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 efficient for the

government to hold it, but efficiency is not the hallmark of what we are trying to do here. the onlyency was criteria in terms of our national priorities, we would not have a fourth amendment. it would be much more efficient if police could go into our homes to search whenever they wanted to. privacy and expectation of privacy is a high national priority. those things can be balanced. there may be things that are legal, things that we can get court approval for, but there may be a better way to do it. even though we can do it another way, this is more protective of privacy. we can get the same information we need. we can protect the country just the same. that is what we need to ask ourselves about all of our programs. is it effective? is a constitutional? -- it constitutional?

the travistive for he of the -- privacy of the public? he heads u.s. cyber- command. what is the future of this agency? should they be split apart in the future? i can saym not sure if one model is better than the other. both are big jobs. would benefit we from having the separate focus of two people on them. given what you have to do in one of those roles -- it may duplicate a lot of effort and create more inefficiencies. it is an extremely

demanding job, as general alexander has found. it is going to be a hard job to fill. particularly given all of the controversy around it. we have some good, smart people who will fill both or that one position. centreville, virginia. our line for independents. caller: good morning. two, then the question -- comments and a question. i believe these programs should continue. i believe these programs are valid. they go back to the framers of our constitution. spying has been around forever and it is a valuable commodity to this country. there is no reason it should be curtailed because of what i call

tors.rs -- trai question for you --the fisa court. is it nothing more than a rubber stamp? could you explain the role in the process and if you believe the rubberstamp phrasing is correct? shame that more people do not know about the fisa court. it has a significant impact. these are all judges in their own right. they are selected by the chief justice of the supreme court to sit on the fisa court for a. of years -- period of years. justice be able

to appoint all of these himself? i would like to see that changed. i think 10 out of the 11 fisa court judges were appointed by gop presidents. are they a rubberstamp? i don't think so. it has been characterized that way because they have approved so many government applications. what you don't see and that is when the government exit application for a warrant or an application and the fisa sends them back and it is not satisfied. they may want to find out if it can be done in a different manner. then the government comes back to the court and renews its application. -- only to get sent back again. they can be very demanding of the government. nonetheless, the fisa court does

not have the benefit of hearing a contrary opinion. in those particularly significant cases or cases where they are asked to bless an it is new program, important to have another voice in that courtroom. let's look at the case law. andcase law says this moreover the government has not explained the way -- why it has to be done the way it says. why can't the telecommunications providers hold onto their own data? unnecessary intrusion on people's privacy even if it is constitutional. former fisacouple court judges who think it would be helpful to have that

adversarial process. i think that is one of the forms that will come out of all this. the president has signaled his support for that adversarial process. i think we are moving in that direction. host: columbia, missouri. jeff, a republican. i am calling today to see if you were doing anything about internet invasion of intentionsh bias through basically the terrorist networks that are independent within the realm of this nation. that is about it. there were a couple major programs that the intelligence community has acknowledged that came out as a part of the snowden disclosures. programthe meta-data

that came out. there is also a program under theion 702 that involves internet. this involves foreign communications. this has been less an issue than the metadata program. the domesticnvolve internet communications. although, there is always the potential for domestic internet communications to be collected. the other reason why it has not been quite as controversy all -- controversial is that the foreign program has a much greater tactic is -- track record of success in discovering and disrupting plots. some of our allies who of complaint about these programs have been the primary beneficiaries. we have discovered as many or far more threats to our allies even to ourselves.

important to make sure that the programs are structured in a way that minimizes the intake of domestic data. it is also important to recognize that a lot of the foreign intelligence collection really does protect the country. a reducedng to have military footprint overseas. if that is desirable. aretroops in afghanistan being withdrawn. are alreadyn iraq being withdrawn. the fact that we will have a reduced military footprint around the world means that we will have to be better at intelligence, because we will be more reliant on it. we need to be careful not to deprive ourselves of foreign information that we really need to protect their country. -- our country. i think we can strike a balance.

