>> next comes from hall from arkansas. caller: good morning. this is term limits just smoke and mirrors. we need to get rid of the lobbyist and big money. that's the core of the problem. as long as we got lobbyist, suitcases full of money, this is what you're going to get. host: kermit is on the line for independents. caller: hello. host: you're on "washington journal" this morning. caller: i'm against term limits. the permanent stance and lobbyist will end up forming the country. you can have term limits but first you have to get corporate money, big money out of election

process because they'll just end up running the country. these people come and go and they'll laugh at them and run the country. the lobbyist is staffed. host: justice briar recently discussed the term limit case. >> it's term limit constitution? let's look at the text. can arkansas say that its members of congress can serve no more than two terms or four terms or whatever. well, let's look at the text. the text says that you have to be a member of congress, you have to be 25 years old. you have to be as you said an american citizen and the citizen of the state from which you

come. it doesn't say those are the only qualification. so the question is, can arkansas add another one. you haven't served two terms already. jefferson said one thing and madison said another. they said opposite things. pretty typical. well, let's look at the consequences, purposes. let's look at history to see could you add qualifications? all right. do they have property qualification? can't you add some qualification such you can't be a lunatic? clearly not. it's pretty evenly balanced and in my mind if you read the

opinion -- we said they couldn't add. ultimately i think it came down to the tenth amendment reserves powers of the state. what powers and how strongly should that be interpreted? if these are state officials, member of congress is state official elected by the state -- well wait, he's a federal official. should we have federal officials with different qualifications? well, he's a state official. to what extent, how much weight you put on that tenth amendment and how do you see the interaction. there's no real answer to a lot of these questions. host: stephen breyer talking about term limits for members of congress. let's take a look at the grade chart for national journal. the longest serving member of the house of representatives, you can see the break down of which party served the most

terms. when considering representatives at least this their second term the distribution in the party is wash. the balance is heavily republicans when considering representatives first electioned in 2010. again, that chart from national journal. let's go do you to burlington, north carolina, democrat. caller: i'm a first time caller. i'm a long time viewer of this program. i was listening to term limits. it doesn't matter. they should get rid of this constitution. it was written a long time ago. i would say change the districts. everybody got safe districts.

everybody vote in that state whatever they're in for that senator or whatever. they can't have safe districts no more. thank you very much. host: john is on the line for the democrat in virginia. caller: i just want to say that, i think term limits is not the issue. if i have a chuck schumer as a senator and you send someone like ted cruz, you know something can be done. they should know who they are sending. i'm as an immigrant came here in 1980. i saw senators arguing about issues. at the end of the day they go lunch together and they solve the problem. the problem we have we are electing people who not qualified to be a congressman nor senate. that's the problem we have unless we make sure that people we elect there are

accountability. we send you to work our problem. we not send you arguing about military issues. we are the problem. it's not the congress. we are the divided unless we agree with everything, we cannot solve our problem. host: many have pointed to congressional approval ratings is one reason why. gallup took a look at this and found that congress's job approval started 2014 to 13%. now that is down to historical average of 13%. gallup has been tracking congressional job approval since 1974. things certainly not looking rosy. next up chuck in california on our line for republicans. should congress members have

term limits? caller: yes definitely term limits. i'm calling from california. we got term limits in place for state. the state assembly and senate. it's been extremely popular. there have been a couple propositions that have been proposed by politicians who are in our district who want to continue to be in office and went around the term limits and put that on the ballot. electric has rejected it. electric will hype term limits. the sense of getting fresh people with fresh ideas who are not necessarily beholden to special interests or just having long term connections. instead just being fresh from

their own district and so on. i think the public like it is at least in california. host: let's take a look at our comments coming in on facebook and twitter. you can reach out to us on f acebook.com/c-span. first on facebook, christopher writes, considering the way 98% of them bought out by special interests, yes, this wasn't supposed to be a career. it was supposed to be bob up the street representing his district for a little while. it wasn't supposed to be a gerrymandered disturb bag representing the people like we have today. kenny writes, yes know should have term limits with no retirement and the people should be able to vote for supreme court judges also. those comments coming from facebook this morning. turning now to twitter, joe lewis writes, congress should not only have term limits, their

