tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 3, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EST
secured. we will be joined by william toby. >> good morning. we have a three-hour washington journal for you. we will be talking about immigration reform and a new plan to repeal and replace the affordable care act. we will look at the national security administration. before we get to that, we talk about the role of the role of the first lady. ifwant to know if you think the first lady should have a
career outside the white house. our phone lines are open for you. republicans can call (202) 737-0002. democrats can call (202) 737-0002. and independence can call (202) 628-0205. if you are outside the united states you can call (202) 628-0184. asking if first lady's should walk outside the white house. this is what laura bush had to say. the first lady should not receive a salary. there are plenty of perks. that was really
great. i miss the chef. i don't think so. i think the interesting question should be should they receive a salary, but should they be able to work for a salary at a job that they might have already had. that is what we will have to determine. certainly a first gentleman mike continue to work at whatever he did if he was a law your or whatever. that is the question we should ask, should she have a career during those years that her husband as president? in addition to serving as first lady. lady laurar first bush in an interview airing on c-span. 9:00 p.m.to air at tonight.
you can go to www.c-span.org for scheduling details. stay with us as we take your calls and comments on this subject. the phone lines are open. that interview was already making news in several newspapers. this is how it was written up in the washington post she the people column. clarissa thompson writes
she has followed president and selected signature issues like childhood obesity in helping military families. we want to get your thoughts on the subject. our facebook pages you can @cspanwj.on twitter ladiesscussion on first from the washington post. the last three first ladies have advanced degrees. we are talking about the role of first ladies in the white house. do you think the first lady should be paid in her position
at the white house? let us go to bobby in georgia on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. -- don't think she should work outside the white house. she has a responsibility to her husband. what do you think the responsibility is? what do you think they'll first lady's responsibility should be in the white house? what do you mean by that? caller: i think she should be and she hast's wife a lot of responsibility there. she does not need to be working. what do you think of her
career after the white house? do you think first lady's should pursue what she wants? caller: yes, after she leaves the white house. from ourwant to hear viewers around the country on this topic. the conversation is already happening on twitter. the president makes more than enough to support talking about a potential first gentleman in the white house. the role of the first settlement is being discussed in the talk about the potential campaign of hillary clinton for president. articles aboutal
gentleman. we have a potential first gentleman. scott is an ok view caliph out -- 02, california. your thoughts? should the first lady or first gem and be able to work? think the first children should if they are of age. this is a land of opportunity. that is why we have so many immigrants coming here and making a great lives for themselves. once the term is in for the president, absolutely. term, historically that has not been the case. i think your audience can agree that everybody needs to make a living and nobody works for free. twitter, there is a
conflict of interest. of a conflict of interest? caller: within the policy of the president? whatever job he or she might be pursuing. that goes hand-in-hand with the president and first lady, whoever they are. bond.ave a very sacred agree and disagree on certain things. i disagree with the horseshoe. host: scott calling from oak , california.
the first lady potentially working outside the white house while she is in washington. or the potential first gentleman the. we'll be talking about that throughout the first 45 minutes of washington journal. on the campaign front tom i want to showyou --, i want you a few stories from the washington times. takes an early lead. ats is by usa today looking campaign season with a financial advantage.
we are talking about the role of the first lady, should she be able to work outside the white house in d.c. this is trisha in indiana on our line for independents. good morning. good morning. thank you. my comment is no, i do not think she should be paid. i agree with laura bush. we have been told to serve the country in that capacity is an honor and a privilege. president is one thing.
to pay the first lady, who should be using her position to do good things for the country and bring you attention to subjects that need to be addressed like the military and and the needhat for help for veterans returning from war's, i do not think she should be paid. their job is to be the first lady, they should not work another job outside that. that should be enough to keep them busy. from our twitter firstlet us say the next lady is a brain surgeon. should we not allow her to work? the term is only for eight years. she could keep up with the
knowledge to be on top of things and continue her career when she is out of the white house. to do it while she is in the white house is a different matter. is tricia colin and from indiana. we have two other tweets coming in. and he is in tampa florida on our line for democrats. should the first lady work outside the white house? think it should be optional. i think it should be optional. i can see her influence in
policy. host: eddie in tampa, florida. if you want to see that interview with laura bush, it is .n our first lady program will stay on this subject with our viewers for the next half hour or so. we will get to the issue of the federal reserve. janet yellen is being sworn in today. she is the first woman to head the federal reserve. but it's happening this morning. i want to turn to the washington journal who has been covering the federal reserve. good morning. guest: good morning. host: when is this happening? guest: the swearing in ceremony
is at 9:00 a.m. of thethe members federal reserve board will be doing the swearing in. he has the longest tenure we are told. that is happening. you have a story in the wall street journal on the .ecision to try her agenda explain to us what you're talking about in the early agenda? looking at one of the biggest challenges on her plate as she takes over. she is trying to understand why the unemployment rate is falling as fast as it is. it was 6.7% in december. we get another jobs report on friday and it could fall farther.
it is not falling for the right reasons. people are struggling to understand if it is a healthy labor market, there are suspicions that things are going on that the labor market is not as healthy as 6.7% unemployment suggests. toy will eventually start raise short-term interest rates. labor market is getting better and they wait too long, you could have excessive inflation or financial bubbles. if they misread the situation and think things are not that rates, youhey raise can snuff out a recovery before it has taken hold. host: she is expected to give comments about short-term or
long-term outlooks for her job at the fed? guest: i don't believe so. i think the first time we will see what she has to say as the leader of the fed is going to be february 11. she will give testimony before the house financial services committee. this is a semiannual testimony that the fed general always gives. this is the first time that we know she will be publicly speaking. she will be grilled by members of congress. she was the number two at the federal reserve. how is that position being filled? guest: the president has nominated stanley fischer. he is the former hud central banker for israel.
he is the former number two person at the ins. experience inf central banking and international crisis management. the administration was very keen to have that on hand in case we had another international situation with the european crisis. they have been seeing a lot of turmoil in emerging markets. he is still awaiting a confirmation hearing date from the senate banking committee. host: last question, what is ben bernanke going to do now that he is out of the federal reserve? guest: he has not said exactly what he is going to do. we know that he is planning to stay around washington for the time being and write a book. beyond that, we are still
waiting to hear. victoria mcgrane is a wall street journal reporter. on theeciate you coming washington journal this morning. you can read her story in the washington journal. i appreciate it. guest: thank you so much. host: we have about 25 minutes discuss firsto lady's working outside the white house. do you think they should be able to work outside the white house? our phone lines are open. .epublicans are (202) 737-0001 democrats are (202) 737-0002. and dependence are (202) 628-0205. and if you are outside the united states (202) 628-0184. good morning.
i thank god for c-span. is the first lady should always support the president. the president has too many responsibilities as it is. of the president is $400,000 a year and that should suffice. president and his spouse have young children, those children need to be given the undivided attention from the spouse. but the president focus on the people's business. with the responsibilities of the first lady including , dog a campaign surrogate
you think the first lady should receive a salary for their work? caller: no. economy iswhen the in a draconian state at this time. in this age of austerity that we are experiencing, we must keep in mind that we must preserve as much as possible. itting back to the salary, is a generous salary of $400,000 a year. should suffice for the family to support them selves. that wery important focus meticulously on getting the economy turned around. advantageous for the spouse to have influence as well.
the president should always keep a group of individuals that are trustworthy and reliable to give them the facts. they should be the kind of experts that has the country in , the best possible outcome of this country because america is a great empire of modern time. we must maintain this empire at all costs. i am a vietnam era veteran. african-american and native american as well as talk asian american. host: colin from south carolina. joe biden, -- jill biden teaches she ismmunity college.
the first second lady to hold a paying job while her husband is the number two leader. this is in usa today. a few comments from facebook on this. keith is waiting in virginia on our line for independents. about the idea of the security cost of the first lady going to and from work. who would pay for that?
that should come out of the salary? it would come out of her salary and she would be paying to go to work. the idea of it is pointless. that is how i feel. or 20we have about 15 minutes left to discuss this topic on the washington journal. i want to show you some other headlines around the country. as our phone lines are open and available for you to call in on this topic. this is the front page of the usa today. to then rate falls lowest since 1973 is the headline.
house andat the white she should be paid for it. host: do you think she should have a job outside the white house during her time in washington? i think she should be paid for what she does for the president. paidnk she should be $300,000 a year or something like that. that is a fair salary for the first lady? caller: i think so. host: what if she has a job that pays more than that coming into the white house? should she set that aside? caller: i think so. yes. interest. conflict of
she would be working for someone else and if the bill came by that influenced that employer, -- theld have to president might be influenced to give a break to that company. joe called in from new mexico. our conversation continues on twitter. scott is waiting in illinois on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i think she should be able to work outside the house. host: why is that?
caller: i do not know. i think there is enough of people telling each other what they can or cannot do. people go after money anyway they can, what is wrong with the first lady working outside the white house? have brought up conflicts of interest or security costs. thoughts?our caller: my thoughts on that are it is a lady, she is not going to cause that much of a problem for our country. i don't see any problem with that at all. host: we are talking about the first lady and news from the president last night right before the super bowl. the president and o'reilly spar.
it was a pre-super bowl rumble. bit from theire exchange on fox last night. >> that is what they believe. becausebelieve that people like you are telling them that. we revealed to the american people exactly will be understood the time. that we would hide the ball for political purposes when a week later we all said there is a terrorist attack taking place, the day after i said it was an act of terror, that would not be a very good cover-up. president obama and bill o'reilly talking about benghazi. one other thing i want to note for you, this is from the washington post. the lead story in the washington that theyle found
house, we have elizabeth in pennsylvania on our republican line. your take on this question? caller: i think it is more complicated than what people are focusing on. -- to take to take the salary oftion first lady now. for $2ax returns were million with a went into the white house. they have already taken a salary cut just to take the job. that is absolutely correct. there are lives that people can save. are you going to take eight years out of that person's life? not do her orr to
his job? wife owns heinz ketchup. you have special time with your husband. he could be accused of listening to her. person who sent the e-mail about changing the constitution should read the constitution. i think you should let the people know and give them some the first about what lady are giving up now.
