and member of the intelligence committee. host: house and senate lawmakers are back in washington this week, moving on from the government shutdown and debt ceiling debate for now, but the political fallout is rerelinquish rating with new polls showing republicans getting the brunt of the blame and democratic outraising their g.o.p. colleagues in fundraising. good morning, everyone. wednesday, october 23, 2013. we'll focus on the politics of the government shutdown this morning. will it impact your vote in 2014? republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-385-3880. independents, all others, 202-585-3882. accepted us a tweet, or post your comments on facebook

.com/cspan. and you can also email us, c-span@c-span.org. who do you blame for the debt ceiling government shutdown? 29% of those surveyed said republicans. 12% said democrats. but 54% said that they blame both parties. and this from cnn's recent poll this week with the headline, g.o.p. boehner takes shutdown hit, and it says this -- according to the survey, 54% say it's a bad thing that the g.o.p. controls the house, up 11 points from last december. soon after the 2012 elections when the republicans kept control of the chamber, only 38% say it's a good thing the g.o.p. controls the house, a 13-point dive from the end of the last year. so that's cnn's poll. front page of the "washington times" this morning has this headline, "republicans lose more key voters they tried to reach."

host: so that's in the "washington times" this morning, a flaver for you of the recent polls that have come out and the impact of the government shutdown. from that "usa today" poll that we read a little bit earlier, here's the story from susan age this week --

host: according to this "usa today" poll that we read earlier, just 4% say replacing most members would make congress worse, and it goes on to say republicans think worse of their party after the shutdown. democrats think better of theirs. and political scientists quoted saying this is a real warning about the g.o.p. pursuing this strategy in 2014. so ron, you're up first from eagle river, wisconsin, democratic caller. ron, what do you think? caller: i definitely am going to support the removal of the republicans from in charge of congress this next election. i see them as standing in the way of big changes that we need to take place in the country. i see them standing in the way of raising revenues, that's the biggest thing. i see them standing in the way of not raising the social

security cap. i see them not removing taxes for benefits for corporations. i see them doing everything possible to slow down obamacare, and it's something that the nation -- this changes. it's going on. now, the republicans would like to go ahead and try to control it. but it's not controllable now, especially after the tea party 's -- they showed their hand, exactly what they're trying to do. host: ron, you say you're motivated to get republicans out of office. what will you do? caller: well, i'm going to go ahead and donate as much money s i can towards my democratic, you know, person that's running against them. as well as try to support them any way i can. >> have you already done caller: i haven't in the past so much, but this election coming up is one that's going

to be a big change in the untry, and it's necessary, and i see it's got to happen. host: all right, that was ron in wisconsin, democratic caller. let's hear from charles next, a republican from spartanburg, south carolina. hi, charles. caller: hi. i've been listening to c-span now the last few months as i'm driving back and forth to work, and i want to thank you for the programming you guys provide to the american people. i think if more americans listen to c-span, we would not have some of the radical republicans we've got in the house and probably would not have some of the far liberal democrats. my plans this coming election and how this debacle has affected me is i'm going to be basically voting against anyone the tea party endorses. so if the tea party endorses my local representative, who i believe they will, then i'll be voting against him, even though

i like him as a representative. i've heard on c-span some of the rhetoric he's been spewing in the house, and i don't like the sound of it. i think we need to use a more constructive form of criticism than shouting down our public servants in the administration, even if we think they've done something wrong. i think we can be more civil. host: so, charles, you would leave the republican party, go vote across party lines, vote for a democrat if the tea party endorses a republican. caller: that's correct. i have voted for democrats in the past. it's rare. not that i don't like democrats. it's just that so many of them have to pander to their liberal base, and i don't like to hear that. i don't like to hear it any more than the republicans pandering to the extreme right. host: so, charles, would you say you're more of an independent than a republican? caller: oh, no, i registered as a republican, and i voted republican the majority of times.

when the alternatives step in more favorable to the republicans, but the only way we're going to fix this mechanics is for the american people to stop -- fix this mess is for the american people to stop listening to stuff that's being spewed out from the far left and far right. we've got to take the country back by voting for people to represent what we really want in washington. yeah, the rhetoric sounds good, but the hard-line sounds good, but in reality, it really doesn't produce much, does it? i mean, what has the house accomplished since the republicans took control of the house again? host: well, let me ask you a question that cnn asked in their poll. should john boehner remain speaker or be replaced? caller: if i were him, i would resign that post. i don't think he's been an effective leader. in fact, throughout this whole bacle, i think the tea party has been marching to cruz more so than boehner. i think he hasn't been able to

control them, and i believe that they are a minority in the house, and i think for whatever reason the rest of the republicans who are more moderate or some more afraid of the far right and the political power that they may yield in the next election. i think boehner totally failed the republican party. that's my opinion. host: all right. we're getting everybody's opinions, your thoughts this morning on the government shutdown and whether or not it will impact your vote in 2014. on the results of that question from the cnn poll, take a look. 30% of those polled said that boehner should continue. 63% said he should be replaced as speaker of the house. 7% had no opinion. and on fundraising, let me show you "the wall street journal," weelted this out --

host: george, you're a democrat in new york. what do you think, george? i believe my idea, that both democrat and republican can govern country correctly. we have to show the president only from democrat or republican. and what kind of freedom of speech, what kind of freedom that you had. host: all right, so george, what does that all mean for 2014 for you? caller: what? host: george? all right, let me move on. alan who is in washington, independent. hi, alan. what do you think? what does this mean for 2014? caller: for 2014, i think number one i'd like to comment, john boehner should stay in his

job. he absolutely did what the party wanted him to do. i'm not saying it was right, and i think they had to stop, but unfortunately to me, this whole thing illustrates how ndersold and overworked by the national media our country is, because they're not reporting the news right now at all, and i listen to c-span to get the story. i can't trust any of them anymore. they've lost all credibility. i think they should lose their licenses. host: all right. in ashburn, virginia, republican caller. hi, mike. caller: hi. how are you? host: good morning. caller: good morning. my comment would be, you have to look at this in context of history, and in 2008 when the democrats came into the presidency, they also had a majority in the house and senate, which allowed them to push through whatever they wanted to push through. of course, there's a backlash

in 2010, you know, the republicans took the house. and when they did that, the idea would be to, you know, stop the ball from rolling down the hill, which they did and they continue to do. so in the context of that, basically the democrats kind of ram-rodded through whatever they wanted to between 2008 and 2010, and so now you're seeing the backlash from the republicans. in terms of what should happen going forward, in my opinion, what people need to do really is just to throw out -- when you go to the polls, you know, vote for the other guy. get all the incumbents out. there should be term limits anyway, but get them all out and get fresh people in there and see what happens. so there's nothing worse than what we have currently. host: ok. and there was a poll that asked that very question. will you vote to re-elect your representative in 2014? this is a "washington post"/abc

news poll. 66% of those surveyed were not sure. they said they'll look around. 4% said it depends. and 6% had no opinion. and 24%, you can see that number at the top, said that they would vote to re-elect their representative, but 66% looking around. on fundraising, let me show you this tweet from politico. representative grayson's campaign sent out a fundraising email, democrat from florida, likening the tea party to the ku klux klan. so that's a story that's out there on fundraising. and then we showed you from "the washington times" earlier, a poll result about young women -- excuse me, young americans, women, and how their view of the republican party. here's a chart inside the newspaper this morning. two polls find the republican image was damaged in the recent standoff between the congressional republicans and president obama. overall, would you describe the party -- would you describe the

views and policies of the republican party as too extreme or as generally mainstream? and 48% back in march of 2013 said too extreme. that number went to 56% in this latest poll. about the female vote, here is from roll call's 218 blog online, rollcall.com, you can find it there. they say boehner finds the woman for the job. let me show you a little bit about this. let me read a little bit -- when house republicans set up a photo op of people ready to sit down and negotiate with the senate, eight men with rolled up shirtsleeves sat a long table before the cameras. that striking image of an all-male negotiating team won't repeat itself any time soon now that one of the four house republicans selected to serve on the bicameraal, bipartisan budget conference committee is a woman.