one other point that i want to make in terms of before and collection of data -- that is, a lot of this information has successfully disrupted plots. a lot of it is very necessary to our security. it is a new form of intelligence. in the old days, it was mostly human intelligence. this is not a brand-new phenomenon. areintelligence agencies not interested in gathering vast amounts of extraneous data. don't have time to analyze it and assimilated. they are only interested in intelligence that is directed as a threat to the country. there is a perception that they are creating dossiers on americans. there is a perception that it is a fishing expedition. the reality is that the

intelligence community has limited resources and they need to focus those resources legally and as a practical matter on threats to the country. host: ron in michigan. are democrats line. -- our democrats line. caller: i have a question concerning intelligence. back when clinton was in office, they did a whole lot of this stuff. why is there such an uproar now? went across seas stuff, takingng information that could harm us here with 9/11 and all that happened there -- all of these guys turned their back on america. get your opinion

on the intelligence part and how these people are hurting us back in the united states. guest: i think it is important to look at what is being done now. and what was being done by j edgar hoover. what was being done by hoover would be patently illegal. he was surveilling americans -- martin luther king, among others. there was no legal basis for doing it then and there is no legal basis now. that was a form of corruption of the highest level. you have a law enforcement agency, sworn to protect, that is abusing its capabilities to surveilled for political purposes. here we have the intelligence community undertaking surveillance to protect the community. we can have a debate about the wisdom of particular programs, but weonstitutionality,

don't have a situation where the intelligence community is deliberately misusing its authority, violating the law and order to gather information about political opponents or create an enemies list. that is an important distinction. of have been cases intentional misconduct. veryhey have been of a personal nature. you have one intelligence community analyst who may be misusing intelligence community resources to get information about his ex-wife or his girlfriend. you have some very serious abuses like that, but i don't think you can put that on the same scale as a j edgar hoover spying on political opponents. host: i wanted to get your reaction about a piece of news. thatnt report suggesting the united states had file it it international law with a targeted drone strike.

is there enough oversight of these operations were does congress need to do more? -- or does congress need to do more? guest: they need to do more. those reports do bear looking into. what we are saying over the last ofr is a change in direction the administration. the president gave a speech some months ago -- he wants to move away from the use of drone strikes. capture operations won't always be possible and in some places like northwest pakistan and elsewhere it may not be feasible at all and it may pose too great a risk to our troops to put them on the ground to try to capture some of these al qaeda operatives. i don't think we will see a complete entities drowns -- and

drones, but wee will see a reduction. they can create as many enemies as they eliminate, especially when you have civilian casualties. with need to look at the human rights watch. we need to look at the discrepancies in the civilian casualties that are being reported by the human rights watch and what we are hearing in the intelligence community. eric in wilmington, delaware on our republican line. caller: i am calling about the drone strikes. al labi andlobby -- his son. who is being held responsible? we don't kill innocent american

citizens in the united states without accountability. i want to know what your thought is on that matter. guest: i appreciate the question. i think there are a couple of things that we need to analyze. who was the target of a particular strike? i have to speak generally here because i do not know what is in the public domain and what has been declassified. we have to analyze, who was the target of a particular strike? were they properly the target of that strike? were they someone who was killed who was not the target of that strike? they, what is euphemistically called, collateral damage? target, whatnot a is the intelligence of civilians being in the area? i can't discuss the answers to

those questions with respect to this particular case, but that is certainly a proper subject for investigation. that is the type of thing that the intelligence community does review and oversee. it is an important issue. it is an unspeakable tragedy when there is any innocent loss of life and i certainly don't subscribe to the view that a son is responsible for the deeds of the father unless they are participant in those deeds. and even then i think you have to look at the age of the party to determine responsibility and the appropriate approach to take. i have to leave it in those generic terms. connecticut onn our independent line. caller: good morning. a former constituent living in connecticut now. guest: ok. when is a u.s. citizen