they have to have secret service wherever they go. they could kidnap the first lady and where would our president be? host: david is in portland, oregon on our democrat line. i have a follow-up from what was said a couple of conversations back. themately, i am paying first lady and i don't think it is a bad idea. i don't think it is a terribly good idea. president'suce the salary and pay it to the first lady. to whatit comes back the first gentleman said that it is a free country. why shoulds to work,
she not be allowed to do that? host: jim writes in on twitter. the last three first ladies of that advanced degrees. laura bush has a masters degree in library science. pat nixon was the first first lady who had an advanced degree. if you want to learn more about pat nexen or any of the first ladies, you can go to our first influence and image
section. you can watch that interview tonight with first lady laura p.m.tonight at 9:00 us go to jenny waiting in lancaster, ohio on our republican line. caller: good morning. i think the whole thing is silly. fors unconstitutional anybody to say she cannot work. if she wants to work, she can work. if it takes extra money, i am sure they have an eye on her now. it is silly. host: do you think there is a role that is expected of the first spouse? how do you break that mold if
there is? caller: i don't know. i like it better when they stay there and have the roles they have now. if they want to work, i have no right to keep them from doing that. that is all. this is after he waiting in pennsylvania. he is on our line for independents. caller: good morning. the first lady should work outside the white house. i don't think she get paid for what she does. we are in a deficit beyond belief. moreep providing protection for her would cost more money. if she were to get paid well in price of $300,000
like the previous gentleman said, who is going to pay for that. getsuch longer before she that for life added on to what the president gets? if the lawmakers were to read the constitution, a lot of laws that they pass would never even be introduced anywhere because they violate the constitution constantly. -- for theefore constitution. we need to play fair across the board. is going toesident spend monday lauding legislative strategy. he will meet with senate majority leader harry reid from nevada. they will meet to plan immigration to raising the debt ceiling.
let us go to pam in fort myers, florida on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to know when our country and our colors became green instead of red white and blue. i don't think anybody should be paid in congress or any other part. it should be a privilege to serve and she was doing just and with lane with the kids helping to get them to eat healthy.
if you took the money out of this, you might take some of the rats out of congress and the senate and the rest of the people. it shows you how ignorant some of these people really are and how far behind they are. they need to read the constitution. they need to understand what this country was founded on. to vote anymore. we have been talking about the president's schedule. he is speaking at the senate democrats retreat on wednesday. we will learn more about that as the week goes on. news, here'spolicy the front page of the new york times.
that is going to do it for our first 45 minutes. up next, we will be joined by fawn johnson of national journal to look at new immigration reform principles released last week. later we will talk about the affordable care act and a republican plan to replace it. we will be right back. >> consumers will live in the end. and bringl innovate new services and new pricing and new business models to consumers. the consumer will be the main beneficiary. >> they are the ones with the market power.
they have tremendous influence in washington to shape policy. the consumers are going to be the losers in this deal. that is why so many of them are speaking up and asking the fcc to move forward. >> the impact of the net neutrality rule on the communicators at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. it public affairs from washington to you. gavel-to-gavelte coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service a private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago. , like us onhd facebook, and follow us on twitter. washington journal continues. the deskare joined at
by fawn johnson to dive deeper into the migration principles released by the house republicans last week. before we get into the details, why is this document important in the larger push for immigration reform on capitol hill? guest: is a huge shift from the house republicans over the last several years. , he has frustrated me and others for several years in refusing to tip his hand in any way as to whether he is interested in doing anything on immigration. this is a major shift in terms of their -- of your speaker banner, four members of the it is a looks like tough one for them. it is a real minefield for them. this signifies a huge shift in their will in us to deal with what i think is the toughest issue that any politician deals
with. host: here is the one-page document. pieces of thatnt draft. first what was surprising to you? there was no surprise. in part because anybody who has been paying attention to the things that people who are involved in drafting and have been saying, it is included in this draft. it to start off with strong border security. republicans say that a lot. it is something we should do. it makes sense that would start with that. i did not see anything that talked about electronic verification of people who are being hired. that is a big deal in
enforcement. a verification system, but it does not spell out the details. there are some hard-core conservatives in the house who want all employers to be required to check verification of their new hires. that is a real issue for some employers, especially in agriculture. it is a give-and-take issue. if you come up with a way for there to be people here with legal status, then you can do electronic verification. they were very careful with their wording on that. making sure that they are leaving all the doors open for sensitive deals. host: how wide is the gap between this and the senate bill that we saw.
the senate bill was massive. i think you could take half of the senate bill and thrown away and it would be fine. it was part of the reason that it became as big as it did. they were trying to buy votes. it is a draft. it is a draft of principles. the senate bill has a clear path to citizenship. it is 13 years for 8 million people. 11 or 12there are million here now. this does not provide a clear path for anybody. it does suggest that certain people, and we don't know how , millions ofalify to not fear have being deported.
they could become citizens, but it is not a guarantee. that has caused some trouble for democrats. they don't want to see an underclass. this is a hard topic to deal with because the matter what you do, there are strange numbers of statuses. it starts with border security, then interior enforcement. that it has a visa tracking system and employment verification. there are legal immigration reforms. it talks about youth and individuals living outside the rule of law. they have talked about step-by-step approach to tackling this issue. is that the order in which they want to tackle this? it is in order in terms of how they would debated. it is also how they want the legislation and plummeted.
it is going to pass at once. they want a trigger. none of the legalization that they are asking for the undocumented population would go up in effect until they meet certain enforcement triggers. there are certain things they have to do first. that is a real important piece. the only trouble is there is no way to address each of those topics individually. verify is a perfect example. it requires give-and-take. when you change one aspect of the wall -- law, it affects everything else. you have to think about it as a giant rubik's cube. we have this piece, but this piece over here.
if they can put on the floor, it will happen in stages. it'll happen relatively weekly. host: phone lines are open if you have questions. fawn johnson is an image patient reform expert. republicans call at (202) 737-0001. democrats can call at (202) 737-0002. independents can call at (202) 628-0205. and if you are outside the united states you can call at (202) 628-0184. here is your story from last week. that one of the biggest issues with this release is that it gave room for republicans to be able to youuss immigration reform. bring up marco rubio. he is a perfect example. by the teaot slammed
party last year. he supported the senate bill. i talked to tea party people that say they will never trust a marco rubio again. he violated some tenet of what they believe. i talked to him a couple of days came out.s he was purposely willing to talk and say we did fix this. i wanted to do it one way. i wanted to do things piece by piece. i realized that was not possible. the house will also realize that as well. this is an important issue and we really need to do it right. passed insenate bill june of last year, he went
underground. the next time he emerged to is talking about poverty and inequality and economic issues. he was far away from immigration. -- any prizes it for participation in the senate bill. host: the principles that were released by the republicans last week flatly reject going to conference with the senate on their bill. guest: that dynamic is interesting. if the senate passes this big bill, they turn to the house and say we have something, now you do something. not just immigration, it has been everything. the rank-and-file members of the are why would we take some and you have done when we have our own process and our own issues to deal with?
what you are starting to see is taking 10 steps and we are not there yet. if the house can pass something that has all the elements that would make a comprehensive policy. then they have something they can talk to the senate about. i don't have to go to conference. there are members of the senate who sponsored that bill would be happy to go in rejigger some of the things they agreed to. congress -- conference says we will not take that bill and work it out. it does not mean they can't negotiate. members were asked about this on the sunday shows. paul ryan was asked on this week. >> here is the issue.
we're not trust the president to enforce the law. if you look at the standards they put out, it is security first. we have to secure the border. we need a verification system and a visa tracking program. those need to be individually verified before the rest of the law can occur. it is a security force, non-amnesty approach. then want to see us get into conference with the senate and compromise to about law. we won't let that happen. where itot an issue has some deadline behind it. this is a here are our standards and this is our approach. this is what we are willing to do. we will still debate in our caucus about that. we don't think we can allow this
border to be overrun. amnesty, that is a good approach. can you put some thing on the president's desk that he can sign? >> i don't know the answer to that. that is clearly in doubt. are going on if they to secure the border. it if the we might be able to get somewhere. ryan talking paul about the principles. he talked about the timing issue. is a: i feel like that point that i have heard over and over again. can it happen this year? any to talk about it this year. -- they need to talk about this year.
they need to do something about immigration before the next presidential election. they need to talk about it now because any people see it used to the issue. most rank-and-file members are not good with it. they need to get into the details about how they can talk about it in a way that makes them feel comfortable. if you look at paul ryan, he is an advocate of something copper hence of. force -- first. these are all true of the entire republican caucus. in au can talk about it way that can get policy done, everyone will feel more comfortable. the republicans are very afraid of this issue. there are people who've lost their seats on this issue in primaries.
