrilled to see you on c-span this morning. i have been watching you for a while. i applaud your efforts. you and representative amash trying to get people to focus in on what has been happening in this country. we are losing our individual liberty, our freedom. the fourth amendment has been under constant attack since 9/11 . i wanted to bring up, i am behind senator paul as well. i wanted you to discuss your own efforts, the surveillance state repeal act. i wonder if you would share that with the viewers this morning and go into what you were trying to accomplish because i think what you were trying to accomplish with this is the best way to go. thank you, again.

guest: thank you for that call. this is not over. i have an amendment on the floor today of the house -- on the floor because today. there are opportunities to restore our civil liberties every time a program expires or its funding is about to expire. today, we are debating the cjs bill which covers the congress -- commerce -- it gives me an opportunity to offer an amendment. i'm going to offer a small piece of the surveillance state repeal act. it would repeal the entire patriot act. it would repeal the fisa court amendment of 2008. it would put in more whistleblower provisions. the information edward snowdon gave us was useful. we would like for the next edward snowden to just come to

congress and tell us. whistleblower protections do not cover and edward snowden situation. the amendment i'm going to offer today is to prevent the government from putting backdoors in your software that allows them to spy on you without a warrant. putting these backdoors in products is bad for three reasons. is that for business. apple is at odds with the administration because they want to put the strongest encryption technology available in their phones and the government says we do not know who want that. what happens is, the government forces a company to weakening christian software, products -- we can decryption -- in kitchen software, prosser not --

business, privacy, and security. shouldn't your government want you to have the most secure introduction -- secure encryption software protecting your records? i am offering amendment that prevents the government from paying companies to put backdoors in their products. host: would you republican leadership role it in order? guest: they were going to rule it out of order. we will find out if they rule it in order or out of order. host: we are talking with congressman thomas massie. he represents the fourth district of kentucky. tom in harrisburg, your next. caller: where the disconnect is

between what the american public thinks and -- look at rand paul. now number one in the polls amongst republicans. it is not that the american public does not want to be safe. they don't trust the government. before i go, i want to ask the congressman, the next most important thing is, how come we have not expired the war authorization act with the president? how can the president is having this authority to drop missiles and this congress has abdicated duty over that? guest: let me go back to that question. there was a pew research poll that came out a few days ago that showed that 54% of americans think that there are not enough checks and balances on the government surveillance program.

senator rand paul was alone out of 100 senators. there is a lot of disconnect in washington d.c. the disconnect seems to be larger in the senate than the house. you'll find a lot of -- at least 40 republicans in the house took the same position that only one senator in the senate took. there is more connection with the public in the house. i think you saw this in this debate. we are fairly well disconnected too and that is a concern. the caller brings up a good point. we have our toes in a lot of military actions. congress is abdicating its responsibility to debate this issue and to declare war are not to declare war. it is really dangerous. i do not carefully have a democrat or republican in the white house -- i do not care if

we had a democrat or republican in the white house. at its own peril, congress is avoiding this issue. walter jones from north carolina has resolutions to debate these actions. in syria -- it seems like the president, it seems like an 2013 he had this idea to get involved in syria. i received 100 phone calls a day . i usually only receive five or 10 in my office. 100 phone calls a day saying do not get involved in syria. i appreciate that the caller is a democrat. i'm not picking on this president. when the president could not get authorization, he dropped it. and he sort of did it on the sly anyway. we need to be debating the war

issue. host: john is watching in brooklyn. an independent. caller: good morning. i feel that this is a phony issue. it does not affect any americans in a negative way that i know of. i would be more concerned with people -- the republican party going against unions. that has more of an effect on the american, everyday people than what is going on in the nsa. host: let me add to that, don or on twitter is asking, what civil liberties have we lost to date? guest: i have people tell me i'm not doing anything wrong. i don't care if somebody knows what i'm doing on the internet because i am not doing anything illegal. i tell people, i'm sure you're

not doing anything illegal, but have you done something embarrassing? would you like that to be public record? would you like for a government to be able to use that against you to get to the next stage of incrimination? this is an issue -- it is not a phony issue. this is a fourth amendment issue with all due respect to the caller. i call these weapons of mass distraction. occasionally an issue gets so hot that everything else is forgotten. when my kids were in t-ball when the ball went to the outfield come all the kids went to the outfield. nobody stayed on first base or the pitcher's mound. the same thing with congress. when something gets white-hot we forget about the economy, the fact that we have an $18 trillion debt. we forget about these issues that really matter to americans back home. i wish we would stay focused on

those. i have a debt clock in my office and i got this idea from senator coburn, it reminds me to keep my focus on the main thing balancing the budget and making sure we are doing things that help the economy and help people like john. host: lydia is next. woodstock, illinois. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm calling with my legal name because this is also my wheelhouse. the word oversight is a trick word. on one side of the page, congress can supervise. on the other side, lack of supervision. both sides of the pages, that is why congress loves that word. here's why i'm calling. president obama needs to go on

c-span to tell the american people he will -- this is the 11th hour. censor the process he agreed upon and revealed at the first correspondents dinner when he utilized the bush strategy of telling the truth as a joke and a joke as a truth. i called in on that day. i was furious. i knew what he was doing. he said, i needed to be there because george bush -- he needs to come on and tell the american people that is chief legal officer will sunset that provision because that provision was never put in writing. unless it is in writing, it cannot be done as something congress can do oversight over. host: can you explain for those that do not know? guest: i serve on the oversight