host: let's hear from doug in indiana, democratic caller. hi, doug. caller: hi. how you doing this morning? host: hi. so government shutdown, will it impact your vote? caller: oh, yeah, definitely. host: how so? caller: well, for one, i cannot vote for any tea party-backed candidate at all. host: would you ever? doug, you're calling on a democratic line. caller: i'm calling democrat. i feel like the lone ranger here in indiana. our state is an absolute mess, in my opinion. it's really tough here in indiana to be a liberal democrat and to care a little bit about your fellow man. and what i have seen is the republican, especially the right wing of the republican party, who they let control them, a few people, the republicans need to exit themselves from the tea party. if they're extreme, they're more than extreme.

people like michele bachmann, they are a poor representation of the republican party. it's changed in my lifetime. i'm 55 years old. i was raised in a right-wing republican home. i love my dad. i love some of these guys. but their ideological view points are wrong. this is america. i think what really happened is these people hate obama. they hate things they don't understand. they hate change more than they love their country. host: so, doug, the election is, you know, 2014, a year away, november 2014. will you still be motivated to get out and campaign? caller: absolutely. host: against republicans? caller: absolutely. i'm here to get todd young out of office. i'm going support bill bailey, a former mayor here in seymour, indiana. i'm going to support him. i think there might be enough votes to maybe get him in. host: all right. that was doug, a democrat in indiana. front page of "usa today" on

the government shutdown, millions face tax refund delays. here's another reason to be annoyed at that 16-day government shutdown. it could delay tax refunds for millions of early filers by one or two weeks, according to the i.r.s. host: front page of "usa today" if you're interested in that story. let's go to mark, charleston, west virginia, independent caller. hi, mark. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: by the way, i want to echo the popular sentiment. thank you for c-span. i would be voting for the tea party in any shape, manner, or form, and i find it interesting

. if most people actually sat down and talked to people from the tea party and asked them what they stood for, and i won't go into that too much right now with the exception of , they're honorable people, hard-working people who care about their fellow man. they want independence and freedom, and i think they also value responsibility and many of the virtues that all of us were raised with, honesty, and what we've seen is the dishonesty of our federal government, which is why most of them don't want to see the government grow any more than it has, also disillusioned about america, because we are now growing into a country that has gone from a majority of producers to a majority of soon-to-be takers, people who don't work, who receive aid from the government and who are more prone to vote for anybody that promotes the government. host: so, mark, can i jump in?

when you say republican tea party don't to want grow the government, you think the fight against the affordable care act, so-called obamacare, was a principled one? caller: yes, i do. i'll just say this. i would to want take some of these polls and change the questioning, if nothing more than just change the timing. maybe a month from now, when we see how big a debacle this thing really is and how the american people have been lied to, then let's take one of these polls and see what people think. i think what we see is the tea party has been demonized to the point of using government resource in the form of the i.r.s. to beat the tea party down. now, i visited tea party rallies, and i haven't seen any of the so-called raceism and all the rest tv that cnn and all these left-wing networks typically promote. and i've been to the rallies.

i'm not relying on any news media. as a matter of fact, i'm an amateur videographer, and i produced some of them and put them on youtube, showing what i saw. and i cannot believe at this stage of the game, with this thing failing as bad as it has failed, that the american people would support that. now, i have registered as an independent years ago because i don't believe in voting, and i probably never will. but i cannot stand by as a conscientious citizen of this country and watch what's happening to the economy of this country, vis-a-vis the obama healthcare act. host: all right. so let me read some stories about the affordable care act that are in the papers this morning, but i'll begin first with a new poll that just came out this morning. approval of affordable care act inches up, this according to gallup. despite the highly publicized technical issues that have plagued the government's health insurance exchange website that went live on october 1,

americans' use of the affordable care act are slightly more positive now than in august. 45% now approve of the law, while 50% disapprove. for a net approval score of negative five. so in june and august, net approval was slightly lower at negative eight. so that's from gallup. that's just coming out this morning. but on the headlines of the affordable care act and the website, let me show you "the washington times." first, obama chooses ex-budget chief to oversee the repairs, will offer short-term advice on how to fix the website problems, this from "the washington times" --

host: also, a house republican lawmaker said he'll introduce legislation to stop the collection of personal data. host: the h.h.s. secretary sat down with cnn for an exclusive interview. she was asked about whether or not she will step down. here's what she had to say.

>> what i talked about is doing the job that i came here to do. this is the most important work i've ever done in my life, delivering on an historic act, making sure that we have health security for the millions of americans. this law was passed 3 1/2 years ago. i've been working day in and day out to implement this law. and at the end of the day, births people like evelyn hernandez, who i was with in miami, single mom has no affordable coverage in measure work place, is terrified every day that something's going to happen to her, because if she gets hurt, no one is there to take care of her child. evelyn finally has health security and millions like her, so that's where my focus s. >> there's great stories like that. but again, there is a lot of frustration, as you know, madam secretary. i mean, if this persists or even at this point now, would you consider resigning over this? >> i think my job is to get fully implemented and get the website working right, and that's really what i'm focused

on. i work at the pleasure of the president. he was singularly focused on making sure we deliver on this promise. that's what i'm committed to doing. host: so kathleen sebelius on cnn, interviewed there. "new york times" noting this morning, did a profile piece on the front page of their newspaper, noting today that she's kept a low profile, declining interviews, declined an interview with the "new york times," and dodge that had question twice from cnn about resigning. the "new york times" also says that kathleen sebelius' decision to leave washington this week, she will speak at a gala at the j.f.k. presidential library and museum in boston on wednesday night, then travel to promote the healthcare law in phoenix, austin, texas, and san antonio. that caused an uproar among republicans who said she's not explained why the website failed and how the government plans to fix it.

host: we'll talk about that hearing and the affordable care act. also in the papers this morning on the government shutdown, two newspapers feature stories about senator mike lee, republican of utah. here's "the washington post" piece, "pragmatic utah republicans are working to extinguish a tea party fire brand." it quotes utah businessmen, saying that they will now go after mike lee in his re-election bid and try to unseat him in that state. and the "wall street journal" also features a story of mike lee on their pages, on their front pages. here's the jump page. utah senator pays price for the shutdown. we're getting your political pulse, taking your political pulse this morning. what impact will this have, the government shutdown, on your

vote in 2014? tim's a republican in tennessee. go ahead. caller: how are you this morning? host: good morning. caller: i think president obama wants his country to be socialist and communist and maybe the chinese can take over our country. we need to turn back to god and get on our knees and pray for forgiveness. and i'm very conservative, and i'm not voting for my current congressman. i'm going to vote for jim tracy, i think. , ran a couple of years ago and i watch fox. i'm going watch them, because i think they're the most conservative states and one of the only conservative cable stations in the country that is real conservative. host: so, tim, tell us about your current representative. what don't you like about him? caller: well, he's, you know, he kind of covered up this

thing about asking this woman to have an abortion, that's number one. and i don't think he's conservative enough for me in some ways. host: ok. caller: i think i really appreciate all the senators like senator cruz and bachmann and rubio and, you know, all the conservatives. host: have you donated money to ted cruz or any of those other conservatives? caller: no, i don't give to parties. not too much. host: ok, all right. roberta is a democrat in maryland. hi, roberta. caller: hello, good morning. i am a 78-year-old woman whose worked as a judge at elections. these people, the young ones, we've had many of them, but not as vicious as the republican party is at this time.

i don't understand the tea party. it started with dick armey. he was a lunatic, not certifiable, but half the time. in california, these people in the tea party, they have all the money to give to their republicans. urely they didn't have it. the gentleman that spoke said he never saw anything. this man must be a white man that's turned his back on the spitting of some of the black people that tried to get into the capitol. host: ok, roberta, on the fundraising aspect of, it "the washington post" this morning, millions default lawmakers.

