developments on the korean peninsula. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning. for the first time in nearly two decades, congress is about to take up a serious debate on gun legislation. the issue of background checks, the ammunition clips and a salt weapons, that will leave -- lead the coverage here on c-span2. great britain is preparing for wednesday's funeral ceremonies for margaret thatcher, the former british prime minister who died last week at the age of 87. it is sunday, april 14. one more day before taxes are due. tomorrow is the deadline to file your taxes. we want to hear from you on how

you would fix or simplify or change america's tax code. 146irs is processing million personal income tax returns this week. our tax code is made up of nearly 4 million words. your numbers -- you can also join us on our social media sites, including facebook.com/c-span. many of you are weighing in on the tax issue. you can send us an e-mail or a tweet @cspanwj. "the arizona republic" has this headline -- from "the huffington post" --

as many as 60% of americans hire a professional or use tax corporation software, and another 30% -- only 10% do it on their own. one change has happened each day. everybody complains about the duplicity of the tax code. the number one problem, politician seem to agree that the road to tax simplification goes through lower rates and a broader base. you can read more online at huffingtonpost.com. some of you are weighing in on twitter and facebook. eric cantor, the house republican leader, weighing in on taxes and the tax code. [video clip]

we are three days before tax day in the united states. i think this brings us to the many kitchen tables around the countries -- around the country where families are sitting down , having signed their returns. many are having to write the check. having spent entirely too much time in preparation and entirely i think itney spent, all bring some the point that yes, finally now is the time for tax reform. i met several members of the ways and means committee that believes strongly, working with chairman camp, that we do have an opportunity this year to reform the tax code, to make it simpler and fairer for our working families. as was just said, we have this week also the realization that the president has proposed his budget finally.

yet, much has not changed. he continues to call for more tax burdens on those families sitting around those kitchen tables. we in the house as republicans disagree that we ought to take more out of the pockets and checking accounts of the people that earn the money. congressman eric cantor in an event sponsored by americans for tax reform here in washington, d.c.. cnn pointed out that april 15 is the deadline that your taxes are due. on our facebook page, there is this -- some of your calls and comments

as well. kevin is on the phone from massachusetts, our line for republicans. the question -- how would you simple by america's tax code? caller: good morning. i would agree with a flat tax to make it more fair across the board for middle-class americans. ourink once you do that economy will be more prosperous for the middle class. we have been taking the hit for a long time. we need fairer tax reform. host: based on that, what would it take for washington to get to that point? we for them talk about tax reform for years. -- have heard them talk about tax reform for years. i think eric cantor or paul ryan, i think those two guys

are smart guys. they can hash out a plan, bring it before the house, and of course, it is going to be knocked down by the summit. i would like to see a great plan by those two guys. they are some smart fellows. host: jerome is next from pennsylvania, on the democrats line. how would you fix america's tax code, jerome? would like toi say, thank you to the cable companies for c-span. allink they should declare income regular income. no more of this hiding your income in different ways. .ake the rate much lower if it was much lower on all income, i think we could solve the problem. that is all i have to say. thank you.

host: there is this from one of our viewers -- the area code here is 202-585-3 881 for republicans. dutch from new york, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so very much for this program. i think it should be a flat rate tax, and it should go to the states. then the states can disperse it to the federal government. or ay be a deduction little bit of the pedants -- pittance for medical expenses. if you do the numbers, let's say

10% -- a person who is making below the poverty level, they probably will not pay anything. somebody making $50,000, they are going to pay $5,000. somebody making $1 million, a are going to pay $100,000. it has to be fair like that so that it is fair for everybody. no more getting around special tax breaks and loopholes. when president obama tells us that he is not raising taxes, he is not including in that same sentence that he is taking away tax cuts that could be made. ,ost: from upstate new york thank you for the call. judy is next, florida, on the democrats line. how would you fix the system?

caller: a flat tax is actually a tax increase on the middle class and poor. if we did a flat tax, we would to close the loopholes for the wealthy, and that would make it more fair. and ge, theyexxon need to start paying taxes. we are subsidizing oil companies, and now we are talking about a flat tax, which is actually a raise on the middle class. that is not fair. there is nothing fair about that. ast: on our twitter page -- lot of you weighing in on the issue of a flat tax -- that comment from our facebook page.

during the house budget committee markup that took place in may, a reference to paul ryan, the chair of that committee -- on grossman jim mcdermott, democrat of washington, had this to say about some of those provisions in the budget and the tax loopholes that help those who need it the most. here is a portion. [video clip] ?> guess what people are still hungry. the one entitlement they have is snap. they can get food stamps. they can get reduced food costs. budget is growing rapidly in the country. yesterday, we passed a foolish bill to fix a problem that did not exist about work on welfare. that as we have pushed women out of the home to go to work, because they do not

want to sit home with the kids enjoying the welfare and being one of those welfare queens, we have pushed them out and push them into the workplace, and they've got to pay for childcare. or do you expect them to let the kids stay at home and take care of themselves? all of these tax credits are toated to people struggling get into the workforce. the earned income tax credit says if you go to work and you do not make enough, we will give you a little bit more to keep you out there. we will give you some money for the childcare. we are going to give you something for food. of this budget in taking away and cutting away those basic things is saying you do not care about portugal joined in this country. other side of the argument on taxes and budget

provisions. many of you weighing in on our facebook page -- you can also weigh in on the debate on an "the new york times" dialogue page. this is available online. it is titled "sunday dialogue: lifestyle and taxes your coke tomorrow is the deadline for you to file for an extension. is titled "sunday dialogue: lifestyle and taxes." tomorrow is the deadline for you to file an extension. are looking at this wrong. the people that benefit from the society the most should pay

the most. if i'm sitting on a quarter billion dollars, why should i who10% when the person cannot even afford a peanut butter and jelly sandwich pays 10%? if right now rich people claim that they are paying most of the taxes, we pay most of the taxes, but they also only pay 17% of their income -- if they doubled that, they could pay all the taxes and still pay a less percentage of taxes than your average middle-class person. host: ok. thanks for the call. if you go to "travel and leisure" magazine, you will find what they call some of the most unusual taxes. it includes this --

this is from "travel and " travel andotte -- leisure." a decks also a tax on of playing cards and alabama. check that out at travelandleis ure.com. richard is joining us here in washington dc, on the independent line. the tax code is a serious problem. the tax code is made to drain go tofrom the people to certain political interests for clinical campaigns. you've got understand this crony capitalism because money is taken from the state and local levels, owing to some corporation or organization, which does not pay taxes. the system is designed to drain money to keep people confused while the elites do not pay nothing. you've got companies like exxon,

ge, most of those companies do not even pay taxes. they are draining the american people. we have to come together to stop this ridiculous tax code, simplify it so it is fair. right now, this code is not fair. it is made to confuse the people of the country while the superrich benefit. this is not right. for the call. on our twitter page -- a couple of other stories to bring to your attention, from inside "the new york times," --

that photograph from inside "the new york times turcotte -- " the the york times turcotte -- " t new york times." this from inside "the washington post" -- the story is that awkward dinner presidency will be important in negotiations going forward. another caller. caller: i have watched c-span

since mr. lamb would preside over the show. you guys have taken a dramatic turn. i have to tell you, it is somewhat downward. you are complicit in this and the erroneous facts that are out there. you have all the statistics available to you. , you are ae reason shadow of your former self. host: what specifically are you referring to? is an example. the tax rates under every tosident -- let's go back as far as what

different tax brackets paid up thosenow -- you have statistics available to you. today, during this segment, i sincerely doubt you have them ready, but you should. i'm sure you can get them ready, your producers can. 1% tax rate paid by the top has totally decreased from the , reagan, bushdy senior, going forward. it is nonsense. folks on the show will probably jump all over me. i think i am a moderate. i was just watching fox news.

tucker carlson made one of the most misleading comments on the payroll tax. people have always paid the payroll tax. was there a payroll tax holiday? yes. to say that anybody in office, the president, a congressman, a senator, to say they raised the payroll tax -- that is a lie. there is this thing where you have to be neutral, but there is also something called willful ignorance. host: i would respectfully disagree, but i appreciate the call. the goal of this program is to share with you what people are talking about. we are focusing on taxes. we began the program looking at the 4 million words of the u.s. tax code, and i referred to the "huffington post" article --

the story points out that the impetus for tax breaks came in the 1950s. congress realized that the top marginal rate of 91% was a political liability. lawmakers crafted exemptions to make the rate easier to swallow. soon they realized the benefit of rewarding constituents by fostering lifetime employment. . we also share jew comments from a democrat and republican on capitol hill. i appreciate the call. but i will disagree with your sentiment. we will go to tony next room connecticut, good morning to you. locum. -- welcome. good morning. i think i have a pretty good solution on how to simplify the tax code. host: how is that? caller: i have been doing my family taxes, my kids about my

wife, and i for decades. my solution to simplify things is instead of actually writing the numbers down, going through all the numbers, instead of doing that, send a simple , a family taxpayer profile form, sent to the federal government at the end of the year, just to see if there are any changes in the family or personal profile. compare this year to the previous year. if there is not a change, the federal government knows how much they owe us, what the refunds should be, or how much the taxpayer should pay. they have the records from all s,e income, from the employer's the investment institutions.

fill out a could, simple form. i'm still married, not married, a household, two kids -- send out the form, send it to the federal government, and bingo. i'm not saying this is a solution for everyone, but for a majority, a simple profile form would work. host: from this morning's "washington post" --

eric is joining us from franklin, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i enjoyed your program very much. i would be in favor of a flat tax. practicing 27ey years and i work for the government. it comes out of your paycheck. that is what it was. i went into a private practice a few years ago and became very making over $200,000. i was shocked at the amount of regard tocome tax in fica and the payroll tax. my eventual response was just to check out and greatly decrease my income and say, i'm going to work three days a week. i will have the money i need to sustain myself.

i see people's tax returns every week. , the lowcome side income side, you can effectively pay nothing and get the earned , a $4000x credit refund, and pay nothing. i find it immoral that the progressive concept that the more you earn, the more you pay, when there are millions of byricans receiving money tax refund when they effectively have not paid anything. the refund is larger than the amount that they paid in, even on the mere payroll tax. i am in favor of a flat tax. it gets people's skin in the game. everybody would like to benefit, but if they are not participating in paying for the

benefit, even at a marginal rate, it is a slippery slope that will lead us to destruction. and for the opportunity. host: on our twitter page, this comment -- "gain, "the arizona republic looking at the 100th anniversary of the income tax code. it began with 30 to 40 words, and now it is made up of nearly 4 million. politico writing about the president's taxes, details released on friday, along with vice president joe biden. here is the headline -- tax returns released by the white house on friday showed the obamas paid an effective tax

rate of 18.4% on more than $608,000 in adjusted earned income in 2012. last year, their rate was 20.5%. they claimed several big-ticket deductions, including 150,000 dollars in donations to fisher house and 33 other charities. ,yan joins us from lynchburg virginia. how would you fix america's tax code? i definitely do not think a flat tax is the answer. a flat tax is like a national sales tax. , that would stop people from wanting to go out and buy things because they are going to cost more. that would hurt the economy more than anything. it is not flare for a flat tax because people with lower income arcana much higher percentage than anyone in the upper class would be.

