of operating u.s. military bases overseas. "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning is monday, june 10. today the united states senate officially welcomes its new member when vice-president joe fill swears in a center to the seat of the late frank lautenberger. it lured a debate begins on high profile immigration overhaul proposal. to living avenue continues do with the fallout of the recent disclosure of security programs. yet today the man revealed himself behind the leaks and

explain his motivation to the press, insisting he did nothing wrong. we want to hear your take this morning. what you think about his explanation? give us a call. our phone lines are open. if you are outside the united states it is 202-585-3883. on all also catch us your favorite social media sites. good monday morning to you. the whistleblower story leading most of the major papers today -- here's the fun page of "the the newspaper first to publish the story.

that is a picture of edward snowden. another headline from usa today.

that is the story in the "usa today." we're taking your calls and comments in the first 45 minutes of "washington journal" today. more from theyou stories, wrapping up his comments just a bit. i want a pointer to our facebook page 4 we are taking your comments. we have plenty of comments. another one i want to take you facebook --ing from

we are taking your comments on facebook. we are going to take to his comments. here is him from and in -- from an interview. [video clip] >> i think the public is deserving of the information -- when you are subverting the power of government, that is a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy. in secretthat consistently as the government does when it wants to benefit from a secret action that it officialsll give the a mandate to tell the press about this thing and that things of the public is on our side. it will run -- it will really do that when an abuse occurs. -- rarely do that when an abuse occurs. the country,nst

against the government, but i am not. i do not have special skills. i am just another guy who sits there day-to-day in the office and watches with happens and it goes, "this is not our place to decide because the public needs to decide whether these policies are right or wrong. i am willing to go on record to defend the authenticity of them. the truth, this is what is happening, you should decide whether we need to be doing this. "washington post" is another newspaper that he has been talking to. we want to read you a little bit of that piece this morning --

in a separate story in "washington post" today compares his revelations to some past famous leaks in u.s. history. here is the headline --

we are taking your thoughts on twitter and over the phone. a few comments have already come in on our twitter page.

one other facebook comment this morning -- our phone lines are open. i want to go to bob on our democratic line. good morning to you. your reaction to his explanations as to why he leaked these documents? caller: domal for c-span. he do a great job. i am a democrat. i am very unhappy with this young man. new york city at the time of september 11. i think bill maher said the other day that these terrorists are out to do us extreme harm.

for the one time in history i agree with senator lindsey graham that you can check my verizon account, i have nothing to hide. these terrorists are out there to do extreme harm. i do feel republicans are being hypocritical in the sense that -- during the bush administration everybody was on board. now to be attacking president obama and make this a blunder of the obama administration is completely hypocritical.

host: more from that story on nsa contractors -- "the government is not going to hold back on this case-

you can read more from that story in the washington post. we want to hear from your reaction this morning. we will go to the republican line. david is in florida this morning. good morning. nation undere one surveillance. our pledge of allegiance should have question marks. would they mind if i go to their house and turn their back upside-down? they should not get upset, they have nothing to hide. i am tired of this. i did the fact we have to fight terrorism but to spy on everyone in this country is a little bit much. people died. people died to preserve our liberties. when you think of any country that does this to their citizens is usually not a place you want

to live. host: i want to show some reaction from yesterday. senator dianne feinstein, chairwoman of the senate intelligence committee and republican congressman mike rogers on the house intelligence committee were both on abc this week. they asked if the leader should be prosecuted. [video clip] >> i believe someone did not have authorization to release this information. why that is so important is because they did not have all the information. -- i know you reported to have this all. he does not have a clue how this work. i argue that there is other methods he could come to the committees -- there is other methods, he could come to the committees. we have i.g.'s if they have concerns.

taking a sensitive and classified program that targets foreigners on foreign lands and put enough out there to be dangers is dangerous to us and our national security. it firelight's the oath that person took. it violates the oath that person took. was mike rogers and dianne feinstein. here is a store last night from "the hill" newspaper --

we want to get your reactions to the investigation. tom is from gaithersburg, maryland of our democratic line. caller: good morning. thest want to comment, program itself is questionable and there are things that need to be hashed out. as a society we need to direct how we are going to move forward. the bottom line is this guy -- it was not his call. it was not his call to make this public and now worldwide everybody knows what we're doing. he may have done irreparable harm in the fight on terrorism. heaney's be held responsible for it. host: and holding him responsible here is "the wall " -- t journal

the story goes on to note -- edward is up next from clinton, michigan on our republican line. caller: good morning.

i remember during the bush administration they were -- it busheaked that the administration was following the money. "the new york times" release that information. the man that went and released hearingdo not remember who it was. everyone was screaming how it is important to give out that and permission. being a republican i am conflicted. -- this ishis as still privacy. money wasn't the really a -- if following the money wasn't really a terrible was foreign that money. why is it so that they want to prosecute this gentleman for

united stateshe is keeping an eye on everybody. i would rather be warned about it and find out with some fbi agent at my front door. a few more tweets coming in. mr. snowden was a contractor. works a story about his there in "plus digital" -- "wall street journal" --

bee booz allen hamilton had that statement yesterday.

we will be talking about this issue for another half hour here on the first segment of guest:." -- on the first segment of "washington journal." we want to give you a heads up on the week ahead. she is the congressional editor at politico, rachel, thanks for joining us. start with when that swearing in is happening for the new representative from new jersey. i would imagine it is happening tomorrow. .n tuesday the folks are back host: what we know about who was appointed? guest: he is an attorney general in new jersey.

thes going to finish out term of the late senator. run fort expected to the full term. say for re-election. it will be a hotly contested. there are several democrats that are looking to run for that. the new work mayor has always been interested in the seat -- the new work mayor has always been interested in the seat. -- newark mayor. served 10388 rg days in congress.

tickets to the immigration bill that is going to be on the floor. what is the timing on that debate? what are we expecting to see on the senate floor? guest: this is a huge immigration bill that the gang of eight, a bipartisan group, put together. .t will be sweeping changes to get to to proceed, the debate on the floor, is expected to happen on tuesday. there is not expected to be any objection from republicans to move on to the debate. we could see it as early as tuesday or they could wait for some procedural hours to happen and the debate may not happen until thursday. the debate will definitely happen on the immigration bill this week. there is expected to be votes on the seventh floor before the july 4 recess but not before a

lot of contentious amendments come to the floor. we could see everything from gun control amendments to stuff related to the recent controversy. gay amendments relate to marriage. is going to be a long contentious debate. host: here is a story from politico -- we are going to play a clip of her and come back to you. here is senator ayotte. [video clip] >> our immigration system is completely broken. we have 11 million people living in the shadows illegally. we have a legal immigration system that is not meeting our needs to grow our economy.

this is a thoughtful bipartisan solution to a tough problem and that is why i am going to support it. the border security provisions are e-verified to make sure we know who is getting a job in this country. best and brightest in the country to grow our country -- to grow our economy. with the 11 million in the shadows, a tough and fair way for them to earn citizenship. pay taxes, pass a criminal background check, learn english, this is a good bipartisan solution. why is her support of this bill so important? guest: republicans are going to be part of the swing vote here. the gang of eight, the bipartisan group that offered

this bill, is hoping to get 77 votes in order to pass the bill. they are hoping to get quite a bit of momentum. if they do indeed passed a bill they can send it to the house we're getting immigration bill through the gop controlled house is going to be tougher. she is one of the swing votes they are hoping to gather. several more conservative senators that would support it. voted for the bill out of the judiciary committee but is not expected to vote for it on the floor until he sees several changes. most of these conservatives would like to see some changes to the border security provisions. they would like to see them beefed up. they would rather see congress rather than the homeland planity in charge of the

to see that the border is to secure. before immigrants are about to receive green cards and permanent legal status -- there are several changes these conservatives want to see before they sign on to the bill. before you go, give us an update on the bill and where it stands this week. guest: there is a vote tonight in the senate that is expected to pass. the most contentious piece of that will be in the house. we are expected to see a vote on the farm bill tonight int he senate. host: thank you for joining us this morning. we are taking your thoughts and comments on the revelations of the man behind the leaks of the ,ecret nsa monitoring programs

the top-secret programs the started showing up in "the washignton post" and "the guardian." we have been getting reactions on twitter -- one other story we want to point you to -- if you want to read more on that story that is in "wall street journal." we are taking your comments on the weaker himself -- on the

leaker. lyndon is on our democratic line. good morning. caller: i listened to a couple of things you were saying as i was waiting. it is truly good news to know kong has an extradition policy with united states. i do not see a difference what manningky and did. i think it is treasonous and he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. host: you're talking about the man behind the wikileaks leak. caller: exactly. a republic, a representative style of government. thatve elected officials

we put into office to make those decisions on our behalf. it if they think is right i did not see a problem at this point. i do not have anything to hide. i am good to go. there may be some people out there who are concerned. if your point keep a safe -- if you are going to keep a safe and do it. host: here is a story. you are saying it is elective representatives -- it is their decision or we should -- and caller: we put smart people into office.

not all of them are. but we put them in there to represent us and our interests. i think that this program is in place to protect the united states, protect the people of the united states, and for one individual to do as much damage as he potentially has done is outrageous. there really should be something done. host: a call from virginia this morning. cannas up next on our republican line from pennsylvania. -- ken is up next i can go to any wal-mart store, buy a phone, and nobody knows who bought it. they put it in walmart. thank you. good morning. romney is up next from kentucky on our independent

line. -- ronny is up next from kentucky on our independent line. caller: i agree with lindsey graham. bother me at all.' i have nothing to hide. stop terrorists in any way i am all for it. [indiscernible] at not know how the government can protect us -- i do not know how the government can protect us if there are different things to be done. how mr.them talk about

obama has put in more safeguards in this situation as it was in the previous administration. obamaot in favor of mr. the way he has handled a lot of the blame as president. i am in favor of this. host: thank you for the call. we want to play more reaction from the sunday shows yesterday. this is congressman elijah cummings. he's the ranking member of the house oversight and reform committee, talking about expanding surveillance authority. [video clip] >> the right to privacy is extremely important to americans. a lot of information is classified and we are going to be having a briefing come to stay where will get even more information. i have to tell you that i understand that a balance has to be struck. i looked at the president's

presentation in defending this. i think we have gone too far. we are now open for debate. i want to have that debate and hopefully we will strike an appropriate balance. host: match rights and on our twitter page -- twitterwrites in on our page -- guardian" on"the what they might do to edward snowden.