determined to be an enemy of the country when they go and align themselves with enemies of ours? when does that process take place that we are put in the position to question their loyalty to the country, their citizenship, to the point that we are able to do a drone strike against them? moment, canhave a you explain to the people that -- rules committee changed what will be done to change the rollback -- rule back? guest: let me start with the targeting of an american citizen. this is a very serious undertaking. --implicates all of our comp

constitutional interests and safeguards. want a situation where the commander-in-chief can decide that an american citizen is guilty and can be given the death penalty without a trial, jury verdict, etc. courts havetime, recognized that citizenship does not protect you if you take up arms against the country. if you become a military an unlawfuland enemy combatant against the country and pose a danger to the country, the country is not a shield to protect you. some of the same determinations have to be made. is that person subject to capture? can we realistically capture that person? ofwe have the capability doing it without exposing other americans to risk of loss of life? i think in this particular case, we did not have the opportunity

to try to capture him, given where that he was operating it was not an option. you have to look at the quantum of evidence against that person. they are an immediate threat to the country, that they are acting on that threat to the country. it is obviously a very high bar. it is something that congress needs to scrutinize very carefully. i would like to see -- and i have been working on some kind of mechanism to make sure that there is a process in place of oversight. i don't know yet what that would look like. whether it would we choir a prospective approval by congress or by a court or whether it would be a retrospective approval. all of those are problematic. some have suggested whether we should have the fisa court have to approve that before the president could give that order.

i don't know if we can ask a judge to fulfill that role. there are probably constitutional program -- problems with that. there are probably a lot of problems with going to congress and getting congress to ask in a -- act in a swift way when there is someone who poses a direct threat to the country. this is an issue and i would like to see a process in place, but i have not been able to figure out yet what the process should look like. host: in new york. independent line. caller: good morning. one question. we spend more money on intelligence then all the other countries of the world combined. how did we miss 9/11 with the information we have in hand? a good question. i think the 9/11 commission did a pretty good and thorough analysis of just that issue.

the long and short of it is is that we gather a lot of intelligence, but at the time of 9/11 we weren't good at sharing it among our agencies. this is a constant struggle. what we have tried to do since 9/11 is pricked on the stove piping within the intelligence community. stove piping the within the intelligence community. not learning how to land planes should have sent up a red flag. intelligenceer usingy feedback about airliners as bombs. but we did not connect the dots. since then we have done much better. connect and. onnecting. if you do it successfully, and a bradley manning situation, it

can disclose massive amounts of information. an edward result in snowden situation -- a junior analyst having access to all of this damaging information. the pendulum will swing back and forth as we try to find the sweet spot of information sharing that is enough to protect the country but not so much that people who don't have a need to know and really jeopardize our security with disclosures. in a nutshell, that is it. 9/11, we had the separate piles of data, but we were not communicating him of the left hand and the right hand. communicating, the left hand and the right hand. have discovered 9/11 with the protections we have in place today. pressurenation of the

we have put on al qaeda and the improvements we have made in gathering information has degraded their ability to conduct another 9/11. host: thank you for joining us. we will take a quick break and open up the phone lines. let's get an update from c-span radio. detroit's emergency manager and the city's creditors appeared in court today in a trial that will determine whether detroit can go ahead and file for bankruptcy. attorneys for unions and pension the emergencyat manager did not negotiate in good faith. the city is at least $18 billion in debt. turning to the cost of a college education, word today from the college board's annual report. tuition is not rising as fast as he used to.

-- it used to. paid nearlydents $8,900 more. it is the smallest increase in more than 30 years. on the other side, federal aid declined, so students have to foot more of the bill themselves. on this date in 1983, there was attack at a barracks in beirut. a killed 241 americans. it is seen as the beginning of the u.s. war on terrorism. corps's toprine general and survivors of the attack will mark the 30th anniversary. those are some of the latest headlines. >> this weekend, booktv is live from austin for the test -- texas book festival. coverage starts at 11:00 eastern.

sunday's coverage starts at noon. wiseman on ourn future on planet earth. the texas book festival live this weekend on booktv on c- span2. you have a few more days to post our comments -- your comments on this month bookclub selection. >> "washington journal" continues. host: thank you for sticking with us. how will the shutdown impact your vote in 2014? .epublicans, (202) 585-3881 (202) 585-3881. (202) 585-3880.

independence, (202) 585-3882.