it is really not fair to have any kind of flat tax. i think the best way to be approved -- a progressive tax. host: we will come back to more of your calls on how you would simplify america's tax code as than half of- more americans have yet to file. tomorrow is the deadline. the other discussion, guns, and the u.s. senate taking up the issue on monday and tuesday in what could be a series -- weeks of debate. yesterday, the white house announced that the weekly address would not be delivered by the president, but by the mother of one of the gun victims. the story from "the new york --es -- "the new york post" the statement from the white house --

[video clip] >> sometimes, i close my eyes, and all i can remember is waiting around at the sandy hook firehouse for the boy who would never come home. the same firehouse that was ben's cub n's -- to scout.

we have to convince the senate to come together and pass common sense gun responsibility reforms that will make our communities safer. we need to prevent more tragedies like the one we never thought would happen to us. when i packed for washington on monday, it looked like the senate might not act at all. then after the president spoke in hartford, and a dozen of us met with senators to share our stories, more than two thirds of the senate voted to move forward, but that is only a start. they have not yet passed any bill that will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. a lot of people are fighting to make sure they never do. now is the time to act. please join us. you can talk to your senator to to visit whitehouse.gov

find out how you can help join the president and get involved. help to see the moment when real change begins. from the bottom of my heart, thank you. weekly address, not by the president, but the mother of one of the gun victims and newtown, connecticut. wayne maki or is the subject of a story on the front page of "the new york times" -- wayne lapierre is the subject of a story on the front page of "the new york times" --

that story was on the front page of "the new york times." ron joins us as we turned back to the issue of the u.s. tax code. how would you simplify it? caller: a couple comments before my comment -- i find it kind of ironic that an attorney would and he is woefully concerned about some book -- somebody under the poverty level getting $4000 back from the federal government when the simple way to take care of that is to increase the minimum wage so they would not be below the poverty level. about acaller called in consumption tax. that is all right, but it allows people to hoard wealth

without spending money. a flat tax would be with the poverty level being the and a tax on all income, no deductions. that means benefits, dividends, stocks, bonds, everything. whatever that amount would be -- i think what obama paid was pretty good, 18% -- that is it. it is on everything, inheritance, business. you can give a rebate to businesses that spend money on capital improvement in this country. host: on our twitter page --

a look at some of the news weeklies. " is weekly standard focusing on margaret thatcher who died last week at the age of 87. bill kristol, among others, looking at her career and the role she played, not only in conservative party all attacks in britain, but also in the u.s.. also, "the cq weekly" -- " --e magazine this story that was getting a lot of attention latest week him and anthony.ma anthony wiener, the former member of congressman who

stepped down from congress after his own tweeting sex scandal, now looking for the possibility of running for mayor of new york city. steve joins us from colorado, the republican line. will tell you the easiest way. get rid of the lobbyists and lawyers in d.c. as you know, ge did not pay any taxes whatsoever. who is in charge of our finances now now? -- now? .he guy who heads ge one other thing, the lady talking about sandy hook -- why don't you have one of the other parents who says that these gun laws they are passing now when not have an effect on any of this stuff that happened? host: we'd cover that as well.

we had a member, a gun rights advocate on here this past week. you'll hear hear live coverage and c-span2 as the gun debate heats up. we go back to "cq weekly." " -- joins us from florence, colorado, the republican line. i'm sorry, let's go to anthony in georgia, good morning. good morning. i wanted to comment on this. i've spent a lot of time looking at this. according to all the documentation out there, when you are looking at revenue and , if weility for revenue

scrapped all existing taxes and went to a three percent -- 3% transaction tax, we would receive about $5.4 trillion in revenue per year, which overshoots the president's budget and allows us to pay down our debt. , thanks for the call. this from inside "the weekly standard" -- depicting heaven and ronald reagan saying to maggie thatcher, good to see you again, maggie. funeral services will begin on wednesday morning at about 4:15 a.m. eastern time, 1:00 in the morning for those of you on the west coast. services will take place at st. paul's cathedral. live coverage on c-span2 wednesday morning. it will be posted on our website as well and re-aired on the c- span networks wednesday evening. mike is joining us from augusta,

georgia, the independent mind. the question we are asking, how would you simplify the u.s. tax code? i would eliminate the distinctions between the different types of tax revenues in such, like the capital gains and ordinary wage income. i would also make it basically progressive -- for every one dollar that you make more, the more percentage you pay. dollar by dollar, that will eliminate the margin. that will eliminate a lot of the accountants from it. call.ok, thanks for the a republican member of congress delivering a republican response to the weekly address, while the white house and democrats focused on guns. republicans were taking a look

once again at the budget. [video clip] budget issident's not a compromise. it is a blank check for more spending and debt. if that were the answer, millions of americans would not be leaving the workforce asking, where are the jobs? republicans budget will balance in 10 years. it will and the waste of taxpayer become -- taxpayer dollars. it will deliver real solutions to help improve peoples lives. here's what some of the solutions look like like. first, our balanced budget seizes opportunities to support our nation of builders and get americans back to work through popular energy projects like the keystone xl pipeline. second, our balanced budget repeals obamacare so we can address the problems it is causing, like making it harder to higher and driving up health care costs. we will work towards asian centered reforms. finally, our budget lays the groundwork for a fairer, simpler tax code come a closing

loopholes, lowering tax rates for everyone. it would mean higher jobs -- more jobs and higher wages. tax they would not be such a headache anymore. a day would not be such headache anymore. host: the question, how would you simple by america's tax code. i'm always glad at the merrick people have this forum. i would like to point out a problem without having an effective solution. ina's re 1.2 million this nation as of 2011. with that many people's jobs at stake, simplifying it, i do not think it is going to happen. you would add another 1 -- 1% onto the unemployment rate.

sorry, i do not see it happening. host: the 16th amendment setting up the tax code. "the huffington post" raking down the numbers. here are some figures according to the irs -- as we said earlier, the u.s. tax code has 4680 changes since 2001. every buddy complains about the complexity of the tax code. our question, how would you simplify it? 30 initial tax code was only words. now it is almost 4 million. some other headlines, "the philadelphia inquirer" --

the secretary of state is in beijing this weekend. from "the atlanta journal- constitution" -- " hassunday denver post this headline -- from "the detroit sunday free press" -- darren is joining us from louisiana, the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a comment -- i have been working almost 25

years and my profession. i do not want to say where i but i noted from the last 15 years -- i was listening to ,he comment of the tax attorney and something went through me. -- have a person that talks that gets $4000 back. sixincome alone is about or seven times more than what that person is getting back. as a middle-class working person, we are getting killed by everything. are paying a mild amount of taxes, and then, on one side of the scale, we have huge incomes , and then a person on the other side of the scale pain almost nothing with the huge income -- paying almost nothing with the huge income. i think we should pull away the loopholes.

we should just have the people pay the taxes by what the law says. host: daryn, thanks for the call. a lot of you are weighing in on our facebook age -- page -- from san antonio, texas, the democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? the supreme court has already solved the problem for us. they have ruled that corporations are people. thisnce we do not need separate but equal tax code, the should betax code thrown out. since corporations are people, they should file the same way

individuals file. it on individuals, you change it on corporations. we move forward, this would be the first step in redefining what is deductible, what is not deductible. it is the same thing that happens to individuals, it will happen to corporations. host: jan has this point -- dous has this on our facebook page -- thanks for your calls and comments. the conversation continues at facebook.com/c-span.

we will talk more about taxes and the budget in the week ahead here in washington. our sunday run table will include susan ferrechio and jeff mason. a reporterchio is for "the washington examiner." reuters.n is from than the cheap policy expert for veterans for -- veterans from afghanistan. an excess of more than 900,000 disability claims at the veterans administration. those issues are coming up. first, a look at the sunday programs. there is one common theme, immigration. good morning, nancy. >> good morning, steve. on all the sunday shows, senator marco rubio of florida will be making an appearance. he is a member of the gang of eight. he will appear on every show today. c-span radio re-airs five of the network programs beginning at

noon with nbc's "meet the press turcotte -- "meet the press." guests include senator kirsten gillibrand and utah senator mike lee. at 1 p.m., you can hear abc cost "this week." and democratic budget committee member senator chuck schumer of new york. at 2 p.m., "fox news sunday." dick durbin, marco rubio, and john cornyn of texas. "state of the union" as andy currently welcoming senator rubio, and also senator john mccain and senator's mansion and toomey on gun control legislation. we will also hear from former cia director michael hayden. at 4 p.m., it is "face the nation" from cbs.

bob schieffer will talk to senator's mansion and toomey on their gun legislation. the sunday network talk shows on c-span radio are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. again, the re-airs beginning at noon eastern with "meet the press." at 1:00, "this week turcotte at 2:00, "fox news sunday." you can listen to the mall on c- span radio at 90.1 fm in the washington dc area. you can listen nationwide on xm satellite radio. or download our iphone app and listen on your smart phone, or go online to c-span radio.org -- cspanradio.org. >> i really learned this week how humanizing politics is. it is about people that really interact.

we learned we can do this, we are all capable of being leaders of our country. it is about working together and finding common ground. >> before this program, i was not optimistic about the future. all the media shows is the negative aspects about the future. i think this program really made us all more optimistic about the future and more positive but where our country is going. negative opinion from the news media whether it is fox or msnbc. the fact of the matter is that is workingr together everyday. our senators are able to eat lunch together. it happens every day. >> i feel president obama summed it up perfectly yesterday. he said that our country has struggling throughout our history, but we as people have always gotten

through it. i am not saying i'm not worried about the future, but i see 103 mines in this room who want to make a difference for this country and want to do good. i'm sure there are plenty of other people around our age that want to make a difference and want to do good. i believe that we will be able to solve the problems that we face today. each year, high school students across the country meet in washington dc for the senate leadership luncheon. here their insights from the week tonight at 8:00 on c-span ."-"q&a turcott host: we want to welcome susan ferrechio and jeff mason. let's begin with the story this

morning, the headline in the washington post, looking at the agenda for the president as he embarks on his second term. they were basically talking about what we have been focusing on, immigration, the budget, taxes, and guns. the dinner that took place this last week with another 12 members of the senate. it is a really important week coming up. we will be talking about a lot of big legislative issues for president obama. gun control, immigration reform are two things that will be center stage. of coarse, looming in the background are these budget talks because the house and senate are going to need to appoint conferees to their budgets. the president just put out his budget blueprint. a lot of things are coming up that will be high stakes for the president. the first thing we will be seeing front and center is the gun control legislation.