"the guardian" newspaper first put out these revelations. marianne is up next on our democratic line. say thankrst want to you to c-span. u2 a genuine service to the american people.

-- you do a genuine service to the american people. it holds anyk water. i am not doing anything wrong. say let the facts speak for themselves. if you have a gentleman that is a technician employed for three months and he can get into the secret of the most powerful intelligence organization in the world what does that tell you? the ineptitude of these people speak for themselves. is it a problem with our use of contractors for the defense department efforts? is that something you are particularly concerned about? caller: i am not concerned about the use of contractors. i am concerned about the broad issue here. i consider him a whistle-blower and to not consider him a traitor. on thehis statement

."ont page of "usa today do you think he did anything wrong? caller: i think he did a service to the american people. obama seems to speak out of two sides of his mouth. a lot of things have been done behind closed doors. we have security issues. open it up, redo the patriot act, and get more transparency on the issue as much as you can. what is going on behind closed doors, who really knows? here is an editorial --

an opinion piece in "wall street journal" this morning by a former u.s. attorney general from 2007 to 2009 and a district toge in new york from 1988 2006. he writes --

that is today's "wall street journal. john is up next on our republican line. what you think should happen to the leaker? good morning, america. done a pretty

predictable thing. we have a situation where the government has been collecting information on all of us. what is the big deal? does raise this issue where it is systematic of a larger problem that i fear and all americans should respect. turns sour in august. they have become interested and invasive and they have lost their vision. they are now focusing on the removal of sovereignty from american citizens. we are faced with a delicate balance between public service and public privacy. host: we will keep taking your calls in the first segment of "washington journal."

-- w stores happening today

the story is in "the washington times." it of overseas news for you. this is from "the wall street journal." give us your thoughts on his actions and explanations and the

comment that he did nothing wrong. and from ohio on our democratic line. good morning. caller: i am just wondering how do we let these people that do not have the credentials to work these crop -- the credentials to of work these jobs get in there. how many more of these people are there? that is all. from wendell is up dallas, texas, republican line. good morning. caller: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. saying we have nothing to hide. the government says if we have nothing to hide we did nothing wrong. find that he lied. ie way he exposed the sly -- now have people out there do not make a phone call.

he may not be recording our phone calls but that data coming in on text is recorded. i did and i p -- i did an ip trace. it don't matter. you go through these governmetn nt servers. if i type a comment on any one of them that is gathered. acebookgone through 6 f pages and youtube channels. this has been going on. elgets heavy during the ections. host: stella writes in --

"the washington times" has a statement by intelligence director james clapper --

roger from iowa on our independent line -- put it to you this way, he probably broke the law. host: you are talking about the leaker? caller: yeah. butrobqablably broke the law

congress makes the law. you have the fourth amendment that this law may be tramples on. -- we people to remember have had six successful terrorist attacks in this country in the last four and a half years. two of which were workplace shootings. was handedterrorists to them on a platter by russia and they did nothing. and then they are saying they are collecting all of this information on you to protect you. they didn't protect you. t ithey are so dang good as i why did the boston bomber --

host: he brings up the fourth amendment, an issue that was brought up in "the washington ines closed " -- read it --e washington times" we believe that debate there for now. up next we will have the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs to talk about defense policy in the middle east and other global hot spots. jonathan block will talk about the health care law and its coverage for young adults. we'll be right back. ♪

>> in poor health first lady ida mckinley also suffered from epilepsy. william mckinley would sit next to her during state dinners so he would shield her face from guests when she would have seizures. , evenaveled as first lady to the 1901 american expedition where her husband was assassinated. -- weclude the first lady conclude our series on first ladies tonight on the c-span and c-span3. incentive options and

voluntary options that are upon now i do think that the fcc needs to steer this in a way that small, medium, and large companies can compete relative to spectrum. the idea that bitg fish swalllow up little fish -- i don't think it's healthy for our economy. when you look at the market in by thentry, 80% is owned)))) beach front -- the most valuable spectrum. spectrum is gold in our country. host: the fcc -- >> the sec spectrum auction tonight on the "the communicators.

>> "washington journal" continues. mr. chollet, was the office of international security affairs and what is its role in the pentagon? >> the office covers four regions in the world. i am the principal policy adviser to the secretary of defense on those three regions. i have about 100 people i work with. we support the secretary in all of his engagements, travel around the world, preparations for meetings. we advise him on the policies and issues confronting us as they relate to those regions. host: are you advising the secretary of defense on a daily basis? what is your interaction with him? guest: we see him multiple times a day every day. when he is meeting with a foreign leader from one of those three regions, the middle east,

europe, or africa, we will help him prepare for the meeting. we will represent the department at the white house and debatesencies and discussions about policies related to those regions. host: talk about the story meeting all of the major papers. i do not know what you can say about it. youris leaker, what is ?eaction guest: i cannot say much about it, i do not know much about it. this is under investigation by our justice department so i will have to leave it to colleagues there for further information. what i can say is that things like this do great damage to our ability to collect intelligence and protect the american people. host: what does it do to the

defense department possibility to work with contractors? this guy was a contractor and a big part of the pentagon's operations. guest: the pentagon has an enormous amount of contractors that we work with to help us in a variety of issues. it will raise questions about contractors moving forward. host: will this make your job harder? guest: absolutely. host: on the concern of u.s. monitoring efforts the secretary of defense has been summoned the alarm on cyber security threats coming in from overseas. what has been saying about that? guest: u.s. government and the defense department have been focused on cyber issues in the past few years. gave fall secretary panetta a speech on cyber-defense recall the threat of a cyber attack the equivalent of the 21st century pearl harbor. that is something secretary hagel has followed up on. prior to becoming secretary of defense he was co-chairman of

the president's advisory board. he is very familiar with these issues and very familiar with separate issues generally. most recently at brussels last -- wet the nato defense had a special on cyber security and defense in which chuck hagel called for nato take more action. cyber threat to our collective threats. is the threat the leader in defense -- are we helping others defense? guest: many countries have significant capabilities on cyber issues but we have created a command here in the united states. what we are trying to do is share our knowledge but also share some of the technological know-how we have with others. this is a collective defense

project. he is the assistant secretary of defense of international affairs. the phone lines are open. give us a call. moving on to afghanistan, talk about the latest on the u.s. efforts in afghanistan and what you're doing there. guest: last week was an important week for our efforts in afghanistan. the nato defense ministerial, secretary haggled talked with the non-nato partners about what our plans are in afghanistan after 2014, a period of transition -- host: 8 tie line -- guest: currently there are

60,000 u.s. forces as well as 40,000 partners that remain in afghanistan. going in a transition period where we are slowly turning over authority. that will come to an end at the end of next year, at the end of 2014. at the beginning of 2015 afghans will be in charge of their own security. it is a delicate process to affect that transition. we want to to be sure it goes well. we think it goes bequeathing it is going up secretary hagel met with the attorney general and in afghanistan. we think progress is being made. the allies are with us and they in thetinuing with us fight. we had another insider attack in which two u.s. servicemen were killed as well as an italian servicemen. allies are still in the fight and taking casualties. we are in a pathway of transition in afghanistan and we believe in the next year and a half we will be in place for

afghans are in charge of their own destiny. is progress in your mind? progress as the afghan security forces taking charge of their own security. they have gained the effectiveness to take charge of their own security. afghanistan is still a tremendously dangerous place. what we are seeing underground is the afghans are able to take charge of their own security and are gaining ability and strength every day. on greenthis the green attacked we have heard about? under the attack is still investigation. it has been a real skirt on what has been happening in afghanistan. host: can you talk about what progress has been done on that front? guest: there has been some progress made and i think the

folks in afghanistan have been trying to change some of their prophecies to ensure that some of our men and women in harm's way are protected. the events of last weekend have showed that this is still a great concern we have. if we turn out -- more if we turn out responsibility to afghan troops is it likely that this will happen more? guest: the vast majority of afghan troops have shown that they are seeking to create a country that is more peaceful and is in charge of its own destiny. we have had these very tragic incidents over the past few months, these insider attacks. that is why we are taking steps and the afghans are taking steps to prevent them. there is no doubt their tragic. can you see014, what happens if an attack happens on afghan troops. will u.s. forces be able to help them respond to some of those attacks?

