tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 17, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
local level. legalizationut the of marijuana in the u.s. with organ becoming with recent state to do so earlier this month. ♪ good morning to you. it is saturday, october 17. this month, organ became the fourth state in the country, along with washington, d.c. to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. that is our question to you this morning. what do you think of or against move? oregon's move? if you support recreational marijuana, you can call us at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the measure, call us at (202) 748-8001.
if you're not sure how you feel, you can call us at (202) 745-8002. you can also send us your thoughts on social media. we are on twitter, @cspanwj. beer on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. you can send us an e-mail at email@example.com. here is some recent research from the pew research center that did a study on how americans feel on medical marijuana and recreational use of marijuana in the united states. a study found a majority support legalizing marijuana in some form. 53% of americans felt that pot should be legalized, as opposed be43%, who think it should illegal. support has grown to radically from 1990 when only about 60% supported legalizing pot. the study found that many americans have actually tried .ot, even when it was not legal
the report found that nearly half of americans have tried marijuana, and 12% say they have smoked marijuana or tried it in some form in the past year. we will turn to the phone lines. be will write -- we will go right ahead and get started with patricia from arkansas. she supports marijuana. good morning to you. why do you support legalizing the recreational use of pot? caller: i would like to get medicinal marijuana, but recreational is fine for now. i have parkinson's, and it really comes me down. not think there is any harm in it at all. banhink they should an alcohol. no one has died from it. host: governing magazine has a marijuana is legal, and the types of marijuana that
are legal. 23 states have some sort of legalized pot. the chart shows that several have medical marijuana the is legal, versus marijuana that is legal for recreational use. those states are alaska, colorado, d.c., oregon, washington that allow some sort of recreational use. other states allow medical uses. other states have decriminalized small amounts of pot. we are taking a calls and whether or not you support the recreational use -- legal use of marijuana. next is john, calling in support of legalized recreational use of pot. go ahead. c-span, mynks for
favorite show. i look forward to watching c-span every day. what i can tell you is i have a digit of disease -- degenerative disease in my back. i have needed surgery for some time. through the use of marijuana, i off my body.ght i cannot swing a golf club. if i went out and played golf, it would set off my lower back. it was called scoliosis when i born. i don't journey, i've never been much of a trigger. he will who use it are typically kind people -- typically. we are very much stigmatized in the workplace. it is very difficult to get a job. it is difficult to gain acceptance if you are marijuana
user. , andeople who use alcohol have that kind of lifestyle, will not give us any space or consideration when it comes to employment. we are good people. a has been proven that it is cure for cancer. the government has no that it is a cure for cancer since the 1970's. like 42re studies -- studies from harvard and other colleges where it shows a curious cancer, a curious epilepsy, it cures ptsd. it is a five medication, but thou, industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the is immense.people we cannot get a break in the medical marijuana world because of the functioning alcoholics. you mentioned that you are user of medical marijuana. you think there is a difference
between the medical use and the recreational use, in terms of how the lawsuits see the usage? caller: i really do. if you have a condition, and wake up every day and pain, you have to make some sort of choice with your life. you can go with pills, pharmaceuticals, and they really do put you in a different position where you're not able to read or function. reading. enhances my marijuana helps me read. i graduated from college last year. still, i'm finding a great deal of stigmatization. no one wants to hire anybody who is on the cannabis program. they really don't care if you have a medical condition. there is a difference. people use it for add, adhd, and different mood disorders. i would say, if someone is using
marijuana without a license, maybe they have a psychological condition, and feel they need it, so maybe they should see a psychiatrist because maybe they disorder, with some feeling that, and they are self-medicating. they are not many doctors in the world anymore for people to go see. national health care programs, and what not, but it is very expensive, and it is hard to find a doctor to see for a bipolar disorder. i think we should look at cannabis because it has been a poor man's medication for longer than i am old. people have used it for pain, bipolar, and different disorders. the medical committee wants to get paid, the pharmaceutical get paid, ands to that is why it has been illegal so long. host: all right. new mexico isat one of the 23 states that has
some form of legalized marijuana, medical marijuana is legal in that state. "usa today" conducted a study along with 24/7 wall street that looked at the next 11 states that could be next to legalize marijuana. the research reviewed 11 states where, by law, residents in possession of small amounts of the drug are not punishable by isl time, and medical use already permitted. they look at vermont, new hampshire, massachusetts, connecticut, delaware, california, and others. that is a chart in "usa today the ago our next caller is our next caller is william, who whether itnot sure
should be legalized. why is that? caller: i'm not sure because you look at how marijuana is distributed now. there is such a criminal element involved in the current distribution of it. you don't know what kind of quality you are going to get. ofu don't know per se -- course, with medical marijuana, it is controlled, regulated, you know exactly what you're going to get. you know the quality is good. then, you turn around, and see is distributedna now, you don't know what you are getting. i will say this. the only reason that i know, or that i can think of, that isijuana is illegal now because the government does not have a way to tax it. you look at other substances that are already known as harmful -- alcohol and tobacco
are two of them -- then, you turn around, and why is it marijuana legal because the government can tax and make money off of it? i think that is a method of determining how marijuana -- you know, you know what kind of quality you are getting. i think the tobacco industry already has an infrastructure available to make it available for everyone, so that the government can get paid. arguments't those trivializing the recreational use of pot in that if you legalize it, you can regulate and tax that? caller: it is, but i turn -- nd, and in washington, d.c., for instance, recreational
usage is legal, but how can you get it? how can you buy it? people are not going to give it to you for free when they can sell it, but the city cannot sell it. you will still get locked up for selling marijuana, but recreational use is legal. the two do not jive. our next caller is james from north carolina, calling in support of legalizing pot. go ahead. james is not there, so we will turn to our next caller, who is , r shauna? florida i'm sorry, i'm sure budget your name. what are your thoughts? caller: the last color, listening to him, some points, he missed the point on.
for one thing, marijuana has never been proven in science that you can harm anyone. never. marijuana has never been proven to hurt anyone. i supported fully. were so that, if it illegal -- the constitution of the united states was written on hemp. our founding fathers grew cannabis, smoked cannabis. they should make alcohol and tobacco products in legal. marijuana, i fully supported. host: all right. a few comments from twitter. one person writes, marijuana is no worse than cigarettes, alcohol, or the myriad
prescription drugs legally sold in the u.s. know issays, we do not adding to the drunk and distracted drivers with a bunch of stoners on the road. this topic is coming up on the campaign trail as well. candidates gave very different answers when it came to their view on the drug. [video clip] suspect i would vote yes. i would vote yes because i've seen too many lives destroyed of nonviolent offenses. we have a criminal justice system that lets ceos on wall , weet walk away, and yet are giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana. >> no, i think we have the opportunity through the states that are pursuing recreational
marijuana to find out a lot more than we know today. of medicalt the use marijuana, and i think even there, we need to do a lot more research so that we know exactly how we are going to help people, for whom medical marijuana provides relief. i think we're just at the beginning. host: we are taking our calls on whether or not you think recreational pot should be legalized here in the u.s. our next caller is paul from arkansas. you say you're not sure what you think about legalization of recreational pot. caller: i'm not sure, but in a and issue a racist for me is if i live in a state where marijuana is legal, the federal government chooses to not prosecute. if i live in a state that does not agree with legalization of marijuana, and i get caught, or someone gets in trouble, it is a felony in the federal
government. i think that goes under the discrimination laws. why would the federal government discriminate against people who live in one state and not another? that is an issue that i have been thinking about. now we are in the realm of discrimination laws depending on where i live. this isu think something that needs to be handled on the federal level, not necessarily on the state? caller: that is correct. federal law supersedes state law . the states that are saying it is ok, and the federal government then goes along with them, creates a whole discrimination, which is a whole separate realm .f laws and problems it needs to be on the federal level, rather than the state level because discrimination is such an issue in our country right now. to me, that is a clear case of discrimination if you prosecute people that live in one state, and will prosecute them if they
live in another. host: all right. paul from arkansas calling in on the legalization of recreational pot. ,n the "l.a. times," this op-ed "what happens to the marijuana stigma?" he writes that many people feel and recreational marijuana should not be legalized. he writes that there is no barring to marijuana that also heroin or meth, and it is the first step to the legalization of all drugs. next up is susan. you say you oppose legalizing recreational pot. you are the first caller to oppose. why is that? caller: right now, i have an autoimmune disease, and i'm quite ill. the pill that i use for pain is
no longer working. i might have to put myself in the hospital today so that i do not do something to hurt myself. i know that they subscribe here, because they told me when i went into the doctor's office, they told me i could get a prescription for that. my doctor was not there to approve it. they may need to i don't know me -- what they're talking about, but i am very scared. pain.ug eats the when you are taking medicine for pain.you are still in on top of that, the pain eats the drug. stoners out there, they don't
have any pain, or anything that .ats that medicine up they're under the influence. i don't ring, or anything like that, because i like to have , and notver my brain have a substance doing something to me. it is always a thing in my life to contain control over myself. host: given your health issues, is legalized medical marijuana some that you would support over recreational use, or do you think there want to should be banned altogether? caller: florida does have, they will give you medical marijuana, like for the condition i have. there are some pharmacies they give it. different cancers, and my condition is one that is on the list. it is the last thing i wanted to go to, marijuana, but i may have to go there.
i'm just really scared right now . for people who do not have something to eat it up -- and i have smoked marijuana three times in my life, once and 15, once at 45, and one time in between there. , the time iou smoked it with a paramedic, who also had some health issues -- he had health issues, at that time, i did not have any -- a really took me out of my mind. the only reason i smoked is he , withrked as a paramedic him. aside from that, i smoked it is experimentally at the age of 15. that was the first and the last, and one time in between when it made me extremely paranoid, and the last time with a guy who had experience
and was a paramedic. we can't have recreational drugs floating around here, that is my opinion. host: all right. that is susan, calling in opposition to legalizing recreational marijuana. tom from vermont, you are our next caller, in support of legalizing recreational pot. why is that? caller: it has been stigmatized. it is kind of like alcohol, basically. stigmatized, and they , there are more criminal elements when you legalize and stigmatize it like that. , people areing spending all their money on a $500 bag of pot, when it could
be a five dollar bag of pot, and the money would go to the -- it would not be trading food stamps, and everything else to buy extremely high-priced marijuana. from all rights tom vermont, calling in support of legalizing recreational pot. here are some numbers for you on how much marijuana hasn't sold in colorado. here, the story reports that monthly sales top $100 million. article reports that marijuana sales blazed past the $100 million mark for the first time in august. recreational pot topped $59.2 million for the month, while medical marijuana pulled in
$41.4 million. even though they are slightly lower, washington recreational sales are on pace to pass through hundred million dollars this year. we are taking calls on whether or not recreational pot should be legal. next up is alan from virginia. you say you're not sure about what to do with recreational pot. why is that? caller: because i'm concerned about its effect with automobile drivers. i understand it has an effect with respect to the ability to judge distance and speed, which is pretty important for getting on and off of the interstate, or going down any major highway. i would think it would be helpful if you were to ask your callers, who have had experience with the drugs, what was their experience with the drugs, if they have had an accident or
anything. mothers against drunk drivers have succeeded -- or claim in succeeding to reduce the death rate. ,nstead of being 50-55 percent now it is around 45% of the accidents, as i understand it. alcohol,fects are like then maybe humanity is to generating -- degenerated to the point where we need these intelligent cars that put the , and wen for themselves will wind up being cared for by machines. .ost: all right a few other headlines for you this morning. there is other news going on. one of those is here, from "abc aide" hillary clinton top question about the ghazi attacks -- benghazi attacks.