pay should be merit based. jan writes, we already have term limits, they are called elections. problem is people don't bother to vote. our next caller is in london, kentucky -- sorry, we have lost you. the next call comes from washington, d.c. for the democrats. caller: good morning. i don't believe we should have term limits. we already have term limits because we have elections. what we need to do is vote in people who have the interest of this country. as far as the special interests are concerned we can control that. we need to call them by name.

all of this about term limits, we need to find out and we need to keep control of what is going on in congress. this is where the power lies. not in the person who we send out. people need to do is organize and organize and find them and call by name and put your finger where the problem lies. host: virginia on our line for independents. should there be term limits for members of congress? caller: i don't think term limits is the only thing we need to have. we need a lot more than that. one of the callers mentioned earlier, having a staff, we can have congress candidates -- if the congressman has a term limits he's done, what is his

next job going to be? is he going to be a lobbyist? there has to be an order that we can take into account all the options so you took you left the congress and became a lobbyist and kind of influencing that way. term limits are eight years. if we have something similar for congress, maybe six terms or something like that. just that term limits is not going to cut it. the influences that the lobbyist have in washington, it does not matter if you're there for two years, it is not decided by you alone. that needs to be choked first

before we can have a clean system that works for the people. host: matt is on the line for republicans in pontiac, michigan. caller: the issue is not term limits. the problem is to abolish the fourth branch of the u.s. government and that's the u.s. senior executives. you have 12 branches and s.e.s. that was formed in 1979. that over writes all three. if you put term limits on members of congress, how would

you pick the speaker of the house or minority leader or majority leader? if the problem is the corruption in the state, gerrymandering -- somebody previously mentioned. the problem is not term limits. it's the u.s. senior executive service and that's the fourth branch u.s. government. unfortunately, it over rides all three branches. host: let's take a look now to a story that is setting the agenda on capitol hill. on page this morning's washington post. clock ticking on gop debt deal. house republicans returned to washington monday still struggling to find a path to raising the treasury

department's borrowing authority. but the caucus is in unusual agreement that the best option is to put the white knuckle confrontation of recent fiscal wars behind them. some party leaders were advocating of debt ceiling solution of must pass items to extend the federal government's borrowing authority beyond the november midterm election. certainly optimistic outlook on the recent gridlock. let's go to mcallister, oklahoma a republican. caller: i'm calling to say that i believe congress should have term limits because there are people in there that have been there so long and they think they have such power that they can do anything. i think if there was term limits for congress, they know they

have only a short time to orc for the people which most of them don't. we have a great senator here in oklahoma that is retiring. one of the best senators ever, tom coburn. he believes there should be term limits for congress. thank you. host: let's take a look at twitter again. you can reach out @c-span wj. term limits would prevent politicians from amassing huge amounts of personal wealth and that of their corporate crony lobbyist. peg writes, without historical knowledge the same mistakes will be made over and over like the government shutdown. one more from twitter this morning, ken writes, you can talk about term limits all day but only congress can change the law and they won't do it. niece to talk about it.

bonny is on the line from middletown, new jersey for democrats this morning. caller: good morning. term limits are a moot issue. lobbyist are powerless now because now there's the ability through citizens united if that's not amended, we're going to deal with the corporations writing our laws as they have in the states like wisconsin, koch brothers and alec and think tanks controlling our media and the information we receive and congress will be as feckless as it is now. the do nothings are being controlled by the beg money. if we don't get money out, then the problem never goes away. corporations are not people. they are legal entities. we grant them that legal status. they get a whole lot of privileges being corporations

that the working guy doesn't get. host: from georgia, steve is on the line for the democrats. caller: most all of my comments have already been stated. i'll state it anyway. it's a moot point like the lady said. politicians typically would not vote themselves out of existence. it's a tea bag wet dream just like impeaching president obama. host: let's take a look at how it breaks down. the longest serving member, senator robert byrd democrat of west virginia. 51 years in the senate. there's a pretty good break down by party line if you're watching. third is senator thurmond, fourth is south carolina republican 47 years.

