healthier. and would end up really ruining medicare, the current system that has a a guarantee for seniors. that's what the seniors want. they don't want to go out in the private market and search around with their voucher for something that will cover them. they don't want medicare itself to be kmin ib diminished in some way, to become too expensive and therefore ruined. we don't see a difference in principal between the original ryan budget and the ryan-widen proposal. and think that both are in fact equally bad or only marginally different but still would end medicare as we know it. >> she's a democrat from illinois she was joined by

california representative javier becerra in a teleconference on the health care issue but also taking questions about the ryan budget and medicare. there was a reference to senator ron widen a democrat from oregon who has been working with congressman paul ryan. today in the huffington post this op-ed from senator widen saying preserving the medicare guarantee why i've been working with paul ryan people on both sides of the aisle want to know why a progressive democrat is working with the author of last year's house budget on medicare reform. it's a rather lengthy op-ed. this conclusion this week congressman ryan will be unveiling the house republican budget. i do not know what the details of the budget will be. i did not write it and i cannot imagine a scenario where i would vote for it. i do know because we worked together paul ryan now knows more about the medicare guarantee and protecting seniors from unscrew up louis insurance practices than he did before. if that is reflected in this

budget this year as someone who's been a fighter for seniors since i was 27 years old, i think that is a step in the right direction. you can read the entire op-ed at huffingtonpost.com and you're listening to washington today on c-span radio. we want to focus on the issue if you think congress can in fact work together. we heard from that senator ron widen who worked with paul ryan the house republican and chair of the budget committee. our listener feed back line is 202-626-7962. it's an issue that we talked about this morning with bill gallston. he is the co-founder of no labels on what he says are some structural changes needed to fix the house of representatives and the u.s. senate. here's more from today's program. >> in senate testimony last week the question arose of why we were pushing so hard on these rules changes. why couldn't we simply appeal to members of congress to do the

right thing? a senior senator said that to me and it was very heartfelt. i smiled and said i wish things worked that way, but i don't think they do and neither did the father of our constitution james madison who talked at length in the federalist papers about the necessity to use what he called auxilliary precautions to bolster legislatures and to push them in the right direction. we do believe in a number of reforms to force the two parties to get together to talk on a bipartisan basis with the cameras not rolling to put together bipartisan leadership teams. we appeal to them to sit together, which we thought was a good start at the state of the union address a few months ago and nearly half the members of congress did so. in our judgment it becomes much harder to create the conditions for compromise when the members

of the two parties don't even know each other. it's so easy to demonize people when you've never sat down at the same table with them, which for most members of congress is the case. there's almost no bipartisan social contact. very few bipartisan meetings. we have a series of proposals designed to change that. >> they include having month hi bipartisan gatherings. having bipartisan seating and creating a bipartisan leadership committee. who would that committee communicate to? >> well, this would be -- this would be a committee made up of the senior leaders on both sides. and the effort would be to work out on a monthly basis a some sense of what the agenda is going to be for the next month. the congress of the united states spends an enormous amount of time particularly in the senate bickering about what they're going to talk about. so they disagree about what they're going to talk about even before they get around to disagreeing about the substance

of the matter. if you had some agreement between harry reid and mitch mcconnell on the other people like that. what are we going to try to get done in the next month and how can we organize our schedule to do it, that would be fabulous. >> bill galston joined us this morning on c-span's washington journal. he is the co-founder of no labels. you can get more information by locking on to nolabels.org. can bipartisan return to the house in the senate? will congress work across party lines? how old how would you improve congress? do you have a recommendation? give us a call, tell us where you're phoning from. keep your comments brief and we'll use some of your comments tomorrow and throughout the week on washington today. the phone number is 202-626-7962. we welcome our listeners coast to coast on xm channel 119. we're streamed on the web at

csponradio.org. some other news today on wall street the dow was up six closing at 13,239. and s&p up five. a task force led by former secretary of state condoleeza rice and former new york city school chancellor warning america's security is at risk if america's schools don't improve. the associated press obtained a copy of the findings cautioning that ill prepared students affect national security because the u.s. depends on human capital to compete globally. a report says the state department and u.s. intelligence agencies face critical shortfalls in the number of foreign language speakers. it says 75% of young adults don't qualify for the military because they're physically unfit with criminal levels or inadequate levels of education. the task force was organized by the council on foreign relations. a think tank saying possible