's fixture at her side for 15 years was questioned for the benghazi, six days before hillary clinton to appear before the committee for hearing. "i wanted to honor the service of those lost and injured in that the ghazi attacks -- benghazi attacks." hillary clinton is scheduled to sit before the house on october choice second. you can watch that live on c-span. vice president joe biden is nearing a decision on whether or not to run for president. the story reports that vice president joe biden is expected to announce in the coming days theher he will enter
presidential race, and at this point, signs point to him running for the democratic nomination. mr. biden had made a final round of phone calls this week, locking down support, and prospects in key states. the story goes on to report that if he were to enter the race, mr. biden could face a significant fundraising disadvantage, and would need to quickly make strides. mrs. clinton has already raised $77 million, and bernie sanders collected $40 million. mr. biden already has a super to learning him into the race, and the leaders of ," say they are trying to raise $30 million-$40 million before he enters. shows theoney race democrats so far have received
and 12.4on dollars, million has been by super pac's, and other groups. for republicans, it is the rivers, they have collected $377.8 million, 62% of that has super pac's, and other independent groups. jeb bush is clearly the winner here in terms of how much money has been donated and spent on his behalf. most of that coming from outside groups. the same is true for ted cruz and marco rubio as well. we are taking a calls this morning. we want to know what you think about recreational pot, should it be legalized or banned? our next caller comes from that istexas, and
nancy, calling in opposition. tell us your opinion. caller: my personal opinion and situation, i lived in houston many years, and i have lived in the laredo many years. in the period of time i have lived here and in houston, i have encountered people who have consumed recreational marijuana, and gas stations have had to climb into their car, and pulled her keys out because they are terms of control in the consumption of the drug. i personally know elderly people that use it for some of their pain. with medical consumption, i don't have a problem. with recreational, it would be, again, when i lived in houston, i have had to personally encounter, in freeways, having to deal with trucks and
vehicles, and people parked in the middle of the freeway because they were either so , when you alcohol, or open their vehicle, their trucks withfilled with smoke marijuana. i would have no problem with people utilizing recreational marijuana if they were responsible in their use, if they were going to sit down in her house, smoke their brains out, if they want, and not get l and pute whee other people at risk. unfortunately, in the real world, people are not responsible, people don't care, and they don't care to put other people at risk. for those reasons, i do not support legalizing recreational marijuana. host: all right, nancy, from texas. gainesville, from florida, in support of legalizing recreational pot. caller: thank you. the reason i support legalizing
is because the use of the hemp plant has been made -- should have never been made illegal in the first place. it started in the early 20th century when henry ford was experimenting with using oil mp in his cars. andrew mellon, who was tied in with dupont, and developing the nylon rope did not want the competition with hemp rope. randolph hearst, the newspaper invested inheavily timberland for paper for his newspapers. mellon,ombination of dupont, and randolph hearst, hearst started a propaganda
campaign demonizing the use of andijuana, and demon -- makeed like propaganda propagao white women afraid of black men, and it was all nasty propaganda that was designed to turn the public against the use of hemp and cannabis products. guest: what would you -- host: what would you say to those who argue that legalizing marijuana is the beginning to legalize all drugs? what is the argument against a legalizing heroin or cocaine or more serious drugs? thisr: what i am saying is through the propaganda of the industrialists in the early 20th century is what made it illegal in the first place, and they
devastated the pharmaceutical community. anyone can look this up. all you have to do is google "marijuana dupont," and the come up, and this is how the hemp plant, which has so many advantages to the world, has been completely outlawed. , our next call is from newtown, pennsylvania. bob, go ahead. you're not sure about how you feel about recreational pot. caller: on the business side, i am all for it. i ended up buying marijuana and i'm in myks, 30's -- host: there are cannabis
companies that are publicly trading? caller: yes. it is nice to money to make money -- it is nice for once to make money off of potheads. is against that is the driving part because i do not like the accidents and the people on the road being stoned. i have a brand-new cadillac escalade in case i do guess last -- do get smashed. i think everybody listening should be for it on the business side, and everybody, do something for yourself and get up out of poverty. this is wonderful, i think. an investor, where do you see the future heading? do you see this spreading to all 50 states? we had just seen still of different types ofs cannabis do you seeood, where
some of the investment opportunities? caller: well, i think it is going to keep going because let's face it -- i am a republican, but i love the democrats because they love to spend money, so you can actually make money when democrats are in office. clinton --, hillary i mean, obama's wife, michelle, ie school lunch program, started buying food stocks and made a ton of money on that, too. i think cannabis will grow, especially with cigarettes like phillip morris -- they are already making packaging ready to go for machines. like really good -- is ground-floor opportunity, like the prohibition, people that get in there early. look at the kennedys, they bought all the scotch. host: all right, a little more information for you here on the , thisof pot stocks
website shows that there are all, 80 pot stocks in according to marijuanastop.com. -- marijuanastocks.com. active ingredient to synthesize a drug for multiple sclerosis and is working on other diseases. the 17-year-old company is based in england. it's shares are up 17%, and its market cap is $1.5 billion. our next caller is kimberly in support of recreational marijuana. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am 100% behind legalizing recreational marijuana through the whole country. that would eliminate all the cross-state problems, people not
recognizing other state laws and all that. ok,, i have used it myself, when i was going through therapy with breast cancer and all that. it helped me maintain all the way through, but because of my job, i had to quit. i quit marijuana before -- it is easy. smoking cigarettes -- that is the hardest thing to do. they compare that to a heroin in action, nicotine addiction. why it is not legal, i do not know. as far as people driving, we have had potheads on the road for years, old heads. these people do not know. these are a lot slower, more paranoid, a lot more careful. the people who smoke until they are passed out -- they are not just smoking marijuana, they have to be lacing it because weed does not do that to you. smokedhen you had marijuana, did you feel like you were able to maintain control over your cognitive functions? caller: every bit, every bit of
it. the only thing i cannot control with my appetite. [laughter] from all right, kimberly washington, pennsylvania. next up is carried from lafayette, indiana. you are also in support of legalizing marijuana. caller: yes, ma'am. one thought is in is the number one selling illegal drug in the world. you would rate of 99% of your gains by legalizing that. they said in colorado, the murder in crime has gone down there. and all of this millions of dollars before was just going to gangs. the government is making tax money from it. and i am an alcoholic. in over 20drank years for it but when i drink, i wrecked my car, i beat people up, but using or
one of, i do not want to fight, and it got me away from drinking alcohol. and king marijuana, james bible, the very first case, dog gave us the seeds for us to use. that is above man's law. more people locked up in any other country in the world, and probably a big percentage of them is marijuana users. ry, weall right , ker hear you. veterans affairs officials overseeing backlog. this article was in the "new york times" this morning. the administrator, allison a administrator the in 2011, overseeing benefits for more than 12 million veterans and their families. she emphasized a changeover from paper to digital claims, and the
inklog went from 611,000 march to about 25,000 this week. hickey has long been a contentious figure. wereeliability of reports question. she is facing a new congressional inquiry this month. meanwhile, in the "wall street journal," angela merkel face of a near revolt over migrants. the report says that german leaders conservative allies ousting of the open door policy, saying you have failed. to opened the borders hundreds of thousands of migrants from the middle east, afghan, and elsewhere, putting her on a collision course,
facing her toughest political challenges since she rose to power a decade ago. her approval rating back to a four-year low of 54% this month. nine percentage points below her standing last month. she is one of the world's most powerful women. also this weekend, we will be exploring the history and life of buffalo, new york as part of our c-span city's book tour. ating up today on c-span 6:00 p.m., we will be seeing our ,uffalo literary programming including african-american women right to the new first lady. the book is a compilation of letters that were written to michelle obama from african-american and actually 2009, and theen in letters are written to express
encouragement and support for michelle at the time, after the election. it has been a very grueling election, as you may know, very difficult for mrs. obama and the president, but also very exciting that we had our first african american president and our first african american first lady. >> we thought it was important to be able to give other women the chance to express their ideas. we were expressing our ideas, and we thought perhaps there was a group of women out there who may not have had access, and perhaps we could facilitate out for them. and we were right. our question for you this morning is whether or not you think recreational pot should be legalized here in we have a few more minutes to get your calls in. we will be talking about this issue later on in the show, so if you do not get in now, you
can call back then. our next call is from north carolina. tom, you say you are not sure whether recreational pot should be legalized. caller: well, first of all, i am a vietnam era veteran, and because of multiple exposures to agent orange, i've lost my right leg below the knee, and my left foot. now, throughout my life, i have been in law enforcement several times, and i was totally against marijuana, but lately, because of the medical marijuana usage, about two years ago, a friend of mine talked me into using marijuana. of it, and puffs off the pain was gone. , over three and a half years now, my right leg has thousands of extreme -- is like
getting hooked up to power, and the voltage ramps up and goes into my head and causes me to jerk. when i took five puffs of hat stopped, and i slept for six hours. a. and askede thv. my doctor for a prescription for medical marijuana, and i was told no because it has not been approved for that. it has only been approved this year for use in terminal cancer patients and glaucoma. myself, i take on a daily basis, of morphineination oxycodone, two other drugs,
and none of those are working. yet i cannot because north carolina proved marijuana this year for use in cancer and glaucoma patients but not for mine, so i cannot get it. i am also told that if i use it recreationally and it shows up in my bloodwork that i have to take every three months, that they cannot issue any kind of pain killer because they are afraid that i might mix the drugs with the marijuana. i would not be that stupid myself. host: all right, tom from north carolina, we hear you this morning. the next caller is katrina from indiana calling in support of recreational pot. go ahead. caller: hi. good morning. yes, i am totally for -- i am sorry, i cannot hear you now. host: you are on the air.
turn down your tv if it is on. caller: ok. i just want to say that i am totally for it because i have lost numerous family members that have died that could have for the effects know, helpingyou them eat, and through their times of chemo and whatnot. host: all right, katrina from indiana. our next caller is kathy from ottawa, ohio, calling in opposition to legalizing recreational pot. why do you feel that way? caller: i am 100% for medical marijuana, but when i used marijuana, i did not have good judgment while driving, my thinking abilities -- i would last for an hour, i would eat everything, i thought everything was funny, i slept a lot, and i ate quite a bit, which did cause
a lot of the weight, i believe, in america. believe that a lot of countries would look at us, and if we all acted like the way i had acted, then they would look at us as we are a stoned america. host: all right. we hear you as well could our last caller for this segment this morning -- we will be revisiting this issue later in the program -- our next caller is peter in maryland in support of legalizing pot. you have the last word. caller: legalization is freer. marijuana is not harmful, certainly not as harmful as alcohol. there are some caveats. there needs to be a cap on the age because younger people smoking it in seriously affect their problem-solving skills that they learn in high school, and that should be totally not
allowed for that age group. medical marijuana in maryland is caned, however, the doctors prescribe it, but there is no place in maryland where they can purchase it for distribution for even the article -- for even medical marijuana. so there are problems organizing the federal-state levels of use, and there needs to be some action by the federal government to facilitate those things. host: all right, peter from rockville, maryland. that concludes our first segment on whether or not pot should be legal for recreational use. next up, we will be talking with keith laing from "the hill" newspaper. money flowing to transportation projects across the u.s. we will talk to keith about what he expects from congress. later, more on what women are doing when it comes to getting elected.