what are going to be our capabilities on the ground there? guest: that is part of what is being sorted out right now. the composition of the force on the ground and afghanistan post- 2014. the u.s. and nato allies will not be in charge of afghanistan's security after that time. is toe have committed to help train, assist, and advise the afghan forces. we will not have a combat role. the: we're talking assistant secretary at the defense department. phone lines are open. talk about what you did before you went to the pentagon. guest: i worked at the white house where i was the senior director of strategic planning

of the national security staff. before coming to the white house asserts that the state department where i worked on secretary clinton's policy planning staff. prior to the obama administration in 2009 i worked on the transition team from president bush to president obama. host: you were heavily involved in some of the efforts around the bosnia conflict. can you talk about that? a long association with the late richard holbrooke. i assisted him in writing his memoirs and then i worked with him later when he was the u.s. ambassador to the united nations in the late 1990's during the clinton administration. a work with him on africa, which i deal with now. a continued with my association with him through 2000 helping

him with various projects. host: during the bosnia conflict there are folks there who wanted walkhrow their hands up and away. bosnia tot you saw in what is going on in iraq. piercing the worst violence in iraq in years. -- we are seeing the worst violence in iraq in years. what we're seeing is a unified government, the central ,overnment in baghdad right now can struggle about bringing greater unity and peace. i think that bosnia has shown that despite the fact that bosnia is a country with

troubles and has a ways to go until this -- until they achieve the aspirations that i think bosnia wants, they have been at peace. it is a police were there is hope and opportunity to the people there. it shows that with perseverance and leadership from the united states in the rest of the tenn., on madison, our democratic line. about: you were talking cyber-security, is this true? -- beforeuestion there was cyber, there was security on some level. i'm wondering why we would not have backup that is non-cyber in the event of a cyber attack so

that somebody hits us pearl harbor-style with the cyber attack, we would have a default position that would be technologically older but reliable in this same sense as it was before. host: contingency plans? guest: that sort of thing is what are cyber command at the pentagon and our college to work these issues were from quebec. the caller is absolutely right -- as we know from our personal lives, if your e-mail gets wiped out or your computer system it gets compromised and you are not able to log on to your computer, it makes it hard to do your work. those contingency plans happen in the private sector and the government will spend a lot of time working on that. the pentagon and department,

securities thinks about critical infrastructure. these are the grids that allow into and usenect the internet as well as the computer systems that help keep our water running and are electricity flowing. these contingency plans and backups are absolutely critical. it is what folks in government do every day to make them more stronger and more resilience. host: this is a story from the associated press this morning --

what do we know about this attack and how does this complicate the effort in afghanistan? guest: what i know is what you just read and there were reports last night about this attack. it is very unfortunate and over the weekend, we had an attack that killed two u.s. servicemen and last week, there was a horrible attack that killed ,everal georgian servicemen from the country of georgia. afghanistan remains a dangerous place. these sorts of attacks are all too common. are said, afghan forces gaining in capabilities. the fact that these attacks are happening is evidence the enemy knows that the capability is

growing and they are trying to take opportunities like this to break the will of the afghan security forces and the international coalition in support of the afghan security forces. host: do these insurgency a time from that they have to break this will buy? is now the time for them to strike? necessarilyot expecting more attacks but clearly, they are opportunistic and are planning to do attacks like this for a unfortunately, this will not be the last of these kind of attacks. i think that things are trending in the right direction overall and afghan security forces are gaining in capability. host: a question on afghanistan -- guest: i don't know the exact number of contractors we have there.

contractors by an important role in supporting our men and women in uniform when they are in the field, helping in many services but also security and things alsoit i think we are tracking to end the war in afghanistan. that's what president obama has laid out as the gold wants to seek. by the end of 2014, the u.s. combat role in afghanistan will be over and the afghans will be in the lead for their own security. host: we're taking your calls this morning with mr. cholet, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. butler, new jersey, republican line is next. caller: good morning, i am /"washington cspan journal"show, i think it is great and i am very pleased to be able to participate. host: is your question?

is nouriow much longer al-maliki going to stay in power or be the president of iraq? the same question is for hamid karzai. the important thing for us is we are a representative democracy and our soldiers are fighting and being killed and injured and the important thing is that we be reassured that we are trying to bring a formal democracy rather than replacing dictators with dictators. guest: very good question -- those are two democratically- elected leaders. year theretan, next will be a critical election a little less than a year from now in which hamid karzai will have a successor that will be elected. that is what the reasons why the u.s. will stay engaged in afghanistan through next year is

because it is in our interest to make sure that election goes well and there is a transition of power. ho ri al-maliki w democratically elected will also face an election. these elections need to be seen as free and fair and there should be a transition of power that is seen in the eyes of the people that is legitimate and that was one of our policy goals to help those elections as they move forward. host: are you confident that these elections happen and the transition takes place, that a transition can take place in iraq and afghanistan? believeask, i this is the biggest problem we are facing in the middle east. we have to show that we're not going to install these people in power and they will remain in power. malikitime for nouri al- and hamid karzai, who is not doing a good job, these people

have to be replaced. but it isare by whom, evidence that nouri al mel watt -- nouri al-maliki has been there too long. is now long time, about 10 years. it is time for nouri al-maliki to step down and out. host: are we confident that a peaceful transition can happen in both of these countries? guest: i am, it will take some help and certainly in afghanistan, we are prepared to provide that help. i am confident there will be a in iraq that has been an election that was deemed free and fair as well as in afghanistan. i believe there is reason to be confident. we need to keep our eye on the ball, we need to continue to provide the kind of support that is needed but we can see a

democratic transition and a democratic for these -- countries to take shape. host: focusing on iraq, talk about what the u.s. can do amid a rising violence. here is in iraq that has another associated press story from this morning -- it is the u.s. doing now to help the iraqi government? guest: we are providing a lot of support diplomatically. our role at the defense department is different today .han it was years ago in iraq the defense department is creating what i would consider a more normal defense

relationship with a country like iraq but would no longer have troops occupying the countrydod personnel in iraq are a little bit more than 100 total. they are trying to work with the iraqi defense ministry and leaders as they are seeking to develop their military. in situations like this, we work very closely through our embassy and our ambassador in iraq to work with the iraqi leaders to help them sort through what is happened. future of iraq, meaning that iraqis are in control of their own destiny here. it is something we monitor very closely. we have very intense contacts with iraqis but we are not in a position now as we were say five years ago to help handle situations like this. host: here is another tweet - ] guest:

one of the strategic moves that president obama has sought to make in the last few years is what we call the rebel cause. some call at the pivot to the asia- pacific. this can host: out last year? >> yes, defense strategic garden was the defense department's effort to show how the rebalance would be implemented. however, the rebalance is not just military. it is what we call a whole government strategy. when i worked at the state department, secretary clinton also was seeking to we engage with the asia-pacific, a diplomatic and development perspective. we are trying to put greater focus and resources, in some cases, to the asia-pacific. that is not to say that we're ignoring the middle east are paying less attention to the middle east or our allies in the rest of the world but it is a reflection of the fact that we

believe that when you look at the 21st century and the evolution of geopolitics in the willfew decades, asia increasingly define our future whether that be the rise of india or southeast asia as a growing economic and political powerhouse. oncertainly are focused intensifying our work in asia. on this produced, secretary hagel went to singapore for the shangri-la of dialogue which is a major meeting of asian defense ministers and he gave an important speech to their u.s. defence policy in the asia- pacific. then he traveled on to brussels for the nato defense minister both sidesd book end of our effort, the asia-pacific also europe. our: from oklahoma, on democratic a line, good morning.