committee. i am a little bit cynical. we have had the irs hearings, ben ghazi hearings. really nothing comes out of that. i studied engineering in college. if i knew i would be on the oversight committee, i would've studied theater. that seems to be what the oversight congress best congress considered -- congress considers oversight. if you do not do anything about what he found out, it is not oversight. we have multiple lovers -- multiple levels of oversight that failed. james clapper live to us in the senate hearing -- lied to us in the senate hearing. when he was caught in his lie after the snowden documents came out, he said, i said the least untruthful thing i could say at the time. a lot of people do not realize when the president said, congress knew about this

program, he was kind of right. they told the intel committee which is pretty to more secrets than the rest of us. i understand if you told the secret to 435 people it would not be a secret for long. we entrust the intel committee to watch over the intelligence community. they are responsible for oversight. they did know these programs were going on and they failed us. the circuit court of appeals said that the nsa was breaking the law, exceeding legal authority with the metadata collection program. the intel committee failed to provide oversight. we cannot know all the secrets. the oversight we have, there is reform to this and the freedom act, the fisa court.

the courts balance the executive branch when they do law enforcement duty. the fourth amendment, you have to get a warrant and have probable cause. you cannot issue a warrant that is so broad it does not name a specific person or things to be seized. the fisa court issued a general warrant that would have made king george blush. it says basically all of verizon's records, maybe you are not a verizon customer, you probably called someone that is. they have collective records for every american under one warrant. the fisa court -- one good thing about the freedom act as the data collection and storage stays at phone companies now instead of going to the government. that makes me feel better but the gatekeeper to that data is the same gatekeeper, the fisa

court. i would like to see more reform there. we had a civil liberties advocate. you have to have an adversarial -- yet that two to present the truth, and the judges can decide. there is not an adversarial relationship. there was no one representing civil liberties in the fisa court. it is now called an amicus curae, who serves at the pleasure of the court as a technical advisor. i would like to see that oversight strengthened. i am very synthetic. -- a sympathetic. i am a little more cynical now than before i came to congress. host: bob in michigan, a democrat. caller: congressman i am very happy to see that you have taken the stand for civil rights and civil liberties. i am not too hot on your social programs and economic programs.

i have a couple comments here regarding this metadata and its massive failure. i live in a rural area. you know, it doesn't take a farmer and it doesn't take a math genius to figure out that if you are looking for a needle in a haystack, you don't increase the size of the haystack times 10. that is probably the major failure of this, besides its illegality. also, you know, when we are talking about bill of rights amendments being violated, we have to look in the 21st century instead of the 18th century for what this violation is. this is the 21st century equivalent of quartering soldiers. it is basically the same thing as quartering soldiers in the 21st century. guest: you know, there is the question of what is analogous to

what was the case in the 18th century. the supreme court recently ruled on cell phone searches. let's say somebody is arrested and the police search their cell phone without a warrant. this went all the way to the supreme court. the supreme court said, you know what, it is just as much a violation of your privacy, in fact more so. more can be revealed about you by searching your cell phone than by searching your house. the analogies are all there. we don't have to change the constitution. we just have to realize how the founding fathers would apply it today. speaking of haystacks, you say you don't need to be a farmer or a technologist. i'm actually both, and i'm with you. we don't need a bigger haystack. senator paul made that point in his filibuster. he said, look, i am for doing more surveillance of terrorists,

not less. but let's not surveilled all of america. because when you increase the size of the haystack, you are more likely to lose the neil. host: bonnie, a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: it is really refreshing to hear this conversation this morning. i appreciate hearing from somebody who has the whole thing going on and understands what the american people feel like. i don't speak for all of them, but i think that the republicans are completely out of touch. i am a republican, and i think they should have done a lot more to change things when getting into office. they won, and i do not know what their strategy is. in 2014, the people sent a clear message about what they wanted the republican party to do, and i don't feel they are doing any of it. i think that rand paul has the right idea, and so do some others out there, including joe manchin. i'm not taking one party over another.

i have to say, i don't trust the republicans any more than i trust the dark rats anymore. i think they are all in the same boat together. guest: let me speak to that. i am one of 24 congressmen that did not vote for speaker boehner last winter. the first time i came to congress, i was one of nine who did not vote for the speaker we have now. i think the process is broken. it is not about ideology. i'm not saying the speaker is not conservative enough, or he is too conservative or whatnot. the process is broken here. the way it is supposed to work bills are supposed to go to committees. they have hearings, they get marked up, and they get amended in committee and it comes to the floor of the house. at that point, everybody should have an opportunity, republican and democrat, to amend the bill. that's the way it is supposed to work.