host: if you go through the umbers below that, you can see was the club for growth. the third biggest fund was koch industries with $2.1 million. club for growth backed more of those who voted no to the deal than republicans on the other side. so that in "the washington post." related to the healthcare in the "washington times," here's another headline. judge keeps challenge to obamacare alive.

host: that's the headline in many of the papers this morning about the affordable care act. we'll go to don next in cincinnati, ohio. hi, don. caller: hello. thank god for c-span, by the way. i was a republican for years. the party left me in the last two elections. i'm now independent. the gentleman that was talking about the tea party, i'm sure there are a lot of one-vote people in the tea party. unfortunately, they come across as idealogue who refuse to listen to anybody or amend their feelings about anything, and i think mike lee and ted cruz have probably ruined the

republican party for years to come because they've all bothered them. my really big rejection about the way the republicans are acting now is that we're not discussing anything except obamacare, and we have so many other things that we need to be taking care of, such as the farm bill, the immigration and foreign affairs, but there's no air left in the room other than obamacare, and somehow we have to get away from this and we have to get away from not using regular order, as the congress calls it, to pass the bills and go to conference and get back to the way things used to be. host: all right, so don, what does that mean for your vote in 2014? caller: well, i'm a firm independent now, and depending who's running in my area,

parties don't mean anything to me anymore. host: all right, all right. politico reporting, white house is meeting with insurance chief this morning, and it will meet with c.e.o.'s of health plans, according to insurance industry executives. host: we're getting your thoughts on how the government shutdown will impact your vote in 2014. dan in tulsa, oklahoma, republican caller. hi, dan. caller: hello. host: good morning. you're on the air. caller: ok. he was a long, long-time democrat for a lot of years ecause i was in the union, and

the reason this has impacted my vote to go republican is because why in the world would you want to vote for someone who passed a bill that bill, which is the affordable healthcare act and don't read it? that is so sad. so your shutdown is because of these obamacare, which is what i call it now, and that's why you got a shutdown. that makes used cars higher for middle-class people. the tax penalty is written in there that the i.r.s. can't collect it, so why even pass that? the only ones that are voting like when you took your poll that the affordable care act is gaining steam, in other words, more popular, the only ones voting for it is the ones that's getting subsidies. it's not the ones that's on the roll. so, you know, i used to be, like i said, a long, long-time

democrat, but when the healthcare came into effect, we have insurance in our package. we work for different, different contractors, not the employer who pays our insurance, but the union, if they have a pie. part that have pie goes to our insurance. now what they're going to do is tax part of that income that was going to our insurance. so therefore, when we make -- ay we make $50,000 a year, when obamacare came out, that plan will be valued at approximately $14,000 to $15,000, so therefore, all of our members that work, say they make approximately $50,000 a year, they will pay taxes on $64,000 or $65,000. we got to wake up. you got to read these bills that you're going to pass.

this is so sad. host: do you think republicans, you know, they passed a bill to keep the government running until january, should they again threaten the government shutdown, not raising the debt ceiling over the affordable care act? caller: well, the affordable care act can't be stopped. therefore, i'm sure there won't be a government shutdown. the republicans are going to just go ahead and raise a debt limit, and what they're going to do is let the affordable care act fall on its own merit. in 2014, based on what the premiums are going to be for the young people, based on young people not signing up, i've worked with a lot of young people. i'm 60 years old. young people do not want to work. host: all right, dan, i'll leave it there. on twitter, john boehner has proven in the past several eks he can't hurt herd

snakes. other tweet -- host: let me read economic stories here for you this morning that are in the papers. front page of "the washington post," a lasting recovery, maybe next year. it says -- hiring slowed in september, what we learned yesterday from the administration. jobs report further darkens the post-shutdown. and the "wall street journal" this morning, front page, their headline on the economy says this -- jobs weakness blurs the fed's policy past. easy money pullback looks less likely before the year end because of the numbers that they have seen on the economy, as businesses remain skittish on hiring. but below that is the headline that says high-end spenders have shrugged off the head wind. despite gridlock in washington, consumers are showing surprising signs of confidence and opening their wallets to buy big-ticket items, ranging from washing machines to fast boats.

then the "financial times" this morning, front page of their newspaper, j.p. morgan nears $6 billion settlement. host: politico reports this morning that tax breaks could ease the pain for j.p. morgan for a deal they cut with the justice department. politico reports that details of the package are now being finalized, but is expected to include $9 billion paid to the government.

caller: hi, get a. you're my favorite moderator, by the way. we have some situations with elections, and who actually comes out and vote. that's the main thing. i am a democrat, and i will be voting democrat. one example i have about people voting -- i hope everyone's listening -- we just had a special election for cory booker, who won for the lautenberg open seat, and there's over two million voters in new jersey, over two million. and there was 325,000 people that actually showed up to vote. so it's like one out of eight people actually said i'll go out and vote for that, even though it's not a presidential election. in 2014, i think if everybody came out and voted, whatever

they're going to vote either way, it would be a much harder time for people in the tea party area who have passionate voters that come out, and they're the only ones that show up, even in the hard red states. i believe it would be a lot closer battle if people actually chose to vote that are registered to vote when it's not a presidential election. host: all right. danny in louisiana, independent caller. what do you think? caller: well, please let me state this before you cut me off. i'm looking at this from a pragmatic point of view. i'm 65 years old. i remember when ronald reagan came in, transformed the president, changed everything. he said government is the problem, not the solution. and he also changed the whole tax structure and economic model for this country. now we've come all these years to the end, enter mr. rupert murdoch, comes over from england and starts this.

now they turn against the party. it's for the wealthy. it's their mouthpiece. they have convinced people to hate themselves. i've been listening to this for years, and i hear people call in, they hate poor people. they hate working poor people. they hate people with union jobs that have good jobs. the only people they love are the billionaires that sponsored the propaganda noise machine. host: so given all that you just said, sounds like you'll vote for who in 2014, which party? caller: i don't know. at this point, i'm looking to vote for an independent, because the republican party is naturally aligned with business , and the democrats are infected by the money, and they're not doing what this country needs, so i'm waiting for a progressive or someone to come in and put everything in perspective and stop all this

hate. now, the people in the tea party, they were disillusioned. they saw what the republican party was doing, they were disillusioned with the republican party. so they're are all billionaires, and we can't lose these people, so let's start another branch of the republican party, more radical. now, these tea party people, i know a lot of them. they're good people. but they let their eyes be glazed over by this noise machine and talk radio that the rich people bought up. and i pray for the day that they'll realize they've been led astray. they were led astray with the tax structure, with regulation, leading us into a war, and when it all spills up, they go, oh, well, forget about it. when are they going to accept personality responsibility? host: all right. in two human rights groups criticize u.s. drone program.

the united states defended the using and others deemed enemies rejecting reports by two human rights groups questioning the legality of strikes they asserted have killed or wounded scores of civilians in yemen and pakistan. and then in other foreign affairs news, here's the world news section of the "wall street journal," planned syria peace talks are at risk. saudi-backed opposition leaders' demands come in london and plays down the rising tensions there. also this morning in the newspapers, restoring the capitol dome. you see it behind us every day when you tune in to the "washington journal," and here from "the washington post," it says a project rendering shows what the capitol dome will look like under scaffolding. a $59 million project will be undertaken to repair much-needed cracks in the dome.

