host: good morning and welcome to washington journal this tuesday, march 12. president obama heads to capitol hill in search of a grand bargain. meanwhile house budget chairman paul ryan in fails his proposal for the budget, vowing to balance it in 10 years. leaving capitol hill, michael sugar rays ban on big

sodas, bluebird plans to fight the decision. -- bluebird -- bloomberg plans to fight the decision. send us it tweet, twitter.com. poster paul -- poster, facebook.com or send us an e- mail. we will begin with "the new york times" this morning. it says here --

we are giving your take on this this morning. what you think about this idea

of banning sugary soda is in order to combat obesity? "washington times" has this to say -- william in toledo, ohio is up first. what do you think? caller: i think the judge had it spot on. there are so many different loopholes in there. specifically milkshakes. milkshakes have much more sugar

content than even the largest soda. i think the judge was absolutely correct. host: it sounds like to have been following this pretty closely. caller: i think it was personally a government intrusion. although he is well intended, mr. bloomberg is superseding the boundaries of his office. host: what to do you mean? caller: i can understand his ban on smoking. to go as far as sodas -- that is a personal responsibility. anyone knows with a modicum of intelligence that if you lift off of sugary soda as yet will have 80--- sugary soda as it will have a detrimental effect. host: smoking in trance that was

ok in your opinion? caller: there was the secondary smoke issue as far as smoking. and there are certain restaurants that do not put the caloric intake on their menus so people did not have the knowledge of what they were actually consuming. but anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that showed three drinks are going to lead to th-- knows that sugary drinks are going to lead to weight gain. host: the judge said there was caveat to it. for one, drinks that are over 50% milk are exempt because it considers a milk as a valuable source of contritionutrition. this is from facebook --

gil from north carolina, what do you think? caller: i disagree with the previous caller. the general public does not have a modicum of intelligence. if people understood the biochemistry of the day down of glucose -- of the breakdown of glucose, one of the major and products as the building block of cholesterol. if we have had one-third of americans in our country who are moderately obese, obese. we need to be more intelligent and with young children -- those preteens and teens are being bombarded with soda commercials

all the time. i am a teacher at a school and my students come to class with a soda in their hands. the impact of excess amount of sugar is destroying the health of our nation. as you know the major risk factors of obesity are hard attack, stroke, and even cancer. icily support major bloomberg's decision to keep this ban in place. it will reduce the health cost that is affecting our nation. host: you brought up a couple of points. "the hill" has this --

we go to bill >> in columbia, maryland. caller: good morning. as a libertarian i am opposed to

the nanny state, all of the laws designed to protect us from ourselves. to the larger point of the health care costs, this may sound cynical but the extra costs for health care that these zero -- health care that is going to cost society will be even out by the fact that they will die prematurely. there won't be much cause for social security. host: the judge's decision, which is 36 pages long, is on our website. he cites what bloomberg's lawyers were arguing, medical costs. they make a connection between sugary drinks and diabetes.

6649 extra per year in medical costs is on average what it costs for individuals with type 2 diabetes. obese individuals spend about 1400 more on health needs the normal individuals. in new york city alone over 5500 people pass away yearly due to obesity complicated deaths. the judge also put in here, from the petitioners --

that is from the judge's decision on these studies back- and-forth on sugary drinks. let us listen to what the mayor had say yesterday after the judge's decision came down. [video clip] >> being the first to do something is never easy. when we began we knew it face lawsuits. anytime you adopt a groundbreaking policy strong interests will pursue it. there are many instances where

a decision has gone against us and has been reversed. if lower court rulings had always stood grand central terminal would have been knocked down 40 years ago and we are confident that the de's decision will ultimately be reversed, too. >> mayor bloomberg after a judge blocked the ban on sugary drinks. here is from "the daily news," -

dayton, ohio -- go ahead. caller: i taxes. if i pay taxes i have the right to drink what i feel like drinking. they need to stop. host: what about the impact of the medical costs and the impact of that on taxpayers having to foot the bill for medicaid and medicare for obese people because of these drinks? caller: you have to think about not only the drinks make you gain weight but also the food. i am a diabetic and i know what i can and cannot eat. everyone needs to take the initiative to take care of their life. host: mr. bloomberg acting with

the new york city department of health. attorneys for the city argued in their brief that 57.5 percent of adults and 40 percent of children living in the city are overweight or obese, while more than half-million residents suffer from diabetes.

a free in new jersey, good morning -- a caller: thank you for taking my call. i am 14-years old. host: yet listen to me through your phone. turn your television down. caller: my comment is i usually go to different fast food restaurants and i see a bunch of people getting super sized drinks. i thought that was pretty -- it is their choice. they do not drink it all in one sitting. they might take it to a football game and to drink out of it as

they sit. it is their choice, not the major's he can spend an hour drinking it or he can spend five minutes. host: we get your point. we will go to wayne in albuquerque, new mexico. caller: good morning. personally i think it is absurd. this is one of the only times i would side with the right-wing conservative party on this, being a democrat myself. mayor bloomberg is doing a lot of grandstanding here. i do not believe that coattail in obesity is going to be solved with the size of the container of soda. the way i understand it you can get a smaller glass of soda but then you can order another one. i do not understand the mindset behind that because then it becomes an issue of economics. for paying more for the extra soda. i am a former new yorker.

i go back occasionally. i did not see obesity as being a real problem in new york city. people do a lot of walking and workout in the park. i think it is time for the mayor to perhaps step down and give it to somebody else. host: it is not just new york city. similar proposals have been put forward in los angeles and cambridge massachusetts. the war also has become a regular affair for late-night comedians. we'll go to claudia in springfield, oregon. caller: i am a health care for professional and i do recognize that there is growing problems with obesity in the united states but i do not feel like it is going to be resolved by limiting the size of a container to drink. i think that is a violation of people's rights to even make a

decision of their own right. they really want to crack down on things and they say people are living off of the welfare state and food stamps situation. mrs. obama wants us to eat healthier. if one person gets two hundred dollars per month in food stamps i do not see where anyone can go out and buy healthy food for $200 and feed themselves for an entire month. they never did see the outcome of that. i am not trying to go off of the basis of the span that mayor bloomberg is doing. i feel like he is stepping

unpeople's rights and get away with it. host: let me read you this tweet from bill king -- caller: if that is the case then why don't they just close down the industries and make them not available? host: what about regulating it? caller: why do they have to regulate this, they want to regulate marijuana and alcohol but yet people can drink alcohol and kill people. how many deaths have been caused by marijuana? that proves nothing. nobody has drove and killed anybody on that. that is illegal but alcohol is not. host: claudia in spring hill. we are quite to get your comments on this -- we are going to get your comments on this. in new york judge has blocked mayor michael bloomberg's

efforts on banning sugary drinks. we are glad to keep taking your calls the first let me get to some other news. jonathan strong joins us on the phone this morning to talk about paul ryan unveiling his budget later this morning. we are going to have coverage on c-span at 10:30. let us talk about what we are going to see in this budget plan, do we know the details? caller: bemoaning. he has at least some of the details on -- he previewed the budget on an op-ed to the wall street journal that was released last evening. one of the big things here is that he essentially cuts 4.6 trillion dollars over 10 years

compared to current law. he is trying to put it into perspective in the op-ed, saying that under current law government spending will increase 5% per year over those 10 years. under his plan it will increase 3.4%. the message coming out of paul ryan is we do not have to make draconian drastic cuts to reach balance in 10 years, which is the new feature. it is similar to the plans he has released in the past. host: under this budget proposal, balance the budget in 10 years but no new taxes. how did they go about guest: -- how did they go about this? guest: 1 of the questionable things in here is they are assuming the repeal of obama-

care. which is unlikely to happen given the balance of power. it would cut a lot of spending. it is not likely to happen politically. that is one thing that is sure to be a big point of debate. host: what does he replace if he repeals the affordable care act? guest: we do not know if there will be any details in that. republicans have had a really difficult time over the last few years rallying of around the single health care plan. host: in this opinion piece this morning, paul ryan says that under this budget they would approve the keystone pipeline --

guest: that's true. host: there would be welfare reform. and they would reform the tax codes. guest: on the welfare reform, when you apply the model of welfare reform to other parts of government that are similar, like food stamps and medicaid, to let states have more authority to reform those programs as they see fit. in the tax reform picture, dave camp is keen on tax reform but there are a lot of skeptics in the capital who believe there is not enough trust between the two parties for that to go through. host: politically does paul

ryan have centrist republicans with him? does he have conservative tea party republicans with him? guest: he definitely has the heavy hitters on the tea party and conservative side. they were promised this by the leadership. the moderates and the conference were initially skeptical about this. because of some changes they decided not to change the age at which the medicare changes would begin hitting. republicans have been promising for years now that if you are 55 you will not have to worry about these medicare changes.

now the moderates do seem to be on board on the gop conference. host: on the senate side, "the washington times closed what reporting this morning -- it is winning support from other republicans like senator mark o. rubio from florida. talk about that. guest: the senate budget is a little bit more notable in the sense that since 2009 the senate democrats passed the budget. this is going to be a significant political test for them. the senate makes the process more difficult for the democrats

over there in the budget speech. they have only a -- they cannot lose a single vote or else the vote would be deadlocked 11-11. patty murray, the chairwoman, has to appease the independent from vermont who causes of the socialist and centrist like mark warner. it is very difficult and they are having trouble over there. the next thing that happens for them is to get to the senate floor and because of the procedural rules surrounding the budget there is a no aroma -- republicans will be planning over 100 amendments that put democrats in politically difficult spots. it is going to be a big test. there is definitely reason.