what often happens in congress is that a bill just gets written behind closed doors. it doesn't go through committee. it comes straight to the floor. they write the rules in the rules committee which is controlled by the speaker, to say that nobody can offer amendments to this.that's what happened to the freedom act. i petition to the rules committee to allow an amendment. they would not allow my amendment. so we didn't have any amendments on the freedom act. more from -- more often than not that's the case. i don't want to pick on my own party too much. speaker pelosi set the record for the most number of bills that came to the floor without allowing for amendments. our speaker broker record by bringing even more bills to the floor under a closed bill. i think the process is broken. host: when the house recessed for memorial day, you stayed in town. because you were worried about this, an extension of the patriot act, a short-term one

coming to the floor quickly and trying to be passed by unanimous consent. did you stay in town because you don't trust speaker boehner? guest: let me not phrase it that way, but i stayed in town because i had been in congress for two years and i had seen bills passed when virtually nobody is in the chamber. here's what a lot of people don't realize that all. i hope i don't upset too many people with this truth. if you turn on c-span, you can occasionally find them passing bills with virtually nobody in the chamber. i understand that it is an expeditious way to rename post offices. if you let me know you are going to rename it, i don't have to be there to vote on that post office, though i will say that i have the 13th-longest voting record in congress even though i have only been here for two years. i don't miss any votes. they will pass things without a quorum. if nobody is there to object or

make a point of order that a quorum is not present, this is just the tradition of the house. this is not new with our speaker. the tradition is to assume a quorum is present unless somebody makes a point of order. as you pointed out, i for went much of our recess. i select back a couple times to meet with constituents. i didn't want to cancel meetings, but we have the floor covered 24/7 so that if they pass something in the senate which was their goal, we say wait, if they pass something in the senate, the house is not in session until after the act expires. the only way that could be relevant is if they sneak something in while we are on recess and pass it with nobody in the chamber. i asked my leadership, do i need to be here all week? or can you give me a guarantee you won't do anything on a voice vote was nobody in the chamber? i could not get the guarantee,

so i stayed here. we prevented -- what we did, we prevented that option of the senate to send some thing back to the house and pass it was nobody in the chamber. that's part of what drove us to this outcome. senator paul was in the senate using procedural tools and asking for amendments, shutting things down when they wouldn't allow amendment votes. just in a mosh and i -- justin amash and i were in the house making sure that if they breach senator paul's objections that they could not do something in the house. we would stand up and ask for a recorded vote, and if they denied a recording but we would make a point of order that a quorum was not present, which required a rollcall at that point. obviously nobody wants to come back to washington willing they are on recess, so they would have postponed it until we were scheduled to be back. host: westport point massachusetts, steve independent. you are next. caller: morning.

a couple quick points. i agree with a lot of things you say. some things i don't agree with. i will just make some quick points. i am glad you opposed john boehner. he has a veteran' is jobs bill that has been sitting on his desk for a long time. he will not bring it to a vote. that's not very good. you mentioned rand paul, that he swayed a lot of minds with his big speech. you know, i admire the man for doing that but other people have those opinions before he did what he did. as far as raising the money from that speech, he put it on his website saying, see what i do that's what you should send me some of your money. some quick points. but you know, i tell you this -- i agree with a lot of things you said. i'm an independent, and i think that says a lot right there. thank you. guest: thank you for being an independent, by the way.

i vote independently. , there's a list, a statistical list of members of congress who vote with their party most often or least often. i am third from the bottom in terms of voting with my party the least often. there are other independents like me. we are not partisan. we have been accused of being ideologues. that may be true, right? we stand on principle, so we caught ideologues.but don't confuse that with partisanship . i tell people that a partisan reads the recommendation when deciding whether to vote and an ideologue reads the bill to decide if it fits with their principles. if you look at the house of representatives, there is an aisle in the middle, and you are either right-wing or left-wing. sometimes i'm accused of being right-wing. but i sit on the aisle.

there is no assigned seating. it looks like a first grade class without the teacher present. when we do sit down, we sit wherever we want. i am cosponsoring, sponsoring for amendments today with democrat cosponsors. two of them have democrat cosponsors and two of them will be democrat votes. it is important that you speak to your principles. but a lot of the time, you can find democrats that agree with you. i always say, could there ever be a third-party, could you be here as an independent? there's two of everything in congress. two back rooms two. where would that third-party be? you see it designed in the architecture to have a two-party system. it would be very hard to change that. it has converged on a two-party system.

in britain they have coalitions. it is hard to follow their politics, but if you want to understand american politics you have to realize that there are coalitions within the republican party and the democrat party, and sometimes you can form coalitions by taking subsets of those. that's how i worked with your previous guest, earl blumenauer. we got industrial hemp on the farm bill two years ago, and now they are growing it in kentucky on pilot programs because we worked together. host: christy in charlotte, north carolina. caller: my question -- the patriot act was not intended to collect metadata from all the americans. but it was executive order 12333 which allowed nsa to do that. will the same executive order allow the american freedom act to collect the same data, so we

are really not getting anywhere? guest: that's a great question. the president said he was disturbed by these programs when he came about, that there needed to be reform. the reality is, he could have stopped them that day. he's the executive. so he waited for the congress to do something. when we got to sunday night at midnight and the programs a sensibly were shut down, i had the same questions. are they really turning any switches, or not? she talked about executive order 12333. you can see what that executive order is, but it is classified how it is interpreted and what programs emanate from 12333. it is tough. i can't tell you whether the freedom act is going to stop the ball metadata -- stop bulk metadata collection. but i kentucky that this discussion is bigger than bulk -- i can to you this discussion

is bigger than bulk collections. there are sections like section 702 of the fisa law that allow collection of content. those are still going on. it is incidental collection extensively in the name of collecting information on terror, but they accidentally scoop up information on americans and keep it, and look into the haystack for things that are not related to terrorism. we will try to reform the 702 program as well. but you are right. the executive has a lot of authority here. the nsa is actually a branch of the military, and he is the commander-in-chief. it's important to remind folks that. host: ruthie in waarrne pennsylvania -- warren pennsylvania. caller: i think they shouldn't be allowed to collect information on people who haven't done anything. if they wanted to spy on people