cynthia terrell will be a long. first, on "newsmakers," arthur brooks will be our guest tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. he took questions about whether conservatives think anything can be done in the remaining months of the obama administration. tohur: is it possible anything done that advances the during the last 15 months of the obama administration, and data -- if so, what? arthur: i have heard zero debate over whether the president is right or not on this -- the president is right on this. free trade is a good thing. it is one of the five forces billions out of poverty. it is a good around the world. it has problems, which is to say
it changes the structure of the american economy. imaginativelly so un and so stuck in the past that we cannot look at people being hurt by free trade inside the united states, see them as assets to develop, and asked -- and expand education to people who love been left behind by the modernizing economy, then shame on us, but that is not an argument against trade. that is an argument that we have a lousy educational system that people behind. free-trade trade is great, the president is right, and we should support his policy. conservatives need to come together around thinking about the ways the president is doing good things and support him when he is. a lot of what the president does is bad idea, in my view. as a political conservative, i think many of the things he does are really misguided, but i think his motives are generally very good about trying to help people, and we should look at the cases where things are right
and say great, let's get behind that. that is where we can make some progress, and that is what we do. i cannot speak to the whole conservative movement, but for me and my colleagues. "> "the hil "washington journal continues. host: october 29 is the deadline for congress to pass the highway trust fund. keith laing is with us of "the hill." good morning. the house yesterday rolled out a new bill to fund the highway trust fund for six years. tell us what is an accurate guest -- tell us what is in it. guest: one of the differences in their approach in the senate approach, which also took the -- ofack of all invest calling this a bill but only guaranteeing funding for three years as they have a cut off in will bill that funding stop after three years unless we find the rest of the money. host: where does the funding for the first three years come from? guest: they are still figuring
that out. there is a gas tax that brings in about half of it, $34 billion a year. congressman's about $50 billion a year on transportation. they transportation committee rolled out the policy bill, and they say they are waiting on representative all ryan and his -- represented paul ryan to come up with this. they're hoping to have the market next week, and they're hoping before they get to the floor of the house, they will have this. host: what projects will get looked to fund? about $325 billion if it is fully funded, and it does not lay out specific project. it does the money out to states, and they get to move forward with projects. the problem is the federal government's authority is scheduled to expire on thursday, so they will have to pass at least an extension while they get this bill moving. host: so we are looking at yet
another stopgap measure. they are trying to create a long-term funding solution. that is your best guess of how this will play out. guest: that seems to be where we are heading. there is a lot of optimism among transportation supporters. the senate has already passed the highway bill, and the house is now rolled out their bill, so this is the first time we have had both chambers talking in the central conference. there is more momentum for more movement on this issue than in several years. host: we are talking with keith laing from "the hill" newspaper or you can call in with your questions and comments as well. republicans, you can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, the number is (202) 748-8000. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . we are on social media. the handle on twitter is @cspanwj. we are on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. you can send us an e-mail at c-span.org. this is a bipartisan bill.
we are not hearing a lot about bipartisanship and congress. give us a sense of who supports the bill, and is it significant that legal -- that people on both sides of the aisle want to see this go forward? guest: i think it is significant. this was rolled out by rankinging -- by top democrats and republicans. you have the ranking democrat in the committee and several others. it seems to be a bill that no one loves, but there is strong desire to get this off the table. we are into the 30's on short-term extension -- host: in terms of the number of times. guest: the last time the congress passed a highway bill that lasted longer than two years was 2005. there is a desire to get this off the table in an election year. democrats do not love the funding level because it will keep it flat, which basically it
will just adjust transportation funding for inflation. democrats would like to see more spending. republicans got some reforms that they were looking for, some things, they think part of the problem with the backlog is it takes too long to get through the permitting process. so there are things that each party does not like, but there is enough here to grab onto. host: give us the background here and you mentioned the senate had passed a bill over the summer. what does the senate's version look like? guest: the senate's version was similar in that it had the three years of guaranteed funding and ask years of authorizations. -- and six years of authorizations. they said if congress came up with the money, they would not have to come back and pass another bill. that measure was also bipartisan. was negotiated by senator mitch mcconnell and senator barbara boxer. it was kind of an odd couple.
they spent the month of july pushing that through, they got it through, and the house refused to big it up because they said they did not like it, the bill was not fully funded. then their bill now, funding would automatically cut off after the three years so you would not have the authorization of spending without the actual dollars. host: so it is really a three-year bill that looks like a six-year built. guest: but a three-year bill would be an improvement. [laughter] host: an improvement over a three-week bill. we had a democrat on transportation here last week, and she told us that transportation paid for itself. take a listen to some of her comments. [video clip] here is the facts -- transportation actually pays for itself, and a number of estimates say that it would make an investment in infrastructure over a very short period of time, it pays for itself, and stronger economic growth, evil
working at putting the money back to the economy and having infrastructure that really functions in the 21st century. over have been any number the last couple of years about how to pay for it. i have been in favor of a portion of the transaction tax to pay for that. i think we could do it at very minimal costs and still meet our infrastructure needs. i mean, we have a couple trillion dollars in unmet infrastructure, and i suppose we all toait for it fall apart. because we are incurring, making it difficult because we are not investing in our infrastructure, but we need to get to the 21st century, and we need to do that by investing. host: we're talking with keith laing of "the hill" newspaper. what are some of the ways lawmakers are talking about actually paying for some of these initiatives? you heard donna edwards say that this is self paying. do you think that is accurate?
there is also talk about connecting it to tax reform. what is the status of that? guest: it is actually not quite self paying in fact because the aspects of not been increased since 1993. it brings and $34 billion a year right now. there is no increase in translation funding, the government would send the billion dollars a year, so there is a teen billion-dollar whole hole.16 billion they relied on customs fees, other fees, redirecting those things, and there are complaints about that in the aviation community because they say airlines are having to pay this money to boost airport security, not to pay for highways, and congress should address the underlying highway problem. host: in the house bill, the long-term bill, is there -- what the tsa fees stay in place, or are you looking at a really different funding? guest: it is too early to tell.
this bill they rolled out did not include any of the additional paperwork. they say they are waiting for appropriators. there was some talk that paul ryan and chuck schumer were negotiating on some sort of a bill with tax reform. there was a point earlier in the month where paul ryan told bill shuster to go ahead and move forward with getting a policy bill done because the deadline is coming up. there is enough money in the highway trust fund that they could pass an extension now and not have to come up with some -- the extension passed in july actually included enough money to go through the end of the year, so they give themselves some wiggle room. host: is there enough money to last through the end of the year if they do not extend it? pass: they will have to the reauthorization by tuesday, but that should be easier because they were not have to get into some of these thornier issues. is markedfirst caller from lake jackson, texas on the
republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, i have a question. could you comment on what they plan to use the money for -- build new highways, repair old ones, or is this for non-highway expenditures? an 80-20ere is about split and federal law for reservation funding. 80% has to go toward highways and road infrastructure. 20% goes toward transit. so up to 325 billion dollars that the house is talking about in their bill, $261 billion would go to highway programs. that money would get distributed o.t.tates through d. programs. there is not a list of projects in the bill that would receive the funding. host: how have states been responding to the sort of uncertain nature of federal money when it comes to infrastructure projects? our states trying to fill in the
gaps at all, or are they just letting products go unattended? guest: one of the most interesting things that have happened is a lot of states are increasing on their own because congress has not really acted on a broader transportation funding bill. that hade 6, 7 states gas tax increases that went into effect july 1. a lot were deeply republican states, utah, georgia. frustration at the state level with these taxes, three months here, two months there, they are saying they cannot plan for any large construction project because there is no certainty that the funding will be available. ron. next caller is go ahead. caller: yeah, i am absolutely opposed -- host: you are on the air, ron.
turn down your tv if it is on. caller: i am opposed raising the federal gas tax. we just had our gas tax rates out here. i know it will be used for airports and masks transit, and that is not -- and mass transit, and that is not fair. from iowa.ight, ron we will take another caller. johnny from chicago, illinois lling on the independent line. what is your comment? caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment and say that i really appreciate c-span -- hello? host: you are on the air. everybody, turn down your tv when you call in. a'am, my tv is down. i just want to say that i'm really pleased that you have this guest on this morning. and one thing about c-span, thank you for bringing out
different information, especially this year isnsportation bill, that almost seven years you were talking about, and then you are going to have someone to call in and say they are opposed to it because their gas tax -- here in chicago, i paid the highest gas tax which you can think of. i am retired. i am not worried about it, but as long as the of a structure, the rail system, and the roads - - i do not care what they charge. it appalls me that these people call in. what about the people that get out here every day and go to hours to serve their families? and you have these people theyng, talking about oppose anything. the only thing they should oppose is what the people in congress are doing to you, and i am sorry i took up this time, but thank you for taking my
call, and god bless c-span. right, johnny from chicago, illinois. keith laing from "the hill" newspaper, your thoughts on the caller's comments. guest: one of the things mentioned is the gas tax money is redirected to transit. that is a policy that was set into law under the reagan administration. there is a mass transit account in the highway trust fund. that has always been a bit of a contentious issue, one of the sticking points on the idea. it is really hard now in this climate to get a gas tax through. there was some talk on the hill at the beginning of the year when gas prices dipped really reallyder$2 -- dipped low, under $2.
but you had people like bill shuster in paul ryan say that would not really happened. if that did not cause any movement on the gas tax, it is tough to say when we will get any. even the tax reform package is a one-time fix. it would infuse the highway trust fund for six years, and then in six years, they would have to figure out a way to fund transportation projects in the future. there is something called vehicle miles traveled, where you would be taxed not in the amount of gas you buy but the amount you drive. that a was runs into privacy issues, people worried about whether you have some transponder in your car tracking your movements. that is very early in the development stage, but there seems to be a consensus that they need to find a way to pass a long-term bill now, and then they need to start talking about what they're going to do to pay for transportation projects in the future. this toe component of d, oror it, is that dea
is that alive but simply not done yet? guest: it is not dead. host: it is on life support. [laughter] guest: that is a weird thing. it was in the president's proposal. senator mcconnell has been more skeptical, but it is very rare that you have barack obama and paul ryan offering the same idea, but they are offering totally different approaches. the president's proposal have a andatory -- at 14%, companies would have to redirect profits and bring the money back to the highway trust fund. say -- thepublicans process is called repatriation, and they say it should be more of a voluntary thing, reward companies for moving them back. some of the proposals are at a 6% rate. there is a fear amongst
republicans that if you institute a mandatory tax, becoming will never bring it back. it is an idea that everybody agrees on a principle, but the devil is in the details, and they have spent several years trying to hash that out. hope always phrase eternal, i guess. host: especially in washington. our next call is from missouri on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: thank you very much for c-span. proposed seven tax, increase on the sales and she is retiring, but 40% of our federal tax money goes to washington, d.c., and i guess we do not know because there is no audit there. it is spread out to converse me to do whatever they want to in their state, and it helps them get elections -- to congressman to do whatever they want to do
in their state, and it helps them get elections to it i think that federal tax money should build transportation instead of going to our congressmen and senators. i really appreciate c-span, thank you very much. host: keith laing from "the hill ." guest: the highway trust fund is source, so funding gas tax -- it is not one of these deals where it goes into the general funding of the government. the problem is there is not enough money in the highway trust fund, so they are moving money from other areas to come to the highway trust fund. there are some people who say we should get rid of the gas tax and return transportation funding to the state. it is a process called devolution where you allow states to take on more of the spending. supporters of that proposal say all these taxes for the highway trust fund are really bailouts,
and if we are not going to spend the transportation funding problem, we should let states do it. opponents say the federal government has an important role in transportation, especially on interstate highways. you do not want a situation where one state is willing to work on a highway in the next state is not because we rely on highways for commerce. that has been an underlying thing. a lot of states have been pushing the devolution proposal, a lot of conservative groups in washington, but it has been pretty much a nonstarter in congress. host: do you have a sense of how much states spend versus the federal government? money companyhe states or the federal government? they do rely very heavily on federal money. , i consider them donor states, i worked in
florida, and they always said they were a donor state because they paid out more taxes than they brought in to those state say they should really get more back. host: a comment from twitter -- one of the most critical road outlineoday, can you the problem and mechanism to fix it? could trump do it better? guest: donald trump has weighed in on transportation. i wrote about a speech he gave recently where he was talking about la guardia airport, which is a punching bag for a lot of politicians. vice president has referred to as a third world airport. new york has and to fix laguardia, but donald trump has set a few go to airports and other parts of the world like dubai, and then you come back to laguardia or any u.s. airport -- he did not just single out laguardia, he mentioned several u.s. airports, but he just said that compared to other countries that are building airports a lot
faster than we are, it has been a really long time since a new airport opened in the u.s. pitch thatt of his we need to make america great again because we need to invest in our and restructure. on theext caller is paul democrats line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a you can continuously look for new ways to impose new taxes, but we already give over 1/3 of our income in taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gas companies are receiving subsidies, and for not paying taxes on their huge profits, as they should, hedge fund managers are not paying taxes, they are getting huge refunds.there is terrible management of the tax money, all kinds of frivolous spending, and
the entitlement programs, the programs that help the sick and the poor. frivolous a lot of spending, universities, space science and all that continue. and workinglass class people are already paying more than their fair share. all right, that is paul from north carolina. we're talking to keith laing from "the hill." your thoughts. aest: there is always contentious discussion in congress with the idea of raising the gas tax because even bit,gas prices dipped a there were a lot of people who said this is the first time gas several under $2 in years, and we should not have people pay more taxes, they should be able to keep some of their savings. the president actually has said that. he is not in favor of the gas tax increase. reform he wants a tax
package. he has consistently said he is against the gas tax. the transportation department, former treasurer of asian secretary ray lahood is calling for a gas tax now, but when he was in office, he did not support a gas tax increase. pamela.r next caller is go ahead. caller: good morning. i agree with paul. i think they need to have more in theoversight transportation funds because it just seems like -- where do they come up with this si x-year number? it looks like they kind of pulled that out of a hat. there needs to be better oversight on the transportation fund because i drive about 13 miles one way to work from prince george's county to northeast, and it is like -- for lack of a better term -- it is like an obstacle course.