they're gonna have to reckon with these things. host: jonathan strong, staff writer at cq roll call staff . thank you. we are going to be covering the budget from paul ryan this morning on c-span. we are talking to you about the new york judge's decision to block mayor michael bloomberg's ban on sodas. new haven, connecticut, you are next. caller: i think one of the arguments is that eating poorly

and drinking sugary drinks is similar to consuming alcohol or smoking cigarettes in that it causes harm in somebody else in the form of increased medical bills. i would say the something -- that is something on the margin that to a certain extent somebody in society does at one point or another. we are all human. in society we need to allow certain extent for the behavior. as long as it does not directly harm somebody i do not think the government has the right to prevent people from in directly harming somebody else. host: springfield, massachusetts. caller: i agree 100% with the last caller. that is my point exactly. i believe out of many other things the government could be focusing their time on right now, besides what people are

eating and drinking -- what are they going to do next? they are going to start telling us what to wear? your clothes cannot have purple in them because it offends a certain group of people. we are in america and we are entitled to have freedom of choice. it is ridiculous. you go into a store now -- you can even find good decent boxes of cereal because these health have -- these health nuts forced people to take all of the sugar and flavor out of cereals, i screams, and food. -- i screams and food -- ice creams and food. host: if someone is on medicaid or medicare should someone have to pay prediction americans have

to pay for their cost if they are caller: obese i do not understand what -- if they are obese. caller: i do not understand what medical costs you're talking about host: the proponents of this ban cite different reports. if you are interested the judge lays it all out in his decision. there is a link to it on our website. dan on twitter says this -- lou, republican, in connecticut. caller: we are being scanned by so many things. i think the obesity epidemic is a total scam. i am 53-years old and i am in incredible shape.

i got a physical six months ago and there is a skill for your weight there. i am in incredible shape. i was borderline apiece -- borderline obis. the only way to not be fat in this country is to be skinny bone. every kid that gets off of the school bus every day is skinny as a whale. the best part about being a kid is eat and drink anything you want and never putting on weight. host: i am going to leave it there. in some other news, "l eight times" is reporting about the gang of eight -- "la times" is reporting about the gang of eight --

that is "the la times" reporting on that. as a coach to president obama is heading to capitol hill. here is the article on that -- look for more coverage on that later this afternoon.

also this morning here is the peace in the business section of "the washington post" -- we are going to have coverage of that hearing, go to our website for more details on that. "star-ledger" reporting -- marcia blackburn, a republican from tennessee rights into de's "washington times,"

speaking of sequestration and cuts, "usa today," -- they have a breakdown of all the different parks across the country. in "the washington times," there is a piece about president obama's newly appointed liaison to congress. with the headline --

that is in the style section. getting your comments here this morning from all of you on this new york judge banning -- blocking sugary soda. lakewood, florida. independent line. hello. caller: i think the judge did the right thing. they need to understand what is causing it this more than anything else. it is the corn syrup. teen-agers are loaded up on high fructose corn syrup. my supervisory as today was wearing the same address you

are. host: susan in greenville wisconsin. caller: my feeling is they are picking on the wrong fluid. they are picking on the wrong sort of because it has sugar in it but what about alcohol? nobody talks about the cost of alcohol in this country, how many people are being killed by drunk drivers. you do not lose weight from drinking alcohol. my feeling is that they are misdirected and instead of picking on the kids they should be picking on the adults. host: john, a republican in arkansas, what do you think? caller: i took a 32 ounce measuring glass and i felt it halfway with ice and when i

poured the fluid on i had 21 ounces, i lost a third with a cup of ice. when i felt it all the way with ice i only got 16 ounces. so i lost half of the body of the fluid. i used cubes. if i used crushed ice and make it less fluid. as that i smelts you get more water and less sugar content. people pay for what they get. if they get a 16 ounce drink and it is full of ice -- the mayor should make them fill the cups up with ice and they will get less sugar. host: some other program notes for you -- here is the headline in "the financial times," --

the issue is likely to, as the u.s. armed services committee takes a look at that at 930 this morning and the central intelligence committee is taking a look at world wide spreads in the united states. co-chair are website, c- span.org, worldwide press is live at 10:00 a.m. -- worldwide and threats is live at 10:00 a.m..

there is a hearing on capitol hill today and we will have coverage on that on c-span3. also related to our headlines this morning, here is from "the washington post," -- we are talking to you this morning about this effort by mayor michael bloomberg to combat obesity by banning sugary drinks. mark, an independent, cleveland, ohio.

what do you think? caller: double for c-span. -- thank you for c-span. it is supposed to be a free country. we are fairly far from that. this is just another example. the republicans that are destroying the united states -- that is all i have to say. host: we will call -- we will talk to drake next in kentucky. caller: of like to sit pretty much what he is saying. we all have our freedoms and constitutional rights to say and do what we want. it should be all this to decide what we wanted to.

we have health care, that is bull. my opinion is they keep trying to change these laws and change wasn't a communist state. our economy is going to be taken over by the government, it is all controlled. host: the senate judiciary committee is going to be continuing to work on gun legislation, we will have done much this -- we will have coverage of that this morning. on that topic, the front page has this story -- this morning " to the denver post," -- this morning in "the

denver post," -- and then the nra with a wrap- aroudnd ad in "the washington times," this morning. here is "the baltimore sun and" with this headline -- those are some stories for you. also in politico, two pages by the sojourners.

a letter has been sent to leaders in newtown. it says -- phil, an independent in springfield, arkansa. what do you think about this sugary drink ban. caller: people think it is an government.ach by the i think it is a good idea. i think th they should come up ie obese -- i think they should come up with the obese police. host: we will leave it there.

"detroit free press," -- the front page of "the boston globe" has this story -- in other news this morning, haggle's shaky afghan debut is the headline in the baltimore sun.

that is all in "the baltimore sun" this morning. north korea says it cancels the 1953 armistice with south korea but later in the day a year and a spokesperson said that north korea cannot unilaterally dissolve the armistice. jenny, a republican in lancaster. what are your thoughts on this? caller: i think the man has befuddle himself. i would like to know what he drinks. host: whitey think it is such a bad idea? caller: i just think it is silly. if people want to drink a sugary drink let them drink it. they have 1 calorie beer.

beer makes you fat two. -- makes you fat too. host: we are quick to turn our attention to state health care changes. later we will talk with two veterans of natural disaster preparedness, james lee witt and at world james loy -- and admiral james loy will be here to talk about that. we will be back in just a bit. >> george washington enjoyed a long 50 year relationship with alexandria. from the time alexandria was founded in 1749 when he was 17 until he died in 1799 at the age of 57. he participated in the political life of the city. he was a trustee of alexandria.

he represented alexandria in the virginia legislature. even when he was president he made sure that when he chose the new sight of the old nation's capital at alexandria was included in the original district of columbia. toward washington loved to dance. all the ladies really wanted to dance with him, to dance with the most famous person in the united states was a big thrill. in 1799 martha came here for berthing balls. -- for birthday balls. they had won every year since then. today alexandria's main street is named after washington.

alexandria has the largest george washington birthday parade in the nation. >> next weekend, more from alexandria, virginia as bookkeeping e d and c-span's local vehicles look behind the scenes. saturday, noon eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with kyle cheney, here to talk about the affordable care act and health- care exchanges. what are they? guest: they are the vehicle that millions of americans are expecting to get coverage.

there are two ways, medicaid expansion and exchanges. exchanges will be run in every state. what they are essentially is a web portal where consumers can go and get private insurance that subsidizes through the affordable care act. it is basically for people who cannot afford insurance or could not get it through their employers. host: what types of insurance companies will participate? guest: it is going to vary state by state. insurance companies will bid against each other for access to the market. some states will be passive and see any interest company can come on in and we will give consumers the maximum for its possible and hope that their competition drive down costs. host: states are going to be controlling whatever this setup? guest: affectively, yes.

what affordable care act provides for is in states where they exist, the federal government can and build their own exchanges and operate them early on. there will be stayed input. host: 17 states and dc will establish a state-based exchanges. 26 states will likely default to the federal exchange. explain the difference between a state-based exchange and a federal exchange. guest: the consumers may not see much at a distance -- see much of the difference. the one state by and, they want states to have a stake in the outcome. they know who the players are and they have been regulating insurers in their states for years. i think the obama administration would prefer -- they may not see

much difference what is going in the door. host: the seven states pursuing state-partnership, how is that going to work? guest: they're going to control certain aspects of the exchange. the obama administration would still be in charge of building the infrastructure and the networks required for all of that. host: how much is that going to cost? do we know that guest: said it is unclear. -- do we know that? guest: it is unclear. everyone is convinced the obama administration will make sure there is money set up, regardless of sequestration. host: sequestration is happening now but as far as when exchanges have to be set up there have been several deadlines that have been put into place. guest: we are in the final

sprint. in terms of affordable care act time, that is the plight of an eye. -- that is the blink of an eye. there has been a lot of question about whether or not they will be ready in time, whether they can get those complex networks in place in time. especially in states that have held out in saying where they want to go with exchanges. host: any chance they will be able to get some sort of delay or expansion -- or exception? guest: there hasn't been an explicit exception in the past. they want the state to do this. there is a chance there might be a minor delay or a way to get this going as quickly as possible they would entertain it. host: fully operational by