63% of those surveyed said that speaker boehner should be replaced. 30% said he should remain. let's get your comments. hostbetsy on our line for democ. morning.ood i want to thank you for taking my call. i have been trying to get in for the longest. my thoughts on the subject are that i felt that mr. boehner would be an insubordinate and not really fulfilling his job as speaker of the house. that he was me

trying to manipulate the president into a certain situation based upon the tea party. that is very unpatriotic, if you ask me. i cannot see -- this was an act of terrorism from my point of view because we would not allow a cater to come in here and do to america with the tea party -- al qaeda to come in here and do to america with the tea party was trying to do. chooses to christie run for president in 2016, i would cross party lines and vote for him. he seems to put the party aside to make decisions for the good of the people. if hillary clinton runs -- host: what would you prefer to see house speaker john boehner do when faced with the government shutdown? i would prefer that you not go for the government shutdown. i would prefer that he put the

vote on the floor to be fair. i think that would be the american way. host: thank you for your call. let's go to david in herford, arizona. caller: good morning. i would be more than willing to still vote for a republican if i have a really good background check on who is financing them. i don't want anybody who was ishanced by any tea party-si- agency at all. host: thank you for that comment. margaret in leavenworth, kansas. on our line for democrats. caller: i want even take a minute to listen to somebody who is so treasonous as to try to tear down our country. i think that is an act of war. i do not know why it is legal. passing a budget should not be

tied to shutting down our country. that hurts so many people. i think the ones that were below loatful about it -- they should be fined and they need to face the people about it. came and shutntry our country down, that would be an act of war. we did it to ourselves. what is the problem here in kansas is that people desperately need the medicaid --ansion and no matter how this governor has total control. government federal to do medicaid. you just get a card from the government with nobody in between. some of us are being desperately punished for living because somebody doesn't like a certain party. this is really, really not a way of -- a democracy should run. up fored to be held

treason and insurrection. a lack of government causes anarchic. thank you very much. your i want to draw attention to another poll this morning. saying of those surveyed congress would be changed for the worse if every member changed next year. pretty grim stat there. it really will not impact my book. i watch the same news programs. that a lot of people do. understand where most of the people in the united states are blaming the republican party for a shutdown that speaker boehner said would never happen. ,e said it would never happen he said he would never let the country fail on its debt.

who does notsident oppose any kind of leadership even for his own party. the government has never been able to step in and put forth any kind of programming, in the past, other than social security and medicaid which are all paid into. even those are in trouble right now. i don't understand why people in the united states -- host: can i ask you a quick question? one of our earlier callers suggested that the fiscal crisis was a fight among republicans. do you agree with that? caller: i don't agree with all of it. there is a larger portion of the -- you know, the democrats and the republicans -- there is left

and right. the majority of them are in the center of the country. the democratic party has flipped over the course of time. basically, what used to be the republican party. --anymore. that that was all i have to say. host: thank you for your call, larry. let's go to patriot, ohio. a on our line for democrats. on our line for democrats. i am in the middle. i am more of a moderate on a lot of things. -- mymocratic party representatives and the people i've 04 are not doing anything -- i vote for are not doing

anything. i am probably going to vote for independent or a republican in with because i am fed up everything the democrats have been doing for the last eight years. host: what would you have liked to have seen from democrats over the last eight years? farm bills. they need to help the farmers. most of these people in the area where i live, that is what they do. they are either in the farming industry or their in the timber industry or something like that. they can't pass a budget. they couldn't even get a farm bill right. i mean, i have to have a budget every right for my place. i have to pay my bills on time and i don't get the luxury of saying i am not going to do that. here and take my