the senate will be debating it beginning on monday. they will have to come together on some sort of plan to see if they can pass something out of the senate. it is not clear whether they can. the president certainly is lobbying pretty hard on it. we had a powerful saturday address from one of the moms of the victims of the sandy hook shooting. it is pretty high stakes for him. oft: this is a photograph the president as he outlined his budget blueprint last week. getting hit on both sides of the aisle when it comes to this issue of chain the cpi -- is that helping or hurting? would say white house that it is helping. getting hit by both sides means it is a compromise document. their position is, we've made some movement in the direction of republicans. we are willing to make some offers that people in our party do not like. this isa sign that really a serious document that can be taken as a blueprint, as susan said, for a future

deficit cutting deal. the truth is even some republicans are using the chained cpi argument against democrats and against the president, which is interesting, because it is something that the white house believes that this is something that is right up their alley. republicans are arguing that they wanted this to be part of a larger reform package. i think chained cpi -- some are saying on the house side that it is not enough, it is too small an amount to make any major reforms to save our programs. then you have greg walden who was arguing that this could amount to some sort of tax increase. grover norquist, the head anti- tax guy in washington, also saying this will amount to a tax increase. they want to see overall tax reform where the rates are lower as part of a package of reforms. the president has not put that forward. he has taken a baby step. he has put entitlement reform on the table from the white house. that has never been done before. guest: it is something

republicans are calling for all the time. it may not be as biggest up as republicans would like, but the white house is saying look thomas it is a step that shows we are moving. host: this is from friday's politico -- we will hear from marco this morning on all the sunday programs including telemundo. guest: some? for marco rubio. for marcoestion marks rubio. what are the political calculations he is making, for example, when a deal came out, he said -- sent out a statement saying that the deal was not there? not only will viewers be watching him, but the white house will be as well. guest: we will hear more this week. they were talking about it being ready last week. that kind of tells you about the complicating factors of

trying to get a compromise. borderthe issues is security. a lot of republicans feel that this immigration plan may not do enough for border security in exchange for this path to citizenship for the 11 million who are here already. the other issue is what to do about farmworkers who come here to work who are not legal americans, what will their fate be? what will they be paid? all that stuff is being debated. according to lawmakers on capitol hill, they tell us that we will see something by tuesday, because on wednesday, there will be a hearing where we will be talking about immigration reform in the senate. they want the legislation they're so people can read it. this is the week where we will finally see what the senate has in print. immigration, budget, joins us,jeff mason the white house correspondent for reuters. also susan ferrechio, from "the

washington examiner." we invite your participation. send us an e-mail. you can join us on facebook. or you can always send us a tweet. thatico is reporting senator susan collins, republican of maine, is on board with the mansion -- man arrangement on back run checks. guest: one of the problems she had with the original bill is that it may prohibit family members or neighbors from exchanging guns without having to go through the located background check process. she was interested in something that would make it -- exempt these folks, and only deal with the commercial sales of firearms and internet sales. she was also concerned about the idea of background checks requiring the creation of a national gun registry. she told me that she believes oomey -- manchin-

a goodlegislation is compromise. she is among the more moderate of republicans on capitol hill. she is from maine, a state that voted for president obama in 2012. not terribly surprising. the ones we will need to watch our many of the other republicans that signed on to debate the bill, but are far less likely to vote to end debate. there are a lot more of them than there are those in the other camp. host: this is how senate majority leader harry lead -- reid put it on thursday. [video clip] >> we are going to have to vote on the manchin-toomey ammend

ment. we are going to have to have a on the assault weapons ban. some people love it, some people hate it. we are also going to have a vote on the size of clips of magazines. votes of all make sure we are going to have to do. we should have amendments. if people think the present law is two-week, we can change that. if people think it is too strong, we can have amendments to change that. we cannot have a few senators supporting everything for everyone here. this is the time where we should lay down amendments and see if we can pass something. we would like to think that all eyes will be on c-span this week.an2 he really broke down what the main votes will be. what is the president looking for? guest: the white house wants to see them vote. they want to have these issues on the record. you want to have lawmakers have the chance to say, we are for

this or we are against this. then also to have the vindication for president obama saying, we brought it this far. what was really interesting last week was at the beginning of the week it did not appear there would be a whole lot of potential for a deal. he went to connecticut. he brought families back from newtown, connecticut on air force one. they went up to capitol hill and clearly had an impact. yesterday,ntioned, one of the new town mothers gave the president's address. very emotional. it's got a lot of news coverage. nearly, there is progress. it may not be as far and as wide reaching as the president wants , that there is something going on. host: this story from the front page of "the new york times does york times."e new what sort of lobbying effort do

they have going on this week? : they give the lawmaker a grade on how they behave on these types of things. that is important to them because if they are from red comes or pro-gun states of the nra could threaten, if you vote for this bill on the senate floor, that in our opinion, would limit gun ownership, then we would lower your grade. they are a powerful lobbying group. i believe they have been able to stave off even stricter gun control. for instance, the magazine clips -- when the senate gets to debating the amendment on limiting the size of those, i think that will be one of the more interesting debates. i do not think there will be a real effort or real progress on banning any types of the assault weapons. i do not see an appetite.

the size of the magazines, that will be an interesting debate. it is where you're going to see some real efforts by the nra to make sure they do not lose any of their members on that. host: how do your guests feel about senator reid calling for gun legislation bills this week? guest: there is an age-old debate here on capitol hill who is to blame for gridlock. there are build the house won't take up, the bill that the senate will not take up. how they prioritize what legislation will come to the partly partisan-based and partly practical base. gunfact that the legislation and immigration reform will come to the floor has everything to do with timing. if they wait too long on either of these things, forget it. even now, people are saying that the influence of sandy hook is waning.

and a lot of the have been talking about that. and the saturday address, people say everyone has forgotten about this. even theiy are saying we need to get this done quickly. we have to get it done now because the president's influence will wane. guest: it was also one of his big promises from the 2012 elections. he said it would be at the top of his agenda at the beginning of 2013, and it has been. another common about the nra, last week in the white house press briefing, jay carney was asked whether the influence of the nra has waned. it was interesting that the question had been asked. jay. j, which was probably smart because it is pretty early to make any sweeping statement like that. the fact that it was asked indicated that there has been progress on that. the: we will go back to issue of the budget.

this is the headline this morning from the hill.com. some president still at the -- some democrats feel it the president social security cut will haunt them in 2014. the president's plan will be a to winning the party back in 20 14. a growing number of house democrats are concerned that the president's plan will hurt the party and herd the many polls. guest: that is a legitimate question and a legitimate fear if you are running for reelection. obviously the president is not running for reelection. his very strong feeling is that suggest howals tough he is about deficit reduction. he is a democrat and he is taking on programs that are sacred cows among democrats. we have already seen some republicans using that against the democrats, and you can be certain that some constituents when the congressional races

come up will ask some of those questions. it will be interesting to watch how lawmakers on capitol hill distance themselves from that, and how many are willing to embrace it. host: republican line from tulsa, oklahoma for jeff mason and susan ferrechio. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things on the gun control issue. my heart goes out to the families and newtown, but what congress is trying to do is not going to solve the problem. the massive amount of guns that are already out there and how easy it has been over the years for people to get them -- putting guards in schools, theaters would stop a lot of this. another thing.

it is more on the border. napolitano says our border is secure, but i have family members who live right on the border. it is like a revolving door down there. there are hundreds and possibly thousands coming across every day. until we get control of the border, i do not think there should be a path to citizenship. host: thank you for the call. on that issue, and again we are hearing more today from senator marco rubio, what is going to happen? guest: heart of the said proposal would require that we are capturing most of the vast majority of the people who are coming into the country illegally. there is a 90% ratio they are

going to require. i believe that the senate -- the bill will try to put in place very strict policies for people trying to come into the country illegally. and also trying to get in through other injured point, not just the border into mexico, but through other points of entry. some people think there will will not be enough. some people think the border security environment should involve another fence or double fence. there is a lot of disagreement on border security. there is definitely a fear among some of the folks who are worried about this immigration reform proposal that border security is going to be two-week of an element here, and that it is going to need to strengthen. that is going to be a big part of the debate as we go forward. guest: that has been a big conflict between the two parties for ages on immigration reform.

the white house would also say if they had the caller on the phone right now, to like -- to take a look at what the president has done during his term. there are many people who are advocates of immigration reform him and supporters of the president to are angry about how hard his administration has been in enforcing those borders. that has actually created some confliction between him and his supporters. the white house would like to use that as an example to say look, we have moved on that. that should create some space for a deal on immigration reform. guest: you have people like senator mccain talking about how we have so much to increase border security, yet you hear anecdotal evidence that that is not be case. there is a lot of disagreement whether it has been improving or still huge problems there. host: another issue on the table. took ashington post"

look at rand paul. it was interesting that it was the first time in memory that a republican spoke at a campus university. senator paul spoke to students and talked about the civil rights act. also democrats versus republicans on the issue of civil rights. the portion of the event that we covered is available on our website at www.c-span.org. [video clip] >> republicans face a daunting task. democrats still promise unlimited federal assistance and republicans still offer free markets, low taxes, less regulation. but because we truly believe it will create millions of jobs for everyone. the democratic promise is tangible. puts food on the table. but too often does not lead to jobs or meaningful success. promise is for policies that create economic growth. we believe lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budget, a

solvent social security, a solvent metal care -- a solvent medicare will all stimulate growth. host: republican senator rand paul at howard university. he is going to be in iowa and new hampshire next month. i thought i bumper sticker the other -- rand paul 2016. guest: not surprising. he will follow his dad as he ran for president two years ago and then four years before that. he has a huge following of young people who are real proponents of civil liberty, economic freedom, lower taxes, the federal government getting out of their lives. rand paul reason why should feel like he can address young people and try to attract them to his kind of politics. he is dealing with the college- age kids. he does have a great appeal with young people.