they are waiting into difficult waters here. in the long great term, they do not want to see any victims coming out. they might actually get something done. you never know. canquestion of whether they get something this year is very premature. we will host: we start with bob from ohio on our line for republicans. caller: we have been through it before, and they are going to fix it. what i am worried about is they are going to pat themselves on and in about 6 years or 10 we will be right back at it again. -- whym saying is fix it,
do anything if they aren't quite to fix it and we will back here in 6 years? i mean, get serious, you know? i think something should be done but if they are just going to have themselves on the back and ,"y, "hey, we did a great job where are we at? host: fawn johnson? guest: i hate to say it but i couldn't agree more with this caller. one of the things i have heard that makes me a little nervous when i hear members of congress talk about this issue is that they want to fix it once and for all. . just don't see that happening the kinds of things they're talking about would make a huge defense in the country but they are not -- huge difference in the country. tomatter how much you try
shut down the border, the advocates of people who come in whatnot, you will still have an issue with immigration. a good analogy, perhaps one fraught with peril, is with the president's health-care law. the id on that was to cover .verybody -- the idea on that was to cover everybody. there are lots of people not covered. --sn't fix the problem? doesn't fix the problem? no. same thing with immigration. it is a solution for some people but not for everybody. some of the things they're talking about, like the entry exit visa system, checking people when they leave the country, that has been on the table for a long time. it has happened -- it hasn't
happened in part because it is a lot of money. the caller is right. whether that kind of skepticism is going to sink the bill, i don't know. host: brought up securing the borders several times. vivienne on twitter asks guest: say that question again. host: do we know how many illegal aliens come across the border every year that are not secured? statistics on people coming across the border are really hard to verify, because the way that we know them is by the ones who are actually apprehended. it is a little strange could i ask or don't have the figures on the top of my head. at certain points it has been roughly 400,000 a year. my think my understanding is
that it has dropped in recent years because of the economy. the other thing to remember is that from the current undocumented population we have, 40% of them are here because they came in legally, which means they had some sort of visa , like a tourist visa or something. often it means you just stay longer than you were supposed to. about peoplelking who come in over the border illegally, that is not all of them who wind up being here without their papers. ursa on our line for democrats. you are on with fawn johnson of "national journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. to me it says nothing for the american people. it brings in tens of thousands of more immigrants a year. in this economy, why do we need to bring in more low skilled and high skilled workers when
americans need jobs? 25 million, $25 billion -- who is going to pay for that? host: ursa, you are talking about the senate bill? caller: to me, lobbyists, they write these bills. ryan's congress district. when i called them -- to me it seems like they don't even know what is in these bills. bill, the senate bill, cost $25 billion. taxpayers, we are the ones who have to pay for that. that the illegal immigrants have to pay, a lot of them get waivers. to me it seems like they have to pay back taxes and like, when your guest says there's only 8 million -- i don't know how many -- it is more like 50 million illegal immigrants.
she said she didn't know how many came across the border. the real amount is between 30 million and 50 million illegals. host: fawn johnson, he won a jump in here? -- you want to jump in here? guest: here is what we know about the population. -- caller is right about the the pew research center is done research on this. to 12 billion here in some sort of undocumented status. the congressional budget office looked at the senate bill, which is nice because we have actual legislative language, so we can parse it out, and says that under the senate bill, 8 million of the 11-12,000,000 who are here would be eligible to have some sort of citizenship, would be eligible to make it through earned citizenship path that they said forward. when it comes to the house, we don't really know because all we
have is a one-page draft of principle where there is a lot of squishy language. there has been some research -- someone who works for spencer abraham, a senator, is an expert in immigration and did a study about a month ago when he was looking at, ok, if we take the parameters that some of the members of congress are talking about, he estimates that anywhere between 4.5 million and 6.5 million would be eligible for some sort of citizenship under the construct the republicans are dealing with. this would mean -- host: potential house approach? we have some numbers we are showing on that. guest: he is a researcher and spends a lot of time looking at this. it is an interesting study because we have very little to go on. let's say that you -- i met
you cameke this -- here illegally when you were a teenager working at a restaurant and you have been here at 10, 15 years, working at restaurants -- a place that has a lot of undocumented immigrants. things that house republicans are talking about, you could come forward and receive some sort of stamp that legally, i work here can get a drivers license, travel outside the country." that is huge for somebody who has been here a while on undocumented status. let's say you meet a nice girl, she is a citizen, you get married. under the current law, you could get a green card if she sponsors you within a 6 funds. there is no limit, nothing that stops you from -- stop that from happening. this is the kind of thing that house republicans are talking about, basically saying that we will remove the ability for you to be deported.
you don't have to be afraid and don't have to be exploited and you can work legally and our employers don't have to worry about getting fined by employing you. but we are not going to give you anything special. you have to get your citizenship through whatever paths there are. you can do it through a spouse. if you have children, a lot of people have been here long enough that they have to is -- they have a u.s. citizen children and the children as soon as they are 21 can sponsor you. or you can have your employer sponsor you. host: how long can they wait before taking one of those patents? -- paths? guest: i think -- host: details need to be worked out. guest: they can be here indefinitely just under this stamp that says i'm here, i can work. there are some people who find that to be a little upsetting, but when i talk to undocumented immigrants from that is really all they want.
get aea of being able to drivers license or not having to worry about being pulled over if you are driving without a license is amazing to them. a few tweets on our twitter page. guest: i mean, those are both very good points. one of the things i've been really fascinated with and talking to republicans in congress is they say they don't trust the president to enforce the law, but that they are very quick to say "we don't trust any president to enforce immigration laws." enforcing immigration law is really hard. it costs a lot of money and takes a lot of effort. it is not unlike the war on drugs were they just keep coming
and you just keep battling them. it is a difficult thing to do and there are political forces that some ofther the laws on immigration not be enforced. it is a dynamic that extends beyond president obama, it extends beyond the entire irradiation. -- the entire history of the issue. republicans are trying to come up with a way that the president is trying to enforce the laws. down the line, one of the things -- i hear this more from republicans than democrats, but they want a system less waste on family and more based on merit -- less based on family and more days on merit. under the current law if you have a citizen child or spouse, you can sponsor them for a green card and there is no limit to that. that is more than half of the green cards given under the current system. any other kinds of green cards that come through the
employment-based system, there is a hard cap on them, meaning that once you hit a certain limit you can go farther. there was movement afoot and it is very touchy and difficult to do, but there is a movement afoot to try to shift that a little bit more so that it is less family-based and more merit-based grid but you can expect a lot of backlash from democrats and african-americans on that one. also democrats are reacting to the document released by house republicans. he was congressman zoe lofgren -- here is commerce and zoe lofgren out of california. host: releasing her statement and comments on twitter. ,im is waiting in prescott arizona, on our line for independents. caller: good morning, and it is prescott, arkansas. thank you for taking my call. i'm against legalization or a
path to citizenship. i know for a fact -- i have worked in factories my whole life, and i know for a fact that these people that get these good being -- good paying jobs of these factories, when immigration calls, they send the illegals home for a weekend in the, can have a different name. -- for a week and then they come differenthey have a name. our economy so bad at this time that we cannot afford to give these jobs to people who are breaking our laws. i do feel sorry for these people. somehow i wish that we could moretheir country financially so that they won't have to come into the united states illegally all the time. aid frome foreign countries that hate us and want to kill us and give to these poor people that are suffering
so badly that they have to leave their homes and families. but i definitely leave that it is wrong to the the lawbreakers come in and take jobs from us who need them so, so very badly -- guest: well, let me ask you, you say you work in factories or whole life. do you know -- are there jobs -- are those jobs that your american friends would do? caller: excuse me? guest: are those jobs that your american friends would do, the factory jobs you are describing? caller: that we would do? in this part of the country we would do just about any job. there's just not a lot of work here. we just desperately needed jobs. and i don't understand how these employers are getting away with doing this. host: fawn johnson? guest: i mean, the caller makes a very good point, and this is something that i feel like the
republicans in the house have a notty good argument for doing anything involving legalization when the economy is as it is. one thing that the business community has proposed for years is to have a fluctuating number of immigrants that could come in to do work based on the economy. it is a great idea. the only problem is that it is difficult to figure out how to put it together so that it doesn't have winners and losers. the kind of anakin is you need would be forward thinking and not backward thinking. -- the kind you would need would be forward thinking and not backward thinking. youidea should be that shouldn't be allowing a bunch of
people from other countries to come in and take jobs when the employment rate is -- the unemployment rate is too high. this is something that might be coming down the road. at this point when you are hearing house republicans say is that they are not really talking so much about the future flow of immigrants, so the people who would be coming in under some kind of work visa -- they realize the economy is still recovering there are still jobs that employers say they cannot find american workers to do. i believe them. i also believe the caller -- that some of those jobs to be filled by americans, but i've talked to some of these people, industry,ly in the ag and they need that immigrant labor whether it is legal or illegal. it is a real basic problem. -- a real dicey problem. host:. steve king -- here is steve king, republican from iowa.
host: how much pushback is john boehner going to get from inside his party caucus? guest: that is the $10 million question. steve king is very clear on his point of view. he could well be right. but we just don't know, which is one of the reasons why this particular next six months is so interesting. he does not believe what republican strategists say, that you need the hispanic vote for the republican party to survive. he believes that any hispanics that are out there are probably going to vote democrat in a matter what your -- going to vote democrat no matter what. he thinks you are flouting the base, like our caller from arkansas, we said that we don't want to see this happen. is thing about steve king
that it is not entirely clear how many people actually believe him and the hard-core conservative -- the republican study committee, about 70 members. a lot of these guys spend time thinking about things other than immigration. they're looking at government spending, very hard-core in terms of the debt ceiling. they have not delved in on immigration like steve king as. -- has. how many people are going to follow in his footsteps and vote against anything because they think it will only lead to amnesty? there could be 20, there could be 70. one of the places i will be spending my time focusing on the next couple of weeks is that i will see which members of congress have not -- what members of congress who have not been outspoken on immigration will say going forward. it could be a minority of people who are very upset but in the end it lose, or could be half the caucus. we just don't know.