right now, they are working on brent avenue, and it is basically like they rebuilt it while we are still driving on it. now they are doing the same --ng with messages of avenue with massachusetts avenue. it is just horrible, not to mention what it is doing to our vehicles. i just think they need to, when they do major projects, they need to finish one before they start another one because they have been working on branch avenue cents i believe last winter -- since last winter. host: that is pamela from maryland. a good point the caller brings up, which is if they do not have money to pay for the last three years, why not propose a three-year built? -- bill? a desireere has been to pass a six-year bill, the caller mentioned it is out of a
hat -- it is not. states need at least that long to get a project group the permitting process and into the construction process. the last highway bill that was not a temporary pass was to years, and that was passed in 2012. that is the building are extending. people were happy to see that, but at the time, congress said that was as much as they could tod, but there was a desire get back to the historic trend lls,oing six-year bi and they are still trying to do that. my have been an easier sell if they had the set -- had just said they would do a three-year bill. the house said we would not take your six-year bill, we only have three years to fund it. they are saying they have a cut off, they would have to pass another bill to authorize the other three years of sending --
of spending. host: that six-year timeline is driven by the need of states and contractors to carry out projects area -- projects. guest: yes, they say they need at least that long from design to actual implementation, the silver line on the metro was proposed in 1985, and it did not open until 2014. host: we have this chart from american action forum that shows infrastructure spending over the and it shows the difference between federal and state and local spending, and you can see 3/4 of total spending is by state and local governments, and that ratio has held constant for the last 30 years or so. really the amount that state and local government spends on infrastructure has increased dramatically, while federal funding is not increased that much. is sheila.ller
caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. --ust wanted to say everybody talks, who is against that is the republicans because they have taken a stance with grover norquist, and he is against any new taxes, period. and that is why we will not be in the 21st century with other countries. people from other countries probably come here and laugh at our infrastructure. i wish we could do better. thank you, and have a very good day. host: all right, sheila from winchester, virginia. guest: it is true that gas tax is deeply unpopular among republicans in congress. they make the argument that republicans 84 moving ahead with gas taxes on their own, but that did not sway anyone in congress.
spring, paul ryan declared it dead two or three times. there is not going to be a gas tax that comes through the house this year. is there so much opposition on the national level to the gas tax? why is it some thing that is so difficult for politicians and lawmakers to increase? guest: there is an opportunity -- there is an opposition in congress among republicans for any taxes. most rank and file republicans believe it would be a tax increase, and they are not supporting any tax increases. from new yorkjean on our independent line. are you there? caller: yes. the calling regarding development programs. at one time, the federal highway administration used to finance programs -- host: i am sorry, could you
repeat that one more time, please? caller: yes. praise to work as a coordinator for a youth program that the federal highway used to finance to extract females and minorities who were interested in -- and we were looking for reinvesting in this type of -- guest: i am not familiar with that specific program, but there is funding for several dod programs that would be included in this highway bill. host: this comments now from twitter, we passed a highway spending bill just like we passed highways. [laughs] realisticst case or scenario by the end of this month. the possibility of a six-year bill seems unlikely, but maybe
by the end of the year, something could get passed. guest: if the house can get their bill passed sometime before the end of the year, there can be a conference. senator barbara boxer and another who have been working on has said yesterday that they are happy that the house has finally voted on a bill, they are looking forward to getting into a conference. the chambers will have to work out the differences on their approaches, and that will be a whole different ball park there will probably be a patch that moves quickly. there is no desire in congress to have a transportation shutdown. patch thatually a moves very close to the deadline. how has the fight over who will be the next speaker of the house impacted this debate, or has it? guest: it seems like it has. when kevin mccarthy was seen as
the likely next speaker, he said the highway bill was going to be one of his top priorities. now that he has withdrawn from the race and is kind of a vacuum as to who will be the next speaker, everything is on hold, and this deadline is october 29. they will have to do a patch. host: certainly this is not the only deadline lawmakers are facing. there is the debt ceiling, the overall budget. does that make you question the ability of congress to get all of these things done in the time allotted? guest: um -- i would not guess on their ability. congress is nothing if not unpredictable. cliffs had a series of here in the last couple of years, and we will have new ones. the debt ceiling is coming. it will be another fight, i am sure. host: next up is lisa from kentucky on the democratic line. go ahead. anks for taking my
call to rid i live in kentucky, and we do pay a little more for taxes for our roadways, but i have to say that we really have good highways and good infrastructure in louisville, kentucky. somebody needs to come to our state and really check out what we have done here. federal money,e and governor beshear did put people to work. really, we need our highways. i can only imagine what boston and new york are going through right now, is ashley after the snow last year. we need -- especially after the snow last year. we need to prioritize our money and bring it back from overseas and invest in our infrastructure. is suzanne from nebraska calling on our republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i had one time had driven 83 miles one way to work, and our children
have driven 23 miles one way to go to high school, and i do believe that being a rancher from nebraska, we really rely on good roads. host: suzanne, are you still there? your kind of cutting out a little bit. all right, we will move on to beverly, and suzanne, if you want to call back in, please feel free trade we go to beverly from columbia, missouri on the democratic line. go ahead. far as i'm, as concerned, the republicans -- all they are doing is protecting the rich. they are not touching the rich one bit in anything. how about we bring that money back from overseas? they go after the rich a little bit? they are not touching the rich
one bit. they want to get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, but they don't ever touch the rich! host: all right, that is beverly from columbia, missouri. we are talking to keith laing from "the hill" newspaper. earlier you mentioned some of the comments that donald trunk donald trumphat made about infrastructure in the u.s. how have presidential candidates discuss this issue? where do they fall? guest: they have not discussed at much. each of the candidates made a mention to need to rebuild our infrastructure, but nobody talked about how we pay for it, which is the elephant -- or donkey in this case -- in the room. [laughter] everybody says they support paying for infrastructure, but there is really no discussion. host: next up is ed from north carolina on the independent line. ed, go ahead. caller: good morning.
the question i have -- i think there is a big disconnect as far as the comprehension of our hunting -- our highway funding. i'm under the assumption that it now i amfor roads, and thinking about bridges and infrastructure. maybe you can give us highway funding 101 so we can understand why is there a deadline? guest: well, the bridges and roads are kind of used interchangeably in the talk about the highway bill here. as i mentioned earlier, there is 0 split between surface transportation and mass transit, but there is no distinction really between a road and a bridge because you need the bridge to continue the road in some cases. it is really very similar. up is robert from arkansas on the democratic line. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to visit with c-span. my concern is we have extra
trucks, and many of those trucks are going down scenic highways, designated routes, shortest mileage to get the drivers there with the least amount of cost. but if we do not look at the weight of these trucks as they bounce up and down these roads, and if we do not look at the highways that they are on and keep them on more sturdy on top of that, sanada and mexico sued u because knowing the origin of our food discriminate against their meat products. in the meantime, their trucks are coming into our highways -- canada sends a slumber, one of the heaviest products on the highways, and we are giving them free access to our infrastructure system, so i understand free market economics, but it is when we lookthat
at the destruction that they are causing on these highways only to get a product from a foreign country to a person to buy and completely eliminate the whole process of the creation of that product, then those trucks should be carrying a very serious cost, five cents a pound, i do not know exactly what that could break down to. but they should be paying more for the right to travel on our highways. thank you very much. host: keith laing from "the hill ," is that under discussion at all? guest: that is actually one of the most controversial aspects. the proposal to increase over land and the eight of trucks. weight of trucks. they actually see if they could move more in one trip, it would minimize the wear and tear on the roads, and also drivers would not have to drive is long. there is a lot of controversy about truck driver scheduling.