caller: good morning to you. how are you? host: go ahead. caller: i think we just need to pull out of afghanistan and iraq and just let them people have it and take care of their own affairs. we have not accomplished anything over there except getting americans killed and we could put that money that we're spending over there to good use in this country and helping the people over here and just let them people have it over there and just be done with it. we are not going to accomplish anything. that's basically all i have to say. host: are we accomplishing anything? guest: i would take issue with the colors you that we have not accomplished anything. in iraq, we pulled out that u.s. forces years ago and we have given the iraqis and an opportunity to build a better future. in afghanistan, we are on the

pathway out of afghanistan. we're in the middle of a transition there. i do believe that we have accomplished a great deal and there is still yet more to accomplish. afghanistan still faces tremendous challenges those are challenges we will remain focused on. the underlying policy is to transition and transition means that afghans will be more capable and better able to take control of their own destiny. is the co-chollet, editor on six blocks of american foreign policy. -- six books of american foreign policy. luis is waiting from fredericksburg, va., and our republican line. just how tough -- how much defense to really need and

how we have a good defense that there was a state department employee that sold visas vietnam and made $1 million? we also see the state to pardon was giving visas to people like the ballston bomber. these are all real people coming into this country and we don't know who is coming in. what good is it for us to have all of these drones these countries that we are involved in. the defense department and all the bullets and guns will not help any when we are allowing people -- we have a state department where it is corruption. it is obvious corruption. they are supposed to be there to promote peace and i have lived for 62 years and there has been nothing but war. we do need to have strong defense. that takes a lot of resources to

spend on defense. one of the things that president obama is working hard on this to get greater balance our budget, our overall federal budget. our defense budget balloons mightily in the decade or so after 9/11. one of the thing we are sorting through and working with congress on is how we can right size that budget for the 21st century and make a more manageable and affordable. hagel'sone of secretary as priorities as defense secretary. that is why he initiated what we call the strategic management and budget review which is about how we think through our defense budget and spending and strategic priorities and how that fits together in a sustainable way for the 21st century. there is no doubt we need a strong defense budget and i would argue that we need a solid state department budget. i'm not the buyer with some of

the visa issue is the caller mentioned but the state department is a small fraction of the federal budget. we get first-run state department is often under appreciated. host: what will people be seeing in terms of the size of the military when these planning efforts come to fruition? guest: our military will still be the largest in the world by several orders of magnitude. we will probably still spend more on defense than the next 10 allies combined there are some choices that need to be made and some of those are tough choices when it comes to the size of our forces and weapons systems we may seek to pursue. if we were to choose to not pursue certain weapons system, that could affect jobs. there is an industrial base that supports our nation's defense those are the things that are being sorted through right now. it is internal work in the

defense department. twtet -re is another i think tremendously. both of those places, it is safe to say prior to our involvement in both iraq and afghanistan, the role of women was very much limited particularly in afghanistan. i think our efforts there have helped bring up opportunities for women through the defense department also the state department and usaid. they have created a lot of programs specifically for women and women leaders and opportunity. there is still a long way to go. it is a priority of ours and should and/or as a priority. host: here is a headline from "the atlantic." is iraq on the principles of war?

guest: i don't think so. it still has challenges and there is still too much in security. there are great parts of iraq that are flourishing. there are genuine security concerns there, as the news you reported a few minutes ago makes evident. i think iraq is a good chance of succeeding in the future with our support and the support of others. independents on our line from georgia, good morning. caller: i had a question about our use of the comparison to bosnia. thatems when we use comparison, we are already looking at an existing sectarian state. really, yugoslavia would have been the accurate comparison to afghanistan, iraq, or syria but after the ethnic sectarian cleansing that ended with a separate catholic croatia,

orthodox serbia and a muslim --ch oriented bosnia, muslim-oriented bosnia, that's where we see things devolve in the middle east and afghanistan is looking more toward pas htunistan or a separate nation within syria. ?ow can we help these places we're just seeing the beginnings of a sectarian civil war. even now, foreign troops are guaranteeing the independence of bosnia. how are we going to help these other nations when it requires our foreign intervention in bosnia just for that state to maintain itself? the caller's point that these comparisons sometimes can be overdone is absolutely right. the analogy of yugoslavia in regards to what is happening elsewhere to the broad ethnic diversity and sectarianism -- at think it

can be done bosnia was multi- ethnic as a country. , it bosnia and yugoslavia shows there is a pathway for these countries. there is a pathway out of the violence and there is a pathway toward a brighter future. in bosnia today, they're very few foreign troops, actually, securing the peace. there is a handful but it is nothing like a 60,000 that went into bosnia in december of 1995. over time, we have reduced our presence to where it is very minimal and peace is being secured largely by the bosnian people themselves in a multi- ethnic state. it is a state still with challenges and still has a ways to go but it shows that there is a path. when we put our minds to it, we can help these folks build a better future host: do you agree?

thatr: it just seems to me when you are looking at the situation in bosnia that had we not intervened so violently against the serbian bosnians, if we had just let bosnia itself boil as we are letting iraq a boil, that nation would have completely dissolved into nothing but small sects here and there spread throughout an ever- violent situation. even the comparison that says this small nation, that had once been a part of the larger yugoslav nation, survives as a multi-atlantic area. it still seems to be without our hand holding it down it would boil over again to the same sectarian issues with the rerbs thing to maintain that serbians and bosnia's are separate from the rest of the bosnian people, for example.

guest: i don't think bosnia is on the brink of boiling over. it is a country that is at peace with itself. is at peace with its neighbors. it is moving forward, sometimes fitfully or not as fast as you would want or the bosnian people would want but it is not on the brink of boiling over and did shows that through the application of leadership, by the united states and others, by working through a negotiation like ambassador holbrooke did in dayton, that you can cobble together something that will bring peace and bring hope for a brighter future. it is not easy. it is not clean. it does not happen overnight but it is possible that is what i sort of left onto as i look forward at many of the challenges we face around the world. there is a way forward. host: of the books you helps co- write was with ambassador

holbrooke? guest: it was called "to end a war." it was about his experiences helping bring peace to bosnia ast: indianapolis, indiana, republican line, good morning. attacks fromyber china really have any concern. they might be considered to be the number 1 and #two power in the world. i'm concerned that anything they get will be turned over and sold or shared their enemy groups which includes north korea. is there any kind of punishment plan or retribution we can install that would punish china for doing this? it seems this administration has been kind of blacks and mentioning it. ino, -- kind of lax

mentioning it. also, did we conduct a cyber attack on north korea in contrast with israel and also, was the benghazi outpost really a cia outpost and can you even say it is or not? will start the last two questions because i cannot say much about them. in terms of the cyber-issue, i take issue a little bit with your statement that the administration has been silent on the concerns on cyber regarding china. our national security adviser given important speech about six weeks ago at the asia site york where he talked about our concern and the administration's concern about cyber threats emanating from china secretary.

hegel last week had the shangri- la dialogue and also talked about the cyber threat emanating from china. just last weekend, president obama had a very important summit in sunny land, california with the chinese president in which cyber was one of the main topics of conversation. this is something this administration is very focused on globally but has been specific in public about our concerns about the threat emanating from china and have talked candidly with their chinese colleagues about those concerns. host: several questions on twitter -- in syria, we are working on a long several lines of operation. one is mainly through the work of my colleagues at the state department trying to bring about a negotiation in which the opposition would sit down with

representatives of the region to negotiate an outcome. part of that is to help the opposition during greater capability and effectiveness. we're working, as a government, to help the opposition bill this capability, build its ability to govern and its ability to plan, help with humanitarian needs. we at the defense department are helping to ship in medical and food supplies to the opposition. ourre also working with partners in the international community on the negotiation and helping to strengthen the opposition but also to tighten the noose of around assad. concerningvery situation, something we spend a tremendous amount of time on as a government. through these various lines of efforts, we are hopeful that we can reach an outcome that we want to see which is the president there leaving power and the syrian people to have the opportunities we have talked

about the people in other countries have right now. host: talk about the idea of arming the opposition? guest: the u.s. position is to provide non-lethal assistance to the opposition agree we are not harming them. we give them food, medicine, is in the form of technical expertise mainly in the government's side of it and we are the largest single donor, the largest single donor to meet humanitarian needs to the people and much of that is going to border countries like jordan and turkey where the humanitarian needs are enormous. host: we saw no-fly zones being established in countries when these complex,. is that on the table for the united states and syria? guest: we plan for a range of options for the president if he were to choose to execute any of those options. we want to ensure that they are

real and executable. a no-fly zone would be tremendously challenging as chairman dempsey and others have testified before congress because of the density of the syrian air defenses. it would be challenging to set up a no-fly zone. there would be significant risk to doing so. we could do so because the united states military is tremendous a capable but it would be of some degree of risk. we're now pursuing other avenues to affect the outcome. are planning for a range of istions host:derek chollet the assistant secretary of defense. talkxt, jonathan bloch about the federal health care law and its impact on insurance coverage for young adults and later, we will talk about military bases overseas. a recent price tag put the cost

at $10 billion per year. first, we have a news update -- >> the issue of u.s. surveillance programs will be raised by the german chancellor, angela merkel with president obama when he visits berlin next week. the german interior ministry says it is in contact with american authorities trying to clarify details and determine whether there was any infringement of german citizen'' rights. president obama is due in berlin on june 18 for his first visit to the german capital as president. the associated press reports that president obama plans to fermin asason chairman of the council of economic advisers and the announcement is expected this afternoon. the council is one of two of the president's main source of economic advice and that position requires senate approval. mr. fermin would replace alan krueger.