his father did, and he does as well. i do think he is probably going to run for president. he is acting that way. host: the headline this morning from the "cincinnati inquirer," let me show to you. if rand paul run for president, what his father help or hinder him? guest: that is interesting. as susan was referring to, his father had such a following. i think that there is clearly an effort to bring some of that following onto his son. it is also interesting in that clip of him speaking at howard shows not -- that just an interest in his own political prospects but in genuinely trying to open up some avenues for the republican party to attract more african- american voters as well as voters from other ethnic groups that supported the president. host: he was in our building after appearing on the fox news channel. an african-american woman came

up to him and said i disagree with everything on all of your issues, but i support you on the drone issue any filibuster. guest: that is just the kind of audience -- it is really interesting because he does divide his own party on issues. they agree with him on some things and not on others. you hear the same thing from others who attract voters. it called into question what kind of candidate he would make if he ran for president. i think it's father would be a help because his father attracted huge crowds on the campaign trails. both times he ran for president. he is a great campaigner. i believe he sets the stage for a son. i think he will help them. host: brian is joining us next on michigan -- from michigan on our independent line. caller: good morning ann thank you. looking back, politics is busy business. robert kennedy did not announce his candidacy until the spring

of 1968. so this is getting old when we are talking about 2016. my main point being -- most americans care about all people. border issue, a logical subject that never comes up -- we want everyone to do well in the world. we already got we always have. that is the vast majority of americans. getting to my main point, nobody ever talks about the country of mexico. its sovereignty and it's allowing of all of the fine people that are escaping north to the united states because they think it is a better opportunity. we all understand the human side of it. they think they can do better here. but certainly mexico needs these fine people to straighten out their vast corruption in their military and the police and whatever needs they have their. they also have a vast mineral

there in mexico. they need fine people there. they need those fine people there more than we need them here. we have wasted decades on this. i wish the americans would get off their high horse and get away from thinking we are so superior to the country of mexico that we deserve their good people more than they deserve them. whether or not they want to come here, that is a whole different story. host: thank you for the call. who would like to take that? guest: i would start by saying the president is going to mexico next month. he is also going to coast arica where he will be meeting with latin american leaders here you can guess that the issue of immigration reform and everything that is going on with that issue and some of the issues that ryan are -- brian brought up will be on the table. guest: it is a hard issue -- violence in mexico, the drug

culture, and so many reasons why those people in mexico might want to come here. the legal immigration rates have dropped because it is harder to find a job here in the united aids. so -- in the united states. so fewer people are trying to get in. the economy here has been doing pretty poorly over the last few years. that is something else to keep in mind. host: let me share with you another issue. on the u.s. tax code on the we received details on friday on what they paid and what they earned last year come of the president and the vice president. the senior editor of roll call has it. fun facts out 15 'bout the obamas' and bidens taxes. the bidens were hit with that alternative minimum tax and -- $16,000.

the bidens gave about $7,100 in charity, including items to bid where -- to goodwill, like bicycles, boots. the president's tax rate was about 80%, bidens at 21%. -- the presidents was at about 18%. guest: it was interesting to see those tax returns on friday. i should've been ready for something like that. . tax season is right around the corner. .t was a friday afternoon dump was was interesting to me the terrible giving. the obama's really did give a lot of their income to charity. the bidens gave significantly less. the: less than 2% by bidens. 1.8%. guest: not a good figure, including some of those good. president obama's income from

his books has really dropped hermetically -- dramatically. at the beginning of his term, he was bringing in millions of dollars from those books. laster, you might have thought in a year of reelection there will be more demand for some of those books again. and there was not. so that was an interesting drop in income there. but they're still doing fine. host: let's go back to this tweet from our viewer -- the president is stepping out on entitlements. he is not getting enough credit for that. republicans are turning up their nose. do something.to if he had come up with a budget that had nothing on entitlement reform, i think that would have been worse for him politically because he has put himself forward as the president who is ready to dive in on this. he has had all kinds of meetings with republicans. it has been in the press. he has talked about medicare reform and social security reform. his budget came out and if he

did not touch about it, which is basically what he did with the social security proposal, it was the bare minimum that he could've done. if he did not, for the president -- he is not going to run again. i believe he is probably concerned his legacy could end up being one, i president who do not do anything to start on important entitlement reform, and the important issue of reducing the debt. if you look at polls now, one of the things getting support from the public if they desire to see the nation reduce its debt. almost every poll has that any 60% and 70%. people think that is a priority. the white house is listening. that is what you see what you see in the budget. host: jim from bay city, michigan. caller: good morning. , all of thesesue , theeals they have

congress lady that was shot in the head, this guy was a nutcase. the one that went into the auditorium and shot all of these people, he was a nutcase. -- thise schoolkids guy had metal problems. so all this legislation on how many clicks you have in a gun don't mean nothing. how are you going to legislate that. i would like to comment. thank you. host: thank you. onet: mental health husband of the bigger issues that has come out during this legislative process. certainly some proposals that the president put on the table about dealing with mental health issues are moving their way through congress. guest: they will talk about that this week. you will hear people debating during the senate talks on a bill on whether or not the reporting requirements, people who are deemed mentally ill and whether the federal government should know they are or whether they should be riveted from

owning a gun. there are going to be questions about privacy, about safety. we are going to hear that this week. it is a big part of the discussion. a lot of folks inc. that legislation should include a mental health act. host: the senate taking up the lead on guns this week. the nationaljournal.com has a piece this morning. this headline -- house gop shrugs off the senate progress on guns. in the house, republicans are in the majority, conservatives are the majority of that majority, and the majority of those conservatives are convinced they should not be legislating on guns, even if somebody has provided them political cover to do so. here are speak -- your comments the speaker of john boehner last week. [video clip] the house will certainly redo it.

house will certainly review it. on the mental health issue. if the senate does move a bill, i would send it to a judiciary committee for an open hearing, and for their deliberations. it is why we have committees. i believe regular order is the appropriate way to move this bill. to bring not going something to the floor for a vote? >> i have never been for a make a commitment. but i do not know what the product is. i fully expect that the house will act on legislation in the coming months. host: susan ferrechio, we do not will know what the senate will pass, but let's say hypothetically they do pass a background check bill. could i pass the house? the senatet passes by a pretty healthy margin, i believe that would put pressure on the house. it also depends what kind passes the senate. say we pass a background check

that is close to the toomey- manchin, say that passes with callupport that you can bipartisan, i think that will put pressure on the house. will he get to the house? i do not think you can say first sure right now. look at what happened last week with things developing with the minutes helping to facilitate where we are in now. that could happen in the house too. some negotiations happening behind the scene. one thing that boehner also said at the end of his press conference was with the bsm about the background check, he said we have all kinds of laws on the book right now concerning back ground checks. why don't we enforce those? kind of shrugging off the idea of putting new laws on the books. we hear a lot of that from the house, we are not really enforcing run check violations, which is true, why don't we do something about that first.

there will be an effort by republicans to let this thing die out. it could change if there is a big win in the senate. that will put pressure on speaker banner. guest: is it different this time because of what we saw last week with the families of the massacreconnecticut coming to washington, leaving pictures of their children were killed -- does that make us different? guest: i think so. that had an impact on what was going on in the senate. if there is something that is moved out of that and into the house, if we think we have seen a lobbying and pr campaign now from the advocates of gun control from those families and from the white house, wait until you see what will happen with the house. -- a: it will be a hotter harder fight and he house. you will will be, but see a lot of loud arguments for it. the president has been accessible in mobilizing public opinion, getting families

involved. but that does not change the political reality. the house is controlled by republicans. guest: conservative republicans. host: jan think there is something to be done to keep the hands out of -- keep the guns out of hands of mentally ill, but how do you tell who it is and who pays for the testing? guest: senator lindsey graham has a proposal, and some other senators have talked about proposals that will find a way to identify people who may not be mentally capable and should be owning a gun. again, this is the issue that will make it hard to pass something like that because who do you decide -- you go see a counselor for postpartum depression. to that person become ineligible for gun ownership? part of theestions debate. people are talking about it. everyone recognizes that these tragedies have all seems to involve people who were mentally

balance. with jeffpendent line mason of reuters and susan ferrechio of "washington examiner." caller: first of all, when george w. bush repeal the assault weapons ban any large capacity magazine, he opened the floodgates on dangerous weapons. less interest rate. -- let's get that straight. on background check commercial sales -- why not be private sales? how can they say it is exempt to sell a gun, transfer to a neighbor, coworker, friend, family? we do not know who these people are. how many times has there been a killing in a neighborhood in the people around that area will say gee, he was such a nice guy. what a nice guy. secondly, a lot of people say look at chicago. it has all of these strong gun

regulations, yet they have the most gun violence. that is because of the legal from arizona, georgia, here in florida, trafficking those guns over the state lines. let's address these problems for real and not just kick it down the road with this discussion they're going to have now with the senate and congress. let's get real. host: thank you for the call. the president using his weakling address, turning the -- his weekly address, turning the microphone over to nancy wheeler and her husband. they lost their son, ben, and the newtown, connecticut. 20 children killed, sex educators. here more from the weekly address. -- six educators. [video clip] >> sometimes, i close my eyes and i like to remember that awful day waiting at the sandy hook volunteer firehouse for the boy would never come home.

the same firehouse that was home to ben's tiger scouts. ben'sher times, i feel presents feeling me with -- filling me with courage for what i have to do for him and others taken so violently into soon. we have to convince the senate to come together and pass common sense gun responsibility reforms that will make our communities safer and prevent more tragedies like the one we never thought would happen to us. when i packed for washington on monday, it looked like the senate might not act at all. then, after the president spoke of ustford, and a dozen met with senators to share our stories, more than two thirds of the senate voted to move forward. but that is only the start.

they have not yet passed any bill that will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. and a lot of people are fighting to make sure they never do. now is the time to act. please join us. you can talk to your senator to. house.gov to find out how you can join the president and get involved. help us see the moment when real change begins. from the bottom of my heart, thank you. ,ost: from the weekly address issuing a statement why he had francine wheeler deliver the weekly address. which goes back to the question that many people asked after newtown -- is this different? and if so, why, and if not, why not? guest: that is the question that will partially get answered this week and in the coming

weeks when we see when it makes its way out of the senate. it was very unusual for somebody else to give the president's weekly address. by president -- vice president biden has given it once. this move to have her do that with clearly a move on his part, on the white house's part to crystallize the arguments by somebody who was really affected by it. and he made a very emotional, powerful appeal. host: eric is joining us from atlanta on the democrats line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of comments and a question. these bear with me. with.'s bear we are talking about guns coming , benghazi,, drones iran, north korea him in syria, but what we are not talking about is how corporations have an effective tax rate of 12%,

we are not talking about trade and local taxes for corporations. the reason we're not talking about that is because these two people sitting up your our corporate figureheads, meaning that they have a fiduciary duty to support the bottom line of washington examiner and reuters. sitting with c-span. -- same thing with c-span. the point is, we're getting propaganda from the corporate side. 70% ofn't matter if reporters are voting democratic. it matters what their bosses are voting. all of their bosses are figureheads who most likely vote republican because republicans have taken a stance that we are going to protect corporations, we are going to save you from taxes, -- jump inm going to because you have to give me a specific example. i have not heard anything this morning that would confirm your theory. so give me specifics. what are you referring to?

what have we said that leads to your premise? caller: fiduciary duty -- look it up. term,i know the tomb -- but what way have we said today that leads your theory that we are a corporate show? whoer: you bring up people do not debate. why do you have onto people if they're not going to be at each other and challenging each other on policy? you don't need to people. host: eric, now wait, that is segment.urpose of this we are dealing this week and trying to hear all sides of the issue, including your point of view, which we welcome. the point is not to debate, but to eliminate and explain what is happening in washington this week. we have other segments for debate. that is not the purpose of this particular hour. caller: my point is, you don't want debate -- host: eric, that is not true. give me a visit example. caller: i'm about to.