host: that is what it will be looking like over our shoulder here for the next couple of years. on healthcare, this this morning from "the washington post", we told you earlier that the white house is meeting with c.e.o.'s of insurance companies. here's the headline from "the washington post," senior h.h.s. officials will brief democratic lawmakers wednesday, today, on the affordable care act. that's in "the washington post" this morning. and then on the affordable care act, here's also from "the wall street journal" this morning, part-time work is still up is the headline, but the health law isn't the cause. they say millions of americans remain stuck in part-time jobs since september, but there's little evidence to support claims that the federal

healthcare slaw to blame. host: that's in "the wall street journal" this morning on the affordable care act. back to your calls. jeff in pennsylvania, republican caller. hi, jeff. how will you vote in to 14? caller: oh, i would never vote for a liberal, i'll say that much. i would never vote for a liberal, because i think all you have to do is take a look at that situation like detroit, and you'll see the leadership. , leads to a welfare state the city of detroit is in ruins, and it's backed up, and it takes like 40 minutes just to get a police officer, the average call, and it's all because of the people who think democratically, the people who

vote democratically, they have no common sense whatsoever, and they're destroying our country, frankly. that's all i have to say. host: all right. jeff is a republican in pennsylvania. we'll leave it there for now, but we'll talk with two members of congress coming up, congressman joe barton, republican of texas, will talk about the affordable care act. and then later, representative adam schiff of california, we'll talk about n.s.a. surveillance programs. we'll be right back. >> just hours after the japanese attack on pearl harbor and before her husband addressed the nation, first lady eleanor roosevelt was on the radio, talking with america. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am speaking to you tonight at a very serious moment in our history. the cabinet is convening, and the leaders in congress are meeting with the president.

the state department and army and navy officials have been with the president all afternoon. in fact, the japanese ambassador was talking to the president at the very time that japan's air ships were bombing our citizens in hawaii and the philippines and sinking one of our transports, loaded with lumber on its way to hawaii. by tomorrow morning, the members of congress will have a full report and be ready for action. in the meantime, we the people are already prepared for action. for months now, the knowledge that something of this kind might happen has been hanging over our heads, and yet it seemed impossible to believe, impossible to drop the everyday things of life and feel that there was only one thing which was important, preparation to meet an enemy no matter where he struck. that is all over now, and there s no more uncertainty. we know what we have to face,

and we know that we are ready to face it. >> watch our program on eleanor roosevelt, or see it saturday on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and we continue our series live monday as we look at first lady bess truman. >> i think that women are getting a complex message. we're in the middle of a sociological revolution. young women are told that they have to have a great career, they have to be great mothers, they have to be thin, they have to be good-looking, they have to manage a house well, and there is a sense of entitlement. i can do everything that a young man does. that includes having a glass of wine or two after work, drinking to wind down, and women tend to medicate depression and anxiety and loneliness. i think there's a lot of anxiety in this generation in terms of how do i manage it all , and so when we look at who is

drinking the most, we're seeing the professional women, the educated woman, and i don't think this is what gloria steinem had in mind. >> ann dowsell johnston on the closing gender gap in the world of risky drinking, sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on "after words," part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. plus right now online at our book tv book club, join other viewers reading "walking with the wind" by john lewis. find ought more at booktv.org/bookclub. c-span's student cam video competition asks, what's the most important issue congress should consider in 2014? make a five to seven-minute documentary, and be sure to include c-span video. the competition is open to all middle and high school students with the grand prize of $5,000. and this year, we doubled the number of winners and total

prizes. entries are due by january 20, 2014. need more information? visit studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we're joined now by congressman joe barton, a republican member of the house energy and commerce committee. congressman, thank you for joining us. > glad to be here. host: tell us what are your biggest questions? guest: my biggest question is why they put that much money into something that flat doesn't work. i mean, there have been lots of so-called glitches over the years in other web sites in the private sector, but we've never had a website that almost no one gets through the first time without any problems. so we have the contractors this thursday, and next week we have the secretary, kathleen sebelius. it's a full committee hearing. chairman upton will chair the hearing. there will be lots of questions

certainly on the republican side, and i think even on the democrat side about how they can spend that much money and get almost nothing that's orkable out of it. host: they made the case that by holding a hearing on these healthcare.gov glitches, republicans say they want it to work, and for a very long time they've been against the healthcare law. do you agree with that argument? guest: well, i have voted against it in the committee, on the subcommittee, on the floor. i voted to repeal it. i vote to delay it. i have a bill that i'm introducing either today, tomorrow, or maybe monday, next week, called the obama choice act, which would make it voluntary for a year, let the american people choose whether they want to use it for a year, not delay it, go ahead and try to start it, but instead make it mandatory on a voluntary basis. so, you know, obamacare is well intentioned.

there are some people that are benefited by it, the people that don't have health insurance with preexisting condition. but for the vast, vast majority of americans, it's a very bad deal, and it will ultimately fail. the question is not if it's going to fail, it's when it's going to fail. host: as we focus on the technological issues, h.h.s. says they plan on bringing in extra help, but they haven't been forthcoming as to who the helpers are. do you think that the administration should detail who they're bringing in, and if they don't, do you believe it's a conflict of interest for them? guest: well, i think they're definitely conflicted. there's no question about that. they started out, the initial contract i think was with the canadian company. i don't think it was a competitively bid. it was, you know, $50 million, $60 million. we don't know the number now that they've spent, but it's north of $300 million. the thing still doesn't work. and so they can bring in all

the experts they want, but their basic premise is wrong. they won't let you to look at pricing until you already committed to join up. sometime this week they begin to let people look at something. the subcommittee chairman, congressman murphy of pennsylvania said he went on a blue cross blue shield site in pennsylvania in the private sector, and within a minute, he was given options with prices without giving any personal information at all. and on the official website, you basic have the to give them your life history and commit to purchase something, and they'll let you look at it, if you get through. so it's not working, and they can bring in all the contractors they want, but i think they've got a real turkey on their hands. host: "washington post" reported last evening senior

h.h.s. officials who briefed democratic lawmakers might have to department it at the health of human and services. they briefed members wednesday. this closed-door session happening this morning, in just a couple of hours. have you heard any movement as to whether and you your republican colleagues will get a similar briefing? guest: well, first of all, i have a feeling this person's going to get an earful from the democrats, especial behind closed doors. in public, they tended to be very supportive and, you know, act like this thing is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but i have a feeling behind the scenes people like enry waxman, even nancy pelosi and steny hoyer, i think they're going to roast this guy or girl, who's going to do the briefing. it's unlikely the president is going to give the republicans a similar option.

but again, we're the majority. we can hold hearings. we can invite whoever we want to with the support of the democrats to come to these public hearings. host: i want to make sure we get in your calls. the republican number is 202-585-3881. for democratic callers, it's 202-585-3880. and for independents, your number is 202-585-3882. congressman, you mentioned that next week you'll hear health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius come in. what are your questions for her specifically? guest: when did she know this thing was going fail and why didn't you do anything about it? that would be one question. i'm the co-chairman of the privacy caucus in the house. i've got real questions about the lack of privacy of your individual data. i'm told that there is a disclaimer somewhere in the sign-up process where it tells you that any information you give them, give the website is

not proprietary and does not have to be confidential, and they can share it with anybody in the government or anybody in the private sector they want to. to me, that's totally unacceptable. even on a government-run website, you're sharing your most intimate details of your personal health history and your family's health history, and you do have a right to privacy. that information should only be seen by somebody in the insurance community and at some point in time perhaps in the medical community for treatment decisions. it should not be shared with any third parties, period. host: last night in an interview with cnn, the secretary said she's committed to continuing her job, despite calls for her resignation. do you believe that secretary sebelius should resign? guest: well, she's a glut ton for punishment if she wants to keep in that job. i give her credit for being an

honest public servant. i think she's trying to do the best that she can. i do think that she has not performed well. in fact, i don't think she's formed at all. i think the rollout of obamacare, whether you're for it or against it, is an absolute disaster. i think it could be appropriate for her to resign. i'm not yet ready to call for her rezz i go haitian. chairman upton has said that he wants to take a wait and see attitude have, her attend the hearing next week, and then, we'll see. but her performance in this is not something that's going to make the text books about how to start a new program. just the opposite. host: let's go to your calls, starting in horn lake, mississippi, on our line for republicans. caller: i've been republican.