2014, january 1. what does that mean that guest: that means many people will hope to be enrolled by january 1. do-gooders' sense as to whether the affordable care act is working as intended. host: what are republicans say will be the outcome of these types of exchanges? guest: they say this is an attempt for washington to come in and control the health-care markets. i think they are concerned that they will end up driving up costs for people and this is sort of a back door for the health state market. host: driving up costs for people, how so? guest: it is a squelching

competition. it is a washington-imposed plan. the requirements have to cover the copiague amount, the benefits -- washington doesn't know their markets like they do. they do not understand what makes a benefit for people. in that sense it is a one size- fits all structure. host: we have heard from republicans saying we will soon see the premium go up. is that related to the conversation that guest: probably. i think they are worried who is going to enroll in the exchanges in general. if you get a lot of young people who say they can accept a penalty for not getting coverage that the affordable care act provides for then you will see costs change.

host: dream of the demographics of the people likely to participate in these exchanges? guest: i am not sure of the top of my head who is expected to join the exchanges. he may be better informed than me on that. i think they are hopeful that they will get young and they have given states a lot of say in how to structure their plan in the hope they can pelerine it to entice people. host: why is it important that they make this work? guest: it is the young people who consider themselves -- they are healthy, they did not require immediate medical attention except for when they have a catastrophic illness. the point is to get these people to buy into insurance now and pay premium as a way to moderate

health-care costs for everyone else for the older and sicker population that does need regular care. host: the affordable care act, the 26 states that will likely default the federal-exchanges. are these republican governors that have made that decision? guest: they are almost exclusively. there are some states with republican legislatures. you will get a state like new hampshire where they had a republican legislature last turned but now have a democratic one. for the most part democratic- leaning states with a somewhat democratic governor. host: we are taking your questions about these state federal health-care exchange programs. patricia, you are up first from wisconsin. caller: my senator, paul ryan,

just did a budget and he wants to cancel the affordable care act. also, my governor doesn't want it. i bet you congress won't give him money for the affordable care act. the tea party is ruining our country. host: paul ryan's budget, he is going to unveil it today. guest: his budget does assume the repeal of the of affordable care at. i think it is a pipe dream given the political makeup of the country right now. i think it is still aspirational and that is what a budget is. it can be an aspiration of document. they would like that to be the case and republicans still think the affordable care act could

collapse under its own weight. supremes will go up and people will not sign up. it could be a reality sunday. host: at the kaiser family foundation's website they have a map of the exchanges and decisions made by each of the states. the caller noted that paul ryan is unveiling his budget. guest: governor walker very interestingly unveiled a plan. scott walker said he does not want to expand medicaid through the affordable care act. and what he did say was he wants many people as possible to enroll in the exchange and grow

medicaid and state dollars for our income -- for our lower income residents. he is no fan of the affordable care act but he is relying on the exchanges. host: they assume they can repeal the affordable health care law. senator ted cruz is offering up an amendment saying we are not going to fund the affordable care added to the economy gets better. what would that do is setting up the process for these exchanges that guest: -- for these exchanges back guest: the money is there right now -- process for these exchanges? guest: the money is there right now. what does it affected by what is happening is how the white house is able to reach out and tell

people these exchanges exist. they do not have a dollars through outreach. host: senator ted cruz, when is he offering this amendment? guest: he has been increasing support for it. there have been reports that republicans understand the political reality. you're seeing this effort led by senator cruz. senator rubio presume profile to it. i think there is a reinvigorated effort. uz is offeringcr

this amendment to what? the senate is taking it up today. bob from indiana is next. caller: i have a problem with this. expenses and expenditures. i go to several doctors. my doctor every three months for medication refills. he wants me and every patient to come once a month to get medication refills. we are talking about cost. what are some people supposed to do?

no one had the same answers. a lot of that money will come from my pocket and the government's pockets. where's the justification? guest: i cannot speak to monthly doctor visits. our co-pay free -- they hpope prevented visits will reduce cost in the long run because people are getting things caught earlier and not waiting for the last second. the idea of regular doctor visits is what they want to encourage. host: george in massachusetts.

caller: i am on medicare right now are. this is make up the difference in the medicare that i pay? guest: there will not be much interaction between the exchanges and medicare. medicare is for 55 and up. the exchanges are people for working age and it is geared toward young people up till they are medicare eligible would be eligible for the exchange. host: are they paid for in some way under the affordable care act? guest: the states have been getting grants to set up exchanges. those set up costs are affected

by sequestration to a degree. the white house wants to make this work to get these exchanges going. host: there was a new tax in the affordable care act. guest: the tax has not hit yet. a medical device tax took effect this year. the long term tax hall is further down the road to help pay for coverage expansion. host: dan in oklahoma. caller: i have a unique contract. some goes to my wages and some goes to my pension and health care insurance and so much goes to an annuity.

i have a good package. what we have here -- i work these repair jobs and i make $55,000 that year. this is just an example. my health care insurance is valued at $15,000. will i have to pay taxes on $65,000 at the end of the year? sure them not affordable care act will have an impact. if you work for private company, that is tax deductible for your employer. what you paid toward your insurance is negotiated with the employer.

i cannot speak to the particular changes with the affordable care act. host: gary on twitter. guest: and less debate about the real cost of the affordable care act. the deficit reducer over the long run. there will be coverage gains and reduced pressure on things like medicare and other elements that the law touches. republicans are saying this law is going to break the bank. host: joke in north dakota -- joe. caller: i have a few questions

for you. you were talking about breaking the bank. we lost my father. my mother never took a dollar from the government. we stuck it out. i bought my first -- at 12. now i am 75 and on medicare. they say medicare is breaking the bank. you tell me why that should be breaking the bank if everybody has to pay that in or why we take these medicare patients. i understand there are people that cannot work.

we are protecting the lazybones of this country. guest: there is some debate including at the state level about who should be eligible for medicaid. should we make an effort to get people employed in medicaid that cannot afford health insurance on medicaid? the debate is happening around the country on that. there was a lengthy debate in florida yesterday. 70% are employed and medically eligible. a lot of people who do seek medicare cannot make ends meet and cannot afford health care.

medicare costs have slowed. you cannot say it is breaking the bank as much as it could. it could be a major budget buster down the road. host: how does this debate over expanding medicaid on the state level fit into this conversation? guest: exchanges are for people who earn above the medicaid special. under the affordable care act, states have a choice to expand their medicaid program for people making about $16,000. the goal of the affordable care act is to cover as many people as possible.

that is the most vulnerable population that cannot afford health care. this is why the battles are playing out in the states. every state's biggest spending item is medicaid. i think the court said states can expand medicaid to washington cannot hold this hammer over them. this have given states a choice about expanding medicaid. host: there have been eight governors that have agreed to expand medicaid. you can see this list.

why have they agreed to this? guest: there is a lot of reasons why. look at states like arizona and new jersey and you say the political makeup is in support of the affordable care act. it is a choice for states. there are billions of dollars on the table for states that except it. to have billions of dollars that can bolster your economy and expand coverage to hundreds of thousands of the honorable residents, it is hard to turn down. host: next caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have paperwork on the health- care plan.

you are not telling the people what it is going to cost them. $47.50 per child. 2015, $697 per adult. after that it jumps. $5,000 for a single person. there must be three other tiers to the coverage. you are not talking about the cost. this is exactly what you are doing to the american people. they're scared spitless. they know they cannot afford this.

you people on not telling the people what is going to cost. host: what are you doing? are you organizing people against the affordable care act? guest: right now i'm just doing it on my own. this is a dealer think i checked out -- this is not the only thing i check out. people are scared. i'm afraid for the senators and representatives. people will find out they will not get the care they are promised. he did not mention the tax. there is taxed even on it band- aid. there was a device company shut

down because of the tax coming down. you'll pass the tax on to the people. this was classified as a tax. president obama has totally lied. so have the republicans. host: what about the cost of participating? guest: there is no one having any illusion that the will not be premium increases. some short-term premium increases because of the law's impact all once. it is a different story for consumers. care could end up being more affordable and not lasess. is a fear out there.

there is a discussion about what will happen. republicans are convinced that premiums will skyrocket. the law will become unworkable. host: when might we see those headlines? guest: the beginnings over the next year once people start paying those initial premiums in the affordable care act era. once the law officially takes effect, you will see the real impact. host: robert. caller: thank you for taking my call. i find the whole thing rather confusing. we understand basically four systems that we used currently

-- medicare, medicaid, veterans', and private health insurance. given the current ways we received health care, how is it going to change? will the employers continue to pick that up or the percentage the private person pays be the same? with medicare, seniors often have to pay for a supplement program. will they continue to have to buy that program? we would like to know how that will change, it will at all. guest: one of the fears is that opponents will drop coverage and will force people into exchanges, which is private

insurance or on to the private roles like medicare. that remains to be seen. as much of discussion about a government takeover, the law is predicated on growing private insurance. on medicare, it always remains to be seen. there are some changes to medicare in the law enabling singers to get preventive visits at no cost and to close the door not whole -- the donuot hole on prescription drugs. that is up in the air. host: rhonda in arizona.