.ou it c-span are speculating reporters are not supposed to speculate. also, you have never had a democratic elected person debating a republican elected person on air where they are actually able to ask each other questions. you never do that. the reason is because republicans can never withstand a debate on the issues, so you are protecting the republicans by never having a debate. host: eric, i'm going to move on, i appreciate the call, but i do not disagree more. if you watch this network, this program, you can see that that is simply not the case. again, i appreciate the call. this is a forum for you to express your point of view, and you have done so. we appreciate that. do you want to weigh in? guest: in terms of the corporate tax rate, the three budgets we have on the table i

-- theow, the corporate republicans want the corporate tax rate be lower because if we lower it, we will attract more jobs to america, produce more jobs, more people will be employed, fewer will require food stamps and unemployment checks on the government. that is the viewpoint of the republican party. president obama aja does not lower corporate -- obama's budget is not lowered corporate tax rate. it will have varying viewpoints on how much corporations pay. the president's budget also would tackle companies, which is considered a corporate tax, billions of dollars in corporate tax rates that the oil companies now enjoy. those will be a laminated. so increases on people and corporations, certainly the house republicans and their budget, they take a different view point. they think that will cycle

economic growth and job growth. so definitely two varying points of view on corporate tax rates. host: let me share with what happened this week. administration officials went to capitol hill, including the acting director of the office of management and budget. here are some of the details on what the president outlined, where the budget is or is not some to be balance, and of the entitlement programs including medicare and social security. [video clip] >> on the entitlement, you mentioned the only things to any of the entitlement programs are the ones that you mentioned the president put in that he really did not particularly like, but he put in. therefore, the president believes that social security, medicare, and medicaid are on a sustainable path in a donnie to , thatormed substantially they are not headed to benghazi like the vast majority of --

headed to bankruptcy like the vast majority of analysts. >> i think social security is not part of our immediate fiscal issue. social security is solvent through 2033. the president has put forward principles for social security reform, but let's be clear that that is not part of our immediate set of issues -- >> but as such -- $370 medicare, there are billion in medicare savings. that is the first decade. in the second decade, there is more than $1 trillion in savings. that is significant reform to medicare to make it sustainable, but also to keep medicare as we know it so that we are honoring our contract with our seniors, we are not turning it into a voucher program, not shipping -- >> when you look at the cost of medicare overlap. period, i do not

think anybody will say that that will get on a sustainable path. , you arean ferrechio shaking your head when i was leading into the discussion. what did we learn this past week? guest: it is interesting the debate you just showed, it is an imported one. medicarelking about reform and social security form. a lot of democrats feel like social security is not a driver of our debts. where others feel it is or soon will become a needs more attention. you heard a little more of that tension right there from carson campbell and the omb director. and medicare, how to reform it, there is just as little agreement on that pier it on the republican side of the house, they talked about changes to the way medicare is administered and who will be entitled to medicare. raising the age of eligibility. you heard mitt romney having on that. you heard republicans talk about

that in the paul ryan budget. if you like any need to raise that eligibility. president obama's budget is not on your raising the age because it is a tough issue to sell on voters, and people get really upset when they think they're going to have to wait longer to get their benefits. so they talk about doing it in a different way. it would reduce some services, it would certainly pass some costs onto seniors. they just do it in a different way. both sides cannot come to an agreement on how to reform it, but they're talking about it because a few years ago we would not have even heard the conversation, so that is a big deal. in north carolina. good morning. caller: about the individual gun massacres that happen every year in a brown america, and the hundred thousand permanent injuries, other shootings caused y'all ever-- have

heard about other countries like japan and britain, japan, forcanada, instance, we have 400 more gun crimes per capita. one is figuring they are third the size of ours. 400 times more gun crimes. that means we are 400 times more lazy and cowardly and stupid than japan. i believe we are only about 10 more times more lazy and stupid than japan. britain, some bloody violent people. we have 100 times more per capital gun crime then britain. we have 200 times more than crime than canada. as us.e the same people their top people. they have plenty of guns. but still own a handgun in canada, you have to go practically threw an fbi track. they check your ex-wife, you

paycheck everybody. gun crimest of our with these stupid hand cannons in all of these not cease caring sround -- all of these nazi carrying around -- host: roy, thank you. ofst: people on both sides the political aisle have wanted to address it. even from my time having lived abroad that the reputation of the u.s. with these school shootings, with the amount of gun violence in such come up parents where i lived in germany would think twice before sending their kids on exchange programs to the united states. aside from how to address the reasonable people can disagree on the right way to do that, i think a lot of people would agree it is a problem. host: jeff mason, a relatively quiet week for the president. walk us through what you are looking for. guest: he does not have a whole

lot on his schedule that they have told us about. a couple of meetings. a lot of the focus will be on what is going on on capitol hill. we have the budget out already from last week. now they will be pressing hard to see how some of these priorities play out on the other side of pennsylvania avenue. to go back to what you are saying at the beginning of the show, it is interesting how all of these things are in the mix at the same time. the white house likes to say that the president can walk and chew gum at the same time. we are going to watch him do that this week. we will watch lawmakers on capitol hill do the same. host: and susan ferrechio, walk us through the week. guest: everyone will be watching the senate, of course, because they will be doing a couple of important things. they will be debating legislation on the floor. you will hear them talking about amendments to the gun bill. , but it is notea completely firmed up.

also, you will hear all kinds of conversation about immigration reform. they will not be debating that on the senate floor, they will be talking about it in a committee, and we will probably see the print version of the senate immigration reform bill that they have been talking about for weeks now but has been unveiled gradually pier and we will see the entire thing this week. that is a really big bill -- big deal. host: before we let you both go, we'll show you how "saturday night live" last night focused on the issue of guns. [video clip] >> first of all, most americans agree that we need stricter background checks. no individual can purchase a handgun without being asked "are you a good person"? with the follow-up question "series a, are you"? we have agreed to limit the number of guns you can shoot at once to two.

>> anyway shooting three or more guns at the same time, we prosecute to the fullest extent. unfortunately, the promise -- the punishment is we give uniform gun. ak-lso, we were able to ban 47s in the coin-operated vending machines. and the promotion by two medium pizzas, get a free gun, has been completely outlawed, except on weekends and in the super bowl during >> none of these researches would apply to florida. that goes without saying. we don't know why. , but theyely should just don't. it is weird. >> it is weird. i know we typed florida into the bill, but when we printed it out, it is just not there. so look, if this bill will we wanted -- >> no. >> is it what the nra wanted?

>> no. host: that by the way was a character of pat toomey and senator mansion. chin.: -- man guest: it is one step forward, two steps back in the eyes of gun control advocates,. nra isthey said, it the not happy either. host: jeff mason, final word. guest: it is hard to move on an issue like this, and it is very hard to compete with "saturday night live." host: jeff mason of reuters and susan ferrechio, chief congressional correspondent of "washington examiner," thank you both. we come back, we will turn to veterans issues of iraq and afghanistan. , responses by secretary of state john kerry who is now in japan after visiting beijing

this weekend. much more on that as "washington journal" continues. a sunday morning, april 14. we are back in two moment. ♪ likes orphaned at age 11, she lived with her favorite uncle, james buchanan. years later, he becomes resident, and because he is unmarried, she served as white house hostess. she is the first to become first lady on a a regular basis, and is so popular that she has friends in clothing, and children and ships are named after her. meet harriet lane. we will look at her light -- at her life and her predecessor, jane pierce. first ladies, monday night live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c- span three. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> we like to think it is an

important book in the sense that it tells you how the course works. there are so few good books out there that explain what is the process, how do they go about this, how do they decide be cases, what are they saying to one another. we see cases where the court is split 5-4. what do they really think? to their personal feelings get into it? it is a book about capital punishment and how the book -- the courts operate. >> we dig into the memoranda, theand forth between justices, and a lot of stuff is available. i was just fascinated by the human side of it. haveny cases, justices reservations about capital honest men meant. >> abc news veterans martin clancy and tim o'brien on the capital punishment cases that have defined the supreme court. tonight at 9:00 on "afterwords.

" >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to c-span tom tarantino. he is the chief officer of the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. guest: thank you for having me. host: we have been hearing a lot from the va secretary on the back log of all of these cases. 900,000 plus. what is happening? guest: it is a problem decades in the making. since the start of the wars of iraq and afghanistan, this is the third va secretary to tackle this problem. it has gotten worse. we have 900,000 claims that are pending at the va. 600,000 of which are considered backlogged, meaning they have been waiting for over 125 days. if you are a veteran of a rock -- iraq or afghanistan, the weight is closer to 320 days. in a major city, it could be up to 608. i personally know people who have been waiting for 6, 7, --

600, it 700, 900 days. i have been advocating for years. we are very focused that this year is the time to focus on the backlog. , he is back on capitol hill testifying on the senate side. you can watch it at 12:30 eastern time on c-span three. it will also be posted online at c-span.org. last week, he was on the house side testifying before the house veterans affairs committee and discuss all of this. here's a portion of that event. [video clip] -- too manymen of veterans wait too long to receive benefits. we know this is unacceptable, and no one wants to turn this situation around more than the workers at the veterans benefits administration. 52% of them are veterans themselves. we are resolved to illuminate the claims backlog in 2015, when claims will be processed in a