that was noticeable when there was the crash involving tracy morgan. that really brought that to the floor here in congress. the trucking industry has actually been one of the most vocal supporters of the increase in gas tax. we are having to pay more ourselves because we rely on these roads for our business. but they also want heavier, longer trucks. host: is there any talk of a future system? i do not even know how you implement that, but that the business industry phase one race, and individuals another? guest: i do not know how you would do that, either. it is probably easier to have a flat rate and everybody pays it when they fill up. host: earlier, -- from arizona made this comment about the highway bill. "only in washington could use where a six-year bill with only three years of funding, rather than find itself staring down
another fiscal cliff in short order, the senate ought to exercise some physical response ,"ility now you host: is it too early for them to start commenting on that? rolled outhouse just their bill yesterday. it was very early. they are probably digesting it, as reporters were yesterday, but everybody is waiting to see how the house will pay for their bill. give us a timeline going forward. he mentioned a markup coming up. when is there a deadline for congress to pass something? octoberhe deadline is 29, so that is why we will have to have a temporary patch because there is not enough time to move the state bill before you get to the deadline, which is next thursday. there will probably be a lot of amendments on issues such as the truck weights. there is also a lot of debate
right now about a mandate for automating trains, positive train control system. is deadline for that december 31. they have been pushing for an extension of several, including amtrak, who says they will have to shut down at least to some of their service if they do not get an extension because there will be heavy fines and lot right now for not including the system. amtrak has said they will have the author the train control system only tracks only in the northeast, but outside the northeast, they rely on freight rail. system -- it is an automated train system that had to be online by december 31 of this year. in 2008, there was a commuter crash in california. now they say they need congress to pass an extension. the senate included an extension in their highway bill. the house has a stand-alone bill to extend the deadline that they
might try to roll into this bill. that has become controversial because a lot of safety advocates have said this technology would prevent crashes like the amtrak crash that happened in philadelphia this year. so they are saying that congress should force them to meet the deadline. host: we have time for one more caller, and that will be from bronx, new york where marie is on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: hello? host: hi, marie, how are you? caller: yes, good morning, i have been listening to the chance of them increasing the gas tax. i want to tell you my experience in new york. the gas tax in new york, when the gas price went up, every single thing that we bought got there he expensive. for us who work every day who are paying these bills, whose property tax -- everything goes up. when gas goes down, those
grocery items do not drop. so it is a big impact on people who have to, you know, live paycheck to paycheck. host: host: we hear your thoughts. keith laing, you can make the final statement here. been a lote hasn't of discussion, in the gas tax debate, how it is a regressive tax. it does impact people at the level of the income scale more than at the higher level of the income scale. the counterargument is that is it is a you reserve fee. ther is the desire, beyond you get -- when you get beyond the tax reform, people who say fee system.the user it has been discussion about using tolling, and things like that. people say they want to keep the
user fee system in place. host: keith laing from "the hill" newspaper, thank you so much for joining us this morning. next up, we would hear from cynthia terrel, who will talk about the number of women getting elected into office. later, oregon is the latest recreationalze use of marijuana. we will discuss it with john hudak. be right back. ♪ every weekend, the c-span networks feature programs on politics, nonfiction books, and history. tonight at 830 eastern on c-span, editorial cartoonist
describes their experience with the bush and administration. at 4:45 p.m., a discussion on margaret thatcher on what would have been her 95th birthday. on c-span 2, the texas book festival from austin, featuring discussions with nonfiction authors. sunday, our coverage of the texas book festival continues, .eginning at noon with authors on president clinton and lady bird johnson. on american history tv, today just before 5:00, a historian on
the relationship between president richard nixon and the shaw of iran, and the effect on u.s. foreign-policy. at 6:40, a discussion on the confederate fight and his legacy on slavery. get our c complete schedule on c-span.org. >> at beautification, in my mind, is far more than cosmetics. to me, it describes the hold effort -- whole effort to bring the natural world and man-made world into harmony. to our whole environment, and that of course only begins with trees and flowers and landscaping. abouty bird was beautifying the nation, her signature issue as first lady of years she was a national campaigner, a businesswoman, and
savvy partner to her husband, lyndon. lady bird johnson, the sunday on c-span's original series, "first ladies: influence and image." martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. by cynthiae joined jarrell. thank you so much for being here. tells a little bit about what representation 2020 is, and what your organization is. 2020'srepresentation goal is to look at the often overlooked structural obstructions to women, and working with partner
organizations to achieve gender parity in our lifetimes. host: what is representation 2020's role in fair vote? guest: we are a partner in fair vote for the time being. we share overlapping strategies. we both share an interest in voting system reform, but representation 2020 has some additional things that we are working on, and i can tell you about. host: representation 2020 focuses specifically on women, whereas fair vote is a larger umbrella organization? guest: exactly. host: what are some of the structural reforms the you believe are important? structurale are four reforms that we are interested in. recruitment practices. voting systems and electoral changes that allow more women to win. internal legislative measures that allow more women to serve and lead effectively. those are our four core
things. the: give us a sense of type of progress you feel has been made so far in removing some of the structural barriers and bringing reforms that you think are needed? guest: so far, progress or parity has been slow. a young project. we so far have been operating for one year or two. we have not been able to test all of our reforms yet, but we progress ingreat our voting system changes. i can tell you more about that. there are specific voting systems that are adventitious to women's electoral success. there are 10 states that allege more than one person in a district. that is callable that winter district, as opposed to a single-member district, where we elect one person. in those multi-winter district that 10 states use, women tend to get elected at much higher rates. we have seen great success in
those states. maryland is a great example because he uses both single winter district and multi- winter districts. ,n the multi-winter districts women are elected at 37%. that is more than twice as many women getting elected in districts where we elect more than one person. host: can you take a step back from and explain to us where the u.s. stands in terms of the number of women elected into office? what does the picture look like here, and how do we compare internationally? guest: that is a great question. as i think everyone knows, we are one of the world oldest democracies. we used to rank higher in the percentage of women overall. i think of the year 2000, we in terms of the world standard. just in the spring, i think we
are at 94. now, we rank behind 95 countries in terms of women's representation. host: just a reminder, you can join a conversation as well by calling into the phone lines. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 745-8002 we have a special line open, if you are a feeble legislator, you can call at (202) 748-8003 to share your experience with us. we are also on social media. you can send us a tweet, @cspanwj. you can find us on socia facebook, facebook.com/cspan. we are talking with severe trail of representation 2020 that looks at increasing the number of women elected into office. here is a chart the put out recently that visualizes some of the statistics we have talked
about. the u.s. ranked 95th in terms of the percentage of women in its national lower house. the country that tops the list is apparently rwanda and terms of the number of women elected into office. the u.s. has never elected a woman president, annalee 20% of senators and 19% of representatives are women. there is also a few other stats about how women are faring in the states. 12% of governors are female. 25% of elected officials are female. 24% of state legislators are female. withf mayors and city's populations over 30,000 are women. how much progress have women , let's say the early days of suffrage, to where we are now? , and how sharply have you seen some of these
numbers increase? guest: it is an interesting question. over the course of the last century or so, there have been spurts. fits and one of the things that i find so interesting to think of, given today's partisan biases about the different parties, it is the republican party that really led the way in pushing for rules and norms that would elect more women. it was the republican party, for example, that push for gender balance in state committee leadership that still exist today, and the democratic party followed suit. to make sureush that women played a role, at least of the state committee level. that is an important achievement. there was a time when women, in some parts of the country, did better. andblican women were hired higher numbers in western states because of some of those
multi-winner districts. in the 1990's, we saw a sudden uptick of elected women at the state level and the legislative level. it is, i think, one of the things striking now is that progress particularly at the state legislative level has stagnated. in fact, fewer women are ted in state legislators now then 2005. states in the south, and places that had underperformed, in terms of women's representation, where some of those that made the most progress, but then went women get to be about 25%-30% of the legislative body, it begins to stagnate. that is what has led us to focus on the structural changes. there is a great quote in a piece today about the canadian
elections, which are coming up. a parliamentarian from canada said that gender parity does not happen by chance. as much as we love the old married pop and shoulder to shoulder, it is not going to happen naturally. there are deep partisan divides that meannal divides we are not going to achieve gender parity, given our current strategies alone. we need to look at the kinds of rules and voting systems that .ver 100 countries use those the kind of things we are looking at for the united states. host: here is the chart that women's statute. it increased from 1971 to the mid 90's or so, and then has leveled off since then at about 25% of women in state legislators. what is holding women back?
y art moore women getting elected to office? complex think it is a problem, i don't pretend to have a simple solution. we have a high rate of incumbency, so the people who are elected get reelected time and time again. there is not very much competition, either at the state or congressional level. there are not many open seas for nontraditional candidates, of any type, to get elected. there has been some great work from jennifer lawless about the number of times that a woman needs to be asked to run. it is a funny thing, a woman needs to be asked to run seven times, but i'm pretty sure a man never has to be asked. it is assumed that is their domain. you need to look at encouraging women to run for office. one of our goals is to work with the political parties to set targets for the number of women they recruit. he cut the voluntary targets
could be an easy thing for parties to do, just as the republican party led the way in the 19 teens. we want to have that same philosophy, we went parties to voluntarily -- maybe they will feel pressure from their basis -- to push for the recruitment of more women candidates. internal legislative measures will also make a difference. host: let's turn to the phone lines. bill is calling on the independent line. go ahead. air. you are on the is i want toestion know when the guests will believe that women are properly represented in office. host: the question -- good question. what does gender parity mean? guest: gender parity is not a
specific amount, but over the course of 3-4 election cycles, there is more or less a balance of men and women in office. furthermore, we do not think the gender parity can be accomplished if one party, or another party, or one part of the country has a lot of women representation, but genuine gender parity will happen when we have representation of women more or less in proportion to their numbers across the country , and across the political spectrum. dyst: next up is ran from virginia, good warning to morning to you. theer: i don't really buy gender bias thing. ativenk any represent should be elected based on their ability and stances on issues. one of my favorite politicians of all time is margaret thatcher. in terms of encouraging more
women to run, you hit the nail on the head there. i think any woman who runs for office has just as good of a chance of winning as a man does. ,olitics is a very dirty game and that may turn some women off, i don't know. that's my comments. i think your point is well taken. study after study confirms that it is not bias against women candidates. when they run, they tend to win at the same rate as men. it is the political parties that need to be pressured to recruiting women would open seats are available. host: a comment from twitter -- voting for anyone based on a physical attribute over an intellectual ability is a sheer madness. and, elections are all about
candidates, good candidates get elected, most voters don't use sex as a determining factor. what do you say to people who say we should not vote for women, just because they are women? guest: john adams said that congress should be an exact representation of the people in miniature. while this out is to not have everything right in what they were thinking, i think they really envision a legislative body reflecting the makeup of the people, as much as possible. virginiansfavorite meganaking an. buyer -- and don briar. they have done research on how much more profitable companies are women have a diverse board and all voices are heard. we would like to bring that same philosophy to government. governments function better when all voices are at the table and everybody has a voice. host: our next phone caller is t from las vegas, nevada.
go ahead. good morning. i was involved in changing the electoral system in 1993. i was wondering, are there any start changes when a country changes, in terms of women representation? guest: that was a great campaign. i got to tour the country. we fell in love with new zealand all around. the kind ofland has system, and germany has the same system where there are district seats and some seeds that are proportional -- overall. in the proportional seats, women did see an uptick. those systems have worked great in the world. we would like to bring that same philosophy here to the united
states, american proportional representation. host: could you explain more about how that would work. guest: the same multi-winner district -- louisiana was a like example -- when you more than one person in the district, it is much more likely that women will run and win, both because it changes the approachnt -- the team seems to work well with women. women are much more likely to be elected. we have seen that in the cities that use ranked choice voting. portland, maine, cities in massachusetts, they all use this rank systems that allow people to rank their candidates in order of preference. host: when you look at the representation of women at the
local, state, and national level, d.c. one area doing better than another? do you see -- guest: i think there has been great work in states. there's a fabulous network like emerge, and other organizations that push hard at the state legislative level. there have been serious gains. colorado is a leading example of a huge percentage of women getting elected to the state legislator. i think that is great. in terms of areas where women are underrepresented, state offices have been hard for women have six -- we governors right now, five of whom were elected. i think part of that speaks to the pipeline issue. we need women elected on their campuses, then city council, then state legislative level, leaders.n to be
i think for nonjudicial candidates like women, the stepping stone approach is very important. host: next up is christina from ohio. you said that you have run for office during what was your experience? caller: i'm actually a graduate of the joann davidson ohio leadership institute. i don't know if cynthia has other experiences in other states -- women that are backing other women to run for elected office, and give them the tools, and educational experience to help them in their campaigning, as well as raise their hand and run for elected office. i think that is a great program, at least we have in ohio. i don't know nationally what are with experiences other states. i think that is a great tool to have for anyone who wants to raise their hand and run for
office. for acern is i did run state representative in ohio in my district. the issue is fundraising. whoever hasms to be the most money wins. yes.: those training programs at the state level have been fabulous. host: tells a little bit about what the program is. guest: i will give you an example of the california i know more about, close the gap. have been very successful. because the fundraising has been hard for women candidates, and getting ready to run, the state-based programs that a quick women and fund women are incredibly important. that ties into another area of reform which is working with political action committees to set targets for the giving.