on wall street this morning, stock futures are looking up after data showing japan's economy is gaining momentum. the country's economy grew out a quicker pace in the first quarter than had been previously estimated. at had of the opening bell, tao futures are up 30 points, the nasdaq is up 8 and those of the latest headlines on nasdaq -- up -- on cspan radio. >> the name of this place still resonates with the shuddering in the hearts of the american people. more than any other name connected to the civil war except lincoln's, gettysburg reverberates. and retain the knowledge that what happened here was the crux of our terrible national trial and even americans who are not sure precisely what transpired on these fields know that all the glory and all the tragedy we associate with the civil war resides most palpably and most indelibly here. >> the wall hundred 50th anniversary of the battle of

gettysburg live all day, sunday, june 30, on american history tv on c-span 3. . this morning, we'll continue our puerto rico -- periodic look up the health-care law and its effects. today, we focus on young adults under the age of 26. and how the health care law is affecting them. in this segment, we have special line set up for those who are 26 and under to talk about the health care law and for your questions, we have jonathan bloch, a reporter with modern health care to answer those questions. the first question for you -- how were young adults affected by the changes in the 2010 affordable care act? guest: perhaps the biggest change for young adults is for those under the age of 26. a provision of the aca has

already gone into effect allowed young people were under the age of 26 to remain covered under their parents' health insurance plan. there is 6.6 million young adults covered by the affordable care act. host: we will show some sor \ / statistics on this. explain that for us. guest: there are a number of plants that do not have to abide by certain regulations. they are known as grandfathered but those grandfathered plans will have to abide by the aca

regulation by 2017. host: for those using their parents' plan, is there anything else that would disqualify you from being on your parents' plan? guest: not that i know of. host: some other facts of the affordable care act on young people besides that change? guest: i think that what will happen is obviously one of the main purposes of the affordable care act is to get americans who are under-insured or uninsured covered and a large number of young people do not have coverage and they feel they are invisible -- in vincible so they feel they don't have to get coverage. like everybody else who will benefit in this country from the aca, young people are now guaranteed coverage under the health reform law. host: president obama on friday in san jose, calif. talked a little bit about what this has done for young people. [video clip]

>> you've got a wide an array of new benefits and better protections and stronger cost controls that you did not have before. that will come over time, improve the quality of the insurance you got. there are benefits like free preventive care, checkups, fl shotu matt -- mammograms and contraception. you now be able to get those things for your insurance or they previously were not -- they did not have to be provided. protections like a lock people up to age of 26 to stay on their parents' health care plans, which has already helped 6 million americans including 6 million young latino americans. host: in that video, the president said that included 6 million young let americans. that was the wrong number, right? was the right number? according guest: to a may 2 news release put out by hhs, it is

6.6 million and includes all young people under the age of 26. host: guestwe are taking your cs -- we have a special line set up for those who are 26 and under -- block answer your questions for you to the best of his abilities in this segment talk more about the enrollment of young adults and how that number has gone up. are a few more statistics courtesy of hhs. what is our time frame, is that since 2010? guest:no, since 2011.

that was when the provision that allowed young people, those under the age of 26, to be covered under their parents' health plan. that is only since 2011. ist: on that coverage, here a chart from "u.s. news and world report," showing the uptick in young people who are covered. this covers ages 19-25. the blue lines are the numbers of uninsured from 2010-2012.

why is it just the young people? guest: i think it's almost entirely attributable to the new provision because no age group has a provision of the aca is already going to affect. callswe're taking your with jonathan block in this segment and we will start with stanley from massachusetts are independent line. what are your thoughts on how the health care law is impacting young adults? caller: hello. old duo's 27-year- college loans and has no job -- what does he do? guest: that's a great question. somebody who is age 26 or above that, they would have to get their health insurance on the health insurance exchanges that many of the viewers have probably heard about. enrollment begins october 1 this

year for coverage of january 1, 2014. if you had a young person in this situation who is 27, it would be eligible for exchange subsidies. based on the person's annual income if they are between 100-400% of the federal poverty level. for somed be eligible level of subsidies in states that have decided to expand medicaid. not every state has chosen to do that. 138% ofincome is up to the federal poverty level, you would be eligible for medicaid. host: explain the exchange's more for folks who are still not sure how these things work. guest: an exchange is basically an online marketplace. some people have called it an amazon.com health insurance and

that is largely correct on october 1, if you would like to get health coverage for coverage starting on january 1, 2014, you'll go to your state's health insurance exchange which is on line and you will enter in some information as far as your age, income level, and some other information and then it will give you a selection of different health plans to choose from and it will vary based on what's known as the generous of benefits. you'll have, for example, there could be metal tiers ago from bronze at the bottom to silver, gold, and platinum and the differences have to do with different deductible and copa levelsy it on the platinum level plan, you have a higher premium but your copayment and deductibles would be lower. host: you wrote a story

recently if young adults on will impact ons their parents policies. the uptick of young people on their parents policies, will that take people out of the pool that could be used to help lower the cost on these exchanges? guest: the way that insurance works is that you have everybody who is guest-covered bar in may pool that would include young people who tend to be healthy and don't have many medical expenses but then you also have a lot of older people who are in it could tend to have more medical issues. in issue that i brought up my article is that if you have approximately 6.6 million young adults under the age of 26 who are covered under their parent'' policy, that 6.6 million relatively healthy young americans who will not be getting their coverage in the

health insurance exchanges, you need to have a large number of healthy individuals because the healthy individuals are the ones that help pay for the individuals in the exchange who have greater medical needs. without enough young people in be often thatill could possibly mean a higher insurance premium for everyone in the exchange. host: jonathan block is a reporter for a modern health care. or else have you worked? guest: i have also worked previously at atlantic information services, health reform week, and help plan a week and before that, as a pharmaceutical reporter for many years working for publications like "the pink sheet," "fda newss." host: we are talking out of health care law is affecting young people and have a line set

up for those folks who are under 26 years old. if you're a young person and have a question about how the health care lot worse for you, give us a ring. we will go now to a republican line from rapid city, mich.. to the i'm listening communist-spreading propaganda. were so many promises made about obama care but let's talk real dollars and cents. i am a small business owner. ensure and pay the premiums 100% for all of our employees and families. the premiums have gone up over 30% the last three years, 18% just this last year. we have offered our employee for 17 years is being questioned at the end of the year. they don't even know where we are going to go.

we carried the extra water for that to be grandfathered in. you will be able to keep your health care plan and be able to choose your doctor's and for you guys to come on and talk about the 25-year-old st. 25 has become the new 15 in this country. people don't understand there is no such thing as a free lunch host: do you think there is time to repeal the health care law here? that a it's obvious now whole plan is just to bankrupt the whole private health care industry. forced oughtall be to medicate. -- onto medicaid. i support my senior citizen in laws and they have been driven off two different medicare supplement plans and the last two years.

this is what is happening. we will smile and talk about how we are covering the kids who don't even want health care and we're going to drive the people who are carrying the water and paying for everyone else's right out of it. start off with a small business. i just restore that is in today's issue of "modern health care"and the deals with some of those issues with small businesses. one of the issues for small businesses is that they have to now by the by new regulations under the affordable care act which includes something called essential health benefits. this is a set of 10 categories that every health plan must include. because of that, in many states,

the cost of health insurance has been going up. another thing that is negatively impacting people like the gentle man and his business is that there was supposed to be and there are separate exchanges that were specifically for small businesses. those exchanges are separate from the individual exchanges that have been referring to. hhs is -- however, delaying choice and those exchanges by one year and a federally-facilitated exchanges. like the, for people businessman who just called, they will not be able to have a choice if they are in one of the 33 states that is going to be either february run completely -- either federally run completely by the state or federal government.

the state will normally run the exchange functions. host: let's go to south bend, indiana, independent line. caller: i am not young anymore and a jobhen i was, that i ever had all my life, you have to work so my hours to qualify and wants to qualify, you keep working and it's fine but that runs out and you have a choice of this or that when this finally -- i retired at 55 and my legs are shots. upon't qualify for have been medical stuff to show proof that i could get disability. in four years, i will file for social security and hope that offsets the taxes that i being taxed on my pension better not state or government-related.

they're independent unions. whenthis does take effect, i file my taxes, they will take money out or something to make sure that i am in short? what stops an individual for just sitting at the hospital de and running up the bucks cause they have been entitled and mandated to pay into this system that i have never had half my life and no one ever cared and all of a sudden, everybody cares. that is my question and if i have to pay into it -- i never understood how insurance really works because even when i was married, the wife would run the kids out because one was sick. in two or three days you get over it usually and you grin and bear it. host: talk about the penalties

issue and how that works guest: he was talking about disability insurance which i am not an expert at. some of his other concerns i can address. 2014, every american is guaranteed to get health insurance with the caveat if they wanted. they choose not to have it, they then are penalized. webber, in the first year -- however, in the first year of the affordable care act, it is a rebel -- relatively small provisions of there's a fear that many health experts have brought up which is that the penalty, at least in the hair, is theft, that many people including many young people who are needed in the exchanges to balance out or risk pools, they might say that they will go and

pay maybe $100 in the first year. it will go in future years. they might just say that i feel young and healthy and that's concern thata real we havedevolve host: seen some effects of a number of young people who are on their parents plans. here are some statistics from nbc news -- paribas ge who would've paid for that one of of $47 million had these children not been on a parent's plans? ifst: the individual states

let'se not insured taft all that money to expand medicaid in the first three years, 1% of those costs will be covered by the federal government and that eventually goes down to 90% of the state costs. this is only in the states that have decided to expand medicaid. host: talk about how the

government is reaching out to young people to educate them about health care and getting on health care plans before these laws in. guest: you just showed a clip of president obama making a speech to appeal to young people. i know secretary sibelius' has said the same thing with graduations occurring this month. they are trying to get young people especially as the graduate from college. are as other than that, i am not sure but they do have a web site called health care.gov are supposed to be opening up a call center this month it will be open for people who have questions and individual states will do their own outreach campaigns and that will vary state by state. this is kathleen sibylla's