125 days or less at a 98% accuracy level. people, processes, technology. been completed to improve quality and productivity of claims. more employees now complete more claims today than their predecessors. processors -- use of disabilities questionnaires. online forms for submitting medical evidence has dropped average processing time of medical exams and improved accuracy. there are now three lanes for processing claims. an express lane -- about 30% of our lanes for those that will take less time. a special lane for about 10% for unusual cases are those requiring special handling. and in the core lane where roughly 60% of the processing is

done. technology is critical to ending the backlog. our paperless processing system will be faster, improve access, drive automation, reduce variance. offices now use it. all 56 will be on it before the end of this year. host: tom tarantino, that testimony really dominated a lot of this discussion. the budget for the va is about $150 billion. the question is, why the backlog, it today but it -- a budget issue? magic bullet.s no there will be no magic piece of legislation. there is not one program that incident in a year. the problem is that the wasbility claims programs critically for most of these veterans were born. the va has been working on

projects to try to help this, but there really has not been a conference of fix. the testimony you just heard is similar to the testimony i have heard for the last three years from the va. we have to understand that this is not just about the va. this is also about the department of defense. if you do not have integrated medical records between the dod and the va, you will never get the backyard -- backlog 20. 50% of the claims the company dod are still on paper might take the va way too long to sort through that paper. this is why the va has been advocating for the presidential commission to end the backlog. we have to understand that this is a problem that goes beyond just the department of veteran affairs. what we need to do is get the greatest minds in this country to solve it. this is a logistics and paperwork problem that we have to take a total government approach. if you go to iava.org, you can join almost 50,000 citizens who

have signed this petition asking for the president to take action, which is what we have not really seen. if i'm a veteran in the middle of the country, and i am waiting -- 60 have no clarity days, i have no clarity on when my backlog is going to end. the date 2015 for years, but we have not seen any progress heard what the va cannot tell you is what is the backlog going to look like in a month, six month, one year. programs aregreat great ideas, but they cannot show you with data and metrics how they're going to affect the backlog. that is the problem. host: if you served in iraq or afghanistan, we have a line set ,side, (202) 585-3883 otherwise you can join us on our normal lines divided between democrats, republicans and independents. or you can send us a tweet at @cspanwj or visit our websites,

www.c-span.org. guest: there are some legitimate problems. the first of with -- of which, that are in from iraq and afghanistan have more located claims. critically, you could claim to or for injured -- injuries. iraq and afghanistan veterans have over 10 each. is that veterans are coming home with more consultative injuries. both mental and physical. these are things that take a while to develop. if you want to file a claim with the va, first you have to prove that the injury was done or exaggerated by your military surgery, and you have to have a valid medical diagnosis. these are difficult claims to develop. but it should not be so 600,cult that it takes 700, 800, 900 days when this was a predictable problem.

in 2004, you could've looked down the road and seeing all of these problems. even four years ago, the va did not really start doing this modernization stuff in earnest until the last couple of years, and now it is too late. veterans are waiting so long for their veterans that they have to put -- for their benefit that they have to put their life on hold. it affects their access to care. host: luther is joining us from memphis, tennessee. caller: good morning. to thislike to speak problem about the veterans administration. i've had a problem over years, and i have filed tons of claims through the va. on march the seventh and 10th, i had two heart attacks. the doctors told me that the va medication was killing me. i tried to get help, and i have filed complaints and contacted

my congressman and everything, but they seem to be running around trying to hide everything. i looked a couple of weeks ago about a situation down in virginia, where a lady was arrested and charged with -- a doctorthe va in brazil murdered people to get the rooms free. but the va is backlog. guest: we've heard this were a veterans claim has been lost or the paperwork has been lost or the department of veterans affairs health administration is not talking to the benefits administration. one of the pilots that the secretary mentioned is a program that makes the veterans health administration, the va doctors that give you your examinations, use the same language to talk to the people who are processing your claim very i cannot -- your claim. i cannot figure out why that needs a program considering they work for the same problem

-- same department. but this a consistent problem. -- when i came to the va in 2008, only one third of doctors were filling up the right form to send back to the claims processor. so there is a huge gap between the health administration and the benefits administration, which is only exasperated by the fact that the information coming from the department of defense to the department of that are in the affairs still antiquated and spotty. is tomur guest tarantino. he served as an army captain. 10 years in the u.s. army. now he chief policy officer for the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, iava. there is this from jodi -- kids were thinking of joining the armed forces, this treatment is a dealbreaker. this mess must be addressed now. has this impacted the recruiting effort of the armed forces? guest: i do not know, but that is a logical assumption to make

going forward. i would advocate for military service. theobably got more out of military then they got out of me. i think it is a great interest -- institution, and it has taught me a lot. but this goes back to what george washington said about how the likelihood of people to serve is going to be judged by how they treat the veterans. i paraphrased that. but if people want to be in the military are seeing that they're getting a raw deal from the department, they're less likely to serve in the military. what is really dangerous and what really scares me is that one veterans who need care and services, who should go to the va because they do have some very outstanding programs, if you need care, go to care. but what is happening is you are seeing these backlogs. they're saying 50, 60 day waits to get a mental health appointment, and they're discouraged. when we surveyed our members and asked for those who haven't

injury have not sought help said theya, some 65% do not want to deal with the va bureaucracy. that is a huge problem because you have people who should be going to the va getting care but they are not. host: one of our viewers -- we can afford to spend trillions of dollars on defense contract in the military, but we cannot afford to computerized veterans affairs? thet: this really goes to sort of logical leap of why aren't we using computers to process this. the first person to suggest this was chet pagel -- chuck hagel back in 1982 when he was deputy secretary of the va. the fact that we are still processing things on paper is insane to me. they have been developing this paperless process for years. even when they do roll it out, which they are by the end of the are going to have a digital claims process, finally, it is not going to help this backlog right now because 97% of the claims waiting in the va are still on paper.

60% of the claims coming from the dod are still on paper. that is why we need the president to step in. that is why we need the leader of this country to start putting everyone else together and making decisions. they announced a joint electronic health record in 2009. they sat on the white house lawn and a spike the ball and they announced a month ago that it is not going to happen. frank lee, that is a failure of leadership. what we is leaders in this country and he writes mines in this country saying take this and -- and the brightest minds in this country saying take this. we're not talking about mining asteroids. we are talking about creating a record-keeping record-keeping system that most of the private sector has been doing for yearxss. host: gail is on the line. go ahead, gail. are you with us? caller: yes, i am with you.

good morning. i'm a female veteran. i was in desert shield, desert storm. my problem is, what happens when veterans records get lost and there is no more records because they were not house properly, and then the claim is that backlogs like mine has been for 17 years? problem.so a huge gail, thank you for your service, first of all. unfortunately, this is the crux of the problem between dod and va. 50% of the claims that are pending are from heiress before iraq and afghanistan. whenis a massive problem you look at records from the gulf war, cold war, vietnam, even back to world war ii. i have a friend whose

grandfather was a prisoner of war in world war ii, and she is trying to set up his burial benefits so he could be buried in a military cemetery, and the va is saying they cannot tell that he ever served in the military because he did not have his discharge paperwork. you know what you go -- you know what? they did not have those in world war ii. you have this massive disconnect that is affecting everyone. ultimately, if you copied your own records, that is sometimes the only way you can get your records to the va because the dod has either lost them or the va has lost them repeatedly. i actually have a friend who is waiting almost 1000 days for his claim, appealing a claim because the va lost his record, and then waited a year just to give him an address where he could send them the paper copies. it sounds a bit ridiculous, but this is the reality for hundreds of thousands of veterans. in 1975, when i transferred in college in the d.c. area to be see you richmond, myvcu

vet records were lost for over 15 months. no money to me. guest: this is a problem that has been going on for decades. i've only been doing this for five years. i've friends who have been doing it for 40. it is good that they are ,inally tackling this problem but at the same time it has been too long. what they're doing -- they're not showing any metrics, any improvement, nor can they. that is really our issue. , there is no one magic program that is going to solve the problem. what we need to do is call on the best minds from the tech sector, from the private sector, the government, the veterans community, and put forward a clear plan. if you go to the va and look at their transformation plan, they just list a bunch of pilot programs that essentially, the key to solving the backlog is to having the veterans do it themselves. i keeping -- the secretary

mentioned, the disability benefits question appeared it is not one questionnaire. if 70 questionnaires. at the vet, i have to diagnose myself, figure out if i have heart disease or a hard valve problem, which i'm not it is a method. it could work for some people. that is not the key to solving the overall problem. from bill is joining us alabama, a veteran. veteran of 27 years, i would like to say i receive my in a timely fashion. it took 12 months. it put my life on hold. that i find , ifresting is the fact that

you find anybody that you know, that you can get on the phone at the va, when i receive my claim, i did not receive any compensation for my family. off.tionally left my wife what they told me was, they do this to look out for the military member, for the veteran. --y leave everybody wife everything's wife of of the claim. i have been waiting for them to look at my marriage certificate. months and you cannot it anybody on the phone to give you an answer to anything. host: thank you, bill. caller: -- guest: that demonstrates a huge

lack of clarity. the fact that they would do something like this and make you wait 14 months to get the benefits you deserve it is indicative of a system that is a bureaucratic and broken. it should not be that difficult. it should be an automatic process. do not is a veteran, i have any clarity of what the claims process is. there is no place i can go to look at how to calculate benefits. the va is not a mystery. you can see all the criteria. it is buried on the web site and is hard to go through. 14% error rate. that is because there is no clarity between the user, the veteran filing for a clan, the doctor's fees on which he claimed, and the va -- the veteran filing for a claim, the

looking at the claim, and the va. half of the budget is used for a mandatory spending areas. somethingre with you from john boehner. it is a three page letter outlining specific answers. he says i remain supportive of the va mission to eliminate the claims that law. better friends return home with increasingly complex injuries. a sacrifice their american way of life and deserve nothing less. a benefit system that addresses myir needs -- i will offer assistance. he says this means to improve. guest: last term graph is key. everyone is on the same size.

we all -- the last paragraph is key. everyone is on the same side. we want the va to provide clarity to the members it takes care of, to the veteran's they take care of. the president should step up and fix some of these structural problems. this is not an adversarial process. every veteran service organization, they agreed the backlog is unacceptable. that is what we are focusing on. what we are not hearing is the level of clarity we need to hear from the va and the white house. host: one of your is saying it is time to privatize the va and double the efficiency -- one viewer says it is time to

publicize the va and double the efficiency. a good idea.s not it has a high customer satisfaction rates. the va is three separate agencies. there is the health agency, that has some problems with this mental-health aspects. area.is the claims the home loans program is outstanding. privatizing this is not the answer. veteran's care is intricate. for more do not happen by themselves. there are often related to other wounds. you have continuity of care. your mental health therapist, your intern this in your specialists are all working on the same page to treat your injuries holistic me.

turning it into the private health care system or a culture -- voucher system would not work. place for we have in health care is pretty good. we just need to improve certain aspects of it like health care. host: why did you leave the army and why did you take up this issue? guest: i started as a reservist in the 1990's. it was a fun thing to do. i wanted to do something other than be a college student. i liked it so much i decided to go full time when i left college. i was in calgary officer at the national training center. i had an amazing time. i loved it. i was fortunate enough to spend all of my officer time with soldiers, being a platoon leader and being and xo. i was looking at my career path and it was time for me to go.