i'm going toward independent. i'm thoroughly disgusted at the way the media and the , publican party is tearing up beating the tea party down. the tea party, and i'm not a member, but it represents the general people from people that i talk to around our local community, we're all fed up with the business as usual in washington, and the tea party is doing nothing but what the people and the country want, and that is a change in washington. these old-time entrenched people had absolutely no concern for the constituents. all they think about is the money involved and lining their own pockets. as far as obamacare is, i think it is meant to fail on its own. i certainly believe it should

because it is a total disaster to the average human being out here on the street. i thank you very much. host: thank you. guest: well, first of all, he's looking at a tea party republican. i was tea party before there was a tea party. i agree with the caller. the name tea party comes from he patriots in what we now call the war for independence. they didn't want to take the tea tax, so they went down to the shed, threw all the tea into the boston harbor. tea partiers in texas are people just like the caller said. you know, they want more freedom, less federal government intervention, a strong defense, and traditional family values. that's what i am. i'm a charter member of the tea party caucus. i have a -- i won't say an always amicable relationship

with the tea party friends in my district, in the part of texas that i represent, but it's a very positive relationship, and as he said, tea party is not an extension of the republican party. they are primarily understand penalties who want to be involved in politics from a conservative standpoint. i think that's very appropriate, and i'm proud to be a member. on the obamacare issue, you know, i think it will fail, like he said. but i don't want to wait three or four years if we don't have to, and some of these hearings that we're beginning to do i think are going to point out some of the flaws, and i think the american people are going demand either changes or repeal , or in the case of my bill, let's make it voluntary for a ear and let the people choose. host: beverly in chicago, a democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning.

please can you let me get my thoughts out. i heard you say you would ask kathleen sebelius when did she know the rollout would be a disaster. ok, when did you all in the republican party know that if you all shut the government down, cause thousands of people to lose their jobs, and cost this country $24 billion, that's with a b, billions of dollars to destroy this country over obamacare, and knew it wasn't going in where. you know, i don't understand you republicans. you all from day one said that nobody wanted it, the american people don't want this, the american people don't want it, like you speak for everybody. but it's amazing, even though this program have its glitches, program are still being registered. this is people want. and then 20 million hit the website. now you all act like you all are so concerned because people can't get through. don't you know american people are not stupid. we know what you all are doing. you all see now that people are interested in this insurance,

now you want to throw water on it and make people forget about you all just shut this government down -- host: thank you, caller. let's have congressman barton respond to your thoughts. guest: well, i don't have a problem listening to guest: i do not have a problem listening to beverly. she makes a lot of sense. she happens to be a constituent of one of my very best friends in washington, congressman bobby rush. his wife has had some surgery. he has been with his wife in chicago. and shes a constituent sees the congressman, tell him the tea party republican conservative from texas is praying for his wife. this $24 billion that beverly spoke of, that is federal money

that was not spent. that wasderal spending not spent because the government was shut down. there is good news and bad news. the bad news from beverly's standpoint is the money did not go out in the economy. the good news from my standpoint is some of that money would have been wasted, so it was not wasted. it was not the goal of the republicans to shut the government down. stop obamacare, and it is a fair criticism to say the way to focus on obamacare was not by having the government shutdown. i think she has a point there. look, i know there are people in america that do not have health insurance, and i know the federal government, if they are low income, especially, has a responsibility, or the potential to help those people, and people

like myself are not opposed to that. are allare opposed to of the mandates, all of the control, all of the expansion, where you take away the choice of beverly and all of the people themerica to really choose best health care for themselves. obamacare does move us towards the path of socialized medicine, and over time, that is not a good thing. if we could get through this time right now, and take a step back from the mandate, we could come up with something that beverly would be proud of, and that my constituents, who are more conservative, would be proud of or except. host: i want to draw your attention to a gallop poll that shows support for the health- care law has picked up in recent months -- 45% of americans approve of the law while 55% disapprove. this was conducted in august,

right before the shutdown. from yourhat you hear constituents, it is this argument a winning one? first of all, 45% is still less than 50%. less than half of the american people supported. to be -- support it. to be honest, if you go back to what the president said, if you have health care that you like, you can keep it, that has not turned out to be true. i hear from people every day that they are losing their health care. health insurance costs are going up. a lot of doctors are very unhappy about some of the changes the law is requiring. 70% of thew, it if american people approved, the president might have an argument. and it is ticked up,

only 45%, which is less than 50%, i would say that shows 55% disapprove, and in the sixth district in texas, i would say 60% or 70% disapprove here it -- approve -- disapprove. huntsville, alabama. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching this area -- this. my question about obamacare, they say it is affordable health care. what about people making minimum wage, living paycheck to paycheck, barely paying their bills every month, and they are forcing this on people, and they say it is affordable, $300 a ifth, $400 a month -- what

it is $50 a month and i can not afford $50 a month? i might have health insurance, but i cannot pay my rent, and i would be living under a ridge in a cardboard box. out, ittake the taxes will start off at $95 a year, and after i do not know how many years, but i hear it is going to cap out at $695. if you get a refund check for $1000 and they are taking him $700 out, you are left with $300 at the end of the year when you worked all year. that would be00, money going back into the economy. they are saying it is affordable. who is to say what is affordable to people who are making a

minimum wage and are barely paying their rent and their bills? i have not heard that question asked. i've been watching that for a long time, and i wonder what you have to say about that. guest: well, that is a very thoughtful question, and very well put. the answer is you and your family are the people that have to decide whether it is affordable or not. you know better your personal situation then someone in washington or some bureaucrat, or some call -- call center here in america. that is why it ought to be voluntary. you look at the options, and you make the decision if it is right for your family or not there is -- or not. if you do not think it is, then you would say no. whether we have obamacare or not, for low income, working americans, there is something

called medicaid, which is a partnership, and most people at the minimum wage level that are working, if they do not have health insurance through where they were, and many companies that provide health insurance pay all of the premiums of the individual. we share the medium of the family. if you have insurance to the workplace, you do not pay for it yourself. optiondicaid is an outside of obamacare, and that might be something to take a look at. indianae in evansville -- evansville, indiana, on our line for republicans. hello, joe. caller: i saw the story about the 500 million lines of code it the obama website, and

struck me as odd because that would contain more lines of code that all of the windows operating systems since 1993. i did a little math and found out if the government employed 13,000 programmers for three years, it would cost about $9 billion, and i think this is that thistenable website contains that much code. have you considered that? guest: we have heard the same number that you heard, this 500 million lines here it -- lines. that is hard to believe it is true. it is something we will be asking tomorrow, and we might follow-up with some questions to the secretary next week. high tech guy,

although i used to be a professional engineer. i am sold that might programming was fortran for, if that tells you something. i make no bones that i am a technical expert, but i am told by people that are that the source code, the operating system is just an absolute mess and that is probably not fixable. we spent all of this money, and we have something that if you really go into the system, it keeps kicking you out, and you run into these dead ends. it is just not a good thing. so you're back of the envelope math, i will not question, and i will agree with you that it shows how botched up this program has been. post" headlineon this morning

pointing to some of the technical issues that joe touched on. melissa in richmond, virginia, on our line for democratic caller's. caller: yes, good morning. thank you, c-span, for providing this platform for american citizens to call in and talk about the issues. i also want to say thank you to you, representative, to talk about your position and to help understand your perspective as well. what i would like to say is i am as apolitical as they come, but as a result of what has been

happening over these last few weeks and months in our it hastive branch, definitely called my attention to it. what i would like to say is, i guess i find it a bit discouraging that there are congressional hearings being perhaps, poorly the health-care rollout might be , i guess, run, that nobody is talking about the 26 states across this country that decided to opt out of the medicaid expansion process, and i think ist is deeply concerning that the decision of the republicans, in fact, that control those states, to opt out of the medicaid expansion -- overleaves millions 500 million -- poor, uninsured

adults exposed. where this program was designed to provide coverage for the working poor in this country, the president offered up a way to provide coverage to those individuals. so, when i hear members of the republican party telling us that they are just interested in making sure the americans receive the services and support needed to have choices with regards to how they would like their health care, i guess, to be managed -- whether privately or by the government -- i do not hear a sense of caring for the american people as much as i, again, here partisan -- hear partisan governing. seem toes not case -- be as much interest in helping as much astizens,

there is an interest in taking down what has been in affectionately termed obamacare. host: melissa, thank you for your call. guest: i think she has a valid point. program between the state and the federal government, and the reason many becauseave opted out is states are spending more on medicaid costs than they are spending on public education or public safety, things like this. so, what the governors and the legislatures are doing, they are looking at all of the mandates in the medicaid expansion, and the mandatory coverage that has to be even and saying we cannot -- has to be given, and saying we cannot afford it. it is not worth it. so, they are opting out because

they do not have to participate in these expansions if they do not want to, and if you go back to the debate when this bill was still a bill and on the floor, the big rallying cry for a lot of the democrats that supported that we were going to provide health insurance for most of thatn, and came through the mandatory expansion of medicaid for young adults, and what has been shown since the bill became a law is the states have looked at that and said we cannot afford it, so we are not going to participate. main reasons to support the affordable care act has turned out to be a false some of the i think strongest supporters then, at least off-camera, would tell you that today. in racine, wisconsin, on our line for independents.