host: dorothy is waiting in jasper, texas, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, you are on with fawn johnson. caller: yes, hi. decemberxico back in kind of take this whole issue off the table by signing an oil that will allow international exploration of their waters? host: dorothy, how does that take issue off the table? explain what you mean a little bit more. caller: it is the first time in years that mexico is considered allowing the u.s. and other buy oils do -- to from them. we are geared up for it year in southeast texas. it just occurs to me that this
-- this is aate to little late. this is all about votes. this is 2014. this is going to be the last , we ever see it again, i'm sure of it, because of mexico, what they did in december last year. host: fawn johnson, all about votes? guest: that's possible. i confess i'm not entirely sure what the caller is talking about because i'm not an energy reporter. certainly if mexico was able to help its economy in some ways, that might mean that fewer people are coming across the .order whether it is about votes, it yeah, i do agree with that, because there was a large contingent of hispanics and that voting block is owing -- only going to get bigger and they would like to see their undocumented friends and relatives have some form of legal status.
ring filegoes to bo clerk's question on twitter. guest: never say never but i find i am right more often when i say no than yes. this is such a difficult issue. i commend the house republicans g into it because it is fraught with peril and --y have nothing but praise nothing but grief waiting in their path. if the house republicans are able to come up with a package that democrats can deal with, something like zoe lofgren et youalifornia, whose twe read earlier, can sign off on, and it is tha -- and if a majority of house republicans go
along with it, that is huge momentum and it will be hard not to keep that going. it will put a lot of pressure on the senate. it is possible we could see something happen. it is a lot more likely they will stumble on one of the little topics that they're talking about and spent a lot of time talking about it and then we will come back next year. gary says on twitter in glenvid is waiting cove, new york, on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a couple of observations and maybe a question. immigration has touched so much of everything from the economy to john stewart motions to votes to how people jobs toconomy to emotions to votes to help people keep their seats. this will not work out well when people think in those lines,
because it is not going to help immigrants, it is not going to help the economy. a lot of immigrants that are in low-paying jobs or eligible for food stamps, they also scam the system. the taxpayers pick that up. there are legitimate people who don't make enough money. but if you are working off the books, you can say you make no money. if you are a dishwasher, that is basically what happened is basically what can happen. i have seen it happen. i think there's a lot of people, too, who come across the airports and get a visa and stay longer than their visa and we have people to take those people to make sure that they either get another stint or that they leave. this is an something medically wrong -- this isn't something politically wrong in my observation. this is however country works -- this is how every country works.
they have customs and you have to adhere to the laws. -- you have to adhere to the laws when you visit another country. the people crossing the border are doing it for many different reasons -- for drug smuggling, sex trade, possibly terrorist cells. we don't know. host: all right, fawn johnson. guest: let's be clear on a couple of things. -- his the caller observation that this is affecting everything is, i mean, it is very clear it is why it is so tough. anybody who is in the country without papers is not eligible for footsteps or medicare or any other kinds of things you see. the one place where there are some taxpayer dollars going towards illegal immigrants would be in emergency rooms, and hospitals, because folks can't get turned away. but it is true that if you're here in undocumented status, if you are a legal immigrant, you are low-income, there are some benefits to qualify for.
not all of them, but some. the other thing i want to make clear is that as much as we would like to say that there is a solid entry system when it comes to the visas, there is not. it is almost egregious that this hasn't happened. this is a recommendation from the 9/11 commission, the people who have the visas leave the country are stamped undocumented . that is not happening now and it is not that hard to document someone comes into the country with a visa. it is something that needs to be done and there are a lot of different ways you can do it in ports of entry imports of exit. it just hasn't happened. the thing i find interesting about that is that there is a lot of simple stuff that we deal with when it comes to people coming in and out of the country that hasn't been published -- that hasn't been accomplished. the american people don't know it is not all been fixed like that, even things you think
would be. we have been talking about congressional reaction. i want to talk about reaction from the white house to this plan by house republicans. they came out after the president's restatement after the state of the union -- -- brief statement after the state of the union -- guest: deliberately brief. said we want to give people a path to citizenship -- i can't remember if he said "guaranteed" or not. he wanted republicans to talk about it and he said that they get angry and stop, and in this instance he has been very encouraging. it is something he has said he has wanted to do from the beginning of his administration. but this is one of those issues that, unlike health care, you can't do without republicans.
i think he is happy to see them talking. and by request for members of his own party, the more he waits in and applauds, the harder it is for publicans to do their work because a lot of their constituents, quite correctly, really hate president obama -- a lot of their constituents, quite frankly, really hate president obama. it is a tough issue for the president. he has to be very careful. host: also, talking about a video chat on friday, he made the statement that the devil is in the details. guest: right. meaning that they will look through and make sure that there is nothing that is put into this kind of legislation that would hamper their goal, which is to take this vast loss of undocumented people that have done nothing other than be here without papers and be there some sort of legal status. one thing i find inch thing
about this is that this is the same dynamic that took place in 1986 when president reagan signed legislation to give amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. that was around almost five years, basically since the beginning of is an administration grid they spent a lot of time going back and forth with advocates to make sure there was nothing that could stop a certain number of them from getting amnesty. the same dynamic is playing out here. wes is waiting on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: to me, this whole immigration issue oil down to 2 issues come cheap labor and cheap folks. there are 4 issues that are important. .he first is jobs the second is that adding millions of people to the workforce is going to exacerbate unemployment and going to further worsen the wage stagnation, the president has talked about this, and yet he wants to add millions of people
to the labor force. another issue is not being addressed is the technology issues. anybody, at least around here, who has been to the grocery store has seen that we are now having these automated checkout lines and things, and i think that -- i read a couple books on this -- we are actually in the cusp overhaul robotics revolution in automation, and it is happening throughout the -- excuse me, i'm sorry, little nervous -- this is going to illuminate jobs. -- eliminate jobs. if it happens, we are going to create a massive unemployment problem 10 or 15 years down the road could what we really should be doing is thinking smart and saying, look, we are going to have this revolution in technology and we really need to only bring in people who can fit the future paradigm of the economy, not millions of people
who will be able to find employment. let fawnm going to johnson jump in and give her a chance to respond in the segment. guest: the problems of our country laid out before us by our caller. they are very solid points that he makes. we going to watch as through this is the conversation with thet happens economy and the labor force. there are a lot of service sector and kind of labor type jobs, manual labor, construction, hospitality , and agriculture, that need migrant labor, essentially. that is what they are saying. i agree with them. we know that there is a big boom in technology, a lot of change
going on, which means there are a lot of people who have lost their jobs. we are trying to insert an immigration system that affects the economy but also affects other aspects of our lives. the conversation is useful. i think the republicans are doing a very good job of keeping implement aspects in the back of everyone -- keeping the implement aspects in the back of everyone's mind when they talk about the number of people they are trying to bring in. and the people who are already here, they are ready have jobs, so some of the stuff the caller is talking about is a little down the road, but certainly on everyone's mine who is paying attention. host: fawn johnson of "national journal." we appreciate you coming in to talk about this subject with us. guest: love being here. host: up next, louise radnofsky of "the wall street journal was put talks about the affordable care act and the republican plan seeking to replace the law. later, in our weekly your money segment, nuclear weapons material and facilities.