back in may to new graduates congratulate -- congratulating them on their graduation and informing them about the benefits. here is another headline -- what do you think? guest: i have heard the argument before and it is difficult to make health insurance sexy. lot of youngif a people would care if you put it and if you try to be more tech-savvy health insurance. young people don't think about it because they think they are young and invincible. health care is not the sexiest topic to talk about even though

i cover it every single day. host: a question from twitter -- guest: that is correct. that goes back to the san essential health benefit areas which i don't know what the top of my head but i can tell the person about that tweet that maternity care is included in that. host: let's go to louisville, kentucky, independent blind. -- independent line. impact i was wondering the illegal immigrants are going to have on health care. i mightired now and care giver of elderly people. i take them to and from a public health facilities in

louisville. there are about nine of these clinics run by the local government. i take them in there and i was sitting in their a couple of weeks ago with three of them, waiting for them to see the doctor. i counted about 18 illegal immigrants sitting in there. i know they are illegal because most of them spoke spanish and a couple of them spoke other languages. i speak spanish as well as italian and french so i knew what they were talking about. they were down there with social workers and the came to see the doctors and they were all illegal. i started talking to them and one of the social workers became aggravated and told them not to speak to them. -- told them not to speak to me. one is nott of all, eligible for the aca provision like guaranteed coverage unless you have legal status. to my knowledge, illegal emigrants -- illegal immigrants

will not be able to gain coverage under the aca. there may be other programs available to them through local social- service agencies, private organizations, that sort of thing, but under the aca, you have to have legal status to qualify, i believe. host: we have a special line set up for those under 26 with questions about the health care law and how it applies to them. adam on that line from bloomington, indiana. caller: good morning, i had a general question and comment. regardinghsa account, currently have one and i just turned 27 so i am out of the range. my wife was covered under the age of 26 under her mother's plan. will there be any impact fort hsa accounts for younger folks

who can contribute because it is greatly beneficial if you are very young and very old. -- i thinkgenerally is important and you made this point that most under folks are not going to pay for insurance. happen.things that i personally broke my elbow at age 24. $30,000 but i would not have been insured had i not been working full-time at the time. that is my comment and my question on how this will impact hsa accounts. thank you for cspan. ost: explain what an hsa countess. guest: at stands for r health savings account. they are grown in popularity and they are high deductible health plans and also known as consumer-driven health plans.

they haveale is that very high deductibles. however, you have an hsa with your high deductible health plan and to contribute as well as your employer will contribute money to its of that covers both the cost of your health care as well as the cost -- i mean premiums as well as medical expenses that you may ring up - i believe that high-deductible health plans will become more popular under the aca because they will be among the most affordable plans with the lowest premiums. i do not foresee a major impact on hsa's high deductible health plans breed of anything, the aca may boost these kind of plants. host: here are more questions from twitter --

guest: he does not go to jail. if you are under a certain income level, you do not have to pay it. host: that's a very good point. it is not lowering costs. that is an excellent point that i never really thought about before. the caller is right on the money. what will happen is if someone takes the penalty and i have a number zero, they will go to the er did they cannot afford to pay, the hospital has to observe it. -- absorb it. hopefully, it will not be that big of an issue. only time will tell. the telephones in arkansas on a republican line. there areod morning,

a couple points to want to make. since 2007, my wife got four paychecks and i have not had a raise since 2009. last year, our insurance went up 15% this year, another 10%. this is supposed to be an affordable care act but it is costing as much more. taught not to let the government pay for my insurance. whats want to know at point would i be able to fix my but as i can afford it? guest: good question. i have heard this concern for are people, that they seeing from 2012 to 2013 many of the insurers are getting their rates ready. they have filed already with the

state insurance agencies. it has been a mixed bag as far as what we have seen so far for 2014. every year health insurance goes up because everything else goes up. arequestion is for 2014 is the health insurance premiums going to go up and if so are they with the result of the aca? we have about 10 states with where insurers have released their rates. , number of those states private insurers have asked for 10%, 20%, even a hundred%.

-- even 100%. robert is on the "under 26" line. i was wondering if the full-timeacting -- oyment for youth to is what he is alluding the fact that if full-time employers have to provide health insurance, which is a mandate under the aca if they have 51 or more employees that can have a negative impact on hiring. there have been a number of statistics from business organizations that say it will

because of the added expense that they are going to have to incur in order to provide coverage. we will not know until we actually see it. anecdotally i have seen statistics from business groups that say that will actually happen. businesses that have 51 employees or more have to provide coverage and that may have a negative impact on their ability to hire. host: donovan's confirmation can. good morning to you. calling from michigan. good morning tea. touches uponestion the last caller's comment. one of the negative outcomes of employers having to provide health insurance for employees

that work over 40 hours or employers that have to provide health insurance for please -- for employees if they work over 40 hours if they have more than 51 employees -- not only does it affect hiring but it affects employees working for the company. what i have in experiencing in the past year is that employers have been scheduling for over 40 hours. several co-workers would have to go out and find several jobs in order to pay bills and what not. it is adding to a big problem thegst young people when unemployment rate is so high

amongst people right now. guest: he makes a very good point, there have been a number of businesses that have tried to avoid providing coverage because they are trying to run a business. they're cutting down hours of the those employees are not considered full-time and then they would deal to get coverage under the health exchanges. host: woodcut of business are you in? i may server for a restaurant. host: is this something you're seeing within your same industry or in other industries as well? ofler: i ever did a couple restaurants of the past year and --tty much every restaurant this is for five different restaurants. it is pretty much standard network employees over 40 hours. anything illegal

about business is doing this? guest: it is not. i want to allude to the story that i wrote, most small business owners realize that it is good business to provide health insurance. , ifink that most of them they're doing what the caller said they're not doing it out of greed they're doing it simply because it is the bottom line. you canead the article hear small business people who talk about that. you can follow mr. bloch a couple of questions from twitter their coming in, this one -- guest: that is a loaded

question i did not see it as that and as a very politically loaded question and as a journalist i prefer not answer that. about this or that cannot earlier this year, talking about the specific parts of the health-care industry that are particularly important to young people, mental-health and substance-abuse. how has the affordable care act changed those two areas? guest: a lot of health plans today, the coverage for mental health is not as strong as it is in other areas. there are some states have mental-health parity. todayr, for many plans the mental health benefits are not as rich as they could be.

one of the things that the ec a is doing is they are really -- they're really putting in provisions that really pulled up mental-health and substance- abuse resources. hopefully in the future young people or anybody who has mental if you -- mental issues will get the care they need. plainfields from indian on our republican line, good morning. caller: hello. was the biggest gripe from the insurance companies? that is one group we never hear from and i do not know what their biggest gripe is. executive payt, executive bonuses for the insurance companies, how that be reduced? me insert the second

question first. they have nothing to do with health insurer -- the ford will care act has nothing to do with health insurer compensation. our magazine carried recently put an issue out today that a key on mentioning. they have done an analysis that only for health insurance but for other companies that are in the health-care field. you can look at that at modernhealthcare.com. and the first question? caller: what were some of their gripes? for thet obama worked middle class. guest: good question. they were very supportive of the affordable care act. i think the caller alluded to the reason why health insurance

is so costly. the reason is because of claims costs. there is also an issue in the way that our -- with a payment system works that in this country is that frequently the can vary from hospital to hospital. you can go for an appendectomy and in one hospital it will be two thousand dollars and across town it will be $5,000. host: george is on our democratic line. caller: what i would like to know is with this obama care, when it first came out nancy pelosi was on national tv and said let us pass the bill first and then we will sit down and read it and see what is going to do. now we find out every time something takes it into effect it is when the cost more money

out of my pocket. doctors are not accepting it. plenty of doctors say they will not accept obama care or anything like that. i was wondering if a group of ordinary citizens that gather obama for lying to the american people about obama care, can we sue him for lying to the bearer to people? wasn't going to go up higher or anything like that. everything is going up. about the current legal status of the affordable care act? thet: a year ago constitutionality of law was upheld by the supreme court so obviously the law is still in effect on capitol hill, which is

right next to us. been 37 efforts, including one of few weeks ago as farto repeal the law and nothing but with the supreme court issued. host: joe is on our line for people under 26. good morning. good morning. i want to say thanks for clearing the water this has been very helpful. . andhear a lot of the spin dc-8e that are really pro

or negative -- they have different opinions about things. thanks for that. obviously people have been commenting on the numbers being skewed because more people are going to have to get a part-time job. pertaining to that, i know it sounds shaky but a lot of employers will do what they have , whatto stay in business is to keep them from cutting people's hours? guest: theoretically, nothing. probably be some sort of public backlash against that. also there is a provision that

if a -- if you have 51 or more employees in the do not provide definednsurance the $3,000 per employee. as the caller points out unscrupulous businesses may try to do that. businesses. smaller that maybe when they seek to do so. host: bids is is thomas jonathan. caller: -- host: vincent is on the with jonathan caller. caller: the way this is going to be calculated is using full-time equivalent employees. the other thing i wanted to touch on is from what i have