who had a felony, or their families, that would be one thing. but they should have to destroy all that information. because if we can get in there and get that information, so can all our enemies. they can get better at this stuff than we are, if you take a look at the health care thing. host: i think we got your point. i apologize, a little break up there. what was she saying about destroying the information? can you talk about that? guest: first of all, she said that it snowden can get in there, who lost that was my first thought. if this guy who is not really being paid to spy, just on his own volition did this, what about the professional spies like the russians and the chinese? surely they knew a lot about these programs, because surely

they have ways of finding that out. what wasies ruthie's other point? host: that, why should the government collect it and store it? under the usa freedom act, the telephone companies will be storing it. guest: telephone companies will be storing metadata, but the content collected in 702, that will still be stored. their hard drives will still be full after the freedom act passes. i think they are going to use all those terabytes to store other things. i agree with ruthie, that it doesn't go far enough. what i have come to realize, if you can get something small, that is a big win. changing an existing program in congress is almost impossible. host: then why not support the usa freedom act? guest: when you have a debate

you need people pulling on one side and people pulling on the other. if we were not driving a hard bargain on this site, the debate would have gone more toward the senate side, which was to water down the freedom act even more. so you needed people pulling for a stronger freedom act, and people pulling for a weaker or freedom act. ultimately, what happened was the freedom act, and we considered that a success. in a town where very little happens and the process is so broken, when we get something like this to change, you can get republicans and democrats for it and the president will sign it that's kind of a big deal, even though it doesn't go far enough. host: does senator paul feel the usa freedom act as a victory for him? guest: i think he does. like i said before 20 senders changed -- senators changed their position as a result of his strategic and tactical maneuvers in the senate. and that was hard for the senators to do. when you voted for change, and

that's with the freedom act is coming even though it is not enough change, what you are doing is saying, edward snowden had a point. that really was tough for a lot of those 77 senators because i'm sure some of them went out there and called him a traitor saying he should be imprisoned. but for them to turn around and change of program because of something edward snowden did really kind of validates maybe not the process he took to expose the information, but the fact that he did expose things that were unconstitutional and/or legal. host: a couple more phone calls for you. first, i want to tell our viewers a little about you. they know you from watching you on the house floor on c-span but this is your first time talking to them on this program. here's a tweets that was sent out sunday night after senator rand paul spoke from frank sort of nbc --

guest: my background is in technology. i grew up in kentucky, in a town of 1500 people. my life dream was to go to a mighty -- to miy. i got accepted. i had never visited. i had never even been to massachusetts until the first week of class. when i got there from the small town in ohio, the first car that honked i waved at it. where i grew up, for 18 years i have been waving at cars that honked, because that is the only reason you wave -- u-haul. they were honking because i was standing in the crosswalk for too long. i started a technology company while i was a student at m.i.t.. i got some patents, invented some things, created some jobs. i moved to new hampshire, and my

company was still in massachusetts. that made an impression on me. the license plate said "live free or die," and that wasn't even the custom license plate. that was everybody's license plate. new hampshire is a lot like kentucky, the same spirit. i will do my thing, you do your thing, and let's not bother each other too much. i married my high school sweetheart, who also went to m.i.t.. she is the brains behind this. our dream was to raise her family on the farm she grew up on in kentucky. we spent 10 years on the farm, built a house that is off the grid. we are both engineers, so we knew how to do that. it is run by solar panels. i tell republicans that you can dislike the subsidies for clean energy, i don't vote for subsidies for clean energy, but you shouldn't hate solar panels. these are rocks that make electricity. you can't hate rocks. a rock that lasts forever and makes electricity is a pretty nice rock.

i just wanted to be left alone, really, in kentucky. on our farm. we have four children. the government kept growing, and is starting painting even on this little town -- it started impinging on this little town that we grew up in. iran for county judge executive, which is like being mayor. the county only has 14,000 people. it has the same number of cattle as people. i have 50 cattle and four kids, so i am breaking the average. that position in county government, i found waste, fraud, and abuse everywhere in government. my mission was to eliminate it at the local level, and that caught the attention of other counties. so when our congressman jeff davis was retiring, i thought maybe i could go to washington and find waste fraud and

abuse. this is a target-rich environment. [laughter] host: joe, you are on the air. caller: good morning. how are you doing, sir? i wanted to comment on the nsa's new mandate. this has been part of our government for the last 10-15 years. it was installed for the purpose of trying to curtail and to tear any type of -- and deter any type of foreign interference in our safety. but lately, we have taken it out of context, i think. we complain and block and fight anything towards it. but my point is, my question is it seems like a person like edward snowden is being elevated to a hero by a lot of people in our nation. looking at the condition he has

left this nation, now exposed to the general public, he has done more damage with his revealing of this information than spies have done to us over the last 50 years. you as a congressman, how can you say you are in the middle when you support the patriot act and certain aspects, when you support the american aspect -- american act in some aspects? you tell the american people -- i would like to get your point on that as a congressman. you are talking about how you support rand paul, but there has to be a medium somewhere. either we are hypocrites, or we all on the same page working for the same common purpose. guest: back to edward snowden. he keeps popping up. i never said he's a hero. i do appreciate, i think he did