caller: i am currently unemployed and actively seeking work. how is the unemployed to pay for this insurance plan? i understand there is a fine if you are unable to take the insurance. who is going to pay the fine? there is word that if you are unable to pay for that fine that your spouse will have to pay. guest: i am not familiar with unemployed health-care programs. a lot of states have their own. she was in arizona.

the affordable care act and the penalties are designed to be tailored to peoples and come income. the minimum penalty is $95 in the first year. some say that penalty is too low. beyond a certain threshold, there would not be a penalty at all. you can get a waiver. host: south carolina, a democratic, johnny. of the i'm a veteran united states army. i work with the department of social services. this affordable health care act expands to those who are in

poverty and to members who cannot afford health care. family members would be out of work because of health care. their health declined. these people are not able to go back to work. our governor is not extending that health care. it is an ugly situation. affordable health care is needed in this country. a lot of people need to understand the severity of what it would do to our country. host: do you have health insurance? caller:i do. host: through your job? caller: i do. guest: south carolina is one of

the 'hell, no" states. it will leave states on the hook, even though washington has said it will pay for the first three years and then pay 90% thereafter. there is a fear that washington will not live up to that commitment. "we cannot afford to give you 90% of the cost." that expansion is there for people who are vulnerable and sick. host: we have this on twitter. guest: cost projections are falling. there have been different analyses for why that is.

certain programs that are incentivizing providers to move away from this idea of fee for service. every time the doctor does a service or a test, the doctor gets paid. some say that is driving up costs. the notion of global payments or finding a way to say doctors should be paid for the health the outcomes of patients. host: this from vivian on twitter. guest: is not so much a cap. states are allowed -- most

states have mechanisms to reject premiums that rise to what is considered an unjustifiable way. frustrations some in states like california. raising rates by double-digit percentages. if there is very steep premium rates, we want to show that. a lot of states have mechanisms to reject those rates. host: stafford, texas. caller: i have been dealing with insurance from my daughter before she passed away. what is the big deal about obamacare? why hasn't the government rethinking the doctors and hospitals and the insurance and

regulating them instead of forcing this on us? guest: i think the idea of the affordable care act is to make the system work better. you'll have disagreements about the right approach. there has been tons of that over the past two years. the idea of reaching to hospitals and doctors was a way to streamline the system. host: chris from nebraska. caller: hi. i was wondering in regards to the rebates. 80% were supposed to be used for health care. who is responsible for rebidding

that back to me? is that the insurer? guest: it is the employer in general. a lot of people get coverage through their employer. it is they're responsible to pay 80% for health care. if they breach that, the employer would get that money. they would actually get the check. they could use that to reduce premiums going forward. it is a mixed bag. host: nancy is next from milwaukee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

republicans are against it. this is one was left of the original intent of the bill. take theemployers burden to provide insurance, therefore there would be more apt to hire people? the capital left up to the states. we have an extreme ideologist for a governor and he is not going to do it. we will be punished. i would love to hear your answers. guest: it has fallen to the states on things like medicaid expansion at how to setup

exchanges. states were given a buy-in to the law. employers and coverage -- i think it is a fear that employers will drop coverage. there are certain penalties in place if they do. but there is a fear out there. it could become an unaffordable problem. this is something republicans warned against. host: paul ryan writes in today's "the wall street journal" about the budget he plans to unveil this morning and his ideas for medicare and

medicaid. we will be covering that news conference here on c-span at 10:30 this morning. good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot understand how anybody can rationalize asking the government to do anything more than it is doing. it cannot pay for what it is supposed to be doing now. it is saying it has to tax us smart to get more revenue by adding all these people to the rolls, of course it is going to cost more money. i feel the government simply will not do wit. the states will be hung out to dry. host: we have this on twitter.

guest: that is the point that proponents like to hammer home. this is what is projected to reduce deficits by putting downward pressure on programs like medicare and building in cost savings. some of these shift away from fee for service. this will start bending that cost curve. what people see what scares them off is the up front set up costs to build exchanges. there will be a lot of spending. the idea is it will put downward pressure on health care costs.

host: john in georgia. caller: good morning. why is it so much talk about the entire health-care system has focused on insurance companies that provide these services without the recognition that anything in america that is a corporate-based is basically corrupt? all of these providers work within the stock market and are beholden to shareholders which is a capitalist-based products. it'll always be the people at the top that can benefit from this. you are always going to have that unpaid portion that is going to cut into your life

services and the only way out of it from the standpoint of many developed nations -- germany, canada -- is through social care because there is no corruption on the capitalist side. guest: i think you're not alone on that. there's been a contingent of support for a single payer system. there are concerns about the kind of system as well. dew point would be well taken in some circles -- your point would be well taken in some circles. the politics of a single pair have never been favorable. they may experiment with that in

vermont. host: kyle cheney, thank you for your time. up next, james lee witt and admiral james loy will be here. later, the death penalty. right after the break. [video clip] >> george washington enjoyed a long, 50-year relationship with alexandria. from the time alexandria was

founded in 1749, when he was 17, until he died in 1799 at the age of 67. he participated in the political life of the city. he was a trustee of alexandria. he was a justice of the peace of fairfax county. he represented alexandria in the virginia legislature. even when he was president, he made sure that when they chose this area to be the new site of the nation's capital that alexandria was included in the original district of columbia. we're in the ballroom of the tavern. george washington loved to dance. all the ladies really wanted to dance with him. it was a big thrill. they had birthday balls here for george washington in 1798 and 1799. martha came here for birthday balls. he died in 1799. they had birthday balls for him

ever year since then. they didn't have one in 1800 because that was too close to his death. they didn't have them during world war ii. today the main street in alexandria is named after washington. alexandria has the largest george washington birthday parade in the nation. this is george washington's home town. >> next weekend, more from alexandria, virginia. look behind the scenes of the history and literary life of alexandria, virginia, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv," and sunday at 5:00 on "american history tv" on c- span3. >> when it comes to the secretary of state, what i found a striking is her ability to stay focused at all times as much as possible on what is

happening. she did not get distracted by the details if they are not important. she has an ability to stay focused on the big picture. how was what is happening in the middle east impacting what they are trying to do it in asia? i think she had a good picture of the strategy. she has staff and that allows her to stay focused on what really matters. she doesn't have to worry about whether lunch is served or not. >> a look it hillary clinton's tenure at secretary of state. >> "washington journal"

continues. back.and we're then introduce you to james lee witt and admiral james loy, former tsa administrator. welcome to both of you. you are co-chairs of the protecting america group. seeing events more frequent and devastating. we're seeing less and less people have insurance to cover their losses. that way it is costing taxpayers more money. we felt if we could put together a program that would make insurance more available,

more people would be covered. if an event happened, our economy would recover much faster. there will be a national fund and a state fund. this fund would grow and build and create more competition in the insurance market. host: how does it work now? describe how you change it. guest: we watched sandy, where in the course of watching the storm go by and devastate the homes in the northeast corridor, the process by which we make an effort to rebuild those communities and delta

homeowners -- and bail out the homeowners, the money was all appropriated. it goes directly to the deficit and on to the national debt. we want to find a better financial piece of infrastructure. our goal is affordable and available insurance for homeowners. it would be based on premiums paid by the homeowner into our normal insurance company. it is a three-level layered approach. the first level is the insurance companies. they will probably handle 90% of

these events as they go by. it is true catastrophes we're focusing in on -- earthquakes, floods, fires. the homeowner pays his premium. the insurance company makes a contribution to the state level fund. if a threshold is met in terms of damages from the storm, the insurance companies get assisted by the state fund. in those truly mega-events, those states volunteering to be part of the system take a portion and make the contribution to the national level. we refer to that as a

catastrophe ira. those funds accrue over time and become available when the storm hits. host: after early sound insurance premium -- actuarially sound. guest: there in the competition of the marketplace. the point is whether the actuaries will define what kind of premium is appropriate for that place and time. that is what we mean by that premium. host: our states -- are states right now subsidizing rates for homeowners? guest: florida has a citizens

fund, which is similar to what this fund would be. and insurance fund where they were not able to buy insurance through the market. some would call it subsidized. this program is privately funded. we have to do something different. with the budget cuts we're seeing today and the events we're seeing today, we have to think out of the box and come up with a different way to help people recover from these events. host: what insurance companies benefit from your proposal? guest: all who participate in

this program. you have state farm, allstate -- guest: snc all the companies will be part and parcel of the marketplace. the competition is bread rather than leaving the market place after a major catastrophe. we believe the competition will be bred because of a system that works and works on a pre funded bases would entice all those companies back in to the place that was just hit an compete as part of the marketplace. host: senior counselor and admiral. to do you have clients that would benefit from what you are putting forward?

guest: we're not in the business, so to speak. our client base has a wide portfolio of the interests. in terms of relief for our clients, that is not part of what we're doing. host: you have been out this -- you have been at this for quite awhile at protectingamerica.org. you said, "i think this is the year." guest: i think this is the year. every time we have a major storm it is an opportunity to think that whether we're doing this efficiently or not. the current system is essentially broke.