this shows you can spend quite a bit of time in the house and senate. one of the things that supporters having term limits of congress has pointed out. our next call comes from bel-nor, new york richard on the line for independents. what do you think? caller: term limits, no problem with term limits. they should be two terms. you must sit out one term and then the following term you can stay forever. if you sit out that one term, you must take a job with the private sector to keep you in touch with the american people. i can say more but that's enough for now. host: virginia, halle on our line for independents. caller: my comment is essentially, that i believe term limits was set to reduce concentration of power. i think that's one of the

problems we're seeing right now in the congress due to the fact that while we have some congressmen staying longer to concentrate on power. because of that, they no longer represent. they don't feel like they have to represent the people anymore. i feel we should have term limits. host: one of our callers earlier made the point, having these term limits in place will be harder elect majority leader or elect a speaker of the house. what do you say to that? caller: like anything else, the people that joins the congress, they have to have -- i'm sure they do have some sort of training to let them know how the congress function. when you look at some of the big companies out there, one day new ceos, they don't have to have someone in the company for 25 years to be able to run the

company. they just rely on the experience that the person has in order to steer the company in the right direction. that probably will be the case for some of the leadership position in the congress. host: all right. let's take another look at the headlines "new york times," chasing gop tries to foil insurgents in primaries. one of the biggest challenges for republican leaders and the 2014 midterm elections will be how to hang on to the tea party support that has been so instrumental to the party's growth while winning back voters alienated by hard right candidates. that headline from jeremy peters and the "new york times." next call is from alabama, sheila is on the line for

democrats. caller: i think they should have a term limit. also i think that, you was talking about their approval ratings for the congress and the president. i think that what happened, the president has done everything that he supposed to do but it's the congress that hasn't done anything and that's what makes people not like the president or pull his ratings down. congress, they hadn't done nothing. the people can sit around and listen to the other people, fox news and all the other radio talk show hosts and let a republican get in office and they would not have nothing because all they do is take, take, take. host: how long do you think the term limits should be? caller: maybe like four years.

at least four. host: what makes you say that? caller: they're not doing anything. for a person just to sit around and do something and do nothing just every term, do nothing. i don't think so. host: all right. if you want to join our conversation this morning, number for reps rep -- republicans 202-585-3881, for democrats 202-585-3880 for independents 202-585-3882. our topic this morning, should there be term limits for members of congress? in mobile, alabama dan is on the line for democrats. caller: thank you. what's happening term limits don't matter that much. people in their gerrymandered drex, they are still voting for these people. people in this country need to get a better understanding what

these politicians are doing out here. they're letting money influence their opinions and everything. all you need to do is get more wiser people in. that will be your term limits. if people was smart enough to understand who they are voting for and quit voting for all of these malicious politicians running for office in this country. thank you. host: let's go to madison, wisconsin where laura is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i believe this should be term limits. there should be some discussion about the length of those terms. for instance, two, four, six. representatives being two senators being four and the president being six. i think there was a problem with reelecting a president. too much of a president's first four year term is conditioned

preparing him for the second term. just cut out the second term. as for the length of the terms, i don't really know. that's up for discussion. let's say eight years for a representative and a senator. as far as management is concerned, maybe you'll have to have extended terms for a management group. thank you very much. host: have a look at the longest serving members in the senate. let's look at the longest serving members in the house of representatives. longest tenure is 57 years, that is representative john dingell followed by jamie whiten democrat of mississippi. followed by carl vinson. next call comes from new york. we got james calling in.