i had done everything i wanted to do in the military. when i sat out, had trouble finding a job, like a lot of veterans. a lot of employers in this country have never served -- served in the military. i had unrealistic expectations of the job market and i was not looking for a paycheck. i was looking for a mission. greatest duty my was to take care of soldiers. i do this work now because i am not done with that. i wear a suit and tie now and i cannot me to get up at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. it is easier on my mind and body. i am still doing this because i want to care for soldiers. if i have service members out there who are waiting 600, 700 days to get the benefits they deserve, increase their life on hold. if they are not in the five-year free health care when the, that

is a -- health-care window, that is a problem. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. this program is carried coast to coast on xm channel 119. tom tarantino is our guest from the iraq & afghanistan veterans of america. democrat the line, a and a veteran. caller: i would like to thank the iava for all of the fine work they do. i wanted to know if the gentleman could speak on the number of false claims that the abcs. i have a friend who was in afghanistan and never deployed downrange. benefits.ing ptsd

there are real veterans with missing limbs and they cannot receive aid for those injuries. host: thank you, sir. you for your service. you get disability for injuries while in service when they are in combat or not in combat. i have a relative who was drugng as an mp, was on a raid, that severely injured, was and her claim is just as valid as someone who was in combat. ist we have to make sure that people actually have the injury and that that injury was sustained in service, whether in combat or not. you talk about false claims, people claiming things they are not qualify for our claiming

injuries he might not have, the problem with the va is that we do not know. this goes back to the problem of clarity with the va. i cannot tell you how the programs are going to healthy backlog in six months or one year. i cannot really tell you that much about what claims are legitimate or which claims are bad plans or which claims are claims in which they lost the -- bad claims or which claims are claims in which they lost the paper work. host: we heard from the va secretary last week when he took -- testified before the house subcommittee. we will get more details tomorrow. eric shinseki testified before the senate veterans affairs committee. related tweet from michael who

says, how much oversight does congress have over what goes on in va? va does not always respond in a timely manner to contours. lots of times, with the congress needs to know, the va does not know or cannot find out. if you let the sum of the testimony over the last month, there are questions about their error rates and accountability that the va cannot answer. this goes back to the issue by was talking about with accountability. there is so much the va does not know about itself. it is bleeding into everything they do. there is no way for me as a veteran to go in and get that information and stephen they are. it is not that there is a secret

compartment between the va and congress. it is just not out there. viewer says -- website, you go to the iava.org, you can call on the president to create a presidential commission. this is not about firing people. it is not about all of this distracting stuff that is being talked about in public. we want to find a solution. we need to hear from the american people. when the people are as outraged as veterans and when civilians are as outraged as veterans, as nearly 50,000 are now, that is when we see action. 2015 is too long. i do not think they will make that deadline. that is a massive problem we have to fix.

host: of our next caller -- caller is a veteran. you are on the air. caller: i was a veteran of the gulf war and the war still going on now. when i got out of the military, they had a program. six months prior to retiring, you got your physical from the va and you got your results by the time you retire. after that, i bounced around and i work with the va. ic veterans all the time. the first thing they say is, i need the with- i see the rest -- better rents all the time. the first thing they say is, i need help. i work in the health-care part of the va. i was told i need to refer them to the claims parts. because i was a veteran who went through the process, i can give

them some insight or some tips they do not know. i think that is one of the biggest problems we have. non- of non-betterments -- veterans doing these clans who do not understand what veterans go through. that all i have to say. i will hang up and listen to your comments. guest: thank you for your service. this is about clarity of communication. we hired a lot of veterans. it is a great thing that they do. vet liken talk to an another vet. that is just a reality. there is not a lot of clarity between the va and veterans about how to file a claim. there is not a lot of clarity between the va and the va when you talk about health care and the administration.

if you are confused by the process, as i was when i felt my clan, ca service officer. see someone -- when i filed my a service officer. they can help you file the claim in such a way that the va will probably break -- properly rate it. next from --is susan is next from boston. of ar: i am the daughter deceased world war ii veteran. i grew up during the year not arab. the first thing i want to suggest is, -- i grew up during the vietnam era. the first thing i want to just is, why reinvent the wheel. it can be perfected or further

fine-tuned . going back to is the colonial era. i remember studying the world world war ievin -- marches. i remember general macarthur and one of his responsibilities was to go and break up an encampment. to commendjust want your organization for being there. ranink that the ad you about the only soldier coming to an empty airport and walking onto the streets of new york and all of the sudden this other soldier comes up and says

welcome home, that campaign was billion. i also -- that campaign was b rilliant. it is a sanitized situation where 95% of the population has no involvement with the military. they have never done military service. national service our military service was required of every american, you would not have situations like this. ort: has the president congress increase the budget for va sufficiently? guest: this is not a resource problem. it has been said that without a budget increase, they will not meet the 2013 deadline. i found that particularly interesting. yay has gotten a lot of money to hire more people. they keep taunting the fact that they have hired 3000 claims

processors. -- touting the fact that they have hired 300 claims processors. why didn't they adopt the social security or medicare -- medicare processing system? i do not know. maybe it did not fit or maybe it did not work right. he chose to go from the ground up to develop this digital claims process and it took them years. this is part of the problem of everyone in the government trying to do their own thing in reinventing the wheel. that is why we are calling on the president to step in. host: final point. why is it so hard to have the cooperation talks about to streamline and speed up the process? guest: i do not have an answer because it defies all logic.

the fact that we cannot get the d.o.d. and the va on a single integrated health records baffles me. this is not the most difficult thing in the world. the problem is about leadership and accountability. and leaders not stepping in and sitting people down and saying, make a decision. pick one. go with it. you have one year to implement it. maybe that is a little simplistic, but that is the type of leadership we need. host: tom tarantino is the chief officer for the iraq & afghanistan veterans of america. the website is iava.org. yesterday, the secretary of state with his counterpart in china.

john kerry urging the chinese to bear down on north korea as the country continues to make threats on its own nuclear capacity. we will be talking more about that with scott snyder. thet a look at some of other programs and issues on the other sunday programs. callo in c-span radio studios. today's tv talk shows, the topics will include gun- control and the situation in the korean peninsula. on meet the press, today's guests include marco rubio, who is making the rounds on all of the shows today. he is in the senate's gang of 8. york senator kirsten gillibrand and republican senator mike lee.

abc's this week replays. p.m., it is fox news sunday. chris wallace talks with senator rubio. the uniones of follows a 3:00 p.m.. with senator talks rubio. he also talks with senators manchin and toomey. also, captain mark kelly, retired, from the americans with irresponsible solutions. the sunday talk shows are brought to you as a public service on c-span radio by the networks and c-span. begin with me to

press, this week, state of the union, and face the nation from cbs. listen to them all on c-span radial heard on 90.1 fm in washington, d.c. area. download our free app from your smartphone oracle online -- or online.ne -- whoolitics is about people interact. we learned that we can do this. we are all capable of being leaders of our country. it is about working together and finding common ground. >> before the program, i was not optimistic about the future. all the media shows is the negative aspects about the future. this program made us more

optimistic about the future and more positive about where our country is going. >> every day, they are working together. justin -- justice kagan is able to go hunting with justice scalia. it happens every single day. president obama was saying our country has always been in turmoil throughout its history. we have always found a way to get through it. i am not saying insulin not worried about the future and we do not have problems we need to fix -- say i am not worried about the future and we do not have problems we need to fix, but we all want to make a difference for this country. i believe we will be able to solve the problems we face today. >> each year, high school

students across the country in washington as part of the senate youth program. leadersk, they met with from all three branches of government. here there insights from the week tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c- span's "q & a." " "washington journal continues. is from thesnyder council on foreign relations. let me to share with you some news since the papers. todayory points out that in tokyo, secretary kerry said the u.s. would protect its asian allies against any provocative acts from north korea. he also said washington was a peaceful solution to the tensions in the region. how did we get there?

getting to ams of peaceful solution, north korea needs to show it is willing to talk. we have not yet seen that signal. weekend and secretary kerry's visit is the beginning of a shift for greater dialogue. we saw that during a stop in seoul, south korea. the south korean president indicated he was up for dialogue. the chinese are interested in seeing this dealt with through peaceful dialogue. host: he secretary of state met with his counterpart in china. china and north korea our allies, these two marxist communist countries. not want to see any tensions increasing or any type of military conflict. guest: china is concerned about the possibility of military conflict. their priority is maintain

stability on the korean peninsula. that means paying attention to the internal situation in north korea. host: as you look at the political and economic issues in that region with a divided north and south korea, a rising south korean in terms of its economy and a strong japan, what is in china's interest in keeping this destabilized? a united korea, for example. guest: they are seeing the status quo as stable. that is one of the biggest challenges the obama administration has, to convince china that a nuclear north korea is inherently destabilizing and unsustainable. up until now, because china looks at the korean peninsula during the lands of its policy toward the united states, they

see the prospect of a geopolitical loss in the event that north korean collapses. host: he chairman of the house services committee is joining us on "newsmakers." he was asked about the situation in north korea. here is a portion. [video clip] >> it was not classified. he stressed that that was not classified. new information to us. they said in the report that they were moderately secure that they felt like they had the information. i think it is a game change if israel. this is a touch and go -- it is a game change it if it is real. this youngs what

korean leader will do. if south korea has a young new leader that has made commitments and a sink-tip, the south -- and a sink that ship, south korean has said that as the last time. "newsmakers" is at 10:00 eastern time and is rebroadcast at 6:00 p.m. jay carney was asked about what north korea can and cannot do in terms of its missile capacity. here is what he said. [video clip] testedh korea has nuclear weapons and they have developed technology. they have not demonstrated a capacity or a capability to deploy a nuclear-armed missiles,

attache warhead to a missile and fire it. to ache a warhead missile and fire it. they have suffered consequences for doing it. i refer you to the director's statement clarifying the view of the intelligence community with regard to this issue. there is no formal assessment that would suggest the north korean some developed that capability. this is a story that dominated a lot of headlines thursday and friday. what can north korean do. what are their capacities? guest: the intelligence committee -- committee

disagrees and 1 north korean's capacities are there with the -- community disagrees on north korean's capacities and what they can and cannot do. they have not achieved the capability to do it on an icbm. it may have achieved the capability to do it on a shorter range missiles. there is that capability. we know north korean's intent is to be able to deliver a nuclear device on a missile because it increases their direct capacity and they see it as making them safer. host: we are talking about the situation in the area. our guest is scott snyder from the council on foreign relations. i want to get your reaction to this headline. analysts see leader's aggression

as a bid for legitimacy, but does he have a strategy? guest: that is the critical question that was put on the front pages he -- front pages. if we pass the north korean crises, we are always concerned -- they are always concerned with face and they have always looked to others to find a way out. in the early 2000's, we saw the bush-era administration of arranging for six. talks to get back to -- we saw the bush administration arranging six pointed talks. the u.s. and others may find

they have to create that balance as a way of ratcheting down the tension. host: he is young. he has a passion for basketball. we saw that with dennis rodman in north korea. he comes from a secretive family. what else do you know about him and why he was thrust on to the north korean national stage? son washe first disqualified by virtue of an issue with a trip he took to japan where he was apprehended for having a false passport. he stayed outside the country and was taken out of leaders of consideration. there was a second son, who is older than kim jong-eun and would be the next in succession, but does not have the temperament or personality that would suit a leader in north korea.