caller: good morning. i guess independents think alike. i think you missed the premise of the other caller who was trying to talk about minimum- wage workers affording the insurance remain. here is a sample scenario -- the majority of people that are on low income and on rental assistance, the last four or five days, maybe six days, of the month, they use privately operated food pantries to get the basic food to feed their families. they do not have any money to buy food. if you agree with that, if they do not have any money to buy food, how are they going to have money to pay their insurance premium? keep in mind that the government is going to have -- just a broader number, a policy of family of four for health insurance is $550 a month.

will give this family $535 a month. they have to come up with the extra $20, but if they have nothing, would they get the $20 from? that is what people are not saying. people who cannot afford the insurance will not be able to afford their basic cost, their share of the premium, $20. when you have nothing, when he dollars is unattainable. host: that is a great point, jack, let's have representative art and respond. -- representative art and respond here it -- arton respond. b guest: he said it better than i could. you haveve nothing,

nothing to pay. he is making the point that i would make. there are people in america, they are very poor, have some sort of disability or something, and they just cannot help it. what people like myself support is an opportunity to society where it is not where you are today, but where you can be tomorrow and next year, and in a perfect world we create enough do a goody, first public education system, and then through opportunities in the workplace, that even though you start poor you do not state for, -- you -- stay stay poor, and you have the means to take care of your family, and you have the , as what president reagan used to call, as a safety net.

host: thank you again, jack. ricky in mount rainier, maryland , on our line for republicans. youer: i have to say thank to c-span for making it possible for us. correct something -- i remember in the law it said if you make a certain amount of money, you are going to get it free. not everyone is going to pay for it. is my am calling for weublican party -- why are attacking this? why can't we support our beliefs? not only that, we are not helping our cause.

obamacare to fail, why are we trying to find out what happened or did not happen? if we want to make changes, let us do it honestly. a friend of mine just told me that his wife and himself got registered because his wife has is acondition, and he republican. people -- there are people informed.eping a littleare having trouble hearing you. i think we got your main point. bartonl have congressman

respond. guest: he might not have heard what i said to the other caller, people like myself support an opportunity society where we give people the opportunity to help themselves, and that is one of his premises. he also says that republican should not be against of insurance for everybody in america, and we are not, but we do not think the federal government should create this massive system where you have all of these mandates. the word mandate is mentioned 131 times in the affordable care act. not thes -- that is united states that i want to live in, where the federal government is telling me 131 insurance ornd of health care i can have or cannot have. he is right. the publicans are not opposed to helping those people who do not

not -- republicans are opposed to helping those people who do not have access to health care, and subsequently health insurance. washington.eattle, democratic caller's line. caller: good morning. have been saying that the health exchange rollout has been a major problem. i think you left out the part that states that have opted in have set up their own next ages, -- exchanges, and they are running perfectly. i noticed texas decided to opt out of that. future, would you look at toay to get texas back in

what other states are doing successfully versus governor perry turning down affordable care, or would you apologize to the people of texas the way you bp?to go seahawks. host: -- guest: what was that last thing? host: go seahawks. guest: seattle seahawks. the dallas cowboys are in my district. seahawks have a better record. governor perry decided not to have a health care exchange, and i think that was a good decision. this gentleman is in washington state, and if he says his health exchange is working, i will take

him at his word. i have not looked state-by- state. the obama administration has not of released the number people that have signed up, but all indications are that it is a very small number. in delaware, which is a small state, i think it took them one week to get one person enrolled, which is not a good endorsement for the efficiency of the system. my comments on bp, i was not apologizing for bp's performance. in fact, i had led earlier investigations about malfeasance in bp, and i participated aggressively in the investigation. my apology, it was that -- comment was that bp had not been given due process, and i think

any individual or company should be given due process. an activey supported investigation, and i certainly support the people that have ,een harmed by the oil spill who should be compensated both at the individual level, and at the state level in terms of damage that was done to the environment and to the economy. in north carolina on our line for independents. you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you again for c- span. paulrd on the tv that rand a bill, ato put congress having

to answer to the same laws that the common people are, the laws that they pass, such as the affordable care act. there are some other things, too. i am in north carolina. north carolina opted out of the medicaid expansion, and i can understand that because when the unemployment expansion took place and people stayed on those roles as long as they could on the unemployment, because they were able to get family medicaid housing stamps and assistance as long as they were on the unemployment rolls, that was a large cost to the state of north carolina. about a question, too, how long is the federal government giving these states that money? i know on unemployment, it lasted around three years, and

then they pulled out and then the state itself is responsible. is that the way it works with obamacare as well? i love texas. i live there for a couple of years and truly loved it. carolina, it is the best. -- next to north carolina, it is the best. guest: we share a love for texas. --m a six generation texas texan. i vacation in north carolina. one of my favorite television shows growing up was "the andy inffith show," which was north carolina, so i certainly have affection for north carolina. in terms of her question, you know, i do not know you have a direct comment on that. a couple of e-mails coming

in, first from john in indiana -- "you suggest that obamacare will fear, even though romneycare did not fare -- fail ." i am a texas republican, not a massachusetts republican. i supported governor romney for president, i voted for him, but i am not a big fan of the health insurance law up in the commonwealth of massachusetts. the reason i say obamacare is going to fail is because it is not going to deliver on what it promised. first of all, it is not going to be affordable, and you have three callers already today, that it was designed to help, and it is not helping, in their own words. it is hugely invasive in terms of the practice of medicine.

the president is calling the website problem a glitch. i think it is a lot more than a glitch. i do not think they will be able to fix it. is sayingent himself you might have to call a toll- free number, or thought a form the old-fashioned way. that is certainly not a good endorsement of the system. people it is designed to help figure out for themselves that it is not going to help them, they're going to demand some changes to the and as therocess, cost of this drives the private sector health system -- as the employer see it is because of the mandates on the public side that it is less expensive for them to stop providing health insurance through the workplace and put employees on the public

exchanges, those employees are going to see that if you have your health insurance and you like it, you can keep it, and they're not going to get to keep it, and they're going to have to pay a lot more on these public exchanges. those combinations will ultimately be the failure of the system, and to me, it is not a question of if it is going to happen, but when it is going to happen, and, again, that is why i put my bill in. let's make this voluntary for the year. if it is really as great as the president says it is, everybody will love it, and will go on down the road. if it is as bad as people like myself think it is, not many people will sign up, the system will self implode, and we'll come back and try to salvage what we can from it. host: just a couple of minutes left with representative joe barton. mac in memphis, tennessee, on our line for republicans. caller: yes, good morning.

been a republican over time, but i am somewhat having a change of heart, because it -- i like the independents own a small business and have iur employees -- everything thought republicans were trying to do to help small business people -- cutting taxes, and all of that, but when i got ready to get insurance for my four employees, i am finding that it is cheaper -- and i am wondering, the congressman, and i am a conservative, but are they willing to cut everyone's salary down to $100,000 a year? we all have to pay for your insurance. it is not affordable for us. you get help. i bet you the benefit packages for the congressman are really good.