a service when he at least informed congress that this was going on. because we write the laws. how can we change the laws if we don't know how they are being interpreted? i wish he could have done it in a way that did not compromise all of the other aspects of national security. and by the way i want to thank anybody that serves in the fbi or the cia or the nsa that keeps us safe. they stay up at night so we can go to sleep, so we can rest. so i do appreciate them. i think that's part of what is left out of it. i'm not saying he's a hero or not a hero. the act of leaving the country was an active self-preservation obviously. i don't admire that, but i will not judge him. i don't know what i would do in that situation. i would like to see him get a fair trial. i think that we will agree on

some things and disagree, but as long as i am transparent and i vote the way i speak back home or i speak on tv consistent and transparent, then people can say that he represents me or he doesn't represent me. i don't even agree with my wife more than 80% or 90% of the time. host: she's always right though. guest: that's because she's always right. [laughter] host: congressman, we have to leave it there. thank you for coming on and talking to our viewers. guest: thank you very much. host: congressman thomas massie, republican of kentucky. when we come back, we will continue with our spotlight on magazine series, talking about paid family leave, how it is within political reach. right after this short break. ♪ ♪ >> this summer, book tv will cover book festivals from around

the country and top nonfiction authors and books. this weekend, we are live at the chicago tribune printers row lit fest, including a three-our in-depth program with pulitzer prize winning author lawrence wright. watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library. in the middle of july, we are live at the harlem book fair, the nation's flagship african-american literary event. at the beginning of september, we are live from the nations capital for the national book festival, salivating its 15th year. that's -- celebrating its 15th year. that's a few of the events on c-span2 book tv. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress, with color photos of every senator and has member plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees the

presidential cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. order your copy today. $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at www.c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined from new york by lauren sandler contributor to "the new republic." her piece for the june issue -- "paid leave goes from progressive pipedream to political reality." where does the debate stand on paid family leave? guest: it stands in a very different place than it did even a year or two ago, when it was pretty much a nonissue. you may recall president obama bringing up family leave in his state of the union. senator kristen gillibrand and rosa delauro have a bill right

now. a number of states are considering their unpaid leave policy. when you think about it, the whole issue on paid family leave stalled out after 1993 when president clinton signed the family medical leave act into law, which allows 12 weeks of unpaid leave. it has been nothing for over 20 years, and all of a sudden it is a big political issue. host: you write "the first antedate the last time -- and to date the last time a sitting president took action on a family leave was when bill clinton signed the family and medical leave act, making it his first law in office." talk about this law. it is on paid family leave. what is the impact of unpaid family leave on women in the workplace and our economy ec? guest: it is on everyone because women are not the only ones raising kids and taking care of their parents or

themselves. we see this as a women's issue but it is really everyone's issue. we think of it as a parent's issue, but we may not all be parents, but we have parents. when we talk about family leave, we are not just talking about babies. anyone who needs help in our family. were you about to say something echo host: host: finish your thought. guest: with the family medical leave act, there was a push to consider paid leave, which is what every country in the world except for papa new guinea offers when you have a baby or need to take care of a sick family member. but that you wrote it -- eroded over time, something the business lobby was supposed to. but there is excepted in the rest of the world. through time, we were able to pass a bill allowing 12 weeks of unpaid leave.

so there's that. you would think that would apply to everyone in the country. in fact, 40% of us don't even have that basic protection. the bill that managed to pass only covered companies that have 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius, and employees who worked for the company for over a year and so on. many of us don't even have that basic protection of not losing a job if we have a baby or need to care for a dying family member. what's trickier than that, a lot of people can't even afford to take the time off. there is the old adage that one should save in order to have a baby. but when so many people are living at the line at the moment, it is hard to imagine for example how representative massie would have those for kids if he could not afford to

have himself or his wife take significant time off for each birth. so we really encourage people in this country to have babies, to care for their babies, to be good to spnspn to be good family members. host: you said there is legislation in the senate that would put forth a proposal for paid family leave. how would it work? guest: work very much like social security and would be an earned benefit. employees would pay a couple bucks in a week, employers would pay a couple bucks in a week and if you needed it and you would have to demonstrate you really needed it, you could then take 12 weeks which you're entitled to now but with 66% of your pay. host: what would be the cost to taxpayers? guest: you'd pay in a couple

bucks from your paycheck and your employer would pay a couple bucks and not like it would be a tax across the board. host: is there traction for this legislation? could it get through this congress? guest: well, not really. and this is the issue at the moment is even though 64% of voters say that they would increase their support for someone who considers paid family leave to be an urgent matter alongside equal pay and some other issues even though over half of republican women think this is a good idea, somehow lawmakers on the hill haven't quite warmed up to it yet. it's interesting, where we've seen paid leave enacted, so three states have it now, california, new jersey and rhode island. and california, there was a huge move against this over a decade ago when it was signed into law, business did not want it. but in retrospect, 3/4 of conservatives in california support paid leave because they've seen what a good idea it is when they actually get to

live with it. host: talking about paid leave and here's the breakdown by states. the states that are gray here have no legal protections beyond the family medical leave act passed in 1994. the darker green states states that guarantee unpaid leave, the green states with stripes are states with unpaid leave that have paid leave bills pending and there are also states with paid leave bills pending, other states with paid leave bills pending and then these darker states, as lauren said these are states that legally guarantee paid leave. that's our discussion with all of you for the rest of today's "washington journal." i want you to weigh in. republicans 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and intents 202-748-8002. lauren sandler joining us from new york a contributor to "the new republic" and their june "cover story" has this discussion about paid family