intervention in syria on the ground forces could require 200 to 300,000 troops and cost up to $300 billion per year to be executed properly. this is from the brookings institution. no one thered a ro indicating an invasion. the report lays out six ways that president assad's ouster could occur. but it doesn't have any of the options ranging from a diplomatic solution which is obama administration supports to a libya like air campaign backed by senator john mccain to a full on invasion that would require significant troop numbers. the supreme court has turned down louisiana's bid to recover the congressional seat that was taken from the state as a result of the 2010 census. the court was not commenting on the order today preventing the state from picture suing a lawsuit that claimed the census unfairly included undocumented immigrants in each state's population count. louisiana said that california, florida, texas and other states

with large populations of undocumented immigrants gained seats at the house of representatives at the expense of louisiana. louisiana went from seven to six seats in the house based on the census. back in a minute with more washington today. >> c span radio is just a phone call away. you can listen live over your phone. dial 202-626-8888. >> you are listening to c span radio live on audio now. c span created by cable, brought to you as a public service. >> calling charges or plan charges may apply. that number again, 202-626-8888. >> and you are listening to washington today on c span radio. the "the wall street journal" reporting that u.s. officials have identified an american who was freed in iraq over the weekend sam dagger writing from baghdad to the u.s. embassy

identifying the american citizen who was purportedly help captive for nine months by a militia local to a shiite cleric. randy michael holts transferred to the embassy was neither an employee nor a contractor of the u.s. government and that he had been in iraq on private business. the issue coming up today at the state department. >> he was at you know he had been held captive. he was released in the hands of the u.n. and then the u.n. turned him over to us since he's an american citizen when he came to the u.s. embassy he was in need of medical attention. he was open to being debriefed on his time in captivity, which

of course was of interest to us. >> just to understand properly that is not immunity this is why he's at the embassy to ensure these not for whatever reason he's beyond the reach of some -- >> no. no. no. this is to help him to get on his way. i don't know if he has travel documents or any of those things that he would need. >> it's so odd initially like on saturday there was so little information about him. you think if there were an american who has been held private or not that somebody would know about it and there wouldn't be this level of confusion. >> i agree. we're all a little bit confused over the weekend in part because in coming back to iraq he had not chosen as a private american in country to register with the embassy. so frankly we didn't have any information about his

whereabouts et cetera. i will tell you that we did receive an email around june of 2011 from an iraqi acquaintance of his saying he had not heard from this guy for several days. and the iraqi indicated in that email that he was of the impression that mr. holtz was planning to leave iraq in the near future. this was in union and that was the first that we had ever heard about him. at that point we looked into it. we were able to figure out the hotel where the iraqi had thought he had been staying. and living. we consulted with the hotel with iraqi authorities in the weeks that followed and we weren't able to find any trace of him. so at that point we assumed i think that he had left the country. he had not chosen to contact us.

so that was our only information about him one way or the other until he showed up at the u.n. >> that iraqi friend never got back to you and said, by the way he's kidnapped? >> no. and we were never kaked by any family members in the united states either. i agree with you, unusual story. other thoughts? >> and some new details from the state department, again the comments on that american who was freed after being held captive for the last nine months released over the weekend in iraq. a number of stories including extensive piece with more details if you want to check it out on "the wall street journal" website. let's turn our attention to the health care debate. we're going to hear a lot this week and next week on the issue. usa today writing that proponents of the law signed by the president in 2010 holding rallies and events flooding the mail and post videos online in an effort to influence a deeply divided politics on the eve of the law's two-year anniversary

and ahead of three days of supreme court oral arguments. since 20101 landmark health care law has take and backseat to the economy, spending and gas prices. but it will be front and center. one other note about next week, the supreme court has given permission for news organizations to listen to the audio of the oral arguments and here on c span radio and television and at c span.org a chance to listen to the arguments each day as they're released in their entirety. a key part of what house democrats are focussing on is the ipad. that is the independent payment advisory board which takes a look at medicare spending. many house republicans want to abolish this medicare spending board in its entirety. it's an issue that came up with house republicans from maryland and arkansas as they spoke to reporters on capitol hill.