but first, a news update from c-span radio. this hour.itics maryland democratic governor martin o'malley says he is preparing for a possible run for president, telling "the washington post goes with any telling "the washington post" that he can't wait for hillary clinton to announce she will run in 2016. he needs the groundwork for a national campaign. the governor reported raising $2 million last year with his political action committee. he won't say when he will decide on whether to launch a white house bid. agencyional security spying has triggered a legal action in germany. our group of german computer hackers -- a group of german computer hackers and human rights campaigners are suing the government for allegedly breaking the law by aiding foreign spies per submitted a criminal complaint to prosecutors who have been discussing for months whether to open an investigation into the
activities. president obama is set to meet with senate majority leader harry reid at the oval office. the details were not immediately available but it comes less than a week after senator reed expressed his opposition to fast-track trade promotion authority that president obama has pushed congress to enact. the senate finance committee chairman max baucus and senator orrin hatch have sponsored legislation in the senate, the id says heeader re won't guarantee full time for the proposal. we will learn more about this meeting later today when the secretary jay carney -- press secretary jay carney reeser reporters at the white house. c-span is covering the event. those are some the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i was in a car wreck that i wrote about extensively in my book. the whole time i was in the hospital, not injured really -- i had a cut on my leg and a broken ankle -- i was praying that the other person in the car would be ok, and that -- and the
other person in the car was one of my best friends. which i didn't know, i didn't really recognize that at the site of the crash but i think that because i prayed over and over and over for him to be ok and he wasn't, i thought that was not listening, my prayer wasn't answered. i went through a long time of not believing and not believing that prayers could be answered i didn't need a lot of time and growing up to come back to face -- i did need a lot of time and growing up to come back to faith. ,> first lady laura bush tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. with the interview first lady in dallas at 10:30. journal"ll street
health care policy reporter louise radnofsky talks about an effort by republicans to replace the affordable care act. who is behind this proposal and how it is -- how is it different from others offered by congressional republicans? guest: over on the senate side, senators tom coburn and orrin hatch and richard byrd say they to startueprint conversation particularly among senate republicans. on the house side, there have been repeal and replace measures floated. what they did have was dozens of for placement ideas, none of which i've really got a consensus among the caucus around that -- none of which have really got a consensus in the caucus around them. the senate is kickstarting a debate which means there could be one gop repeal and replacement plan. the affordability and responsibility empowering act. this looks to keep several
inponents of obamacare existence after it goes through. what is in and what is out? guest: it does. it feels a lot at least at first you like the federal health law. fe crafters at sunset and immediately try to tell people what is different about it. continue subsidies for people to buy private insurance. have adoesn't requirement for individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty, he doesn't have a requirement that employers offer insurance or pay a penalty, which are forral t -- 2 key revisions of the affordable care act. a large number of people getting coverage. it doesn't have explicit requirements that insurance
companies have everybody regrows of medical history and price the coverage -- regardless of medical history and price the coverage the same. after a one-time enrollment period, as long as they keep coverage, that is the real incentive to do it, then they will continue to offer what they are getting. what it is not an explicit requirement on companies to do not an expose is a requirement on companies to do that and some people say that might be inadequate. host: what is out in terms of obamacare? you talk a little bit about it. how are republican selling this to their colleagues? three republican senators .ropose this it isn't as obvious as it might seem. there's certainly been a lot of political thinking in particular that once republicans offer and here the specific ideas, the
opposition can shift to everything that is wrong with that. it is not an unreasonable thing to want to do but the political balance is whether they want to continue to be attacked by the president, for example, for not having alternative ideas, or if they want to start a debate around the ideas they have. host: this came out right before the president costs did of the union address. here is what he said about the publicans attacking the formal care act. [video clip] i know the american people are not interested in refighting old battles. if you have specific plans to cut costs, cover more people, increased choice, tell america what you would do differently. let's see if the numbers add up. but let's not have another 40-something votes to repeal a law that is already helping millions of americans like amanda. host: president obama and his
state of the union address last week. we are talking about this new proposal by a trio of republican senators to repeal and replace obamacare. louise radnofsky joins us from "the wall street journal." we are taking your comments and questions on the phone lines are open. ms. radnofsky, as folks are dialing in, so much -- how much momentum has this plan gotten in the past week? guest: right now the focus has been on the state of the union and a quiet time to roll it out but as you said, perhaps intended to preempt the president and what he would like to say. house republicans at their retreat asked week were throwing out some ideas for what they might be putting on the table in replacement vision of
their own. not a lot of detail about that that it intends, by the sound of it, to involve the things we heard about -- malpractice reform, selling across state lines, savings accounts, and that sort of thing. some of them might be fleshed out in more detail and some of them might be fought over. host: this proposal from a trio for public and senators was the subject of a lead editorial in "the new york times" over the weekend. fallsn called a milestone far short of what the health-care law already provides," is with the editorial board of "the new york times" writes. to insurance companies and insurance commissioners who have based plans on existing lines been substantial money carrying them out. instead of trying to replace the health reform law with an inferior version, the publicans
should work to meet the current law better, perhaps by encouraging more states to expand medicaid programs and intensify and reach to the the editorial board of "the new york times." jim is in akron, ohio, on our line for democrats. caller: hi, how are you doing this morning? host: good. your thoughts on the plan from these republican senators? caller: the problem i see is getting people to enroll. how are they going to get enough enrollees if it is not mandatory to pay for the folks who have the medical problems? i don't see how it would work if it isn't mandatory. host: louise radnofsky, they talk about this in the proposal. guest: the argument is that without being excluded based on
existing conditions, everybody might want to come in and might need to be on the safe side and this is a great opportunity to do it. the intended coverage benefit is intended to take place at the mandate. there is a robust debate over which is more effective. the requirement that people have coverage or pay penalty is relatively low in the initial year, which also has some people wondering that it might not be a sufficient incentive. there is a lot of conversation about incentives. both plans do seem to at least acknowledge that at some point if you're going to require insurance companies to take everybody, it is something you have to do to balance it out. under the senators plan, if you don't have continuous coverage, your rates can go up as determined by insurance companies. guest: and you might continue to au --nsured, too, the the other sort of effect that
the health care act was intended to avoid. host: a break in your coverage? guest: they might be able to exclude you from are choosing altogether. host: the patient choice affordability, responsibility, and empowerment act was rolled out last week. john is waiting in michigan on our line for independents. john, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. host: go ahead. you are on "washington journal," john. caller: for the first time they say the affordable care act is not working, for the first time in 23 years, i've finally have health care. because i am a senior citizen, and it cost me $10 a month and then i have got to pay the taxes on it, is not much. it is law. i don't believe for a minute is going to stay that low. i had hoped to buy into medicare early. it doesn't matter.
i finally have health care. i had a white the died of cancer about five years ago -- i had a wife who died of cancer about five years ago. we didn't have health insurance. it was an absolute nightmare. repealing this law is not an option. it is something -- health is no good if it is not affordable. at this point, instead of for killing the law, we need to do -- hospitals are charging way too much, the doctors are charging way too much. we need to get our costs contained and then i think we will be in good shape. i will take your answer off-line. host: ms. radnofsky, any thoughts on his comments? guest: well, there seem to be 2 different ideas between democrats and republicans about what to do about the law. the president says that if you have ideas, make it better. the republicans are proposing essentially to rip out huge parts of it and start again.
it isn't tinkering at the edges so much as going and key provisions and reconstructing them. it sounds as though the caller from michigan has been one of the beneficiaries of the law, and basically because older people, it will nearing medicare age but not yet 65 and eligible probably gain the most of anybody from the age rating requirements of the health law, that the companies cannot charge older people three times as much as they charge younger people. the publicans would allow -- republicans would allow them to set their own -- many states have a five to one. it has been a big benefit for some people who are coming up to that age but are still in the private insurance markets trying to navigate it. burr-coburn-hatch bill, how do they propose paying for the changes? guest: that is a good question. host: they zero out the taxes in obamacare. guest: they pretty much zero
although taxes and are pleased with that is one of the planks. it goes through all the unpopular stuff -- taxes and mandates. what they proposed is potentially very unpopular. they want to put a tax on the mark spencer plans -- on the more expensive plans that millions in the market who are getting insurance from their employer pay. it would be a surcharge of 35% of the cost of the plan deemed to be about average. what is interesting -- host: the cost of what the employer is paying? guest: the premiums overall for the plan. as your viewers probably know, employers to pay a large portion of premiums for most people to get their insurance on the job. host: they think they can make enough doing that to make up for what is lost in the taxes under obama care? guest: right, and if they were to make enough doing that they
would be affecting a large number of people. it doesn't affect a large number of people because it has the desired effect of bringing down premiums and encouraging everybody to go to their employer and saying "you need to give me cheaper health insurance ," and still producers serious subsidies, although not as generous as the ones under the health care law in effect. host: mississippi, our line for democrats. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: good, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. your previous guest on the air was saying that they hated obama so if obama take care of some of the -- he agree to some of the proposals that the republicans put into play, do you think they would still put those plans in place because obama agreed to it? thank you. host: comments from mississippi. a little bit on that subject,
are there any pieces of this hatch act received well by democrats or the white house? are they willing to work on any aspect of it? guest: there are pieces of key parts of the health law, to delete provisions like a lemming children of an old age -- up to age 26 to say under pressure to stay on their parents plan. republicans want removed certain things and democrats say that if you do that you will remove the rest of the law and this is, for -- this has come up in budget .egotiations another way of adjusting between insurance companies. democrats cds as nonstarters and they are relatively small parts of the laws of there's not a lot of room for agreement.
host: let's go to our republican line. and he is witty can help me, louisiana. albany, is waiting in louisiana. caller: good morning. we realize that after his way out of line but you know there are a lot of clinics and doctors who want to go back to the old where the costs are significant to cheaper. there has to be a reason, and i think the reason is the government involved in that market, that he keeps pushing the prices up. one other point i wanted to make. the fact that that man who said that his wife had cancer -- i was really sympathetic to that because my daughter-in-law had breast cancer and while she was having treatment, the lady sitting next to her, she was in her 70's and she was on medicare and she was denied treatment because she had a type of cancer that she said -- they said was and in five years she
probably wouldn't recover and it would come back. medicare wouldn't pay for it. she had to put a mortgage on her pay for it.to if they are making decisions like that for medicare, don't you think they're going to be making decisions like that for the affordable health care act that some of us are going to get treatment and some of us aren't? host: louise radnofsky? guest: it is helpful to think about the payers in health care being 3 organizations. one is the government, one is private insurance company, one is individuals. when individuals are paying on their own they are able to negotiate prices with their providers more directly and sometimes they are on the hook for very inflated costs and they find it difficult to pay them. it is a big debate about whether the government or private company's do a better job of driving down prices that they pay for health care and of other kinds of decisions that they make on behalf of patients and
what they think is effective. i think there are a number of people out there who think that the decisions of private insurance companies made on their behalf are once they disagree with and there's no shortage of people who think that the government's decisions on what they will and won't pay for on medicare, how much they will pay -- certainly the physicians have a robust debate around that -- it is very much an issue, too. again, it is the sort of thing that you can expect to hear more conversation about. the plans being sold through insurance exchanges under the federal health law are privately administered so that in that case it is more the insurance company making the decisions. "the louise radnofsky of wall street journal" is here to ch-coburnthis burr-hat proposal. "the new york times" was very critical of the proposal. "the weekly standard" was very supportive of the plan. here is a bit of what "the
weekly standard" had to say. "polls continue to show that far more americans disapprove of obama care than approve of it. but that does not mean americans want to go back to the pre-obamacare status quo. what the public wants is real reform, the kind that washes all the public and have been present for many years in american health care, without the baggage of obamacare. burn-hatch plan demonstrates conclusively that such a plan exists and could be passed by commerce under the political circumstances. getting the word out about this realistic plan to save the country from obamacare might be the most important thing conservatives to do in the 2014 election cycle." how much this is your become part of the midterm elections -- is this issue become part of the midterm elections? guest: the polling on obamacare is interesting. a majority said they don't like it and a majority say they disapprove of republican plans
to repeal it, which is why the president talks over and over again about republicans having 40-plus votes. most want republicans to work constructively to fix it. what that means is that the alternative proposals, minor tweaks, the 2014 elections could flesh out. i think the proposers of the senate idea in particular are not necessarily seeing it as something that would be in effect after 2014. the elections are over and they realize that the occupant of the white house is likely to be somebody else and they might think of it as 2016 or thereafter. they're putting an idea of the table -- on the table that is more designed to make sure that republicans are involved in the debate. that debate continuing on sunday shows yesterday. house majority leader eric cantor was on cbs' "face the nation" and he talked about the republican plan. here's what he had to say.