, i just added to health insurance myself, it looks insurance plans are going to be switching from this group model to an individual model because there's a substitute in place. we may see larger employees subsidize because it will be cheaper. host: talk about the full- time equivalents. guest: that gets into the nitty gritty. the way the federal government will figure out what qualifies as a full-time employee. haveically you could somebody qualified as a full- time working less than 40 hours. that is the way the government will decide whether your business follows -- whether you

have a full-time employee. next fromen is up grand rapids, michigan. good morning. whethermy question is you are below or above 26, if you have an arrangement with your primary physician will have a monthly direct pay and that is the full access to my doctors but i do not have insurance. how does that affect me in that situation? guest: there was an article about a doctor in maine that as to exactly what you just mentioned, he will not be taking insurance and he will charge fair rate where he makes a small profit to help cover expenses. the only question is whether other individual positions

predict individual physicians will follow in that model. who knows? host: we appreciate you coming on. up next we will focus on a military base overseas and the cost of operating them. first a news update from c-span radio. >> the number two republican in the house says republicans want more answers about government eavesdropping. erick kanter and remarks to cbs this morning say lawmakers hope to learn more details and briefings from various administration officials on capitol hill this week. the number one republican in the house is working on many issues including immigration reform. the speaker is forming a plan aimed at passing a version of immigration overhaul. by committees want a vote

the full house before the august break. senatedidate is on the floor and is expected to get a vote before july 1. you could hear live senate debate on their immigration plans today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio where you can watch the senate live on c-span two -- on c-span to pick those of the latest headlines. >>)i as the voluntary options ae upon us now i do think that the fcc has to see deer this in a that is very small, medium- fish -- the ideaiihiiiiiiiiihhh notlow up little fish ish healthy for our economy.

plan,ll have a business they want to make money, but when you look at the markets in the country 80% is owned in , the of the beachfront)))) most valuable spectrum and spectrum is gold in our country and we have to do more to loosen it up. said the security and freedom of the internet tonight it 8:00. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we take a look at how your money is being used in a different government program. we look at the cost of operating military bases overseas basesmichael l -- overseas with michael lostumbo. he studied this issue for the defense department.

what is the price tag on the basis we are paying overseas? defense department currently estimates that they spend over $10 billion per year on air bases overseas. -- on our bases overseas. we did a report that was released last month and we were able to accost in a different way than the death dance department did. we came to -- and the defense department did it became too sick jod. we can to a similar figure. focus on thed costs and we looked at the overseas press vinson's -- overseas presence. andave a capable military

our presence overseas allow us to deploy forces to, but there is very quickly. helps secure our interest. we took away our forces to deter conflict. in many ways the forces that are in place in a country, like in south korea, are deterring a attacke from north korea. we looked at a range of benefits. the other one is the trade with foreign militaries and when we are based broderick can do that more often and we can have more comprehensive training. that improves both our own forces because when we fight in conflicts abroad invariably we are working with other military. the u.s. military is the most

competent in the world so interacting with that improves capabilities of our allies and partners. the senate armed services committee -- operations does not include pay for soldiers at bases. what is included? includehat does not personnel costs, that would be in the 12 billion. they are doing that from the defense budget. that is the most recent fiscal year budget. those numbers are reported from the defense department. to deuce and then different because the defense department already has those numbers. we wanted to look at the

incremental costs of peace in forces overseas. host: is the study available online? guest: it is. www.rand.org. all our reports are available for free online. it is to your question about the essentially if you had a unit, a fighter squadron or an army unit -- the difference whether it was based here in the united states or abroad is what we are able to articulate. that is the first time anyone has been able to do that. is more costly to put forces abroad but we wanted to put that in the context of the strategic benefits that you get out of that.

host: phone lines are open if you want to talk about the cost of military bases overseas. the phone lines are 202 -- talk about statistic that 70% of our pieces are being located in just three countries, germany, japan, and south korea. what was the strategic thinking? part of the legacy of the post-world war two era, we had a large number of forces and a large number of basis in germany and japan. thosehe years many of bases have been maintained but the actual number of forces that

are posted in the countries has declined quite a bit, particularly starting in the early 1990's in the wake of the cold war. so we developed a very strong relations with germany and japan in a post world war two era and they continue to want to have u.s. forces in their country and a strong security tie with the united states. host: -- host: on twitter -- talk about the shift that is going on right now and the options that the government is putting forward and that you have proposed for trimming costs on military bases overseas. guest: the question we're trying

to address is our the basis serving our interest? we looked at the administration's own documents on this, particularly the strategic guide of the defense department. we found that in order to be able to meet the strategic intent of the country, which is to be able to apply forces abroad frequently and support our allies that we need a fairly substantial force abroad. we did find areas we could cut -- in particular you could kill -- you could still cut and meet the strategic guidance. the metaphors that are in europe if youe considered -- were going to make reductions in europe it would have some consequences. in particular the forces abroad are able to train with our

partners and they are some of the most proficient the terries and our strongest allies in the world. if we were to reduce forces there that would mean that we would most likely have less training with them. could harm the ability of ourunited states to support nato commitments. it could be political consequences elsewhere. host: who would they be looking to? that would be up to them. there could be a secure vacuum in europe and i cannot predict how they would fill that vacuum.

julie rights and on twitter -- --joy writes in on twitter guest: our forces in the korea -- will continue to train with them. the north korean government is very unpredictable. they still threaten south korea with militaryime actions in small ways. in partain forces there to send a signal to north korea tot we'd remain committed south korean security. warranties country's obligations in terms of paying for the bases? are we footing the entire bill? guest: countries like japan and

south korea pay substantial amounts to help support and defray the cost of u.s. bases. a common misconception is that those payments completely offset the costs to the united states and we found this despite the fact that they provide substantial support. it is still more expensive for us to base forces in countries like japan and south korea. senate armed service committee report that you brought up earlier talked about some of the rising costs the u.s. is paying for these bases overseas. the contribution grew by $5 million in 20008 --

why is it costing us more now for these bases overseas? essentially -- first of want to talk about south korea. a list of korea we are consolidating our bases and our forces there. that is an ongoing plan. substantially reduce u.s. forcescost of in south korea. basically what you are saying is funding thatl of these host governments are changing -- one of the things that is very complicated to

actual capture the amount that a host government pays -- many of the benefits essentially that they provide are intangible. for instance, we do not pay rent on a base and so it is not captured as a cost. something we do not have to pay because they are not charging us rent. we do what we can to try to capture all of the payments both tangible and intangible. the data is quite core for a number of reasons. host: we are talking with michael lostumbo. what is the rand

corporation. is a research institute. we try to improve public policy through research. unbiasedn-partisan bi research. take anot trying to position one way or another. before policy makers can make a decision, so that was our objective. and host: gordon is from laramie, wyoming on every public mind. good morning. thank you for the show. i believe there are plentiful reasons to have our bases overseas. some of which have been discussed by michael. i'm just glad we are out there.

if we want to save some costs, in world war two we did not have folks doing the laundry for the troops. it is a controversial issue. we could put more this on the troops. the $10 billion per year, how does that compare to the cost of our other welfare programs? do you have an abstract on that? guest: domal very much for the call. basically -- thank you for the call. basically i would say the cost be let out, it is a tool you could use to compare against other programs. in the scheme of the defense $10 billion is something

that is certainly affordable. paul is a question of do we feel we get $10 billion worth of benefits by putting forces overseas? report isncluded in a that in order to meet the since world war statesthat the united wants to be engaged in the world and interacting with friends and allies to shape the security for the future, you need a fairly substantial presence abroad. with a you need it to the extent that we currently have it is something that we raise in our reports. host: that report is there.

the last caller seemed to believe there were significant cost savings in troop services overseas. talk about that and answer this question, what contributes most to the cost of a base in a foreign country? how does the cost compare with a domestic base? guest: the reason why piecing forces overseas is more costly is because we provide a lot of payments that we do not have to hear. for instance a service member will get a cost-of-living increase for being a broad. they are moved from the united -- their move from the united states that country is paid for so it will be more than if you're moving domestically. we provide more funding for schooling abroad. those are the kinds of costs that make it incrementally more expensive for a unit to be based abroad as opposed to being based

here in the united states. every time you open a base there are fixed costs, things that matter how many people you put on the base you are going to have to pay. for every base that the united that is goingces, to increase cost. host: do we have the biggest cost factor overseas? guest: there is the variable cost that is mostly the personal cost. -- it is thecosts air base is keeping up the runway. all of the housing and administrative buildings -- before youdid you do came to rand?

guest: and worked in the defense department in the policy office. host: how long did you do that? --st: i was there for pre for two years. host: chalk is on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. spend more on the defensive for europe and europe spent on their own defense? in iraq, why are we building highways and bridges? it is supposed to become a close to one trillion dollars now. sounds and we are a patsy. plea better turn things around.