>> knowing what you know now about this, is that still a fair description of that? there's some who oppose the health care law who describe it in those terms? >> let me address that. question don't know what it's going to turn out to be. because the bill gave very broad authority to the independent payment advisory board to control those costs in any way they saw fit. so they could in fact fulfill the entire requirement for end of life care. they could on the other hand, just impose an across the board payment cut to all providers which really would result in the rationing you've heard about. in my rural area it's already hard to find a primary care provider who takes medicare, who accepts a new medicare patient. an across the board cut would be devastating ft part of the

problem is it is completely nonspecific as to how that's done with no congressional oversight to it. with regards to the question of cost, you know that we have budget neutrality rules. in fact, when you combine this repeal with tort reform we return money to the treasury and help to solve the deficit. it is completely consistent with republican principals. >> next question. >> the ryan budget tomorrow that's going to come out is going to apparently include som resemble the ryan-widen medicare reform. just wanted to get your thoughts on that, your reaction. >> well, i think it's another example of the house leading by throwing reforms out there for discussion so that we can solve this problem. i mean, nothing but crickets from the senate on this front. they're still struggling with the issue of a budget. we did something on this last year. as i've said before, i am happy

to debate all sorts of different reforms that save medicare. but the status quo is unacceptable because the status quo as president obama, senator lieberman and many, many others have pointed out, the status quo leads to bankruptcy. so when you hear the demagoguery about proposed reforms compared to the status quo that is intellectcally dishonest because the status quo is not a possibility. >> tim griffin of arkansas, andy harris of m freshman republicans speaking to reporters on the health care bill. the two-year anniversary and the independent paymented a vizry board which consistents of 15 members which can cut medicare rates to doctors and hospitals without congressional approval. many conservatives wanting that issue repealed completely. the national journal writing

that many conservative groups like club for growth and the family research council as well as heritage action critical of house speaker boehner. they want the whole thing taken out completely. you can read more on this story by logging on to nationaljournal.com. this week is the two-year anniversary of the president signing that historic health care bill. it is the center piece of a new 17-minute documentary that the obama campaign released focussing on the economy and the health care issue among other topics. today the issue coming up, will the president commemorate this anniversary or be discussing other issues this way. jay carney at the daily briefing. >> it's supposed to be the president's signature of domestic achievement. the idea he may not speak about this on the anniversary may seem odd. with the polling data we added up 67% of the public wants to throw out the whole bill or the manda mandate. white house has been talking for

two years talking about educating the public. doesn't this polling data suggest that people are not buying it? >> the polling da data suggests in part the hundreds of millions of dollars that was spent attacking it. what we're focussing on is implementing it so that more and more americans see the benefits that it brings. the, you know, he's not -- i didn't make any announcement one way or the other about what the president's schedule will hold on this issue. we are focused on implementing the bill not only discussing anniversaries particularly. i'm sure others will want to discuss this. i think if you look at ore talk to americans and look at some of the data on this, if you ask them is the alternative as proposed by some folks who oppose the affordable care act giving power back to the insurance companies so that they can throw you off your insurance policy if you develop an illness

or prevent you from getting insurance if you have a preexisting condition or prevent young americans from staying on their parents' insurance policy? i think the answer will be no, we don't want that. and i think that efforts to calls to take that away, to take those positive changes away from average americans will be met with a great deal of skepticism when people talk about this and focus on it. so the president's going to continue to focus on the economy, on jobs, on energy policy and let others have that debate if they want to have it. >> white house press secretary jay carney earlier in the day. let's focus on those two issues, jobs and the economy, transportation a key part of the economy. first of all, the house republican leader eric cantor pushing the senate democratic leader harry reid to abandon senator efforts to amend the jobs act in advance of some key senate votes scheduled for tomorrow. eric cantor saying quote over

the past week leader reid and senator democrats have worked overtime to find excuses found the exact despite the support of members of the house of representatives, the president and job creators across the country. is would help businesses and banks funnel money to small businesses. the bill removes various regulations on startup and small businesses. it has come under criticism from a number of outside groups who fear it could lead to boiler rooms to take advantage of unsophisticated investors. a democratic alternative and a bipartisan amendment reauthorizing the export/import bank are the onle votes on tuesday. both facing a threshold. so you have the house republican leader telling the senate to pass the bill as passed by the house of representatives. meanwhile, back to transportation because today the white house continued to pressure the house of representatives to accept the senate transportation bill. a bill passed last week by the