in open races, they may support women with 80% of their money in open seat races. i think that would help to change the climate that the so well.scribes if your candidate from outside of the political arena, to get a foothold. report, your mentioned three areas of structural reform that you are targeting. we talked about recruiting female candidates, adopting fair representation voting systems, and you say they're also need to be reforms to electoral practices. what are those. guest: commonsense things. european countries have led the way in this. we need to do more research on the kinds of legislation that could be proposed at the state and federal level. things like making sure there is childcare available for all sessions. thinking about the timing of sessions. thinking about how legislators
are paid and if the pay makes serving in the legislative body possible for women and all candidates. there is interesting work being done about telik commuting -- telecommuting. we need to invest our democracy into the next century following. there are tech things -- legislators could say, sure, you can vote from home. things that would make it more possible for women and men, who have families, or our aging parents, to effectively serve and office -- in office. host: next up is built from pennsylvania, calling on the democratic line. to as cynthia, what is the origin of representation 2020? is a bipartisan, or who is affiliated with it? ifsoi ant to ask cynthia -- you take a good look at the
pentagon, with the pentagon has done over the past 20 years, as far as setting quotas in the military to have so many women in different parts of the military. i'm not so sure that has worked so good. now i know, the military has quotas for gay and lesbians, as far as making sure they get structured in their to help the in what they call human relations, and stuff like that. that is what i would like to know. familiarm not really with what is going on at the pentagon, but i'm curious, thank you for the tip, i will check in on that. i do know that there have been a number of institutions where we have realized that we need to level the playing field. title ix is a great example. americans with disabilities is a great example.
that is the kind of philosophy that we are tied to bring to win this representation. there are the structural obstacles, and we need structural remedies to respond to them. as far as representation 2020, it is a nonpartisan electoral organization. i work with women across the political spectrum. it is one of the things that i really believe in, the nonpartisan, or all partisan. then, people ask me, that is all you care about -- all partisan? are part ofrtisan the conversation. host: brian, go ahead. caller: the only thing that is quotas,rating about which is what we are looking at,
if we want to raise the quality of women in different minorities, wouldn't we be best served looking for the best candidate, and finding a recruiting the best candidate, ?hether they were women or men instead of tried to find a specific type of individual, wouldn't finding the best people who lived women up, whether they are men, women, black, white, or whatever? i don't see how it is important having a certain group, versus the best people. i think we should focus our energy on that, rather than hitting certain numbers. guest: i appreciate the thoughtfulness of a co that comments. then are 51% of
population and even a higher percentage of electorate. women are simply not gaining in terms of representation. i will return to those two points nine think are important to remember. the founders of this country really envision legislative bodies that represented the populace. we don't have that now with the current policy of let nature take its course. we have leveled the playing field successfully to different groups of people, and sports, and so forth, serving in the military as well. i think we can bring those same perspectives to representation. without addressing it head on, we are losing out on the best and brightest. i will raise one more issue. there certainly needs to be more research on this. there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that women play a key role in resolving
some of the partisan differences gue, not onlyla capitol hill, but slat state legislators as well. they have made sure that the government does not shut down, and we can pass a budget. they are signs that women can play a unique role in reaching across partisan boundaries, that have become much clearer now, and work together to solve the s problems. host: you mean that women act differently than men in office, not that they did before? guest: yes. congress is a great example. one of the longest meeting bodies is the women's caucus. they talk about cosponsoring one
another's legislation. at the end of the day, we all want to move forward as americans. we all want congress to function well, and get back to the day when people worked together on legislation, of the common good. it seems to be true that women are doing a great job at that. host: next caller is william from palm beach, florida. democratic line. you say you are a staffer for a female legislator, is that correct? caller: i am a senior staffer for senator marina fax -- sachs. we are very proud that we have so many dynamic elected women officials. our county commission, our state legislators, and our congresswomen. when you talk about bipartisanship and getting laws passed and really paying attention to what the voters and needs are, that is our people.
our county party chair is a very dynamic woman. we have a democratic women's club, which is just so on top of the issues. so i love this conversation. thank you. guest: thank you. i will mention that about 23 states have strong women's caucuses in place. host: eight this -- at the state level? guest: yes. and they function very well. that is exactly what we should be looking at, advanced women's representation. host: and the focus on electing does that in some ways that marginalize women by saying that they need to focus on women's issues as somehow different than what men are concerned about, what is your response to that? left thoseink we days as side and a long time ago. i think we have realized that everyone has valuable
perspective. issues and inhese fact, child care and health care are men's issues also. i think that we do all of ourselves a disservice when we sideline certain types of issues two men or two women. planet, wee this also are children, we all share common values. i don't think it does much good to relegate a certain set of issues to one group or another. is stacey from dublin, georgia, democratic line. you are on the air. caller: yes. i have a question to ask. how many african-american women are in the senate? nost: there are african-american women in the senate.
i don't believe -- none are ringing the bell. there are some strong women candidates for the senate right now whom i know. my apologies if i have forgotten somebody. host: was that your question? caller: women who are representing women's issues in the senate, how many came to the floor during the course of dealing with african-american women being -- african-american children being done -- gunned down in the street on arms check out guest: i think there has been a pretty rich dialogue about that but that is not my field of expertise. host: the collar brings up a good point. is there special focus being paid into minority women who will then go on to represent those demographics?
guest: that's a good point. paired together they provide more competition, more choices for voters, and more diversity across the board. for cities use ranked choice voting to elect their councils. 47 of those 52 seats are held by women or people of color. fifthprudent to level the playing field for diverse candidates of all stripes. next up is jerry on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. you guys are really good. i just want to speak to two things. i agree with ms. cynthia. it is structural, but the other aspect of it is that it is cultural to.
that old mindset of all the years previous. is who the second one you have makes the rules. it is how the old boys club works, and i say to you, young ladies, you go girl. thank you. guest: thank you very much. as i said, there are all kinds of reasons for the situation we are in. the reason i am really focused on the structural solution is that i think that is something we can really change. we can change roles and structural -- structures. host: you can join a conversation by calling us. (202)icans can call
748-8001. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. , (202) 748-8002. here is a comment from twitter. why is female voter turnout so low and what can be done to increase the? that is an interesting question. for the most part women are actually a higher share of the electorate than men. they tend to be active at the state level and the local level and for president. havinginly hope that multiple women candidates running for president will engage people in turning out and participating in the electoral process. line isxt on the phone jane from new jersey, on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. terrld like to thank ms.
ell for your efforts, and i love the show. as to other callers mentioned, i really believe it is very cultural as to why so many women do not run. my own grandmoth was born before women had a right to join this democracy and vote. i am 60 now. i grew up in an era when our own language excluded women. everything, all pronouns were she. i would walk might -- were -- all pronouns were he. i would go out and walk my dog and kids would come up to me and say oh he is so pretty. they assumed my dog when the mail. women are raised to believe they
do not have leadership ability. host -- i'mple, the sorry i don't know your name -- you were referring to women as you guys. is -- ifstand for that people started referring to men as you ladies. the last caller actually said, you guys go. and you go girl. girlsi don't think we are after we had 18, right? anyway, again, thank you for your efforts and yes, we need more representation. representation that is pro-women, not just representation -- females who may not be pro-women. we all drink from the same sexist groundwater, if you know what i mean. i appreciate any, he might have,
and thank you again. guest: thank you so much for calling and. i appreciate your comments. i will mention two groups, though there are others. representation, they call out some of the gender stereotypes and discrimination practices. the center for american women in politics has partnered with some other organizations where they are looking at how women are treated in the media by the media. that brings me to another thing. i have mentioned a couple of times that there are a number of strategies important to increasing the number of women in politics. structural things play a big role but also we have the six-point parity pledges that we hope will illustrate that media
representation is important, training and funding women candidates. a myriad of organizations are doing great work on that. more work on recruiting women for executive offices. and then the three structural things that we work on. we certainly are not saying these are the only things, has the other things the caller mentioned are important too. host: this is a chart of how the presidential candidates rank the rank the candidates at. can you tell us a little bit about that? guest: this is a fun project that we are engaging with with a fun group based in california. it is so easy to rank your candidates.
they can go to rcbs.com. you can rank your candidates through the democratic and the republican party. app where youn can rank your party preference as well. that is to indicate that third candidates are-- important in an election. host: let's start -- turned back to the phone lines. david is calling from the republican line. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i have a bad connection so i will have to listen to your answer offline, but i'm curious about the assertion you made women commonly have to be encouraged a number of times before they will actually run for office. i'm trying to get my mind around that. course we know that any life
of public service is a lot of , and often what is sacrificed is family. the manugh historically has been the head of the american family, throughout american history, the woman has always been the backbone of the american family. i wonder if it is the reluctance to sacrifice family that gives women hesitation, or in your opinion, may give women accepting or stepping forward into that role? comment,lated to that -- host: related that, there was a headline in the new york times saying that japan now has a higher portion of working women than america does.
there is some very interesting data you might want to check out. >> guest: she has a recent book about why young people want to stay away from politics but she also addresses some of those issues about women and their willingness to serve and that worklife balance. that is one of the things that leads us to advocate for those things that can make serving in office for anybody who has young children or aging parents, or whatever the distraction might be, make it a possible option for men and women. but yes. those kinds of -- i can attest, as the mother of three teenage children, that those things like making dentist appointments and has shirt often fall through the cracks. host: next up is tommy from tennessee on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes. good morning.
about two weeks ago i was with a group of ladies here and tennessee that are working to democratic on the ticket for president as well as the republican ticket for president, and they believe that least 90% of at the women voters in this country will turn out to vote. if that happens i think we will president of the united states or possibly a woman serving as vice president. i was wanting to get the on thes from your guest possibility of this happening. thank you very much. guest: i think it is terrific that there are so many hope -- high profile women candidates now. i think that is terrific and i think undoubtedly that has an impact on young women and girls, even in elementary school, feeling like they can assume leadership. another woman we work with is a woman who has interviewed every
living head of state and many who are no longer living. she has a cute story -- female, excusing. she was interviewing people in iceland maybe, or someplace. i may be butchering this story. and she said female leadership theso important that television forgot that men could also be prime minister. play a hugemodels role. can changeing that voter turnout entirely, but they are certainly important in changing our culture. host: and our last caller for this segment will be monica on the republican line. caller: i am not a republican. i don't know how i ended up on this line. what i am concerned about is i have noticed a lot of chatter on
the internet. war betweento be a women themselves about how our message is presented and how we are going to come together to formulate a cohesive message that allows women candidates to get elected. on,fact that that is going the fact that there is sort of a factions of women concerns me. i think we need to be concerned about how we talk to one another , how we build coalitions. i am concerned. that is my comments. , yourcynthia terrell final thoughts? guest: i appreciate that. ,ut not to be too pollyanna speaking about that as a war, i think we should think about that as an indication of the broad and deep passion that many
different women have across the political spectrum for gaining full women's representation and reflective democracy in this country. i think that one of the unique things about electoral strategies and recruitment strategies is that those are the things that almost everybody across the board can really agree on. looking ahead to five years from now, when we celebrate the centennial of suffrage in 2020, i think there is a great opportunity to paul and all the fans, all the interest and passion and dedication, and make sense of how all the pieces fit together. there is a great phrase that i will end with, which is each person -- if each person brings verse down to the mosaic, and not everyone's stone is the same, but together we put our stone in and we create the mosaic.