the people that bear most of the burden are lower class home owners. in sandy, 43% of those homeowners may less than $30,000 a year. there is a disproportionate burden by the lower and middle income families of our country. to deal with inappropriate bailout where $60 billion goes to that relief affords the challenge of a broken system. taxpayers in idaho and montana are sending their money to washington and that money is being diverted for storm relief. all those moneys go to the deficit for the year.

if there is a big pie on the table and one second of that pie we can take out, that is what we should be doing. host: we're talking about natural disaster preparedness with two veterans. ron from new york. caller: long island. i'm not from the hamptons. i was a commercial fisherman. we used to fish off the beaches with nets. some days we could fish and some days we could not. it takest a nor'easter, a lot of sand away from the beach. you have all these millionaires crying.

we didn't do enough to protect their houses. you cannot stop mother nature. theou're familiar with barrier beaches in westhampton beach. i remember being a little kid with my father. they would slow the water so they could backfill it. this has been happening since i was a little child. host: is this about the expensive homes on the east coast? guest: it is about every home. we are seeing more erosion. this is about making insurance available for anyone, not just trying to bail out rich people or anyone else.

this is to help people feel they can recover if they get hit. look at natural beach erosion, the study that we did. that was each year without a storm. 1500 homes would be lost. host: what does it mean after the higher risk serious and the first item is limiting the government's fiscal exposure by better managing climate change risk? guest: this is their annual high-risk list that they put out. i think it was prompted by the senate experience. you saw gao add to the list of high exposure.

we have kicked the can down their road with regard to financial seriousness. this becomes an opportunity as referenced in the bill which we think will drop today. this goes to that very issue that gao puts on its high-risk list. we are exposed as a nation to these massive belts in the aftermath of the big storms that go by. we would see next year that item, off the high-risk list. host: who is leading this bill? guest: the bill would drop today or the next couple of days.

we have a good history on this legislation. the house passed an act in 2007. it was a great plurality. we had over 30 states representative at lots of co- sponsors. we feel the same tidal wave will happen when the bill is dropped. the co-sponsor inventory will be representative on a national issue, where we have 30,3 5 states represented in the support. host: there will be a panel discussion later this afternoon in washington to talk about how the country better prepares for

natural disasters. louise in florida. caller: a comment about disaster response. the bush administration was criticized because of their response to the victims of katrina. some accuse bush of not caring about black people. if that were a wealthy, white area, the bush administration would of cent and needed help. republicans do not care about poor people. host: let's explain how it works. what happens when there is an emergency? guest: i know there was a hurricane in louisiana.

they evacuate over 1.3 million people fast. their plan is to evacuate those facets to the ocean first and then staged the evacuation out from there. the mayor had his evacuation plan in louisiana. they did not evacuate fast enough. that's what got them in trouble. 5 hurricane.f- host: the states are in control of the evacuation plan. guest: if the state -- the local governments are having problems, they put in a request through fema to provide some

resources to get people out. guest: with respect to any given president, the prejudice that was inferred as part of the question. i wonder what people are so focused on things like that. that is what is driving our country apart. i sat with president bush in number of times. support for all citizens was quite real. when the new department of homeland security was put together, it was an opportunity to rethink this notion. the most important things on a daily basis are the cyber security challenge and a close second would be prepared this of this country for these

emergencies that are part of our system. the notion and the administration is given an opportunity to do something better, here's a chance to do something better on a bigger problem. with the effort that has been undertaken by both administrations is a new response plan on the streets. is all designed to have lessons from the katrina's and andrews of the word to have the process more efficient and to have it prestaged. can reach to the pentagon with preordained responsibilities to make the responsibility. guest: we started back with the

state's in pre staging. one thing we need to remember, local and state governments can do all that they can do. it is people's responsibility themselves on what they are going to do, how they are going to get their families out safely. it is important that every family should have an emergency plan put together. host: will, good morning. caller: i have some concerns about the actuarial predictions in the face of climate change. when you talk about an insurance

company taking profits for something the federal government would do without taking profits, that seems like a takeover than a plan for emergencies. we're facing a lot of potential emergencies like super storm sandy, but we can expect more with climate change. guest: your comments are right on point. one of the most legendary storms was in 1938, the so-called long island express which almost caused long island in half. it was a devastating storm. to insert discipline into the system. we have a firm that looked

carefully and did a study on the game plan we of put together and they have found it to be quite sound and insisted on these premiums as part of their fundamental elements going into the design work we put together for the system. we have beata-tested this with the best minds of the business in insurance and other financial overseers. host: we have a viewer on twitter. joe in north carolina. caller: yes, good morning. myrtle beachn near

in south carolina. when it hugo came in, i started replacing the sea walls. they were put in at a mean high tide mark. there were established in 1960. after hugo, all the insurance companies when through lloyd's of london. they stopped writing hurricane policies on this. they need to be allowed to put seawalls in or change the mean high tide mark and the have to sell their property and move thit. that is what they thought they would do with the oceanfront property here.

they thought they would make the second row oceanfront property. that changed the topographer it outside. the water came men and it curled -- order came in and curled. it goes ahead and pulls more of it out. most people do not put a sea wall in the correct way. you have to put 12 down below. host: you are both smiling. guest: this is an enormous challenge. those are local challenges that veary. one thing that is important about our plan is that we deal

with mitigation as one thing that we add to the system. this notion of having your premiums of crude at the state level and the national level. 30% of the profits made from the accruing money is then going to be made available for one of three different purposes. one of them is mitigation. that is about building codes and land use policies. those are things that are worked out at the state local level. the challenge of a local responsible city or state or region to take on the mitigation efforts. the second is about first responder relief.

if we can provide better training or equipment as part of this, we should be doing that. the last is about education. host: how would the money grow, would it be in the market? guest: the portion of the premium dollar from the insurance company would go into this fund. that fund would be like a 501-3c fund. but it would grow and make money, interest. host: in the market? guest: the governor would appoint a board to oversee that fund in that state. one thing that was mentioned which is very important is the

mitigation and the first responders and the public awareness, public education part of it. as this fund grows, i mean, you could have a fund -- pick a state, south carolina, hypothetically. it would not take long for that fund to be up to $10 million or $20 million pitta you are talking about a significant amount. if an event did not happen -- host: your confidence level in that type of system -- i am curious when the market crash or you have seen states like illinois not probably running their own pension fund -- guest: it is a human system at the end of the day. the opportunity for mischief will always be there. but fund millet -- fundamentally, you look at the market today, and the market is

at an all-time high. we would like to think it will continue. host: william, an independent in alabama. caller: i am 81 years old. i went through every store we have had down here. i make money on every storm. my house, i insure as much as i can. inside, the furniture, as much as i can. i had the roof of my house a blow off. $25,000 in debt, but i pay insurance. but i will get that money back. i have made money on every storm. we have an electrical company here, and it makes money every year. really, when it fema comes in and picks up a few lives along the road after the storm and all, they give you money and then sue you back a couple years later because they said they

overpaid you. they do not understand that during the storm, the cost is more for labor to move anything. but i have made money on every storm. they paid me for my fans. they paid for everything. guest: well, that is good. i am glad he got recovered. but not everybody is in this situation. not everybody can recover that fast. a lot of people cannot afford the insurance. so he is very fortunate that he can, and i am glad he did. host: an independent in louisiana. caller: i would like to clear something up and may be helping mr. witt out a little bit. guest: i need help. caller: the navy -- the lady who called from florida is uninformed. this had nothing to do with color. i was in bill lexy when that storm was coming through. i am from louisiana. and ray nagin, who happens to be

african-american, said all week long, do not come to the superdome. do not come to the superdome. that night at 3:00 a.m., our dear governor got on the phone and said come to the superdome, come to the superdome. we will get you out. before everybody could get out, the buses were there, and it flooded. one thing has to be made clear, president bush flew into bed and ruche and that would -- into baton rough and met with mayor nagin and the governor. the president is not allowed to step in. guest: she is referring to the staffer act. but that is exactly right.

the first responsibility is to have a good plan at the local level so that the city and the state are recognizing their responsibilities in advance, have a plan for that, and execute that plan well. when appropriate, seek assistance from the federal government by way of a stafford act request and a declaration of disaster. james lived through 800 + declared disasters at fema. guest: i know for a fact that president bush had already signed an emergency declaration for louisiana and mississippi and alabama before the storm ever got there because they knew it was going to be a bad one. so that emergency power was already there. that is so the state and local governments could make requests and they would get help quickly. host: we're talking about

national disaster preparedness here with two veterans. they are going to have a panel discussion on capitol hill later as part of the protectingamerica.org effort to change the system. admiral loy, today marks the two year anniversary of the tsunami in japan. you said that that has an impact on people in america as well, when it comes to the cost. guest: ultimately, when our system is essentially putting into place is an option to purchase reinsurance from the federal government, and that is one of these small segments of the pie that will impact -- it will be dramatically cheaper than in the public market. most of the entrance. -- procure today by the insurance companies to spread their risk, and it is global system. so the tsunami in japan absolutely had an impact on the marketplace of procuring

reinsurance at the global level. when allstate wants to buy theirs, state farm, travelers, across the board, they will pay more for that reinsurance as is currently proposed in today's marketplace. we're suggesting in our system that we establish a reinsurance segment of opportunity for the insurance companies to purchase a dramatically smaller premium, a smaller cost for them, which they can then pass it down in gain competitiveness in the marketplace and actually yield a lower-cost for the homeowner to pay affordable, available insurance. the study recognized that probably an$11 billion would be saved from premiums across the country. guest: we will still need reassurance. guest: absolutely. this is an adjustment, if you will, to the reinsurance market.