copy machine in here and give it to somebody else to say it is the same thing. it is criminal. it is criminal what they're doing. i blame both sides. presidentd for this and he hasn't done a thing for me. he hasn't even tried to help us. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: thank you, bill. let's look at democratic numbers. , approve orpoll disapprove the way congressional democrats handled. 61% said they disapproved. let's go to the independent line. caller: good morning. hi, how are you this morning? thank you for c-span. i have a different fix on this

thing. i object to the fact that the government is acting more and than they are on reality. i think these polls are very divisive. i think this president, who i voted for, maybe the most divisive man we have ever had in the white house. he has done nothing but demonize anybody who disagrees with him. look for solutions, he looks for political pluses. when we got bin laden, that was all his doing and the white house's doing. todayw i see in the news that he didn't know anything about what was going on with obamacare from the viewpoint of the senate. i guarantee if it was going well, he was saying -- he would be saying we did it all in the white house. i don't understand the man. he is divisive. he seems to be representing just a small portion of the country

at a time. nation.ed to the whole host: what would you have liked to have seen from the president during the debate over the government shutdown? less demonizing and looking more for solutions. less of " my way or the highway." the republicans didn't really disagree with each other about the principle of the thing. they disagreed about how to handle it. that is one of the reasons why the polls are so divisive too. it tries to point out that the republicans were fighting each obama.ver agreeing with they didn't agree with obama. 61% of the people in this country didn't want obamacare. and we got it. and now we find that it is not working.

see everybodyto get health insurance too, but they are not going to get it this way. he lies about things. he talks about cheapening insurance policies. an insurance policy is more than one thing. it is more than just what your premium is. it is your deductible and your co-pay. these young kids are going to pay $100 for the premium, but then that paying $5,000 -- it is a $5,000 deductible. host: thank you so much for your thoughts this morning. to steve in scottsdale, arizona for our republican line. caller: hi. , wonder how many people republicans and democrats, would switch to being an independent. -- the withshutdown a lot of finger-pointing and that is what i find terrible.

instead of finding solutions or finding middle ground, for two weeks it was one side blaming the other. host: would you switch her vote? -- your vote? i'm considering it. i am curious to see how many of your callers would switch to independent. i wonder if that could never be a viable party. maybe getting a third perspective in their could do something. i know it has always been democrat or republican, but i'm curious that the shutdown doesn't make more people lean toward. maybe the tea party should go independent. who knows. host: thank you for your thoughts. tom in florida on our democrats

line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we are missing the big point here. when we look at the republicans and the democrats, let's look at who the republicans are looking at as their leader. the tea party says that we have taxed enough already. he is the one who is calling the shots on these people. factu look at the path -- that they swore an oath to him that they would never raise taxes -- host: how was i going to impact your vote in 2014? caller: how will my vote go in 2014 -- i will probably vote democrats. host: were you ok with the way the democrats handled the debate over the shutdown? caller: i think they handled it

real well. i think they handled -- realized what was going on. they started negotiating. obama was forced into the corner by the republican party and he compromised quite often. ,ut every time boehner came on he would say he would not negotiate for tax increases. where hisat shows allegiance lies. host: the president obama do enough? caller: yes. arlen for independence. independents.r caller: i heard a republican say a lot about big government and how much money we spend. i wish these people would have said that and were concerned during the bush administration with the trillions of dollars

overseas. trillions of dollars in tax cuts. trillions of dollars in medicaid tax be -- part b. it comes to doing something theyhe american people, have a big problem with it. -- it isnt to say also very important that people know this -- i'm telling c-span to --e his serve i -- a survey how much money do we spend on people in this country who don't spend -- have health insurance? we are willing to let people die in the emergency room. we need to make people get insurance. that is the only way this going to happen. it is just like if you drive a car. even if you get insurance or you cannot go to the hospital -- if you go by a car -- i hate to say

that. that is the way it has to be. the democrats did not do a good thing of explaining this to the american people. the reason that everybody needs to be in short is that everybody needs to participate. we have all these other countries that have universal health care. they have no problem ensuring all of those people. the richest country in the world the worldthe money in is owned by the united states. and we can't even give people insurance. we need to be healthy as a nation. if we are not ensuring everyone -- we have more diseases out there that everyone can get. people are going to be more sicker -- host: we want to keep taking your calls but first we want to talk to scott wilson from the "washington post."