caller: i want to talk about the concepts of having term limits for congress. do you know it's going to take institutional knowledge that our congressmen have now that's been in office for centuries. that institution needs to be rolled over if they want to continue serving public, they can go through the same process that all state and federal employees do. once you impose the term limits, they'll still be able to retain that institutional knowledge. that is a critical piece not to allow the institutional knowledge to go away. their occupation, we had politicians become career

politicians. that's the only reason they're in existence. that is not the way it supposed to be. you supposed to serve and sacrifice for your country however years it is. come back to your occupation and come back to your family and community and learn what you learned on capitol hill and bring that back to your local community. we're losing that. that is more of a problem than the folks losing the institutional knowledge on capitol hill. take the institutional knowledge, bring it back to the communities, bring it back to local government and having that knowledge down to the lowest level. host: brushback against proposals such as well for members of congress. american banker had a piece out. they write the framers did not include rotation in office in the constitution. because they believe the people should be the judges of legislative qualification. the u.s. supreme court ruled 5-4

that offset the amendment is to the constitution. congressional term limits would be unconstitutional. negotiation of congressional term limits is overwhelming opposed by the american ruling class especially representative and senators. that again from the american thinker. next caller this morning on our topic term limits to members of congress is jerry. he's in berg, virginia on our line for republicans. caller: i'm opposed to term limits. it's not there in the constitution. quite frankly it will be incumbent upon the powers of legislation. the fact of the matter is, what you need is an informed electorate who will decide who will go and represent them and who should not. that's in the problem that we have is that the electorate is uninformed and has been open to persuasion from a growing

political class. the real question here is whether the electorate will step up and fulfill their responsibilities as we the people rather than just how hereditary families to represent them within the congress. whether it be the house or the senate. host: next up, theresa in virginia p, shows on our line for republicans this morning. caller: now i'm totally republican. i think it should become limits not just for congress but for senate and for everyone else because there's so much of a power play. just like voting for healthcare just to see what's in it. that's not representing the people. you do what's best for the people not what's best for the party and what party you're a part of. i think that we need to take back our country and take back our government and let them

serve us. not us serve them. host: want to read more from that piece from the american thinkers. they're pointing out the flaws and legislation that will impose members of congress. restricting how long congress members can serve. we grant more power to congressional staff in government bureaucrats. these will be the people will the experience whom fresh legislators most likely to depend. do we want to do anything to enhance faceless bureaucrats power and by virtue of civil service statute untouchable. we're going to go to north carolina next, claudia is on the line for democrat. caller: how are you this morning? i'm fine thank you.

i just wanted to say that yes i do think they need a term because if they can have the president have two terms, then why not congress? host: how long do you think they should serve? caller: no more than eight years. host: what makes you say that? caller: like i said, large companies, they're dictating to the republicans what they want. therefore, the democrats have very little choice of trying to make any decisions to help the people, not themselves. therefore, i think instead of the majority leader having this long term, if the president can only do two terms why not he. there are people in congress that have as much responsibility and know what's going on as the majority leader if he stays there 15 or 20 years.

host: headline this morning in the washington times. distance themselves from obama 2016 democrat will move to the left. the 2016 presidential field is likely to run to the left of president obama. partly because candidate will try to distance themselves from his political baggage while jockeying for increase voters. progressive candidates say it's too early to tell what kind of standing mr. obama will have have voters and whether he will be seen as damage goods the way president bush was for republicans in 2008. over what see as mr. obama's concessions to republicans. that from ben wolfgang in the washington times. next from florida is independents. caller: good morning. yes, i would say term limits,

yes. the time has to be right because it comes from a democrat or a republican, -- if it's not coming from the grassroot people. i got a problem. its common sense. host: another headline for you this morning. this one coming from the washington post. healthcare.gov firm has a series of troubles to fix the website is a faith corporate record but has a record that includes troubled projects. a review of the consulting giant history shows, federal issues have criticized the company's

integrity. accenture have demonstrated in absence of business ethics. said the agency should consider terminating the firm in more than $200 million in contracts. next up is donovan in louisiana on our line for independents. caller: i like to sum up what i'm going to say in these short words. basically, in article one section two of the constitution, it says that the house of representatives basically has a few minimum requirements like 25 years old to be a congressman. it establishes that the people themselves would elect the members for two years each. and that the members are divided among the states proportionately or according to size giving more popular states more