that will be a healthy part of the system forever. host: if you have questions or comments, democrats -- 202-585- 3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. s independence and others -- 202-585-3882. what is the proposed structure for the national board of this fund? guest: the commission is called for in above -- in the legislation. it will be made up of a representative sampling of impacted players. insurance people, homeowners, builders, the folks that are in the system today will have representatives in the commission as it is appointed, not elected, by the treasury secretary. and at least the legislation. >> we will hear from an independent in jacksonville,

florida. caller: yes, good morning. here in florida we have added your car insurance but you pay extra premium for the state catastrophic fund. i have never understood why the federal government insurers have flood insurance and they keep paying for the same property over and over again. it seems like if it is going to flood every time we have a bad storm or something, they should do the mitigation and move the people out of there instead of repaying. and people that live on the oceanfront, they've replace their homes. as far as superstore sandy, it was almost as a category one hurricane. it was an anomaly, everything came together at the right time. then again, you did not have people that, you know, heeded the government warning to get

out. as you said earlier, personal preparedness but you should have at least three days of food and water at your house. guest: first of all, just an example, we have always put in a program where we are working with local governments and states. we had a massive flood, an example like grant park's -- east grand forks, north dakota. population of 50,000 people, flooded the entire town. so the worst areas that got flooded along the river, we worked on a voluntary basis and we actually had a buy-out relocation program. the 10-year anniversary of that flood, they invited myself and my wife out for a celebration. all of that area was turned into a green space and parks.

they will never spend another taxpayer's dollar on it. in 1993, the mississippi floods, we put in a program -- this is all mitigation prevention, a program where, working with each of the nine states and the governors and the president, we could use a female mitigation dollars and hud cdbg dollars, the state could, as their cost- share. in missouri alone, we bought out over 4000 pieces of property in made it open green space. it was given back to the communities. it actually approved the echoes system -- ecosystem around the area. that is why the mitigation side of this is so important for local government. it does not have to be damaged- repaired, damage-repair. this can do that.

host: what about predicting the weather? let me go back to that gao report. there were some mitigating gaps in weather satellite data. can you explain? guest: it is a finite amount of time, and there are a set of gas coming up after 2014 were there could be as much as a 53-month window where the things we count on for dit -- today for forecasting the weather in the production side on when a storm is coming and when it will land will be less available to us as a nation over the course of the 53-month window. the gao added that to the high risk list of things to be concerned about as a nation. the national weather service, national science foundation, all the players that are involved in satellite capability being able to help us predict storms, we

would like to think they will pick that up and deal with that as an issue. you are absolutely right, this is another one of the additions to the high risk list. host: what would be the impact of this? guest: if we get fewer not as good -- a forecast, let alone warnings, i mean, we all watch, you know, today, take sandy for example, we could watch sandy all the way from the east coast of africa where it spawned, all the way across the atlantic ocean, up the east coast. you could literally travel with it by watching the national weather service channel and in virtually every newscast. if that is missing and people are unaware of what is about to hit them, so to speak, are less aware in terms of when it will hit or where it will hit, then the chaos in the aftermath of

one of these major catastrophes is going to be even worse. i should make one other point to aboutst caller's comment national flood insurance. the distinction between what we're proposing with the protectingamerica.org agenda and nfi is nfi is about appropriated dollars. the federal government appropriates money to bail out whatever is necessary in the nfi program. it is about the homeowners premium based dollars in the public-private partnership for the commission is overseen by the secretary of the treasury, and they will provide discipline to the system. at the end of the day, there's no taxpayer money involved. host: 1 last phone call, a democrat in washington, d.c. caller: a question, a follow-up to the gentleman who said he had many storm-related claims and always made money.

you know, in situations like that, no insurance company would rightfully look at that history of claims and continue to offer insurance to that individual at rates that he could afford. because his claim history is so high. we should be encouraging these people to do things that mitigate the risks that there rueful falloff or that their house is going to be flooded. -- that there roof is going to fall off or their house is going to be flooded. people leave their current infrastructure in place and they will be reimbursed in an area that is prone to high claims about gues -- high claims. guest: i agree. that is why we have been working so hard on this project, to make sure that the mitigation side in the prevention side is part of

this. there are ways that local governments and states, together, through a public- private partnership could create a wonderful opportunity to help people that live in high risk areas that elevate -- or even relocate. not a really -- a big concern now is the fact that, in the adequacy of the people that are insured and them not being able to recover. there's also the fact that we're still going down a path of these events, and sometimes it takes, an example, katrina. it takes 10 to 15 years before they ever recover. and a lot of that is because the federal dollars that are appropriated for it, it takes a

long time before that is given out. simply, there will not give it out into the projects are completed. but that hurts the economy of that local community. but it is important that people understand that we can do better. we hope that this legislation, the homeowners of defense act, will help people to afford the insurance with a lower deductible and get more people in shirt. if something happens, they will recover must -- and get more people insured. guest: the mitigation efforts that he described, that is part of the battle, a local and state level thing. this program supports that strongly. second, it will still be an individual decision between that a homeowner and his insurance company as to whether or not they will insure them. if he has a long claim history, it will be a challenge to get his insurance renewed. host: protectingamerica.org for

more information. admiral loy, i want to get your thoughts on tsa deciding to let knives on airplanes. guest: i have two takes the first of all, i have probably contributed about 20 of those little swiss army knives myself going through checkpoints over the last several years. second, my sense is that the decision to allow knives on board just seems to go against the grain and for me personally. i mean, we worked so hard over the course of standing up to the agency and also to watch success of leaders go by and success of policy changes. we certainly want to make the experience for our traveling public as painless as possible, so to speak to the first and foremost, the job is about security. it seems to me to have stirred the pot and allowed something on board that is so close to what

was the box cutters on an 9/11. i do not think i would have been very supportive of reintroducing knives on board commercial aircraft. host: do you think it's overturned? guest: i am not in the business of overturning it, but my personal sense would be i do not know why we needed to make that policy adjustment. host: admiral james loy and james lee witt, to of both. next, we will turn our attention to the death penalty and what states are due to repeal it, right after this break.

>> when it comes to the secretary of state and the people around her, what i found striking is her ability to stay focused at all times as much as possible on what is happening. she does not get distracted by the details if they're not important. the details often matter, but she has an ability to stay focused on the big picture. how is what is happening in afghanistan impacting what they might be doing in the middle east? how is what is happening in the middle east and back in what they are trying to do in asia? she had a big sense of the big picture, the strategy. of course, she is surrounded by people helping her. she has staff. that allows her, and i talk about that a little bit, that allows her to stay focused on what really matters but she does not have to worry about whether lunch will be served kernot. it will just arrived. then she will have it while she is thinking about bigger picture. >> a look at hillary clinton's

tenure as secretary of state, sunday at 9:00, part of "book tv" this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: richard dieter is here to talk about state efforts to repeal the death penalty. let me show the "wall street journal" with the headline -- maryland moves to end execution. since 2007, five states have passed laws to abolish the death penalty, maryland moving to become the sixth. what is going on? guest: this is a radical change on americans' views on the death penalty. not just states, the death sentences have dropped 75% across the state. executions have dropped over 50% in the past decade. now it looks like six states in six years abolishing the death penalty. clearly, a rethinking of this punishment. host: why has it dropped?

guest: innocence. mistakes in capital cases where people have been freed, sometimes through dna testing, has caused a lot of concern about this system. this is an irreparable punishment, so people are saying the death penalty may be too extreme. host: when you look at the state across the country, which state has the most numbers of executions? which has the least? and why? guest: texas by far has over 400 executions. the next stage is virginia with 100 or so. so discotheque's is by far. many states have no executions. there will now be 18 states without the death penalty. even states with the death penalty. last year, there were 43 executions in the country. only nine states carried them out. most states are not carrying out executions. host: like texas and virginia? cultural, societal? guest: yes, both.