scott, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: what can we expect from this meeting at the white house? guest: it comes against the backdrop of american drone use in pakistan. prime ministers sharif has been a vocal critic of that policy. it is very unpopular in pakistan for its effect on its civilians. the focus will be centered around that, but of course the president will want to talk to end lot of his plans the war in neighboring afghanistan. [video clip] gentlemen, there is the matter of drone strikes which i've disturbed and

agitated our people. in my first statement to parliament i agreed to a strong commitment to ending the drone strikes. the national conference has dronesd that the use of is a violation and is detrimental to our efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country. has become a major deterrent in our bilateral negotiations -- relationship. scott wilson, your take. guest: this has been the argument for quite some time and it is picking up pace, not only in pakistan but around that region entered northern africa and the corner of africa -- horn of africa.

president obama does not want to station troops are intervene militarily. muchalance between how good drone strikes do and how much damage it does to the population when innocents are killed -- that is the balance that is extremely difficult to strike and that the united states has not been good at striking. many critics, even within the administration itself, say this is doing more harm than good. you heard the prime minister saying exactly that. this is damaging our resolve to be a partner with the americans. against terrorists in the region. host: and associated press article this morning said that american drone strikes are hot button issue. what do you think the takeaways will be from the meeting? guest: i don't think there will be many. --hink this is a discussion

the president and the prime minister did not know each other well. this will be a conversation about priorities. this will be a chance for the president to reassure prime minister sharif that he is tightening the rules around drone use. whether or not that will have much effect, it is hard to say. it probably won't. it is a chance for the president to say, we are leaving afghanistan at the end of 2014 and we to make sure that you're on board with that and that you are going to take on the taliban in a way that does not affect the government that we are leaving behind in afghanistan. host: however you do those joint andrts detailing drone use potential killings of civilians will weigh on this meeting? guest: it is part of that broader backdrop. their powerful reports. are powerful reports.

the white house has challenged the numbers. there's no question that many innocents die in these attacks. report and the amnesty report -- in the amnesty report are very damaging. it will have an effect. at the same time, i don't think it is shedding a huge amount of on what is known and what is a preoccupation to pakistan and to the administration, as obama what heout winding down has called the endless war that the united states cannot afford to fight. host: we have been talking with scott wilson. scott, thank you for joining us. guest: figure having me. -- thank you for having me. host: let's go to austin in lakeland, florida.

america iseel like being intellectually desensitized about our conversation about what is going on in our government. our government is established so that the minority could challenge the majority every time. the minority is there to preserve -- prevent the majority from getting everything they want. the majority has not been willing to compromise. they have said, we are the majority. we had this vote. everybody said they want our idea. asking, where is this huge majority that all americans want exactly what the democrats want? we have a republican party in the minority that is fighting against the majority. we are a republic, not a democracy. i will not change my vote.

i will be a republican in the 2014 vote. i hope that others will. i hope they will see the dishonesty that the democrats claim that they are the party of the minority and yet they ignore the minority. host: john in arizona on our democrats line. this will not change my vote. me to have to say that i'm a democrat, because i have been a republican most all my life. i don't know where these folks are coming from that say that obama is the problem. it looks like to me that that old boy has bent over his back to try to get these folks on board. the republicans don't care what the issue is. if it has obama's approved all, they are against it.