leave and possibly being within reach. tony in bethlehem, pennsylvania, a democrat, tony, you're up first. go ahead. caller: good morning greta, the old ball and chain just headed off to the salt mines. she works for the post office and is a delivery girl for the post office and i stay home and watch the kids. they're good kids. stop fighting! host: a think a bit of sarcasm there so i'll move on. let's talk a little bit about the title for this piece. you said it has moved from a progressive pipe dream to political reality. why was it a progressive pipe dream? guest: it's something advocates have been working for for decades now but it's been a very grassroots operation, really an old-fashioned political movement, right? so you have a lot of people who really deeply understand this

story first hand and they've been telling their stories they've been working with advocates on the ground but to get this issue to trickle up and push through some of our ideology about who should be working, who should be taking care of the family and what our country can support, it's been a tricky move. and so what has really happened is in the past several years, this has grown tremendously. the word on everyone's lips is momentum. local governments and state governments and now what we were talking about, there's finally a federal bill. furthermore, hillary clinton is talking about the issue in her stump, the president is talking about it, the department of labor has put forth money for grants to research this, valley jarrett and tom perez are out on a lead on leave tour and suddenly it's something people are paying attention to. and not just democrats. and this is interesting. you know, it may be a question

of how something like this gets traction. but even conservatives like representative martha roby are paying attention to the fact this is something that voters want. she has put forth her own bill saying why don't we use overtime for paid leave which to progressive advocates isn't a great idea. so employers would get to pick who gets to use overtime, when they get to have it, which isn't a great way to deal with crisis management. i know my baby came at an unexpected time. furthermore, overtime was something that was hard-fought so employers wouldn't overwork employees. so to me if the bill isn't a grated idea but does show even conservative politicians know that this is something that voters are wrestling with and really want a solution to. host: you write that paid leave would benefit women indeed would go far in what many have called the unfinished business of feminism, maybe why we don't have it.

guest: in 1993 when clinton signed this into law and in the 1970's when family started talking about the issue family looked really different. right now 2/3 of family have a woman, a mother as a co or principal breadwinner, 25% of families have a single mother. you know, most women work now. most women work by need and even beyond that plenty of women work by choice. and yet we're the only country in the world that says, you know, we're still making it difficult for you. as much as we rely on the female work force. but this isn't just a women's issue. we found when men take leave to be with their own babies, they're more involved in their kids' lives throughout. it's clearly better for everyone. and when you think about how our population is abling right now, so at the moment we have $35 million americans over the age of 65. by 2030 that is going to double

to 75 million. it's a lot of people to take care of when we think about our own parents and what their issues might be. alzheimer's rates are skyrocketing and it's not just about mothers but everyone. host: and beyond pregnancy, there are other issues here as well that come up that people need paid family leave. guest: absolutely. we tell americans you should value family first. you should be an active parent, you should care for your own parents and yet our law are really an outlyer in the world when it comes to how we can help people do that, not as a favor but to keep our businesses running. we lose employees because we are forced to make the impossible choice to lose their jobs or to care for their families we rack up enormous turnover costs, our morale sinks and it's bad for business. we've learned it looking at states with paid leave now. in california where there is huge resistance, now 99% of

businesses think paid leave is good or at least has no negative effect on businesses. in new jersey where there was resistance, it's been terrific for business. turnover costs have been reduced per employee from about 5,400 to over 18,000 per employee. wherever this exists people who were opposed to it think it's a great idea. host: let's hear from bash, from smith creek hi, bash. caller: i work for a union shop that 80% of our employees are on the fmla leave act and no one shows up. it's not being used the way it's supposed to be used so i don't see how that's going to benefit companies when they're forcing people to work overtime to fill in for the spots for the people that aren't showing up and now you want to pay them to not show up? host: lauren sandler? guest: there's a lot of concern

about fraud, for example, in california before it was passed but in interviews with employers throughout the state, those who opposed it before it was passed and those who supported it, that simply hasn't been an issue. host: take a look at who has access to paid leave. in your piece for the "new republic" you break it down by demographics. what do you find? guest: in california and new jersey and rhode island where there are paid leave programs people have access. and in parts of the private sector, you know, the more you're paid, the more likely you are to have paid leave. if you work at morgan stanley, you get three months paid. if you work at facebook you have great paid leave. if you're a lower income worker, you're far less likely to get the leave that you need more. host: looking at the demographics, if you're white nonhispanics 61% have access to paid leave. 62% for asians, 61% for

african-americans, and 43% for hispanics and in educational attainment, if you have a bachelor's degree, 72% chance of having access to paid family leave, some college, 66% and obviously it gets lower with the less education you have. al in vermont, an independent. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello. yes, i just wanted your guest to explain or just talk about the fact that the united states constitution does not allow for those kind of laws. it's very limited in what authority the federal government has and while a state like california may be able to have those laws, it would depend on the individual states. but certainly not at the federal level. it just destroys our federal constitution and it is very disrespectful, the people that want our people in the country to follow the constitution.