start with the defense of europe. guest: we do spend substantially to improve the security of europe and we have very strong ties with european countries, particulate through nato. been a recurring theme for many years here in the united states, concerned about the amount european countries spend on their own defense. host: we will show a map of some of the basis we have in europe. the green stars there are the installations across europe. plains our airport installations. the anchors are current bt installations. installations. guest: you can see there are a

substantial number of facilities. texas points are bases where we do not have a large presence on but we do get access to them if we need them for a mission. to chop's question about european burden -- to chuck's question about european burden sharing. there have been long standing concerns. there are congressional hearings you can read about european burden sharing. --fact they have not europeans in general do not spend as much on defense as united states. that is really a larger question. about howort we talk some of the facilities in europe are in our own interest. to theant to send forces

middle east quickly we are going to send them through european bases, such as ramstein. if we did not have that base it would be difficult to project power quickly into the middle east. your point about iraq is a different question and not really relevant to the defense department much more question about our ongoing political relationship with iraq. host: here are some stats on troops. the number of troops in europe is about 42,000 from the army, close to 6080, up just over 1000 --ng court, and closed to over 1000 marine corps and close to 30,000 in the air force.

you're going to ask me to do math. i think the pacific theater will be lightly -- will be slightly larger. 58,000 army, 36,000 navy, 23,000 marine corps, 35,000 air force. guest: those are substantial forces. one question is what kinds of combat forces we need in europe. that is a question we raised in a report. mike is on our democratic line. good morning. i would like to think you for your service for -- i would like to thank you for your service at the defense department.

i have several different questions. what would be the breakdown on contractor services in operating overseas military bases? that 70% of our bases are in japan, south korea, and germany. we're in any report do you know at the locations of other overseas basis? lastly, if you would, the status of our overseas base as it compares to the state facilities, and the seas, and consulates, with those are considered u.s. soil. how we can share the status of our military bases versus these

facilities. i appreciate the fact that we have this forum to oppose our questions. -- to oppose our questions. host: breakdown contractor costs. guest: when we get an assessment of the cost overseas we included the support troops get from contractors. it is substantial. i do not have the fraction. would read -- when we do look deploy we have substantial contract work. we have substantial forces in the middle east now in several countries. this we will show a map, from the height of operations in the middle east, showing the

read names of all the bases in the middle east. in our report to do list major bases around the world and the major bases and facilities. in the middle east we call attention to the fact that before the gulf war the way the u.s. ensured security in the regions was by putting forth the equipment we needed in wartime but not having a substantial presence in terms of people. have maintained a substantial numbers of military personnel in the persian gulf. -ne question is in a post afghanistan environment and we have little to no presence in afghanistan was the right size of our presence in the persian gulf?

right now most of that is being handled by a rotational force. their forces that are not permanently stationed in the permit -- permanently stationed in the persian gulf. long they stay in the field is one year. it is starting to be pretty substantial. the last question was the status on bases versus consulate. is that considered u.s. soil? guest: our bases are not u.s. territory. acquisition at the -- and there at the acquiescence of the host nation. that is important when military operations are being planned. we need to negotiate with the host nations the kinds of military operations they are willing to permit from the soil. that changes all the time. it is a constant source of

discussion and negotiation. i read about historical cases where that acts as has not been tillable the united states wanted. it can change. host: we're talking michael lostumbo of the rand corporation. phone lines are open. john is up next on our republican line. caller: you answered a lot of my questions in the last 30 minutes. i was in southeast asia in the 1960's. during my time in the air force

on0% of the pieces i served are no longer they're both in europe, asia, and united states. i was stationed in england after charles de gaulle kicked. cremated basis of france and those are all gone. most of the basis i was familiar with in england are gone, as with -- as is germany. in overallnvolved u.s. spending. it is better to fight on someone else's so when it is being attacked here. i really appreciate your guest's knowledge on this. i would like to hear his thoughts on a comparison as a whole.

we would've had a lot more military in the 60's. we are spending a loss less today. i personally worry about that. i'll hang up and listen to your thoughts. guest: thank you for the call. talk about spending today versus the time. the caller was talking about. are few bases now than when he was serving in the mid '60s. at the end of the cold war in the united states we made a decision to reduce its military. when you do that you need your facilities. facilities were closed in the united states and abroad. not do a historical comparison versus the cost of ke ---- a struggle

historical comparison versus the cost of bases. expensiveably more but that is speculation. what is mostly more expensive probably is the personnel costs, which, as you probably know, are a growing part of the u.s. military budget. host: the caller remembers a time when bases were kicked out of countries overseas. has that happened recently? did very quickly -- we mentioned this in our report. france did ask the u.s. to leave within a year. host: after world war to guest:? this was later than that. initially they were part of nato and then they made a calculation that was no longer in their interest. they asked u.s. forces to leave.

that can happen. there are other instances when our needs are not met. the run-up to the gulf war the united states wanted to move ground forces from europe through turkey and go to northern iraq. the government refused passage of those forces. he had to find an alternative route. that does continue to happen. as i said before all of these bases, we repair essential at the pleasure of the host nations. host: what about the money we invest in those bases? do they buy them from us? these are billions of dollars that have been invested in setting up these basis. do they have to buy back the base? you asked thatd because we identified several

risks. that is one of them. we put a lot of money into infrastructure so that our forces can operate efficiently. andcountry asks us to leave we lose access to those. sometimes they are going to pay as compensation for that assessment. nevertheless it is not an ideal situation. what we want is the capabilities that we can operate from those facilities. host: is very recent example you can talk about? we were asked to leave the philippines about 20 years ago. that would be one example. host: did we lose money? guest: i believe they compensated us. i am not current on the details of that. int: cynthia is jacksonville, florida on our republican month.

caller: i thought i was on the terrorist watch list on c-span, i have been trying to get in for three years. host: what is your question? thatr: i find it curious we pay one dime to have a base in another country. upre basically propping their local economy. when our military gets paid they spend their u.s. dollars in the little german town that they are in. i think we should be spending that money here. i find it absolutely outrageous .hat we are paying we do not need to be there. we do not need to be in these other countries. that is what i have to say. be inwe do not need to

other countries. talk about how you address that in your report. guest: that as a legitimate perspective. if she reviewed our reports she would see how much it costs to have forces abroad but also the potential benefits. she may decide that she is not interested in those benefits or questions them. there's a little bit of clarification that needs to be made. a lot of the additional costs goes to u.s. service members. it is going to educate their children, it is going to them because it can be more expensive to live in a country like japan so they get extra pay that they would not get here and get -- they would genot get here.

it should not be characterized that this is a direct cash payment to a foreign country. the defense department looks at this -- we are broad because it makes it easier for us to .nfluence elsewhere prevent is if we can conflicts from happening we are all better off. particularly when you think about protecting the united to make suret there are no conflicts that reverberate to harm our citizens. host: some folks on twitter feel the same way -- we go to bob from burlington, vermont on our democratic line. brings up the

point i am going to make. i asked the congressman once and could not get an answer because it was too hard to attract up in a tight environment and food stands and other things are being cut domestically, if you go to disney every now and then you will see a bus that says shades of green on it, which is a military base on disney property. a lot of them spread all over the world as sort of rest and relaxation places for retired military and to send civilian employees. in your investigation did you notice that any of these things are being cut? on the other side of the coin are they being more propagated since we have moved into other theaters of activity?

how are they funded? this is not a focus of our report. i am aware that there are facilities in hawaii, i was not aware of the one at disney world. members thatervice are in combat periodically are taken out for rest and relaxation. there are facilities that allow them to do that. host: we talked about the $10 the armedmber in service committee report. what we want to get that number down to? how much room for cutting is there? we address in our report, if you want to implement the current strategy there is not a lot of room for cuts.

perhaps up to $3 billion could be cut and meet the objectives of the strategy. host: this was outlined by the pentagon last year in that strategic guidance document that guest: correct. it was issued in january of 2012. we can meet that guidance for $3 billion less? guest: we are not saying that is advisable but we are saying that if you wanted to make reductions in the cost of these forces you can do that and still meet the strategic guidance. host: with my staff -- what might be lost advisable in the rand corp. assessment of this? providing enough information so someone can make an informed decision. muchu're trying to cut as as you could from overseas

facilities while still meeting the strategic guidance, the biggest area to look at would be in europe. it you were to cut forces in europe the downside is we would forget the kind of training nato allies. be repercussions for relations with european allies. there are areas in the middle east where we look for savings. question of how many forces are necessary to have their in a post-afghanistan environment -- to have their in a post- afghanistan environment -- in asia, there is probably not a lot of room for savings. most of our forces in asia are

in japan and korea. a wide swath of geography in south east asia where we have fairly minimal presence. there are a bunch of questions in asia. ouris to what extent does presence in southeast asia meet our specific objectives there? as pointed out in the report, a lot of the facilities in japan and korea, almost all of them, these heavy missile threats. -- face heavy missile threats. that is something we did not have to worry about when we decided to locate a facility overseas. the number and accuracy of missiles can relate to a lot of damage. we have to think of those as a risk of investing in basis in a country that is close enough to be attacked by such weapons. host: he's the director at the

center for asia-pacific policy. you can read the report online at rand.org. that is our show for june the 10th. we will see you back here tomorrow on "washington journal ." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] correct 50 years ago today president kennedy signed the equal pay act requiring employers to give women and men equal pay for equal work. this morning, president obama will talk about that legislation