[video clip] >> that is what we talked about this week on our retreat. i believe firmly we will have a vote on alternative for health care system that works. i believe you will have it this year. we will have it this year. major, is that obama care is on on borrowed time. >> no more repeal votes? >> obamacare is on borrowed time. we want health care system that works for all americans. we have a proposal -- the president continues to say we didn't have solutions. we put a solution forward in 2009 when obamacare was passed. any of the provisions in that proposal will be in our proposal going forward -- many of the provisions in that proposal will be in our proposal going forward. >> when will we see it? >> first of all, let me talk about what is in it. those going to deal with pre-existing conditions. we don't want them to go without coverage. we just deal with it in a way that provides high risk pools so that we can limit the increasing
costs for everybody else and do it in a much more cost-effective manner. we say that folks on a half a choice of their -- ought to have a choice of their entrance committees and let them bridges across state lines and help bring out prices. we ought to have patient -centered care, not care dictated by washington, which is why we want to promote health savings accounts. these are the kinds of things in our proposal. host: louise radnofsky of "the ,"all street journal eric cantor talking about the discussions of the republican retreat last week, different from the proposal by the three senators. guest: he is talking about several things already in effect and what he would want to do with them. high-risk pools are the sort of things that long exist in many states. some states are running them down now. they cover people who are basically considered to be uninsurable through the private market. there is a federal program being extended partially machination of the difficulties the insurance exchanges had when
they were rolling out. they want to keep them going and the way that would work would depend on what else the landscape was, if we are talking about a variation on legislation that democrats have passed, or in some new vision. republicans have essentially written up and started from scratch. host -- ripped it up and started from scratch. host: richard is waiting in florida on our line for independents. caller: i'm so happy you have ms. radnofsky on this money could i would ask her, number one, if she is aware that every health insurance company in the united states enjoys exemption from antitrust regulations, and , she canr her contacts make inquiries, because despite my written inquiries to my congressman and senator marco, it is amazing to me -- how can they talk about competition without all the insurance companies losing this exemption
from antitrust? it has nothing to do with best practices. it has to do with the ceo of the company a calls the ceo of "hey, how much are you charging for mri these days?" you cannot have the competition without the repeal of this exemption for antitrust. i hope the reporter will take this to people in congress and get a direct response. they won't even address -- because if you write them they won't even address it and i think it has to do with the insurance lobby that provides people a lot of money. the democrats won't touch this. that is why i am putting this on republicans and she is talking about a proposal from republicans in the u.s. senate. i hope she will address that with someone and maybe we will get a response. -- i willse radnofsky let louise radnofsky jump in, richard. into: i would have to look the antitrust aspect in a little
bit more detail but i'm glad you brought it up. we're talking about competition among health insurance companies and there is a couple of different things going on. one is the prices they're willing to pay for certain products. it is somewhat shrouded in secrecy. what is someone interesting is that it makes the prices they charge consumers in premiums more transparent. everybody is going to be saying that -- paying the same price based on their age and where they live rather than these other things that you couldn't note. you can stack prices of against each other more clearly than you could before, like e-health, because you did not know that everybody could buy the product they're pretty will be interesting to see what happens when insurance to be going forward. supporters of the law say that in effect that will drive down prices. insurance committees have been all over the map. some of them have been aggressively low with premiums designed to bring in people, and some of them have been betting they will not get as many healthy people as they thought.
what will -- what we will see in the next few years is you is right in those -- who was right in those bets. the dynamic of competition among insurance committees is certainly changing and we will look into what indicates that. host: ted in new york, new york on outline for rugrats -- on our line for democrats. caller: good money, and thank you for c-span. that caller with that statement about the antitrust was very interesting to me. i would love to know more about it on c-span at some point in the future. you played eric cantor. he is -- if he is not one of the most disingenuous members of congress -- the democrats wanted this copper of buying across state lines and the republicans blocked it. to beats wanted medicare able to bargain for the cost of pharmaceutical drugs.
republicans blocked it. now all of a sudden they are the good guys. i'm easily was able to get obamacare -- i recently was able to get obamacare. i know it is the afford will care act. -- it took a couple of weeks of doing. eligible for any subsidy. the a fortune of money -- earn a fortune of money. i just squeaked by. i bought a very good plan for myself, $600 per month. i consider that a lot of money every month. prior to the affordable care act, that same policy was $1000 per month for an individual.
it you are a republican or democrat, if you will burn less than $46,000 per year as an , youidual, which i don't would be eligible for a subsidy. arelieve the numbers $90,000 or year or less for a married couple. obamacare worked for me. you wrote down quite a bit during his phone call. i will let you jump in. great to hear and are certainly a large number of people who have benefited in -- -- there are a certainly there are certainly a large number of people who have benefited. something that $600 is going to
be -- something like $600 is going to be much better. where $600 is a significant increase. they were known by their insurance company to be a very good that. the increase is obviously a personal hit. there is a broader conversation about whether any of that was there to start with and what should be the case and if other people should be given a break on their insurance premium based on their luck or personal responsibility and having good health. interesting debate. now the insurance exchanges are working. we have seen people with a positive affect and negative affect. several comments on our twitter page.
ron writes -- guest: that gets back to this idea that some people were able to get coverage that works for them because they were very healthy and did not need much. they are being charged essentially because they are subsidizing the risk of other people. they are subsidizing the risk of the unknown or because they are paying for things like maternity coverage. there is a big shift in the way insurance is being seen now. insurance stopped being a thing where you think you are able to
.et away with very little the would take a while to shake out but certainly it is what people are starting to see. people are starting to ask why am i paying for a subsidies benefit, i did not need that butuse i only got insurance there's needs that. -- i did not need that. i only got insurance because i was worried i would be in a car accident. caller: this is so complicated to be convoluted as unintelligible to the average individual. the only outcome seems to be ing a safe population to the companies. the only outcome is to put off
what is absolutely necessary, which is national healthcare. in the final analysis people are going to say we couldn't even do it with obamacare. we are the only civilized nation in the world that does not have a national healthcare program. weighingtch mothers whether they are going to pay for the rent or buy food for their children versus taking the child to the doctor, it is absolutely unacceptable. my partner looked into the for obamacare, 600 dollars per month. she makes $10,000 per year. that is unacceptable. on a fallacious const -- concepts, all the young people are going to pay for this.
it seems to me this has been a lie on the beginning from both the republican and democratic side. the idea of national health insurance and where that might be. guest: we certainly have a hybrid health policy proposal that tries to marry the government paying for some health insurance for some people , employers paying for some coverage for some people. there are certainly supporters out there of the idea that the government should pay for everything. there are people on the other end of the spectrum who believed enterprises or individuals should pay for absolutely everything. they are both two competing visions that do not meet in the middle.
it is one of the factors that makes it exceedingly complicated we have 10 minutes radnofsky.adlofouise this proposal was put on table -- on the table by a trio of republican senators. go to daryl waiting in birmingham, alabama on our line for democrats. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am disappointed conservatives and republicans did not address health care themselves severally years ago. now we are going to pay for it. one of the problems in our communication is our language. we just heard "the government pays." the government never pays for
anything. they take our money and use it. this is one of the way democrats and liberals are able to hack themselves on the back end project is that to pat themselves on the back and project themselves as -- able to pat themselves on the back and generous.emselves as health care and health insurance are not the same thing. we use the language on the show. everyone in britain has health insurance. their care is rationed. friends in britain can't just go to the doctor any time and get anything done. all bends towards the democrats and the liberals favor. radnofsky, i'm
sure as you have written about health care, the importance of language has come up to you guest: there is -- come up. we use a system for which individuals pay taxes to the government, the governmetnt distributes the money equally. health care dollars flow. health insurance dollars flow in ways that are complicated. the shorthand does have meaning behind it. host: before we get away from the proposal, one other piece of that is medicaid and what happens to medicaid under that plan as opposed to what happens
under the affordable care act. one of the complicated things potentially for the sponsors, the trio of senators is that they do have a promise that if you like your health plan you can keep it. at the same time they don't and visited -- don't envisage the kind of fund the that will encourage that kind of funding that will encourage them to expand -- the kind of funding that will encourage them to expand. does -- medicaid discussion is really interesting right now. exactly 25 states have opted into the extension are you -- extension. there has been an idea among opponents of the extension that at 25 oran keep it more, ultimately over time the will feelf the states
like they are subsidizing from other states. put pressure on them over time. if they can just get to 30 pressurehe momentum or will, on the others to come in. -- there will be momentum or pressure on the others to come and. -- to come in. host: we go to pat on our line for democrats. good morning. it and if we don't fix go to an alternative, we're never going to see one again. the republicans want to talk about this and it needs an alternative. immigration, you'll never get them on board with that. all we're hearing is
it has become extremely divergent poll arise because there has been a law on the stancesople take firm for or against. you have some people who like some parts of it but don't like others. exampleolic church, for . they have different parts that matter to them in different oppose -- that they parts that they oppose. host: richard is waiting in new york on our line for republicans. the morning. -- good morning. i would like to give packed in new york city a heads up that he purchased -- a heads up on the insurance he purchased on the new york exchange. acceptedhe plans are by the cancer center in new york. notre as hell hope he does
get cancer. she seems to feel the same way n billobamacare because i o'reilly's interview yesterday, 6 million people have been added to medicaid. do you have any idea how much an orthopedic surgeon is paid for the surgical services of a total -- total knee replacement. host: they would say they are paid their -- paid very little. there are a large number of physicians in general and it may be did -- maybe different with the specialties. a think the volume of patients they are able to get through to significant. it is possible to get physicians that will accept medicaid in certain areas. seeing doctors
scaling back -- we are not seeing a large number of doctors opting out of medicare. .here are some who are doing medicare pays more than medicaid. physicians pay that physicians complain about how little medicaid pays. -- physicians complain about how little medicaid pays. we have been talking about the patient choice responsibility and affordability act. the short name is the patient care act. we have been talking with lo uise radnofsky. will do our weekly "your money" segment where we securityhe nuclear administration with william tobey. an update from c-span radio first. .