could you just explain it? guest: it's all a question of how one interprets the constitution and every time a federal law comes up, it's certainly an issue that gets discussed and it should. but i think we need to take seriously our constitution exists to protect our rights and equality and this is something the rest of the world considers to be a right and something he is suffering from deep in inequality. host: matt, a republican. how are you guys? caller: the question i have, you made a comment a little while ago about how businesses will see less turnover and things like that. why haven't they instituted this on their own since there is such a benefit. why does the government need to compel them to make a good business decision? host: that's a great question. plenty of businesses have and the issue is about evening out

the playing field. it's tough to offer this benefit for the employees that you care about when down the street someone isn't. guest: and so it's become a real issue. it's tough to be a business that wants to do the right thing by their employees and also sees the gains from it to then have to compete with companies that don't. host: what companies are doing this on their own? guest: most major companies are. microsoft made huge news recently when they said we guarantee it for our own in-house employees. now we need thousands of contractors to agree to it, too, which isn't for white-collar employees but anyone who contracts out to microsoft. votophone generated a paid

leave policy globally which will apply to people in the u.s. so the bigger the global company, the more likely there is going to be decent paid leave. but it's something people have taken a long time catching up to in part because it hasn't been a major topic of discussion in our country. caller: i watch c-span every morning but i do work for an employer in california. i'm retired now but was able to use it for myself and i had no problems with my employer and i was able to use my sick leave for it and also when my mother was -- when she had a medical issue, i was able to use it for her as well. i must say that it would be so nice if we could have paid fmla than have to use your sick

leave for fmla. host: can you talk about that for a little bit? guest: this is what we hear from a lot of people. when you have the opportunity to care for your mother when she's sick, when you have the opportunity to care for your baby when she's born or for yourself, you know. i was just thinking about my own birth. i had a c section. that was eight weeks when i wasn't allowed to walk up and downstairs when i was recovering from my own surgery. and when i was taking care of a baby. it was great that i had a partner. my husband was able to stay home and take care of the baby with me. i can't imagine how that would have worked otherwise. these are basic things. these are about how we love the people in our lives and how we care for them. and right now i think we all feel we're stretched way too thin right? that we're working too much and that what we have to sacrifice tends not to be at work but at home with the people that we love most and can be heartbreaking.

this is harder for people who can afford it less. and when you have a tear episode of poverty really know what it means to care for a family member or have a new baby. 10% of people who take leave have to go on public assistance to do so. one week of missed work is a month of groceries for a lot of people who are poor and those choices are impossible choices. so for everyone, the people who need it most and people who just have a right to this basic freedom the rest of the world has, i think that we really need to be talking about this. host: san diego, california pamela on the line for democrats. you're on the air. caller: oh, hi. yes. i'm a payroll provider in california and i just wanted to set the record straight here that even though the law was passed in 2014 and became effective january 1.

workers are not entitled to that paid leave until july 1. so our guests stated that employers say that this is working. and it hasn't even got in effect yet really. host: lauren sandler? guest: the law was passed 13 years ago and there was over a decade in intensive studies looking at how that works. there may be a new provision that your caller is talking about i'm not aware of. host: richmond, kentucky, an independent. caller: you recently mentioned larger companies had been willing to provide this paid leave on their own. i was just wondering i wondered

if the federal law would impose financial burdens on smaller businesses who may be struggling financially. guest: an excellent question and is a concern for small businesses. what's interesting is there a group called a small business majority which is nonpartisan and polled small businesses all over the country and what they found is a majority of small businesses actually support this. so what they have found is that people really want to help out their own employees. if you're a small business you know the people who work for you really well. and you feel deeply and you want to give the support and the company down the road doesn't and puts you in a tough position. furthermore, this is something i think this is something interpreted that employers will pay for. it's really something employees pay for.

different states handle this and different state bills that are being considered make different suggestions for it and in all these situations it's something employers are not exclusively responsible for. either employees pay for it out of their own paycheck or split it with employers. host: lauren sandler, here's reaction on twitter to this conversation. one viewer says small biz is the best hope and small biz can't afford this. my own free will tweets in, those plans are already available without stealing from taxpayers. short term disability is how this is addressed. and stella says when you get this paid leave does government still take its cut. can you answer a couple questions. guest: let's think through them one at a time. the first tweet was reminding me how chris christie when he was running for governor of new jersey, he said that he was going to roll back paid leave

because it was so controversial at the time. then he took office, you never heard from him about it again. and the reason why is that even when people oppose it before it goes into law once they live with it, they realize it's a really great thing and reduces turnover and raises morale. people have really looked at this and studied the data and done tons of interviews with opposition. they've been living with this and the fact is people really love it. the second tweet, remind me which one that was. host: the one about disability. disability pay. guest: absolutely. so there are only a few states that have temporary disability pay and happen to be three of the states which are the three that currently have paid leave in addition to that, new york which is considering a bill right now, hawaii, and puerto rico has temporary disability. most of the country doesn't have that option. host: the third tweet was when you take this paid leave, does

the government still take their cut? guest: i've never heard that question before. i can't imagine that they would but that is information that would be solid on. host: karla in san diego, independent, you're on the air. caller: oh, hi. i was interested in hearing the question you said about the government, do they take their cut? hello? host: sorry, karla. we're listening. lauren talked about that and wasn't sure if that's still the case, that they would take their cut on the paid leave, but when people take unpaid leave, lauren sandler there's still -- are they paying taxes on the disability, are they paying taxes on their vacation time that they're using up? guest: i actually don't know the answer to that. it's hard to imagine that they are. but i don't know. i'll look into that. host: and probably varies by state. each state deals with this in different ways.