if we were to cut back on your costs like you cut back on hours, this is what i think in a good-faith effort the president is going to do because more dollars means many hands. inasmuch as you are trying to stop the shutdown, if the i thinkt allows this, the program will work if you made a good faith effort. he spent so much time opposing and fighting, and nothing ever gets done. so busy,the president how can a man figure it out. host: thank you, mac. guest: first of all, congratulations to him for having a small business, and having a business where he has created a job for himself and four other people. --t is a good ring, not a good thing, not a bad thing. he, as a small businessman, does not have to provide insurance

for his workers because he has less than 50 full-time employees. it is good that he is trying to do that and i commend him for that. in terms of my personal health care, right now my self and my family are covered by blue cross/blue shield. pay $433 a month, and my employer, the people of the united states, pay a little over $900 a month, so the total plan is about $1300 to $1400 a month. i am paying 433 dollars, and the taxpayers are paying a little over $900. i lose that in january. as a member of congress, i am mandated to go to the public exchange in the district of columbia, in the small business exchange, which right now, does not exist, and i do not know if there will be any options at all. i can participate -- i cannot

participate in any plan in texas. i have to participate in the plan appeared in the district of columbia, and one of the things that has been controversy of is will there be any kind of , in the office of personnel management did rule back in july that there could be . there have been a number of proposals in the congress to eliminate that premium support, and that is a question that, i guess, you have to say is still outstanding. as someone who has been covered in the workplace by employer- sponsored health care plans, i do not think it is unfair, even in obamacare, to still be covered through some sort of a workplace plan. i do think the question of the level of premium support is a fair question.

int: last question, david washington on our line for democrats. go ahead. believe it this morning -- i've never heard as much pessimism in all my life about why something can't work. as i remember, the republican party has never come up with a plan in all the years they have been in office, except for president nixon, who offered teddy kennedy a plan, and he should have took the deal, but he did not, for a reason. most major countries seem to have some kind of health care plan. even mexico has a health care plan, and i think it is time we did something. i would like to see the republicans really start to work with the president to make this thing work because it is going to be here. it is the law. i think we should get together and see if we can help people have better health care. thank you. i agree with the last point, that we should help

people have better health care choices. that is fair. republicans do not automatically assume that the only way to help people is with another government program, and republicans do not agree that this particular government program is a good thing. again, it is usually expensive. it is very bureaucratic. even trying to get people to sign up for it, to have had three years to come up with a ittem to enroll people, and is not working. even the democrats admit that. in terms of the republican alternative, we had a republican alternative when the bill was being debated. i hope to put it together. it covered pre-existing conditions, but it did it through the creation of a secondary market on a state-by- state basis where you created a high-risk pool and you had state and federal subsidies for that risk pool for people that had a pre-existing condition that could not get health insurance in the private marketplace.

the idea of keeping children on their parents health insurance until they reach 25 or 26 was and is a republican idea. we also allowed people to purchase health insurance across state lines, which promotes competition, and, again, puts the person in the driver seat that they are making the choice, it is not a mandate. republicans do have alternatives, but they are not government-driven, and they are not mandatory. we want to give people choices and then let you decide what is best for you and your family. host: we will leave it there for the segment. we have been talking with congressman joe barton of texas. next we will talk to adam schiff about the nsa surveillance program. first, a news update from c-span radio. time.is 8:36 a.m. eastern reportsciated press

that the united states is defending drone strikes targeting al qaeda operatives and others it deems enemies, rejecting reports from human rights groups questioning the legality. says drones watch attacks have wounded scores of civilians. president will meet with pakistani prime minister nawaz sharif. they are expected to make reef statements to the press -- brief statements to the press. a twitter account has been running harshly critical of the obama administration. mr. joseph was involved in nuclear negotiations with iran and in a statement to "politico" he says he takes complete responsibility for what he refers to as a parity account.

confirmeduse official that mr. joseph is no longer working for the administration. those are some of the latest headlines on the fan radio. >> c-span -- we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room the congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete, gavel-to- gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a private service of the cable industry. created 33 years ago, and funded by your cable or satellite provider, and now you can watch us in hd. >> there are a lot of stories about slaves and freemen of color who may choices, and when i began this book i was convinced that the americans were the good guys, and the british were the bad guys, but the more i worked on this project, i became more and more convinced that as the war came to an end that it was the

americans that were not a good guys. it was instead the british and the spanish who were the good guys. the british and the spanish offered freedom to their slaves, the men who served with them, and took them away from this land of bondage. and for the americans, well, the americans will keep slaves in bondage until 1865. fight for the u.s., or fight for your freedom with the invading british, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. joining me now is coppersmith adam schiff, a democrat from california. i want to talk about the nsa.

the committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the surveillance programs. what are some of the questions you would like answered? guest: i would like to find out more about how the agencies are moving to restructure, for example, the metadata program. that theyn advocating hold onto their own data. it was disclosed by edward snowden and confirmed by the intelligence community, where the intelligence community gathers large amounts of domestic calling data to identify connections with terror cells. i do not see any reason why that cannot be retained by telecommunication providers, and the intelligence community would only go to them when necessary to determine when there is a connection between a particular number and a particular plot. i think that is the direction community is working on, and i would like to find out what progress they have made. we have privacy

advocates that will testify. i have not seen the complete witness list, but i have been urging that in addition to the usual insiders with the intelligence committee, we have some outside experts that could talk about ways the program could be restructured to better respect the public privacy interest. host: with regards to your proposal on metadata, you have been talking about that for quite some time. is it gaining traction? guest: absolutely. both in the intelligence community and in the broader membership in the house, i think there is a growing, bipartisan sentiment that the program ought to be restructured. -- an, we had a met amendment that almost abolish the program, editing the agencies recognize they either have to reformat or end it, and i do not see any technological obstacle to that kind of restructuring. it would be more consistent with how we do things in the law enforcement realm where we only

go to those private vendors want me to subpoena records. it would be similar in the intelligence context. host: over the last few days, there has been international backlash. a reading from "the new york times" nor is there much dispute that toelligence is necessary protect citizens against terrorists and other enemies. are we doing harm to our diplomatic ties as these disclosures come out? i do not know that

we are doing harm, but these disclosures are causing diplomatic issues across the globe for us. that began with the whole wiki leaks issue when a lot of these diplomatic cables that were private cables were revealed. i remember learning that i was the subject of one of the cables, a meeting that i had with the pakistani president at the time, where he made some less than flattering remark about musharraf, and that was reported. certainly, yes, these repeated disclosures create dramatic issues for us. as the article you mentioned alluded to, and i cannot confirm or deny whether this program exists, some of the foreign governments that are protesting cannot protest too loudly because they have their own espionage pogroms, and i think there is an understanding -- programs, and i think there is an understanding. we have a strong national

security interest in getting information from overseas that could protect our country and direct international policy, but, yes, it creates issues. office of the director of national intelligence put out that the articles referenced in that "new york times" editorial that the nsa had gathered the information of 70 million french citizens was not true. we want to get your calls. republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. .ndependents, 202-585-3882 as we look at these topics, has the shutdown stalled momentum on issues like this, or are they still moving forward? guest: they are moving forward, but it has posed additional challenges. we are just a couple of months

left and we still have this major fiscal issue we will have to return to. hopefully we can return to it in a more civilized way than the last time, but there is only so much that can be crowded on the legislative plate at one time. nonetheless, you see the intelligence community -- committee moving forward. i expect a draft bill that will propose some changes. others of us will have an opportunity to amend and strengthen that bill, and then we will see what happens on the house floor. there are a lot of moving pieces because you have the intelligence committee working on it, the judiciary committee working on it in both houses, and you have a difference of opinion among those committees and the members on the direction that we need to take, but i think the momentum is irresistible and i expect it will continue to progress. host: let's start taking your tom intarting with