>> politico writes about janet yellen this morning. then white, kate davidson, and mj and lead right that she will begin intense preparations for a oflling by ornery members congress. she will be facing every economic policy to inc. regulate .- bank regulations an on the new jersey bridge closing last fall. a today 20 people and organizations close to new jersey governor chris christie are to deter -- due to turnover e-mails. the cochairman of the joint legislative panel leading the investigation tells the
associated press that some deadlines of monday's were granted. the request of others who were asked to produce documents on a rolling basis are also being considered. the first athletes -- the first u.s. athletes are arriving in russia for the sochi games. the state department has warned americans about traveling to so she -- to sochi. more on the u.s. russia relations later today when the national center hosts topic. -- hosts the topic. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. , i was in a -- >> i was in a car wreck. the whole time i was in the i had a -- not injured,
i was praying- the other person in the car would be ok. the other person was one of my best friends. i did not recognize that at the site of the crash. i think because i prayed over and over for him to be ok and he god was notought listening. my prayer went unanswered. i went through a very long time notot believing and believing prayers to be answered. it did take a lot growing up to come back to faith. bush tonight laura at nine eastern. watch our recent interview with
her at 10:30. endonsumers will win in the read it allows isps to continue to innovate and invest billions in their networks and bring new services and and new pricing business models to consumers. consumers will be the main beneficiary. >> the big corporations are the ones with tremendous amount of market power and influence in shapegton d.c. to policy. the consumers are going to be the losers in this deal. i think that is why they are asking the fcc to move forward and protect them. communicators at 8 eastern on c-span2. " c"washington journal
theontinues. host: -- continues. by a former joined agency deputy administrator, william tobey. the nsna is a new agency. why was established by congress? and what is its mission? it was established for the nuclear area to manage the nation's weapons stockpile programs to provide nonproliferation activities to detect, and dispose of nuclear material. responsible for these functions before the nsn nnsa camere the
along? guest: the atomic energy commission. host: how much is a yearly budget at the nnsa and how has 2000 tonged from 2014? billion. is about $12 one billion is spent on the naval reactors program. there is some money in there for administration. the weapons and naval reactors programs have remained roughly stable over that period. the non-proliferation program has approximately doubled. tobey is the former deputy administrator from the 2009.\om 2006 to
what was your job? was the deputy administrator for nonnuclear proliferations. i worked at the tech game, securing, and disposing of dangerous nuclear material. host: what do you do now? guest: i am a senior fellow at the belford center for science at harvard university. this is our weekly your money segment. we are talking about the national nuclear security administration. our phone lines are open. -- we will gothis over what this agency does, its history, and the recent news surrounding this agency. if you want to call in --
to stay on the budget iss how to sequestrationue, impact the job of the nnsa? guest: i think it did cut back on activities that they could perform. for example, one of the areas that i worked on when i was in the government was the conversion of researhch used high enriched radiation to low enriched uranium. that way they are out of the potential to follow the hands of terrorists. the number of conversions you can do or work on at any one time is limited by the amount of funds you have, as a -- as well as the cooperation -- political cooperation. convergence is
lowering the nuclear stockpile, correct? guest: not so much the u.s. nuclear stockpile. that use researchers highly enriched uranium to produce medical isotopes or conduct the research that they feel they need to pursue. we -- of those reactors have been converted or closed, allowing for the repatriation of five kilograms of heu. what is the relationship between the doe and the pentagon when it comes to the nnsa? any crossover in terms of civilian employees and military? there is close cooperation. there is crossover in terms of employees. many employees of the national
nuclear security administration have experience in the nuclear program and . nnsa develops the nation's nuclear weapon stockpile,a d and those weapons are turned over to the defense department for deployment. host: we are going to show a map of the facilities of the nnsa. sandia national laboratory in new mexico. the one i want to focus on is the national nuclear complex in -- in oaktennessee ridge, tennessee. viewersou to tell our
who sister megan rice was and why she made news there. that is a sorry chapter for security of the nuclear weapons complex. afterfour months president obama returned from the 2012 nuclear security summit korea, sisterh rice and two colleagues broke into the complex. they hiked about three quarters of a mile because they were climbing a steep hill. they probably went much further than that. they made their way to the outside of the facility that store is highly enriched uranium in the united states and cut through three other fences, each equipped with fairly sophisticated sensors.
unfortunately the security culture at y12 had failed. as a consequence guards going offthe alarms to false signals, which they have conferred -- have confronted many occasions. people inside the building heard a noise outside when sister rice and her colleagues began banging on the building with a claw hammer.and they threw blood on the building and painted slogans on it. the people inside the building thought this was on notified construction work at 4 a.m.. as a consequence they did not do much about it. even the guard that finally did confront the sister and her call -- and her colleagues handled the situation inappropriately, not securing this weapon.
the independent group was appointed by the secretary of energy. host: how has this shaken up the and that's -- the and nsa -- the nnsa? it is not so much the individual failings but the failings of the culture. if you look at the response to report, heor general said the incident actually caused him to rethink the throughout thee national nuclear security administration complex. -- clearly his mind in his mind the issue was broader than y12. this incident, together with other incidents, underscores the need for continual improvement
to prevents material from pop -- from falling in the hands of terrorists. we are taking your calls and comments. let's go to grant waiting in washington dc. you are probably aware of the situation in apollo, pennsylvania where there is a slated cleanup of the new mac that could cost up to half $1 billion to u.s. taxpayers. as you may not know the history indicates new mac was nothing more than a front for uranium smuggling. it is the highest lost the law -- theat highest highest lost facility in the hhu.
of tectoniccase oscillators going to israel. withre you so lousy allowing nuclear technologies going to the israelis. host: where are you getting your information? caller: there is a book called "divert." host: do you know about this facility? guest: i have read a press reports of the incident the caller is describing. it occurred decades ago before the formation of the neck -- before the formation of the national nuclear security administration. we needed to create a semi autonomous agency that would be on nuclearcifically
security. i used to say security is the middle name of the agency. if the press reports are to be believed, i think those have largely been corrected. up thehe caller brings idea of nuclear cleanup. is that in the job status of the nnsa? there is an element of that but most of that is handled by another office within the department of energy. host: let me ask you, the idea of lowering the us stockpile, how is that handled? defensehen the department declares weapons to no longer be necessary, they are returned to the nnsa for dism antlement. one of the great success stories
in recent years is the fact that the united states'nuclear weapons stockpile is down 80% from the end of the cold war. realize people don't how to manage the reductions have been. host: we are showing a map of the reductions, the peak at 1970 31,225 nuclear weapons. 50% sincen reduced 2001. i think we are down a bit since 2009 as well be in host. does that require the most staff? the weapons program
itself is now maintenance of the stockpile and the elimination of weapons. it is the largest single portion of the administration. we have not built a new nuclear weapons since 1992. the mission is to ensure the security, andty, reliability of those weapons and then to take apart the weapons that are withdrawn from the stockpile. let's -- host: let's go to michael waiting on the line for independents. you are familiar with the picture of the security guards sleeping at y12? guest: i haven't seen that. caller: it is part of a guard mounts. we have a picture of a gentleman sleeping at y 12.
sold a nuclear enrichment plant as scraps. it was bought by a gentleman in the united states. much -- i'm not sure exactly which enrichment plan you are talking about. host: let's not call it a plant, let's call it nuclear equipment. they sold richards, as scrap. he bought it as scrap for $200,000 and then later the israelis notified us he was trying to sell us on the open market. are you familiar with that? guest: i am not. during the clinton administration i was in the prep -- in the private sector. host: have we done anything to protect us from that situation in the future? that gets to the original
question. think the security problems that have been alluded to by the caused congress and the executive to decide we need a single purpose agency that was semi autonomous that was focused on maintaining the stockpile and providing security. the: we are talking with former deputy administrator from the national nuclear security administration. phone lines are open. the numbers are up on the screen. we are also going through our tweets and e-mails as well. nnsa'sed about the relationship with the military. i want to talk about the impact of the alleged cheating on efficiency exams and how that has affected the work
nnsand nsa -- the work the has done with the military. guest: i don't think there is a direct impact but it is worth examining the case. and our nuclear officers in the military are expected to perform at high standards. this proves that in cases these standards have slipped. there is a fine line between having the systems in place that are necessary to detect problems -- and that is all for the good -- but if it looks like there has been a pervasive failure, a failure of culture that results dozens ofpension of officers, it is a problem that needs fundamental correction. i think that was also the case at the y12 incident. host: the reports are upwards of 14% of the nuclear force in the
air force have been removed from duty during the course of this investigation. we are taking your calls and comments. john is waiting in louisiana on our line for republicans. good morning. good morning. i retired at 28 years ago. for the years i was in the air force, i was in the strategic air command -- in the air force i was in the strategic air command. we used to call it the care and handling of nukes. you remember a while back -- it was a while ago. they hauled some nukes down to barksdale. a lot of us in the business of the strategic air command when it was disbanded predicted some
that predicted something like that was going to happen. -- predicted something like that was going to happen. the nukes were our business and our professionalism in dealing with them was number one priority. the problems you spoke about with the missiles came from within the dismantling of an organization that had that as their primary goal and people lost focus of it. question, is the personnel reliability program still in existence? andow that was a big deal included both extensive physiological medical and security background. i will step back and take your responses. host: mr. tobey. guest: thank you and thank you for your service. i first boss was an air force missilier.