texas is a large state and a strong believer of the death penalty. even in texas, the death sentence of have dropped. they had nine dead sentences last year. 10 years ago, they had 40 death sentences in the year. there are things happening, even in the larger committed to the death penalty states. host: california, 724 death row inmates. florida, 411. texas, 304. california has a large number. guest: california is a large state, but it does not execute people. it has not had an execution in seven years. it keeps sentencing people to death. you have a growing death row but no one at leaving except by natural death. that is the most inefficient or non sensible system. eventually, that will be abolished in california, too. host: is the more costly to have people on death row than it is for the state to go through

with these executions? guest: the process of the death penalty is more expensive than keeping people in prison. carrying out an execution is relatively small. but, yes, keeping the system going, even without executions' but you still have an appeals. you still have a process. death row is much more expensive as a security measure than a regular prison. people are regarded daily. -- people are guarded daily. host: look at the polling that has been done on the death penalty over the years. it has remained a popular option with people. are you in favor of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder? in 2012, 63% were in favor, 32% opposed. guest: people do not have a moral objection to the death penalty. this has become more of a

pragmatic issue. that is why states are taking action. they have to make policy decisions and financial decisions. on that basis, the public is much less supportive. when we talk about the costs or the risks of executing the innocent and would a possible to substitute life without parole, you get a 49%-50% breakdown. host: how much money are we talking about? guest: about $3 million for one death penalty case from trial to the end. this a case without the death penalty, about $1.1 million. about three times as expensive to do a death penalty cases than a life case bu. host: southern california, over $4 billion for the death penalty. in maryland, an average of death

penalty case resulting in a death sentence costs approximately $3 million. in kansas, 70% more expensive. in forcing the death penalty costs florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murders with life in prison without parole. is this coming down to costs for states? guest: people say you cannot put a price on justice, but i think we can put a price on security of society. spending $20 million to $30 million for execution in this country, there is a question of choices. more police on the streets? is that a way to reduce of violence? or is it 1 execution every couple years? it is not just about money. host: what happened here historically when you look at this gallup poll? 1967, 1968, the popularity did.

it went around 47% and 42% opposed. had the civil0's rights changes. they were caught up in the racism of our society with the death penalty, therefore probably should be abolished. it also occurred at a time of rising crime. the tensions went to let's keep it just in case, even though it has these racial problems. what is slowly evolving is it is very hard to extricate that racial bias in the system, and perhaps as good time to do away with it, even though people still have fears of crimes and wants of their punishment. host: is there a racial bias? race of defendants executive, 56% are white. 34% are black. the rights of victims in death penalty cases, 76% white, 15% black. guest: yeah, it is a subtle

thing. if you kill a white person, you're much more likely to get the death penalty than if you kill a black person. that means a certain communities are getting benefits of the death penalty, this serious approach to crime. other areas where minorities are the largest group cannot get that. that is racism, it is having its effect. i think another reason why people are uncomfortable with the death penalty, even though they support it philosophically, then no it is unfair. host: state efforts to repeal the death penalty with richard dieter of the death penalty information center. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. independents, 202-585-3882. a republican in georgia. caller: good morning.

this guy talking about racism, he is way off the mark. i had an 80-year-old aunt that was killed by a black guy. they caught him right after he killed her. he bludgeoned her to death and set her on fire and robbed her house. he was sent to a mental institution. the da is hiding information that would prove that a guy was innocent -- [indiscernible] if it was proved that they withheld information, if they was charged with the same crime, you put a stop to that.

guest: certainly, crimes are committed by blacks. crimes are committed by whites. there's no denying there is a terrible crime out there. he is also raising concerns about the stakes are even prosecutorial misconduct in death penalty cases. one of the problems is he cannot take it back was to carry out the execution. we do sometimes find that politics or race or even simply wrongful convictions through his identification sweep into the death penalty cases. these are emotional cases. we want a conviction. sometimes does go wrong. a reputable punishment has that risk. host: on twitter --

guest: you know, what is happening in texas, i think, is phenomenal. they have had fewer executions, if you're death sentences. that is the capital of capital punishment. he says it may be medieval. the rest of the world is moving away from capital punishment, not just the united states but there is certainly something going on and. it is something that does not fit well, the death penalty, within our constitutional system that always has the protections of the defendant in mind. host: what is happening in other countries? guest: over 100 countries recently voted in the u.n. on a moratorium of executions. allies, european allies, canada, mexico, around the world. not only do they not have the death penalty, but they are urging the u.s. to do something, even to the point of withholding the drugs used by lethal

injection. it is hard because a lot of the drugs come from europe. they do not want their drugs used in our executions. it is even economic sanctions against the u.s. host: an independent in new york. caller: i am retired corrections officer in new york state. i have almost 40 years in. over the years i have been asked to sign petitions for the death penalty by my co-workers because they felt it was needed. i always refused to sign under the assumption that there's some people in jail -- yes, i believe there are innocent people in jail, and i believe their people and jailed the committed crimes that do not deserve the death penalty. that is kind of a common feeling amongst many of my correction officers. we're not all conservatives. but one thing i also wanted to comment on is about 15, 20 years ago, pbs or one of the news programs or in an interview program with young criminals,

about 20 years old, and at the end of the interview, they would have an overview of their life of crime. if it was an option, with the continued it? if it was a black, there would say if it was an option of working for white men at minimum wage, not an option. the second part, and this was their vernacular, and there ain't no death penalty. so it is, knowledge that there is no death penalty and they will not be executed if they kill somebody. that is a consideration, too. do i believe that their people in prison that have done things that deserve the death penalty? unfortunately, yes. but these are the comments of the need to be said, and the public needs to know that when there ain't no death penalty, do not mind telling you that, because they know they do not have to pay the ultimate price. i will leave it at that. guest: i have had the publications to speak at the american patent -- correctional

organization. it is a fine organization. they do a superb job. correction officers face bricks -- risks, but they face those risks from people that are not on death row, not those identified as the worst of the worst. the caller knows all about that. it is true. you would be right to say, you know, i am not going to worry about that particular punishment because, you know, 43 executions last year in the u.s. and we have a 15,000 murders. it is a nonentity. therefore, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep it as some sort of symbol is a serious question. host: beverly on twitter --

guest: you know, it is hard to understand how you can spend $20 million to execute someone. place at a cost $3 million to do one case, but only one out of 10 of those cases will result in an execution. at the end of the day, a state has spent $30 million to get one execution. it goes to lawyers, prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers. the whole system. it takes 15 years to get from sentencing to execution. all of that time, because it is the death penalty, is spent in high level security, costing more. meals are brought to them. they are escorted to everything. appeals, lawyers, etc. host: a democrat in chicago, go ahead. caller: i feel that the death penalty should be brought back

because jails are over pact. jail is supposed to be a place that you do not want to go. these senseless killing in chicago does not make sense. they say it is and humane for the death penalty. i feel like that is the only way they can really come here and get a hold on this city, to stop this crime. guest: illinois is one of the states that it abolish the death penalty. and they did it, you know, because they realized so many mistakes had been made. the governors and more people were freed from death row in illinois that were executed. you cannot keep going on like this. it is, in theory, we will take these terrible criminals and will punish them with the death penalty and everybody will get the fear of god and not commit any more murders. the reality, some of those people will be innocent. most of this thinking about crime are not thinking about the punishment. the theory and reality are so

far apart. let's take a look in new york city, comparable to chicago. tremendous jobs in murder without the death penalty. so things work to prevent crime. the death penalty is not one of them. host: here are the states that have abolished the death penalty and the years they did it. 1846 for michigan. 1853 from wisconsin. 1887, maine. vermont did it in 1964. iowa, west virginia in 1965. north dakota, 1973. washington, d.c., 1981. massachusetts, rhode island, 1984. 2007, new york, new jersey. new mexico, 2009. illinois did so recently, in 2011. connecticut in 2012. did some of these states reverse themselves later? guest: you do not know.

i would not say it never happened. if you take a state like michigan, 1846, and they have never gone back to the death penalty. that is true of countries as well. if you look at the group of countries, they have a lower rate than in the states that do have the death penalty. it is also true of countries as well. but you do not get a benefit from having the death penalty. matter of fact, you have a lower murder rate. host: what was the alternative? guest: life without parole. that is a punishment that keeps society said. it is is severe punishment. it is less expensive, and it does not have that risk that if you do find you have made a mistake, you can still free the person. host: on twitter -- that is a good question. it was november of 2012. i close the vote.

52%-48%. almost half of california wanted to abolish the death penalty. it failed because people think, let's just keep it on at the box. legislators and know that they have to balance the budgets and wasteful programs but you know, but ballads, you can see evolution. 20 years ago in california, 70% supported the death penalty. now it is not the 48% -- down to 48%. host: a democrat in pennsylvania. your thoughts? caller: i think he just made my point that i was going to make very well. i cannot think of anything that would be worse than spending the rest of my life in jail without parole if a terrible crime or committed. i think the death penalty should be abolished and basically for

that reason and for the costs associated with it. i just cannot -- i just think life without parole for some crimes is the answer, and that is my comment. thank you. host: thank you. an independent in arizona. caller: i was just going to say that i think the conversation is missing a key idea. it is because it is done behind closed doors. it should be done in public. i know that sounds almost medieval. nobody actually sees it. it is very sanitized, and it should be done in public. i know this sounds regressive, if you will. guest: well, they used to do

executions -- hangings in the public square. people came and brought their children. tickets were sold. it was kind of a festive think of that sort of death penalty can have a fatal attraction. people, believe it or not, want the limelight and the death penalty. when utah had a firing squad, inmates were volunteering to have that is the method of execution. why? because it is a spectacle. they will be noticed. they will have everybody worried about the. it is a dangerous precedent to say, well, spread out the violence and people will suddenly become a virtuous. i think, you know, here is your punishment, you're never going to get out. york appeals are over, we're done with you. life without parole. that is a serious punishment. the death penalty has all sorts of the attractiveness to some people. host: are a juvenile is executed, and what about women

on death row? guest: juveniles, those under 18 at the time of the crime, no, they cannot be. women, there are no particular rules against it other than if a woman is pregnant. but very few women are on death row. only 12 women have been executed since 1976, compared to 1300 men. so who is committing the crimes as part of the story. host: on twitter -- how much of the problem is due to a prosecutor's job prospects depending on high rates of convictions? guest: it is web and to the individual prosecutor on whether to seek the death penalty. -- it is up to the individual prosecutor. it is something to show how strong on crime you all are. in give that appearance. so there is a danger of politics shifting into the death penalty

because it puts you on the front page. rural counties often never seek the death penalty. that is a disparity that does not make a lot of sense. i think that is slowing down. prosecutors are realizing the death penalty is not a sure thing anymore. juries are to schedule -- skeptical. host: another tweet -- host: your data points to that. 88% of the survey says no to deterrence. guest: 80% of over 80% of the executions are in the south. in the four regions of the country, the south has the highest murder rate. that has been true for 40 years. it is does not working. the area of the country with the least executions is the northeast.