we are creating a mosaic and it is a work in progress and we need to support each other. host: we want to remind our viewers that the individual state rankings of how a state performed in terms of gender parity is available in a report, a blueprint for reaching gender parity. , chair ofrrell representation 2020. thank you for joining us. and in the first few days of allowing the sale of marijuana for recreational use, oregon took an over $10 million. up next, brookings institution john hudak will be here to discuss the steps to legalize pot sales and what other states are considering it. >> a signature feature of booktv is our all-day coverage of fairs and festivals them across the country, with top nonfiction authors.
here is our schedule beginning this weekend. we are live from austin for the texas book festival. the following weekend we are live in the nation's heartland for the wisconsin book festival in medicine. at the end of the month we will be in nashville for the southern festival of books. at the start of november we are back on the east coast for the boston book testable. in the middle of the month that is the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. and at the end of november we are live before the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international. and theational book -- national book awards from new york city. just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span twos booktv. beginning, iom the look in the mirror and i don't see a president. my response to that was quit looking in the mirror, but from the very beginning he just said this is nothing i have ever thought about. >> this sunday night, former
public relations associate don kaufman on his book "run mitch run" on his good friend and his decision not to run for president in 2012. >> i became convinced that he is very competitive, and i think if he had made a decision to do it that he would have had his heart and soul into it. it from the very beginning is not something he ever really thirsted after. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> this monday on c-span's new series "landmark cases." the mississippi river around new orleans had become a breeding ground for color and yellow fever, partly due to slaughterhouses dumping their byproducts into the river. to address this problem louisiana allowed only one government run slaughterhouse to
operate in the city district, and the other houses took them to court. follow the slaughterhouse cases of 1873. we are joined by paul clement and michael roth, author of the book "justice of shattered dreams." the attorneys, and supreme court justices involved in this decision. sure to join a conversation as we take your calls, tweets, and facebook programs using the cases. landmark for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it is available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking about whether or not marijuana should
be legalized for recreational use. , he is a is john hudak fellow at the brookings institution. john hudak can you tell us a little bit about what you study and how marijuana policy legislation works in the u.s.? research is of my on the dry and boring side. i look at bureaucratic process, i look at how institutions of government work to deliver public policy decisions. along the way i thought colorado and washington legalizing marijuana, and i thought this might be a new policy area to answer some of the questions that i have in a different format. that brought me into looking how the states are ruling out marijuana legalization. a stance do you have on whether or not marijuana should be legalized? guest: in my work i take this position. andes are legalizing
citizens and residents of states want it legal, so the government should do with the citizenry wants, and that is work effectively and deliver public policy. i am in favor of good government when it comes to marijuana. earlier this morning we had open phone lines on whether people support or oppose the legalization of marijuana. we had statistics from the pew research center that shows 53% of americans support legalizing marijuana compared to 43% who support it staying in illegal. you can really see since 1990 how much and support for legalizing marijuana has grown. what is the sea change in how americans view pot? guest: what is most important is not even the numbers as how they stand now, but the trend line system. there is little evidence to show that that trend is going to reverse. knowo what is important to
is why these changes are happening. part of it is just demographic shifts. some of the most ardent opponent of marijuana what political scientists like me called exiting the electorate. they are dying off. the people entering the electorate are some of the strongest supporters of legalization policy. those two forces, happening at the same time, can cause dramatic effect in public opinion. at the same time people are observing states that are legalizing and seeing that the sky is not falling. disasters are not happening in broad terms. maybe they were a little skeptical of marijuana before and they are moving a little bit in their opinion. host: we have seen oregon becoming the latest state to legalize recreational use of pot. where do you see the possibility for legalization going forward?
what are the next states that might make a move? there are states planning ballot initiatives in the coming years. one is ohio. ohio is going to vote on recreational marijuana in november. nevada will be having a referendum in 2016. are going to be the next immediate battlegrounds. but there are other states as well that are looking to run initiatives. they are currently getting signatures on petitions to get their citizens to be able to vote on it. and so we see states like arizona, california, who are looking to put ballot initiatives up in 2016. states like florida are considering medical marijuana initiatives in the coming years. there are additives the organizations across -- advocacy
organizations across the united states. states like massachusetts and states he would not think of, like the dakotas. these efforts are happening nationwide. host: you can join our conversation as well with a question or comment for john hudak. if you support marijuana being legal for recreational use you can call us at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the legalization of recreational pot you can call us at (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure how you feel, dial us at (202) 748-8002. you can also find us on social media. twitter and facebook, and you can send us an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. i would like to read to you this op-ed from "the l.a. times." that the argument for legalizing pot is really looking
at marijuana as a gateway drug. here is what he wrote. thee is no argument against legal barring of marijuana does not also apply to heroin, cocaine, and meth. is auana legalization first step towards the legalization of all drugs. do you agree with the statement? no.t: it is actually a very foolish statement on his behalf. the reality is that there are a variety of reasons that individuals want to legalize marijuana. for some people it is for medical value. for some people it is a matter of liberty. for some people it is a matter of criminal justice. he has seen what marijuana arrest have done to their communities, this is particularly true among communities of color. for some people they just see it as pure recreation and they want access to the drug for recreation. the idea that this is a gateway to broader legalization is something that opponents of legalization certainly trumpet,
but the reality is that public opinion is not behind the legalization of heroin. it is not behind the legalization of cocaine. it is many places strongly in favor of legalization of marijuana. the idea that this is some effort by an advocacy community to shift public opinion, i can't imagine an advocacy community that has the desire to shift public opinion on heroine. it is more unpopular than our congress, which is pretty hard. [laughter] host: another important issue is looking at where the money from sales of marijuana actually goes. we mentioned earlier in the program that oregon has legalized recreational marijuana use and saw an million dollars or so in sales. where is the state using that money? is it going to fund things like education? of the states that have legalized are using that tax revenue from marijuana in
similar ways. one of the primary ones is for school construction. in oregon just like colorado about 40% of the revenue collected by legal marijuana sales goes to build schools throughout the state. other uses of the funds are for education, for prevention education, for mental health and addiction services. it funds the enforcement statesns within these that are actually charge of carrying out the law. some of the money goes for law enforcement and law enforcement training. while the money may come from what some people consider a vice , the tax revenue is actually being applied in areas that people consider virtuous. host: we turn now to the phone lines. our first caller is jenny from ohio who opposes legalization. caller: good morning. i did not hear what you said. host: i said what is your
question or comment, jimmy. we need toon't think legalize it. i am against it. i know somebody who smokes it and they sit there and stare off into space for about six hours and i don't see how that is going to help somebody. guest: thanks for your call. i think this is one of the legitimate concerns that exist about the legalization effort. that is, what is it going to do for society? what affects is it going to have on society, on users, on individuals? that the reality i think is an important one, and that is that you know someone who is using marijuana and that that person thatving a time with it perhaps takes away who they truly are. but the reality is that marijuana exists. people are using it every day. they are using it in your community and communities across the united states. many in the advocacy community argue that because the success it is better that we regulate it, that we control it, that we make sure people know what they
are getting and get some tax revenue out of it. it is here and it has not gone away so we may as well do something about it. that is a claim that i think is a pretty convincing one. is built from ohio, calling in support of legalizing marijuana. go ahead. caller: i was wanting to know if you actually know what the ohio theyt initiative is about, actually have 10 people on their slated to take care of the whole state of ohio, and all the prophets are only going to be spread in between 10 people. , andis more like a cartel i was wanting to know if your organization actually knew about that and could actually spread the word. guest: bill, thank you for your call. the ohio initiative is actually one of the most controversial initiatives to have come up so
far. for exactly the reason that you have said. the way to legalization initiative works in ohio, the one that will be on the ballot this year, is that it would allow marijuana to be grown by 10 individual operators, and those 10 operators within supply marijuana to the entire state of ohio. you are exactly right. it creates a cartel. this is controversial not just between opponents and supporters of marijuana, but it has created a real division within the marijuana advocacy community over whether this is the right form of reform. my colleague bill wallick at the british -- brookings institution is a native of ohio in and he has written a bit on this ballot initiative. i encourage you to read his blog. i think that is a really interesting point. in the states where at least some form of marijuana is legal, what are the implementation
check -- challenges? we hear business is talking about the challenge of storing their money in terms of what they do with the relationship of banks, because it is still illegal on the federal level to deal with marijuana. limitation-- the of if the police are truly profound. people think of legalization as black and white, either it is legal or it is not. but the reality is that legalization is such a complex and diverse policy outcome that it can take many different forms. we have seen that in the states that have legalized so far. every system looks a little different. there have to be concerned about is going, whether it out of the legal market and into the illegal market. how revenue is collected. or business revenue. access to banking and other financial institutions is an important question rate how do you create a system that thevents it use -- use -- you
from getting marijuana. how do you educate users? these are the questions that state officials have to entertain when they are building a legalization system, and i think oftentimes people often underappreciated how big of a challenge officials in colorado and washington and oregon, and in future states, what they are facing. it is a tremendous toll. iest: this is all he -- oll from ohio, not sure how all he -- ollie feels. what do you think? caller: listen to what you are saying. this is base of a saying if you can't beat them, join them. -- i saw a study about the medical, it may help some people.
at the same time it may help the government to because you can get more money. usingeep saying they are the money for schools, but over what i am seeing not too many schools are getting that money. i sometimes wonder is that money really going to be used to help the people? guest: sorry about that, insert -- inadvertently cut you off. guest: so apologies for the cutoff, but let me try to answer your question. it is an important one. in the states that have legalized marijuana the money is going to school construction, and the manner in which tax toenue is first delivered the regulatory agencies and then distributed throughout the state there are very tight accounting
practices of how that money is distributed. when you go to colorado and washington you can actually see this money put to work. but the reality is this. it is one that i think many people don't talk about. the amount of revenue being collected from marijuana sales is impressive if you look at the sheer number, but it is not so huge when you look at what schools across the united states need, whether it is an addition to an existing school, whether it is the construction of a news will, or whether it is the variety of needs that the american education system really have a hunger for. solveana is not going to an education problem in the united states and i don't think that most advocates sell it in that way. but the reality is that if you have a choice between tens of millions of dollars of new revenue for the construction of a school or that revenue remaining with criminal organizations, i think that is probably an easier call for most voters. you might not see a school being built in your city, but there
will be schools built across the states that do use marijuana revenue for that purpose. host: how successful have the states that have legalized marijuana in some form been at eliminating the black market? we saw a report that says the black market is still alive and well because legalizing marijuana cost so much more than the street value of marijuana. answer,hat is a hard because we don't have a ton of data yet. the statesink about that legalized first, legalize recreational marijuana first, colorado and washington. sales were not happening in colorado until 2014. not happening in washington until a few months after that. this effortding how has displaced the black market, it is still a little early to tell that. the reality is we can be sure that some people are purchasing from the white market, the legal market rather than the illegal market. but at the same time when you look at it, colorado has $100
million sales in legal marijuana. that tells you something is happening with the black market. but you are right. prices are high. people are still a little bit uncomfortable with the system. the other reality is that municipalities in colorado and other states can opt out of the system, making recreational marijuana illegal in those cities except for home growth -- home grows. that means that in some places the black market is still the best bet. up is mike, also from ohio. he is in doylestown, calling in opposition to legalizing marijuana. why is that? caller: i am a 60 something -year-old man. i have been smoking marijuana since i was 15 years old and i have cbs and downs. i have lost a couple of jobs because of it.