he unfortunately died too early but he was a great asset. focus,ntion of a loss of i do think that is an important problem. or have been several comments from commanders that have indicated the perception is it is not a good path to take professionally within the air force. i have seen less of that from the navy. if that is the perception you will not get the top quality people who are doing their best to do the job. thatnk we need to rebuild within the strategic command. that does take high-level attention. it looks like we are getting that, at least from the comments from the secretary of air force and some of the uniformed leadership. the personnel reliability program is still in place, both
in the military and also for the national nuclear security administration. there are significant requirements in terms of background checks and making sure the people are qualified for the positions they held -- they hold. host: a couple of questions coming in from our twitter page. dean writes in -- guest: it depends on exactly which material we are talking about. there are three top -- three types. there is plutonium from the weapons stockpile. there is a plant in savanna river, south carolina that would dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium that has been declared access to the u.s. stockpile under an agreement with russia, whereby russia would get rid of a similar
amount. the south carolina plant is the one you had a hand in forming, correct? guest: yes. we broke ground for construction when i was in the national nuclear security administration. metricd a further nine tons of plutonium that would be disposed there. when that is done it will be turned into fuel for nuclear power reactors, enough to essentially power one million homes for 50 years. dispositionth for is the highly enriched uranium. of the most successful nonproliferation programs that is the downsted blending of russian highly uranium and sending it to the united states to power nuclear power plants.
roughly 20% of american electricity comes from nuclear power. half of that was fueled under the russian program. on average 10% of the lightbulbs bulbs in america were powered by materials that was lunch in aimed atimed at -- ourselves or our allies. there is a third pass for material that is going to be disposed of, and that is for radiological sources. not material that could cause a nuclear explosion but materials that do pose a health hazard. that material largely goes to a facility in new mexico, called the with. -- the whip. pat is on our independent line. good morning. have flipped through some conspiracy books.
about -- it is probably our problem here. nobody can get near area 51? why don't we have a camera security around all of our water facility -- water facilities and nuclear sick -- and nuclear facilities? yet -- dowe do that that? guest: with respect to our nuclear the selectees we have had at least one high-profile failure. the security is excellent. i am less familiar with security ies.ater facilit host: a question on twitter -- guest: i am no longer a part of
the national nuclear security administration. if it is directed at me, i wouldn't. not deploysa does weapons. they build them, maintain them, and then hand them over to the defense department. the defense department, who would launch them in a case of war. at the worldnd institute of nuclear security. i wanted to get your assessment of russian nuclear security under putin and concerns with russia being in the headlines because of the olympics this week. great russia is of concern, first and foremost because of the total amount of material and weapons they possess. russian nuclear security was in a tough position. significant efforts by administrations stretching from
george h.w. bush to the clinton administration and george w. bush administration and now president obama have worked with nuclearo improve security. americans have worked at 148 sites throughout russia. these are weapons storage facilities and production facilities. i can say things are far far better than they once were. i continue to have ongoing concern because some of the improvements that have been installed need to be maintained. the russians will have to budget for that. above all, a strong nuclear security culture is important. host: what are some of the other countries the nnsa works with? guest: the nonproliferation program works with approximately 100 countries around the world.
we have talked about russia. in other places, there is work to secure it. places there are research reactors that have been converted from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium the material goes back to russia or the united states, depending on where it originated. then there are significant programs to help train border and export control officials to make sure they can recognize and stop illicit nuclear trafficking. finally there have been significant programs to install radiation detectors at borders, linecalled second of defense. any human in
endeavor is impossible. was later expanded to expect -- to inspect cargo and very large ports around the world. host: a $12 billion budget as we . we will gohe nnsa to william waiting in cyprus, texas. you are telling me in 2006 you guys were not still making nuclear bombs and shipping them out to california? i have a funny feeling you were. there have been no new nuclear weapons produced since 1992. some of the weapons in the u.s. stockpile have undergone maintenance to make sure they
safely,l operate effectively, and securely. he have not deployed any new nuclearr -- any new weapons. they have a program called the life extension program. wife -- right now the program is underway. a gravity bomb was first designed in 1961 and production started in 1963. production 50gan years ago a. some of the parts inside have monetizedized -- been -- been modernized.
they need to be inspected and make sure they are still safe and reliable and secure. apart.eapons are taken new ones that need replacement are replaced. we have not fielded new nuclear weapons, new designs since 1992. the u.s. stockpile is down substantially. followingave a chart that. tennessee on our republican line. jeff is waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of areas i would like to talk about. any new do not have production of nuclear weapons,
one concern, when i was still in the service, was the expertise or lack of expertise in that field and where it is going to come from if that is the direction the country is going to take for its national defense. guest: i think that is a substantial concern. with the incidents that was just referred to in the air force, not just the recent one but the barksdale incident and frankly , that ther ones services have trouble whataining their focus in is fundamentally an important program because it is no longer the pinnaclebe at of u.s. security interests. i think it is incumbent upon senior leadership in the defense department to make sure that focused is filtered through the .ranches
also, the caller may have been referring to the at -- to the expertise of the u.s. national lap. lab. people -- national those people are at the cutting edge of science and we need to make sure we have the science necessary to support our nuclear deterrent. there have been cuts to those programs. the livermore staff is down 20% from its peak. while some cuts may be necessary, we need to make sure we have the core of scientific expertise that is necessary to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. jeff, did you have a follow-up question? caller: i did. navy a never remember -- a member that was asked to look into the barksdale incident. one take away the navy saw was
the air force does not have a career nuchal -- career nuclear path for their personnel. it was not a career path they were interested in pursuing. they were interested in space and other areas in the air force. i spent almost 34 years in the navy. my entire career was dealing with nuclear weapons. their senior enlisted are usually good but their officer out. that is one of the major pitfalls. host: any thoughts on that he echo -- on that? to me.that seems right we have seen less problems from the navy then the air force. i think that is in part because the navy has this elite service among those who are responsible for nuclear reactors.
air force does not -- nuclearr raptors reactors, they have custody of nuclear weapons. the navy has expertise dedicated to the nuclear program. they have more room for creating nuclear paths suited for the best people. host: what you see as the biggest future challenge for securing nuclear weapons, materials, and facilities he facilities?-- and guest: that is a great question and 60 world leaders will be addressing that in march at the nuclear summit. i think there are several places there are large amounts of highly enriched uranium that don't really need to be there that could be down blended or be moved to more secure so it --
secure facilities. that would be in japan and south , and i thinkus that is a significant challenge. there are still dozens of research reactors that need to be converted to low enriched uranium or enclosed. many of those are in russia. russia probably needs to consolidate the number of facilities in which it stores or uses this material. perhapse dozens, hundreds of such facilities still. that is far higher than the united states has. by consolidating this material they can provide the same security for a lower cost. storing it in fewer places is a good idea. joyce is waiting in michigan on our line for independents.
joyce, are you there? i think we lost joyce. in reno,s waiting nevada on our line for republicans. the liam, good morning. caller: -- william, good morning. caller: good morning. a year ago lockheed -- year an announcement was made to develop an electrical field to help control plasma for electrical fusion. are you aware of any fusionments on control that would change the world? guest: i am aware of some of the work on that. host: explain what we are talking about the folks at home who don't know what that is. would you like me to explain or the caller? host: go
ahead, mr. tobey. actuallysion would fuse atoms together and provide, if it could actually be achieved , substantial energy, possibly with less risk. but so far we have not seen that as a possibility. themost interesting work, most promising work that i am aware of is the national admissions facility that is at the livermore national lab. they have struggled in trying to achieve energy goals with this. think one day there may be that possibility but i think we are decades, if not centuries away. one other tweet that came
in -- of course, that was a great tragedy caused by two natural disasters, an earthquake and tsunami that followed it. it was also made worse by some poor decisions in terms of plant design. i think we need to gain the lessons from fukushima in terms of safety. i would also add that we need to gain the lessons from fukushima in terms of security. terrorists could attempt to cause a similar disaster by attacking a nuclear power plant ent fuel facilities. power was not backed by an intelligent and determined adversary.
an intelligent and determined adversary would know how to break through the many layers of a safety or security system. it is a lesson to us that we need to up our game. minutes we have left here on today's "washington journal, co. i want to ask you how the united states compares to other countries when it comes to securing our nuclear weapons and arsenal. where do we fall in? i am biased because i have served with the national nuclear security administration. i would say the u.s. nuclear security is in the first rank. i think there are other nations that belong in that category, as well. the u.k. and france. i think there are other nations that would fall somewhat behind that.
the nuclear threat initiative recently published an index of nuclear sick -- of nuclear security around the world and your viewers may wish to look at that. i don't necessarily and dorset. it has caused controversy -- i don't necessarily endorse it. it has caused controversy. tht i do think it is wor debate. host: who is at the bottom you can -- at the bottom? guest: the applicants -- has beennt concern expressed about north korea. the: he now works at belford center for science and international affairs, a senior fellow there. we appreciate you coming on "washington journal" today. for ourgoing to do it
february 3 edition of "washington journal." i hope you have a great monday. >> on this monday, the u.s. house will be gaveling in at noon eastern for general speeches before turning to legislative is this at 2:00 p.m. bills on the calendar include one that would allow colleges to give veterans in state tuition verse -- regard us of where they live. in the
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on