guest: for unpaid leave it's federal and i'm not sure how the fmla laws suggest we need to deal with that. state by state they are different plans, california, new jersey and rhode island all have different ways of approaching this. what's interesting about that is they're sort of functioning as laboratories right now. so we can learn from how it looks on the ground. and we have been. host: kevin is next. plymouth, indiana, independent. hi, kevin. caller: yeah, hi. i was just going to make a comment. at least if this gets to the federal level, whether it passes or not, at least maybe it will bring attention to the issue. and possibly states can take up the issue themselves you know. and as people push for this and ask for this and you kind of nudge the employers a little bit to get them to get on the same boat with you. that's pretty much it. host: that is exactly the way this is being discussed. so it took a long time for fmla

to pass. by the time it did, 28 states had a policy of their own. guest: these are things that tend to work in tandem. and right now there are lots of states that are considering this for themselves. so these things do work alongside each other. and raising the conversation is crucial. this is why the white house backing this issue, calling for bills for congress to demand paid leave and the state of the union was so incredibly important and why the department of labor is really doing a lot to push this issue. but this is a discussion that local governments need to be coming up with plans for, states and now federal. the issue is it it happens state by state, imagine if you pay -- because it's not an entitlement, right? it's a earned benefit. imagine if you pay your paycheck into a fund in california and you move across the border to oregon, where does that money go? you don't get it anymore. imagine if you're someone who, you know has a baby in

mississippi and you don't have the same rights as someone who has a baby in massachusetts. that hardly seems like the way our country needs to work. host: ron, southbury, connecticut, on our line for independents. hi, ron. caller: hi. i was wondering lauren's company, she works for "the new republic" do they have paid leave for their employees, and also, how do they verify it? you know that while there are requirements, there must be some requirements. the other thing i was wondering , with the trade debate that's going on, do our competitors, do they have paid leave for their employees that compete against us? i would appreciate an answer. thank you. guest: absolutely. "the new republic" does have paid leave for employees. my colleague, rebecca traister, who writes on these issues took time for her baby and i'm a

freelancer and have been for many years now and when i had my own child i didn't have the benefit of paid leave and can tell you it's something that i really felt. now, globally in terms of trade, the u.s. is the only country,ent except for papa new guinea in the entire world that doesn't guarantee this right. we often think of this as something europe does as some type of socialism but the fact is every other country on earth except for one, which is you know, a collection of islands with minimal infrastructure, the worst literacy rate in the country -- i'm sorry in the world. the highest rape rate in the world. new guinea is a pretty rough place. when we think of the dark corners of the world that's way up there. they're our own ally on this issue when it comes to not providing paid leave. and i think that that says a lot. every other country in the world mandates this, which means that every country that we are competing with mandates

this. host: on the issue of taxes, our producer found this from the employment development department in california. family leave benefits are subject to federal income taxes in california. they are not subject to state taxes. that's just a little bit of information on that front. anthony in statin island, new york, a republican. welcome to the conversation, anthony. anthony: good morning. i would ask a c-span representative what i am going to say exactly on the air. and you don't screen what people say on the air and this is the first. let me address the issue of family pay. i think it's a great idea but let me shine some light on the industry and what's going on. you mentioned microsoft. and you mentioned that they made news. the reality of the situation is that microsoft employees key professionals from indonesia, the philippines, on the average

may be making $20,000 a year. and when you have a situation like that, you can't afford paid leave and can't afford making any type of news in this area. and another fact i want to say, most of the i.t. professionals in california are unemployed. because companies like microsoft, h.p., and all other major silicon valley employers employ people from -- outsource most of their business. and they don't even get to really acquire family leave because they don't have jobs, and when you are employed by -- when you are normally a new employee, you get 12 days of vacations and you get five days of sick time and that's because

it's mandated by law. we are far, far from the notion of actually, you know, getting the benefits we're supposed to be getting. let me tell you one more thing. i work for a german company and, you know, my german associates from germany, you know, had months of vacation. i mean the person just went on a 30-day vacation and came back worked for a couple weeks and went on another two weeks of vacation and that is normal. this is the norm for people working overseas while i am working on 12-day vacation and five-day sick days leave. so i just wanted to make sure that that's something hopefully you can bring to the conversation. host: lauren sandler? guest: certainly. yes, so microsoft is requiring paid leave for its tens of thousands of employees in the

u.s. it's not just about what's happening globally. this is specifically about the u.s. and furthermore when they're talking about contract employees, they're not just talking about i.t. people. they're talking about, you know when you buy a product from microsoft, it's packed in a box, right? it's about who is packing that box. it's about everyone working on every level of the business. certainly some of those people are i.t. workers. some of them are working human resources. some of them are driving trucks. it's really for everyone. host: lauren sandler, you talked about other countries that have this, almost every other country has paid family leave. how does it work in other countries? guest: different countries have different structures and we're still trying to figure out what structure would work best here. but, you know, usually it's a taxation structure and in the u.s. we're talking about it as a earned benefit structure and that's a little bit.

-- little different. host: the "cover story," taking care of our own, paid leave goes from progressive pipe dream to political reality and find it on "the new republic" site. thanks so much, bye, bye. that does it for today's "washington journal" back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thanks for watching. enjoy the rest of your wednesday. now live coverage of the house. 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 3, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable garret graves to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a.