i have not gotten a couple of jobs because of it. that is not going to change. people are still going to lose jobs, it if you truly want to help people who just want to smoke pot, legalize it for the individual grower. now all these big organizations are going to make millions of dollars on the backs of working people who really can't afford to smoke pot anyway. that is my comment. thank you very much. guest: thank you mike. you actually bring up a point that is an important policy issue that people in the advocacy community are talking about. that is labor law around marijuana use. some argued that if marijuana is legal that individuals at a company should be able to use it on their own time and not be punished for it in the way that most companies allow the use of alcohol. as long as you don't show up drunk to work you can have a martini at night or you can have a beer at night. marijuana is a bit different. it is still a schedule one drug
according to the controlled substances act, federal law. as a result of that there is no labor protection for individuals who test positive for marijuana use. for thesier to test closeness of the use of alcohol that it is for how recently you use marijuana. companies tost for judge this is difficult. there was a recent case in colorado where a medical marijuana user was fired from his job for testing positive for use of marijuana. recently the colorado supreme court upheld the company's ability to fire him because they have a drug-free workplace policy and that continues to stand. host: next up is paul from athens, tennessee, in opposition to legalizing marijuana. go ahead. caller: yes. whoeems odd that the people want to legalize marijuana are the same people that want to restrict things that our kids
enjoy. we can have marijuana but we can't have pizza. that seems strange. if marijuana is so good for you, can you have it at age 11? 13? six? who says that it is 18 years old, or 21 years old? yes, you are correct on the age restriction. in the states that have legalized, 21 is the age that you can purchase recreational marijuana. one thing i would also correct though is that no one in the advocacy community, at least the people who i talked to, would argue that recreational marijuana is such a good thing. what they are arguing is that people should be able to make their own decisions in the same way that they do with alcohol or tobacco or other products.
people in the medical marijuana community argue that there are medicinal benefits, positive benefits from the use of marijuana. but you are hard-pressed to find active -- advocates who want recreational marijuana because they think it is bringing serious benefits to a user. they wouldhink -- argue that if you can control it and regulate it and give people ,he freedom of their choice then that is better than a prohibition. that is the argument in that community. in states that have legalized marijuana, are there restrictions around use echo -- around use? such as blood alcohol content when you're driving. there is a concern about people being stoned behind the wheel. where can you smoke it or ingested? what are you finding? guest: states are handling that in pretty similar ways. , thatnnot use in public
means a park, a restaurant, a bar or a club. you can't do that. you cannot use and operate a motor vehicle. host: at all. guest: at all. in some places-- you cannot have open containers. you cannot have marijuana exposed within a motor vehicle. you have to be 21. in many places you have to purchase it from a state sanctioned dispensary, except in places where you can grow your own. there are limitations around that. there are limitations around where you can go it, whether he can be publicly used. what kinds of security there has to be. there are a lot of restrictions about use -- and sales as well. within a certain distance of a school. in some places you cannot use within a certain distance of a school. states are very serious about making sure that you do not see and smell marijuana everywhere you go.
that said, if you have taken a trip to denver or seattle, it is not uncommon to walk down the street and smell the scent of marijuana. up chris from los angeles, california, calling in support of marijuana. caller: i know you have already hit on this, but my real concern is the hypocrisy of society over marijuana and alcohol. of the whole being extremely physically addictive. marijuana is not physically addictive. i know from my own personal experience, like the 67-year-old who called a little bit earlier. i am in that age range as well. i have been smoking for over 40 years. i know that it is not physically addictive because i have stopped four times. my brother who is an alcoholic was extremely affected by that. whyst don't understand marijuana is classified as a class a narcotic. that is ridiculous. guest: thank you for your call.
the relationship -- the perspective between alcohol and marijuana is a really interesting one. i spoke to a regulator in a state that legalized, and that individual said our ballot initiatives wanted to legalize marijuana, or regulate marijuana like alcohol. raises an interesting question, because i don't think anyone looks around our alcohol regulatory systems in the united states and thinks, we have really nailed it. we have gotten it right. but for a lot of people that is the type of model, that is the type of crotch that people can utch peoplech -- cr can use. this individual said down the road, 10 years from now, i don't want to talk about regulating marijuana like alcohol. the conversation to change the regulating alcoholic and marijuana, because we are
regulating it so well. whether you believe that are not in leaves open this idea that perhaps as we are building systemsa regulatory throughout the united states, maybe we can look at what is going on with alcohol and try to improve regulation around that as well. host: next up is jerry from texas. you are not sure about how you feel about legalizing marijuana. why is that? am in favor of having it used, but when it comes to the department of commerce, how are they going to start regulating smoke? tosoon as people want distribute across state lines. i have another question. what about the product of health, which is also -- of hemp , which is also a marijuana type plants. what is the sentiment towards
hemp use and have production? thank you for your call. the question about what the federal government is going to do is an open one. your question about what the commerce department will do might not be dead on, because marijuana regulation in the united states occurs through an abundance of federal agencies. health and human services, department of justice, and elsewhere. they all play a role in marijuana regulation. if marijuana were to be released legalize or if there were some federal reform around marijuana, it would need to affect a number of federal agencies and how they would respond. those are huge administrative hurdles, hurdles at the marijuana industry sees every day.
right now, because marijuana is a schedule one substance, it cannot move legally across state lines. order, likethat washington and oregon, you cannot buy marijuana in oregon and bring it to washington state because it violates federal law. as we move forward and pressure it willong the states be interesting to see what they do to address this growing problem. host: we are talking with john hudak of the brookings institution. former secretary of state hillary clinton and bernie sanders have addressed this issue of whether or not they would be in favor of legalizing marijuana. here is what they have to say. [video clip]
sanders: i suspect i would vote yes. i would vote yes because i am seeing in this country too many lives being destroyed for nonviolent offenses. we have a criminal justice system that lets ceos on wall street walk away, and yet we are imprisoning or giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana. linton: i think that we have the opportunity through the states that are pursuing recreational marijuana to find out a lot more than we know today. i do support the use of medical marijuana, and i think even their we need to do a lot more research so that we know exactly how we are going to help people for whom medical marijuana provides relief. i think we're just at the beginning. host: and just to be clear, senator bernie sanders is talking about whether he would nevada,legalization in
whereas hillary clinton is talking about the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana. .e are talking with john hudak what is your thoughts -- what are your thoughts on how candidates are addressing this issue and are you hearing discussion on the republican side? guest: i think both candidates answers left a little bit to be desired. there were not really complete. what senator sanders has said is that if he were a nevada voter he would probably vote to legalize marijuana. but does not tell us how he would vote as a united states senator. it does not tell us what he would do as president. he had the opportunity there to answer in that way, if you clearly fell short. address a number of important issues, and so did senator clinton. in clinton's case, the medical research aspect. that can bel issues addressed by the federal -- by federal reform, and once that i think the obama administration has started down that road. what secretary clinton suggests
is that she would continue the status quo that the obama administration has, allowing states that have legalized recreationally to continue and to learn about what those public policies can do. my colleagues at brookings have -- and i have a paper coming out on tuesday that looks at this question of medical research. we ask how does the federal stymie research into medical marijuana and what kinds of implications for public health and public policy does that have? the reality is that the federal government, despite allowing states to dispense medical marijuana, funds very little research into what marijuana can do in a medical or a pharmaceutical way. those are the types of changes that a lot of candidates on the democratic side and the republican side are calling her. host: what happens if the next president does not support the
legalization of marijuana? the we see challenges to states that forward? guest: i think you can season challenges. most of them will be legal challenges. chris christie is one of the most outspoken opponents to the federal hands off system that exists. his answers are a little bit more cowboy and a little bit less residential than the reality of it. he would probably file lawsuits to try to stop these systems from happening. but the reality is that we have operating inuana 23 states and the district of columbia. in the four states district of columbia that allow recreational marijuana, and by the time the next resident this morning -- the next president is sworn in there will probably be more. the fbi and other federal law enforcement agencies are allowed to go into these days and shut everything down.
this is tough in any system. it presidenty of to physically shut something down is quite limited. you would have to listen to words from candidates like chris christie and take them with a grain of salt. but the legal aspect -- the litigation aspect of it -- would be much more challenging for state leaders. host: next up, carla is calling from pennsylvania in opposition to legalizing marijuana. go ahead. ,aller: as far as i'm concerned this definition of recreational marijuana is a joke. also, what happens if the people who are smoking at home and the young kids and everything else smell this, and that can get you high. crimes forderal marijuana, i don't know how they do away with those, the states and so on.
i will tell you about 40 or 50 years ago i smoked marijuana actually going to stab my best friend, so anyone says -- who says it is a safe thing is a fool. host: that is coral from pennsylvania. guest: i will take two of those points. the letter is this. one of the real concerns that exists with black market marijuana is that it is unclear what is in it. so a response to smoking marijuana where you had what sounds like a psychotic episode, is really not consistent with what we know about the effects of thc on the body. what might have happened is that you use a product that was adulterated, and many in the legalization community argue that if states step in and begin regulating this process incidents like that, where you have adulterated marijuana,
marijuana mixed with some other substance that has a very inative psychoactive effect concert with thc, those things can be avoided under a regulated system in a way that they cannot read under a legal system. your second point, you ask smoking and using and distributing marijuana is illegal under federal law and you are not sure how states get away with that. so you're absolutely right. is distribution of marijuana illegal under the controlled substances act. but the obama administration has issued a memorandum from the department of justice has taken a hands-off approach. marijuana -- as long as the states comply with a robust regulatory system and operators
comply with it, and the system is not engaging in other bad acts like selling to children or , theng with drug cartels federal government will let them operate. if they are violating any of those provisions of federal government has the right to step in, and they have done so even in states where the system is in place. is aaron from pennsylvania. caller: how often to callers from erie, pennsylvania would call in. i don't know coral, we don't run carl.al -- i believe that education is the best weapon on this. ohioestion is about the ballot initiative. they are only going to put a limited number of growers and
suppliers on the ground there. my worry is, when we talk about commerce, it is more about the money. here in pennsylvania things move slowly. my worry is that other states are going to be legalizing and making lots of money. pop up,es are going to businesses are going to pop up. i worry that they are going to swoop into pennsylvania what it does become legal and that they will be the ones making the money so that the people here in pennsylvania, entrepreneurs here in pennsylvania, aren't going to be making the money and keeping it here. can you tell me, are there states that have -- of the states that have these laws, are there any stipulations saying you must be a resident of so many years in the state to open a business or make money on a? i am just worried money will flow away from the communities who could use the money here. guest: thank you for the question. many of the states that have
legalized marijuana in whatever form, recreational or medical, have dealt with this issue specifically. and that is, how do we make sure that the money is staying within the state, that business operators are located within the state. you as antil then state may demographically and ideologically -- we could see moving in the direction of marijuana reform in the coming years. so your question is an important one that pennsylvania legislature -- legislators and the voters themselves are going to have to grapple with. and that is, what kind of safeguards do you put on, if any, about the physical location of the revenue, the money that is used to open up dispensaries, and who in the state can open a? requirementsut in that individuals operating marijuana enterprises have to be residents. they have to have residency
requirements for a certain per iod of time. someone cannot just buy a house and opened a dispensary the next day and essentially create a shadow system in which they are able to operate franchises across the united states. that is what that -- one thing that advocates really endorse. ultimatelyhing that ballot initiative drafters and a state legislators are going to be concerned about as well. from then hudak brooking institution. thank you so much for joining us. that concludes our program for today. join us tomorrow. we'll be talking about campaign 2016. maria schwartz from the democratic socialist will be joining us talk about the race for the white house. matthewlso talking with green who will discuss the history of the leadership battle within the context of the current race for speaker of the house. thank you so much for joining us. we will see you then.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, on c-span, a discussion on the impact of government regulations on business. reaganormer administration official talks about the future of capitalism. after that, the president of the york federal reserve explains the policies and the role of the fed. >> now, entrepreneurs and ceos discuss the effect of government regulations and the tax con