it is the area with the least a murder rate. that does not prove deterrence, but it throws cold water on the idea that is having the death penalty, murders will slow down. it does not bear out. host: elizabeth, new york, republican. caller: i live in new york, and at one time we did have the death penalty. then they stopped. i have a question and a comment. in new york, if you kill or shoot or murder a police officer or a law enforcement person, you can receive the death penalty or it becomes first-degree murder or second degree murder. i would like to know if that still exists. i do not believe that a police officer's life is more valuable than any other life, that

they're there in a particular job defending us. although i have -- even though police officers have been shot and killed, they do not get the death penalty but i am wondering, does that still stand in new york? guest: it does still stand on the caveat that there is a federal death penalty. there's actually an inmate in new york who killed a police officer who is facing federal charges and the death sentence. but the law in new york was found to be unconstitutional and it has not been fixed. the legislature did not want any part of it. it really is not even being, you know, voted on very much anymore. it is not possible, but people can get life without parole which did not used to exist in new york and tel they adopted the death penalty. a republican in south carolina.

caller: i had a question about the costs you were discussing earlier and the millions of dollars that there were talking about. is that just from prosecution or how much the cost is to keep these folks in jail for the rest of their life? thank you. guest: mostly for the cost of both prosecution and defense. lawyers are expensive. the incarceration adds up. probably about $25,000 a year to keep somebody in prison. more like $50,000 a year to keep somebody on death row, because you have to watch them more closely. more guards per inmate. such is the more expensive. the major part of the cost of the death penalty are the legal costs and the fact that only about one in 10 cases actually result in an execution, yet the other nine are adding to the expense. host: twitter -- a nation that

claims to be civilized should not kill its citizens. for-private prisons should be abolished. however, there is the argument that if you lower the penalty for murder, it signals a less regard for the victim, for another person's life. guest: that is a concern. the concern also occurs even with the death penalty. obviously, we do not use the death penalty for every murder. which cases are worth more? it turns out if you kill a white person, that is worth more. if you have a good lawyer, your case might not get the death penalty. we do these choosings. we diminish the value of life because we say some are worth more than others. but what life without parole does is level that playing field and says if you commit this crime, you forfeit your life in

a society. host: this says, life without parole would be worse than death, but who pays for the criminals upkeep for life? who is being punished financially? guest: life without parole may be worse, but it does not have those risks. yes, it costs money. $25,000 a year to get somebody in prison. they lived for 40 years, that is $1 million. but the death penalty would cost you $3 million. yes, we're paying for both. what we are really paying for is we actually sentence people to death and keep them in prison for life. and expense of both ends. host: a democrat in san antonio, texas. caller: i am a first-time caller. i have been involved in the prison industry for 11 years. it was really an eye-opener for me and challenged my ideals of

what i thought. you know, the criminal-justice system. we really are a paradigm that needs to shift. i eat understand the punishment phase, but i want to get your perspective on the for-profit motive and the reconciliation. because what i have found is that even when i get personally involved with inmates, when they get out and have personally tried to get involved in their lives, if they have no way whatsoever of gaining access to a job by having resources to provide for themselves and that the family, if they have them, then what you do is just create a system where they never -- even for some of the inmates that do their time, they're just

going to end up back in the prison system. when i talk to them, they say they just become better criminals. guest: i have visited a lot of prisons and have gotten to know a lot of prisoners. one thing that strikes me is how much people change over years within the prisons. they go in, you know, addicted to drugs or violence. years later, they become a different person. that does not mean they need to be out in society. but i do think that people can change. talk about redemption, i think people can have a life. getting out, now that -- for crimes less than what we're talking about, let's say, the death penalty, and that takes resources. jobs, training, followed-up. right now, we're putting $100 million into the death penalty. that money could go towards improving our correctional

systems generally. make it safer for correction officers. make it less of a revolving door. we have to choose where to put our money. host: is this federal money or allstate money we're talking about? guest: it is federal money, that is the truth. mostly state. the federal money comes in for the federal part of the death penalty appeal paid for by congress. but that is towards the end. most of it is state taxes and county taxes. there are counties who have actually gone bankrupt trying to pay for one death penalty trial. host: independent, oppressed caught, arizona. -- prescott, arizona. caller: people with money do not go to jail. the poor people go to jail. the lady in new york said if you kill a cop, you get the death penalty. somebody else says i would not believe in the death penalty

unless it was on video. well, we have innocent people killed by cops and nothing happens to those cops. why is that? there are investigations. no prosecution, no nothing. they should be held above the law, not below it. like i said, you never hear of a cop going to jail. and the top edges killed all the people in california, and dianne feinstein wants to let them have the case -- [indiscernible] nuts anyway. guest: there are certainly abuses all throughout the system. that means we are fallible. we are human. it to me, the bottom line is, to execute people assuming we know that they're guilty and deserve

the death penalty. a lot of other thoughts were in the call, but let's recognize that we make mistakes. host: :caller from wisconsin. -- democratic caller. caller: if somebody is up for murder one, that usually means they committed a violent crime. we wait too long to execute they spend all their time in jail for appeals. how many appeals do they get? you see the prisoners and have been talking to them, but what about the victims of these crimes? it they are put up for murder one, that is usually for a reason. we have to think about the victims. just not the guy you is going to get executed. there are mistakes, but we should get on with it instead of having these guys sitting there for 15 years. they are going to change after 15 years. it has to be addressed right away. guest: 142 people have been

freed from death row since 1973 who were exonerated, sometimes through dna or other things. it took almost 10 years between their sentencing and when they were freed. so you could shorten the appeals to you could shorten them down to five years. but you would miss a lot of these innocent people. you would have executed some of these innocent people. appeals are annoying and time- consuming, expensive, but they are absolutely necessary. as far as the victims, i was in annapolis when maryland was debating the death penalty recently and some of the most articulate and impassioned people testifying where families who had somebody murdered. they said, we do not want the death penalty. it drags us through those years of appeals. it puts the focus on the defendant. it puts the money on the defendant. give us a life without parole and have that part of it be

done. so victims are not pushing for the death penalty. that is what we have seen in state after state. connecticut, maryland about to abolish it, and many of the other states. host: democratic caller, chicago. caller: what could we do -- [indiscernible] i mean, is there a way they can make the jail system stiffer? they're eating three times a day. they're just getting fat. they even had the internet and cell phones. it should be a place they do not want to go. there are more jails being built. guest: it the first thing we want to do is not have a 40% unsolved crime rate in these murders.

that is at least the level in some states. find the person who did these crimes. now let's talk about the punishment to a life without parole is no easy thing to survive. you need some of these things did you need meals but you need something for destruction. but years and years of that kind of confinement is in no picnic. we should all spend a night in jail or sending to get a feel for what one day is like away from your family or not being able to do anything. you know, we could stiffen up the punishment. that is going to make it harder on the guards. it that is the gulf. what we have is one out of 100 people we execute at the cost of millions of dollars, if we want to change the system, there are resources. right now we're putting them into war years and appeals -- and to lawyers and appeals for death row cases.

let's spend it on other things. host: what has the supreme court said about the death penalty? guest: i teach a course on the death penalty. we have to cover volumes and volumes. they say a lot, and it changes. they used to say you could execute seven owls. they used to say you could execute people with mental retardation. -- the used as a you could execute juvenile. now you cannot. people are often split on the death penalty. the basic old and is that the death penalty is constitutional because it is not unusual. host: do you see it coming before the court again? guest: yes, of course. it comes every year around the edges. do we get to a point of society or this has become so unusual, so outside of the norms of our standards of decency -- right now, it is still in debate. but i think there will come a

time, just as the execution of a juvenile, that the court says this is now outside of our standards and we are striking it down, even though some states retain it. host: an independent in west virginia. caller: yes, my question is, does the military still have the death penalty in their court system? guest: yes, they do. they have about six people on death row. they have not carried out an execution since 1963. military members committing crimes, there is somewhat of an understanding that there is the stress of the war in things that affect people in strange ways. it is there but is rarely used and has not been used in over 40 years. host: for more information, go to the website. richard dieter, thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] host: we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. >> here is a look at some of our live programming today from the c-span network. starting now on c-span3, a hearing on global security threats. witnesses include the cia and fbi directors. that is getting underway now on c-span3. later this afternoon, and overlook at fcc oversight. that will start li