he appears to have been bypassed for that reason. the japanese sushi chef who has been with the famine has has aed that kim jong un competitive personality and is tougher and more suited to the cutthroats if i meant that one would face inside north korea. ann is joining us from texas. good morning. i have a statement and a question. i have family members in the military. one just came back from afghanistan. i lost in a few in 2005 in iraq. god that we are still

debating with stillnut. -- this this nut. intelligence do we have about what china since to north korean? we talk about nuclear capability. toabout what china sends north korea? does anybody know if china is sending the material to make nuclear products? i will hang up. thank you. host: thank you for the call. this is from the new york times. you can see the estimated range in capacity. it is able to reach south korea. beyond that, a huge question mark. terms ofrtainly in

missile capability, not necessarily a nuclear deliverable missile. the missile that have in their arsenal is deployed. with regard to the question, china is next to the border. they support a security council resolution designed to damp down transfers of nuclear related materials to north korea. we do not know how well they are implementing it. if we look at the panel of experts report, it suggests there are all sorts of ways north korean, through commercial be andnships, seems to what to continue to procure elements that could be used for some of their nuclear missile programs.

china is the key player in terms of trying to implement sanctions. they also do a lot of other trade with north korea. that could end up being a kind way of good skidding into north korea that is not supposed to happen that china is not fully cracking down on. host: those wondering why north is threatening the u.s. -- is it because of sanctions? guest: it was the security council resolutions that hurt their dignity. and there are regular military exercises that have been going on for the past month that north korea is also complaining about. they are complaining about it

with a higher level of amplitude and a higher scope of threats, including pre-emptive nuclear statistics on the u.s. those kinds of threats are sufficient to make anybody involved with national security. attention and to make sure we have in place he can ability necessary to provide for self- defense. so what does north korea expect to get out of all of this? is there a winning way for them? i do not see it. makes this is what situation difficult right now. a lot of people do not see it yet. it depends on the north koreans to show they are ready to move away from this confrontational mode. it appears that they may be in the process of beginning to do that. if you looked at their own internal propaganda, it damps

down the that even though they continue to announce to foreigners that they should evacuate. if you are in can young today, you would have seen the marathon -- if you were in pyongyang today, you would have seen the marathon and you probably would as have thought this was tense environment as they projected. question.her what is the bottom line? what does kim jong un want and what do we want in return? guest: they want to be recognized as a nuclear weapon states. they see that as their ticket to survival and the silver bullet. the problem right now is if you positionhat he dprk

is, you cannot see an intersection of interest on the venn diagram. we can talk about normalization, but only on the condition that north korean follows the path of nucleariztion. neither party has signaled a willingness to change positions sufficiently. host: secretary of state kerry in china yesterday. today, he is in japan, spending the weekend in the region, trying to deal with the situation in north korea. foris on our line independents. caller: thank you, bye-bye.

host: not sure what the messages. we will move on. caller: we were given an opportunity to make a telephone call and the telephone call was not made. a cuban missile crisis type situation. the missile can go from between 5,000 kilometers and 10,000 kilometers, which would put it over texas. have: i do not think they the range to be able to deliver a nuclear device to the united states. could pointle they a rocket in the direction of the united states and it would land of actuallyn terms having that capability, they are

still limited. host: as we talk about north korean, we are focusing on this picture, and iconic photograph. you can see the difference among the dmz zone. a bright south korea and a dark north korean. how does north korea survived? how do they feed their people? how does it haqqani work? its economy work? guest: their lifeline is china. whatever fuel supplies are coming to china. it is a small the economy. it is not performing nearly to the capacity that it would if they were connected. there is a clear loss reflected in that picture in terms of what north korea could be, a loss of potential. it is related to the fact that

the political system requires a certain level of isolation in order to be able to survive. north korean leaders will not relinquish political control of our central planning authority to readjusts that system in ways that integrate itself with the broad economy. just think of what the picture would be like if north korean changed. south korea would not look like an island. it would be connected with the asian continent. host: are there any parallels ?o what we saw in the 1980's guest: there have been a lot of studies in south korea looking at the possibility of lessons from german unification. there are some lessons that would be transferable. is that southnge

and north korea are increasingly getting of cycle with where germany was when unification occurred. what i am really talking about is the fact that south korean young people do not necessarily have the direct experience that would make the idea of reunification such a burning issue. their experience is one of growing up in a modern south korea. involved,at would be they stunned the german experience of unifying the peninsula, is probably one they would be reluctant to bear. reluctant living in south korean. those are major issues. on c-spanour tune in radial, we are talking with scott snyder from the council on foreign relations. obin is on our line for

republicans. if you turn down your television, we will hear you much better. caller: hello. good morning. i do have a question. i have family members stationed in japan. my son-in-law is on an aircraft carrier. my daughter in two grandchildren are stationed with her husband in japan as well. my question would be, if tensions can hire, with the military evacuate the family? if that were to happen, what type of time frame are we looking at? one of the preliminaries to any sort of direct conflict on the korean peninsula would

probably be an evacuation of civilian personnel in south korea. way. is part of the i do not know whether the assessment might be changing as we deal with the potential for a greater threats from north korea. , there was a week .eport from the hill civilians in japan would probably be seen as outside of the area where conflict is likely to occur. japan is seen as the support base for supporting potential military conflict in korea. it has historically been seen as unlikely to be directly involved in military conflict.

host: we have this conflict from a viewer. north certain that korea's tests are actually nuclear? guest: based on the scientific data that has been released following each test, does korea -- the tests have had a yield that would be sufficient to think they are on a path to developing nuclear capability. none of the tests have reached the yield of our first pass in -- test in the u.s., but they have not been insignificant. becauseill in direct seismology can give an indication of yield, but it also

depends on the conditions of the earth in that particular area. essentially, what we did is suggestsd the yield they have conducted a test. we do not know if the third test was a plutonium tests or a uranium tests. that is important because we have a pretty good idea of what the stock of plutonium is in north korean based on their past activities. in 2010, they showed they were havingprogress toward fuel to detonate a nuclear bomb. we do not have the good sense of how far along that experiment has gone. host: a lot of news reports speculating that another test will happen either later today north korean timer tomorrow. how likely is that? -- they did today north korean time or tomorrow.

has saidrth korean they would conduct a missile tests. we know they have already prepared the field, the test site to be able to conduct one additional nuclear tests. one of the tunnels have been created, but not the of the tunnel. that theossibility north korean could take that step. sean joining us on our democratic line. good morning. if they have opportunity to hit places around this area how do we know they do not have

a nuclear weapon they could put on a long-range missile? they cannot -- their path of developing that capability has not followed the path of other countries who have developed that capability. we have not seen the testing necessary to be able to know for that north korea would be able to actually put a nuclear device on top of a missile. that is one of the reasons why the estimate that was released this past week was a meeting accompanist estimate. it is within the realm of possibility, but it is completely unproven. secretary perry made the assessment that it was unproven. north korea -- secretary kerry

made the assessment that it was unproven. we cannot say for sure with certainty where they are in terms of what they think they can do with regards to be able to deliver on a short range basis. host: let me follow up on two point. senator john mccain sat where you are on tuesday as we talked about north korean. he said we cannot understand what is in the minds of north korean leaders. can you comment on that? we do not know exactly where they are coming from. guest: the north korean have stated what they are coming from. it is not a place the u.s. wants to go. they regard u.s. policy toward north korea as hostile. they need nuclear capability as a deterrence and the u.s. has to first the best of -- go

to normalize relations with the dprk. their idea of when they would is after everybody else has done it. the problem is that their stated aim is antithetical to what u.s. officials can imagine they would be willing to except in the region. host: the preface is the worst case scenario, that north korea is able to launch a nuclear weapon toward japan, south korea, or another u.s. ally. we could potentially be involved in a military response. it would be a devastating military response by all accounts.

if it is a test that just lands in the water, it would end up being back at the security council. there is no question there is a risk in terms of cause of loss of life. i think the obama administration has been clear in signaling that if there is a proliferation of north koreanial, would be held responsible. that is the other scenario we can think of that would draw in a direct response. caudius is on the line -- claudius is on the line, a republican line. we are short on time. question. i think this implication

is for all countries, even in syria, that are -- that is trying to go down the same path with nuclear weapons. the response has to be in such a way that we make it clear to countries like iran that the response we will give would be an really bad response. guest: one of the big problems with north korea is that the horse is already out of the barn in terms of their number -- their nuclear capability. other countries are thinking they can move in that direction. based on our experience with maria, it suggests we really do not necessarily have a firm handle on how to ensure that the course does not get out of the barn. host: steve from north carolina

on the democrats' line. caller: the united states has toward the far east china and the ongoing pressures with the oil and the resources in the south china sea. at a vietnamg redux with everybody trying to stake out territory there? i do not see the situation the same as vietnam. we have an issue as far as the u.s.-china relationship. kerry downplayed the

pivot and played up the possibility of cooperation. the issue of geopolitical tremors and the possibility of a major shift is a backdrop for a lot of this story. host: defense secretary chuck hagel spoke about the three of this past week. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> we have said many times that our country is fully prepared to deal with any contingency, any action that north korea may take or any provocation that they may instigate. we have contingencies prepared to do that. host: that is secretary hagel. your response?

is been they have had a challenging time trying to make sure they are sending a signal of resolve and deterrence without giving north korea the impression that the u.s. is about to go on the offensive. it has been an interesting and -- in justine fallacy act that secretary hagel has been involved with, suggesting that kim jong un should not stay to land close to the line. -- stay too close to the line. but it is not a message that suggest we are about to invade. host: a message from one of our viewers sharing the same sentiment. government should stop making trouble around the globe. is this the sentiment?

u.s. has athe defense commitment to south korea. it has been directly targeted by north korean's rhetoric. it is clear that nobody wants to change north korean's system through external force in the region. i do not think that is the policy of the u.s. government. at the same time, we need to see change in that regime in order to be able to effectively manage regional stability. i think the obama administration has tried. they had a goatee secret tricks -- secret trips. they have laid out some parameters for how they want to approach this. they are just waiting for north korean to be able to respond. host: your biggest concern on this weekend as we wait for the

possibility of another test? guest: any north korean action like the test results from loss of life, ms. calculation, accidental misshoot of some sort. we would see a serious wrapping .p of tension host: scott snyder. thanks for stopping by. once more on all of this, including the issue of immigration. makesr marco rubio appearances on sunday morning programs. here's a look ahead at tomorrow morning's schedule. and green will be joining us. he is the co-founder of the progressive change campaign committee. we will be joined by a member of

the senate budget committee to talk about the grand bargain and the issue of guns. the duplication of government programs. that is "washington journal" tomorrow on c-span and c-span radio. thanks for being with us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today on c-span, "newsmakes" with greta wodele brawne