texas. caller: i have noticed there is a big problem with surveillance programs. everywhere, from almost block to block, and that is good in one sense, but when it starts to be an issue of utilizing the same surveillance cameras to actually tax people per mile of driving, then that is going to be the catalyst that is going to remove everyone from office -- everybody on the hill to the state government, we're just going to remove them from office. by the way, when you get to the major concerns of the unions who have virtually controlled the truckinguntry's abilities to deliver food to grocery stores and the commodity that you can income, you will have a big problem -- that you can think of, you'll have a big problem you will not be able to

solve. that is looming on the horizon, and i do not know who started it, but i tell you one thing, it is going to have to stop. guest: i appreciate your call, and you raised a couple of issues, and one is the extent to which technology has the potential to intruding on our privacy like never before. some of those cameras you are anding about on bridges roads, they compiled a record a policetell department whenever you have driven by that camera, and when you compare it to the telephone metadata program, those cameras are much more revealing, much more intrusive. the phone metadata does not include your name or address it is basically -- addressed. it is basically a number of cell phone numbers connected to other numbers, along with the duration of the calls, but on those

cameras, it shows a photograph of you in your car, your license plate, where you are going at a particular time of day. you are right. these issues will be more complex, it will require more attention to make sure we protect privacy. i am not aware of any proposal to use those cameras for tax purposes, but you do see on toll very, which are ran in a conservative areas, we have a toll road in orange county -- the transponder is used for people to go through the toll booths without having to slow down. most people accept that, but that is a form of electronic tracking. so, this is going to be an issue that does not go away in the future, and with advances in technology, the focus will change, but that issue, i think, would become magnified. in cedar town,

georgia, on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. representative, what i would like to say is this, i feel that all of these problems with this intelligence agency started under the bush administration. for instance, no one refers to a 2009 memo from george bush when he was wiretapping people. even president obama was wiretapped. why is it that we never have any exposes who come out and these things? they should be exposed. i am a democrat, that all of these things that were under bush, none of you have come out and spoke about it, and the only reason these problems are being brought out is because they do not like president obama. i wish all of those haters would

come out now and expose everything because that is a good reason president obama is in office -- we would now find out things that we would never find out if these people were not mad because president obama is black. guest: i appreciate your call. it is not correct to say none of us took issue with some of the --dless wiretapping warrantless wiretapping that took place under the bush administration. i raised this in hearings with attorney general gonzales. -- and he -- iit remember a heated exchange with felt he had the authority without a warrant to electronically surveilled purely domestic calls from one american to another, an arab or him saying he would not rule it out. i thought that was extraordinary. i offered an amendment on the house floor that require that any electronic surveillance of

americans on american soil be undertaken under the supervision of the fisa with court approval, and i teamed -- teamed up with a conservative republican in jeff flake on these issues. these issues were raised. many of us were concerned during the last administration, and we remain concerned and have been advocating for reform during the current administration. you are certainly right that there is a group of house members and senate members, and a group around the country that will go after the president simply because he is the president and they do not like this president. you see ample double standard. i think the health care debate is extraordinary in the sense that one of the central pieces they are going after the individualn, this mandate was a john mccain proposal, and it was ethically fine when it was proposed by john mccain, but when it within plummeted by barack obama it was

a different story. -- proposed by barack obama, it was a different story. yes, there is that element to it but there were people that raise the issues during the bush administration. fisa you mentioned the court. how do you think that will happen? you: i think there will be a standalone intelligence reform bill, and my guess -- i think you would be advisable not to combine that with the intelligence reauthorization, so as not to bog the bill down too heavily, but i think there will be a bill coming out of the intelligence community. i think there will be a bill coming out of the judiciary committee. there'll be opportunities on the house floor, both in amending those bills as well as in the appropriations process, and we are funding the intelligence community, to put on appropriations restrictions on some of these issues. so, i think those things will take place.

i could see, for example, changing the presumption to one more in favor of disclosure and declassification on significant pfizer court opinions. i could see -- pfizer court opinions. i could see an advocate on , and the waysa judges are appointed. i think those would be part and parcel of some of the reforms. host: john in boca raton, florida, on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not like the nsa's at all, but main concern is that i have -- one, if it is for national security, why are we spying on the brazilian petroleum thing? that seems more like corporate espionage. the other is there are some major problems, as reported in

"the washington post," about the nsa supplying regular law enforcement officers with things related to drug task force and things like that. are you going to bring up something about that? that isn't. -- that is it. thank you. you can't thank you for your questions. i -- guest: thank you for your questions. i am somewhat restricted in identifying some of the programs you alluded to, but i can say in terms of the foreign surveillance that you mentioned, we do not have government surveillance for purposes of economic espionage, and this is a major distinction between the united states and its intelligence gathering, and, say, china. china has state-sponsored intelligence apparatus that it uses to basically steal the intellectual property of american companies to try to give chinese companies or chinese state run enterprises a

competitive advantage. that is not something our intelligence community does, and i think that is a fundamental distinction. there might be national security implications in terms of the oil sector, given what a major issue that is both in the middle east, and in terms of our economy and national security, but i can say that we do not engage in espionage for the purposes of economic gain or to steal intellectual property. in terms of the nsa working with law enforcement, there are a number of very strong restrictions in what can be shared between the intelligence community and the law .nforcement community in order to make the case to the court, that the intelligence community can obtain information for intelligence gathering purposes.

they cannot be a stalking horse for the law enforcement immunity, where they do not have -- community, if they do not have probable cause to get a wiretap, they would go to the intelligence community where there is a defense standard. .hat cannot take place there are roles where if the intelligence community gathers , and theyn lawfully find evidence of a crime, they might be able to share that with law enforcement, but, again, they cannot be used as a stalking horse. host: we are talking with congressman adam schiff. mike is in lynchburg, virginia, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. 2006 the democrats took over control of congress, both houses. that was the last two years of the bush administration.

2010, you had both houses and the presidency, and now you have two parts of the thing. so, all of the stuff that is happenng, nothing can unless the democrats want it to happen. yet, everybody that comes on the show acts like the republicans are the ones holding everything back. so, i would just like your comment on that. guest: you are certainly right. we have had divided government for a long time, and in terms of the intelligence community issues that we have been talking about, there is a shared responsibility for those. in terms of the more recent problems that we have had that led to the shutdown and the risk that we would default on our credit, that has been really more of an intraparty fight teaeen moderate gop and the

party faction within the house than it has been a fight between the parties. most of the moderate members of the gop did not believe it was a good idea to use the shutdown of the government or a default on ar credit as leverage to get repeal of obamacare or changes to unrelated issues, but nonetheless the moderate republicans, at least in the house, went along with it until that strategy proved to be completely destructive. i do not think you can lay responsibility for that at the feet of democrats. that was, and still is a fight for the heart and soul of the republican party. it is certainly my hope that we can get to yes in the next couple of months on some of the major but it -- budget issues that we have, that we do not have another major episode of expansion to that, but it is hard to avoid prescribing responsibility in the last few months to where it really lies, that it was largely a gop-may

disaster in the house. host: garland in ohio on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my interest is in intelligence and the chilling effect constraint could have on the intelligence community, fearing that if they do something, they n be legislative push back. is difficult because of the gleaning. practicesditional that foreign governments use, including china, are something that we have not gotten up to speed on. guest: thank you. it is certainly true that other countries, and those that mean us harm, have gained a lot of intelligence inside as a result of all of these disclosures, and they have been very hurtful to national security. it is also true that it is a

very tough time in the intelligence community. a body morale has taken blow. these are hard-working, patriotic americans, that it's chosen to go into the intelligence community area they could make more month -- that have chosen to go to the intelligence community. he could make more money in the private sector, that they are patriotic. it has been tough for at the same time, there are ways to improve the process thomas to strike a better balance between privacy and national security. we can restructure things that are more protective of privacy. getting back to that meta-data program. there is no reason why the telecommunications providers can't hold that information. it is more