host: you change to being a democrat. what made you make the shift? guest: the tea party did. i am a black fella. i know when people don't like me and when i don't. -- they don't. byave tried to judge people what they are doing and not by what they are saying. when it comes down to voting for family have-- my been republicans for a long time. we have taken some bad hits from some of our friends for being republicans. saying, hey them republicans don't like black people too much. they're pretty much right. your figure so much for call. let's go to elizabeth in arkansas. she is on our independent line. caller: i will definitely be

going back to the republican party. i will tell you why. put in place for people to only be held accountable for four to eight years. we want new ideas. not for people like pelosi and reid and people who have been in their 10 to 20 years. they have amassed millions of millionsof dollars -- and millions of dollars. nobody should be coming in and having ties to these different -- and people that are giving them money. should american people, be telling them how to vote. we are the ones they should be listening to. not the people who are giving them millions of dollars. at least the republican party

has a really really tried, for the first time in a long time, boehner -- i have to take my hat off to him. tried, god bless them. i hope he continues to try along with holleran and the other gentleman. we need for them to start listening to us, us, the american people. host: thank you so much, elizabeth. let's listen to charles in virginia on a republicans line. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that this whole quagmire in washington -- a literal quagmire because it feels like we are walking around in a swamp with these vampires in washington. we have to educate ourselves

because they're just pulling the wool over our eyes. i've been listening to other callers and they are pretty much just regurgitating what other people are saying. we have to educate ourselves to what they are actually doing and if we don't they will continue to do what they are doing. my vote is still going to be for the republican party because someone like a ted cruz, he actually got up there and he fought for what he believed in. he doesn't care, it seems to me, about getting reelected. there are a lot of things we need to take care of like term limits. there shouldn't be people in congress for 30 years. that's definitely something we need to deal with. education is key. we have to start educating ourselves. if we don't, this will continue

to get worse and worse and worse. they could for taking my call. host: go to denver, colorado. democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. democraton is -- i'm a and i have been voting for democrats. i will be voting for democrats in 2014. my question is campaign contributions and if money in our politics -- will that change anything? host: unfortunately i'm not able to answer that question. of ouryou heard some other callers, money in politics is a big concern. bruce in tennessee on our independent line. caller: good morning. i've been trying for a couple weeks now. glad you took my call. my problem is that our president is not leading our country.

he is sitting up there just the dictating and staying back and watching. we are going to do what i want to do are nothing. the tea party is standing up for their constituency. there are other senators and congressmen were sticking up for their constituency. they are telling them what we want. we do live in a republic. right now, the democratic party is out of control. the united states needs to start educating themselves and listening to the people. host: what could the democrats due to win your vote? what did they do right in your opinion? they haven't passed a budget in the last six years. i run my household on a budget. if i don't make money, my bills on get paid.

but now they're out of control. they are spending money they don't even have. they are borrowing money from china and all over the place to pay bills that they have accrued over time, but they just keep spending and spending more money. this obama character is a disaster. just yesterday, on the house floor,can for -- house they are talking about the land -- individual mandate. that tells me that that is there a problem. it has been a problem. that is what they have been trying to get across for the last month. it has to stop somewhere. host: how do you think president obama performed? caller: he didn't. he didn't do anything. he didn't show any leadership. he is not a leader. he is a puppet. you know, if you want to

president, he's got to be a leader. quit spending money to other countries. we are paying countries to be our friend and they burn our flag. we need to quit paying them. host: thank you so much, bruce. trenton, michigan. democrat line. caller: the first thing i would like to have the rest of the country listen to is that president obama has put ill after bill after bill in front of the house and john boehner has been -- tabled every one of them. he has had over 40 votes to repeal the medical coverage of the affordable care act. i need this care because i have no medical coverage for over 30 years. when it comes down to what the president can do, his hands are tied by congress and the senate.

we all know that congress has inn the most obstructionist the entire creation of this country. we know that. a given. every poll has said that for the last three and half months. i don't understand how anybody who assumes they have the intelligence to get on a caller program and defile the president of the united states for something he is not responsible for -- host: we will go no further -- now to the house of representatives, gaveling in for the morning our. h -- he speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., october 23, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable chris stewart