senate, but now may have some extensions without the two-year plan passed by the house of representatives. it was the first issue that jay carney brought up at the daily briefing earlier today. >> before i take your questions, i wanted to start with a statement by the president. "last week, the senate passed a bipartisan transportation bill that will keep construction workers on the job and keep our economy growing. now the house of representatives needs to take bipartisan action so i can sign this into law. an economy built to last depends on a world class infrastructure system that allows us to transport goods as quickly as possible. that's why we need to continue to make investments that will create jobs by rebuilding and modernizing our roads, bridges, and railways. that's why my administration will continue to fight for the long-term investments needed to ensure that america continues to compete and succeed in a global

economy." we commended the senate. we are calling on the house to pass bipartisan transportation legislation. the items in the bill will let congress figure out we commended the senate for acting in a bipartisan way on this important bill. the house, like the senate, should act in a bipartisan way and pass the bill. the president looks forward to signing a bipartisan transportation bill because of the absolute necessity we continue to build and maintain world class infrastructure.

>> the administration is not necessarily putting on a statement of support of this bill. >> i hear you. you can draw whatever distinctions you want. we strongly urge the house to pass bipartisan transportation legislation. as the senate has. and the president looks forward into signing into law that is bipartisan in nature. but we commended had them for passing it. i don't want to get caught in semantics here. i just want to make clear that we want to see action by congress on a piece of bipartisan legislation on this important topic. >> the white house press secretary on the transportation bill. some observers are looking at the possibility that the house will pass a short-term extension on the bill.

speaker boehner's office said he will decide on the final course until he has a chance to meet with members of the house republican caucus. this is washington today on c-span radio. robert mcdowel testifying on the issue of the budget. also the chairman of the federal communications commission. but the other topic that came up, the issue of international regulation of the internet. here's how that unfolded today on capitol hill with representative steve womack, republican from arkansas. >> last month, there was an op-ed that you wrote in "the wall street journal" on the internet. it was largely about the united nations potentially having more significant authority over the internet. this issue hasn't received a great deal of attention. i was hoping you could discuss what is happening. >> this is a very real problem.

for the past several years, there have been a group of countries throughout the world that have been pushing for international regulation of the internet. it sounds crazy, but it happens to be true. and in years past, the united states or the the uk and other allies have been able to use maneuvers to table some of these actions. but there will be a renegotiation. so back in 1988, most of the countries got together and negotiated a treaty that set up the trend for the internal to be not regulated by governments, but to be regulated from the bottom up in the multistake holder model, which is the private sector and nonprofits and such with engineers and academics and user groups and all sorts of folks to come and lake the bottom up rules for how the internet works and how it's going to grow and thrive and

succeed. but in the past couple years, there's been a bit of a gathering storm of some countries perhaps led by russia and china. vladimir putin himself has said, and this is pretty much a direct quote, he wants international control of the internet through the international telecommunications union. it's based in geneva. it does a lot of good things. it helps negotiate traffic. but it's been up to this point delegated to telecommunications but not internet governance. so everything in privacy to to engineering. in other aspects of internet gov

nons through the internet society. another nongovernmental group for the long haul backbone whether privately negotiated agreements with backbone providers. the proposals on the able to to have that be through the itu and give it jurisdiction over there. so it's a real concern. the obama administration and i and others are all in agreement on this. but it's becoming a bit of an issue of the developed world versus the developing world. and the irony is should a treaty go the distance and actually become effective, it would undermine economic and political progress in the developing world. the developed natures would opt out of such a treaty, but in the

rest of the world, that might not be the case. they see an opportunity to charge some websites to charge them on a basis and have the money flow to state-owned telephone companies in their country. so there are a the lo of issues there. but it is a very real concern and we should all be working hard to make sure it doesn't happen. i'm quite concerned about it because it doesn't take place in december. there are meetings throughout the globe between now and december where positions will start to harden. i want to thank them for voicing his concern over this as well. >> i'll give you a second to comment. >> preserving internet freedom is a vital importance. it's important to the global economy and the economy of developing countries. it's important to freedom everywhere.

and it is important that we work together on countering proposals that some countries have made that would not be consistent with internet freedom and that would have the opposite effect of that claim. so it's very important topic and it's important we all work together to preserve free flow of data globally. >> the topic of the communications commission testifying before the house appropriations subcommittee on the fcc budget. by the way, one programming note. we focus on communication issues every week on c-span's the communique tors. schedule information by logging on to c-span.org. we'll continue the conversation tomorrow morning. the executive director of the independent women's forum will be joining us as we talk about the gender issues of the women vote in the 2012 election and the