representatives in the house. and the leader of the house is a speaker chosen by the members. basically, there is no part in the constitution in that article and section that gives us any justification for term limits. what we should do, in my opinion, is just be silent where the constitution is silent. we need to elect congressmen responsible to fulfill their constitutional duty. host: go now to frankfurt, kentucky, james is on the line for republicans. caller: am i on? host: you're on "washington journal" good morning? caller: how are you? host: i'm pretty good.

the question is whether or not members of congress should have term limits. what do you think? caller: they definitely should have term limits because when they try to change anything, they can't change nothing. they are set in their ways and the young men sit back and listen and they'll push him aside and he can't do anything. they need four years and be out because i'm 80 years old, i think we need new people that knows what's going on out there. another thing, the first time they catch him telling a lie, he should be out of office then. if you get up and tell a lie in person -- if you will lie, you'll steal. that's just my comment and i have one more comment. i don't see why the american

people, like wal-mart, let's washington tell them what to do. they should stand up and we'll do what the hell we want to and you get out of it and let's see if you can stop me. host: take a look out in economics headline. outlooks rosy after a start. u.s. economy is headed for stronger growth in 2014. that will chip away at the unemployment rate. top economiest predict in a largely optimistic u.s.a. quarterly survey, jobless benefits dipped to a five year low will fall to 6.3% by the year end. the median forecast shows job gains which averaged 194,000 a month last year will reach a monthly average of $200,000 this year. that's good economic news in that survey. vancouver, washington maurice is on the line for democrats.

we're on "washington journal" talking about term limits. caller: to be honest with you, i'm against term limits as i really think about it. what i am for is actually limits on journalists. in my mind, i think no matter what term a politician is in office, if you don't have journalist or people who report the news, holding politicians accountable for their action, it doesn't matter how much time they're in office. i think there needs to be more integrity in journalism instead of having people reading from scripts behind desks. until that happens, politicians will get away with anything they want no matter what their term limit is. that's all i have to say. host: let's go down to east st. louis, illinois, harold is on our line for independents.

caller: good morning. i think it's something -- the system is too corrupt. they are not going to voluntarily cut themselves out of power. there's nothing too much that the ordinary citizen can do anymore. there's something wrong with a person who runs for congress and spends millions of dollars to get $100,000 a year job. they have too many perks. what we should do is just remove all of them from office. we're not going to do anything like that. we should have -- next election, any incumbent has to go. then we should have like jury duty where an obligation for every citizen to serve in the congress and get all of these lawyers, slick talking lawyers and real estate guys who's grabbing for money and power. get them out of there.

host: let's take couple more comments from twitter. we have west, the average american tweets, terms should be limited to one at a time and exclusive campaigning for office is a full time job. another tweet, the founding fathers never envisioned that politics should become a career. now we will go to new jersey, carol is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. when you have to collect millions and millions of dollars in order to be elected to office, when you have to purchase media time, you can't help but be supported by people who very private interests in

the political process. you wind up with a corporate government such as we have now. we have the best government money can buy and it will not change until we get the lobbyists and the big money out of the political process. thank you. host: last call for this segment. we're going to take a break. when we come back, we will be joined by susan ferrechio. she's a reporter from the washington examiner. later same baker of national journal will join us to talk about the medicare advantage program and the affordable care act. we'll be right back.

>> i think it's all an evolutionary process. you grow into this role. my sense is that, you never get comfortable if you're always pushing for change and growth not just in yourself but in the issues that you care about. you're never done. it's always changing. >> first lady michelle obama tonight at 9:00 eastern live on c-span and c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c-span.com. >> i have often said when i am traveling on amtrak, that i run not walk to the quiet car.

what i believe will provide for consumers. it already has on some airlines is more opportunity for data rich engagement. it will open up the mark for more competitors to provide options so it will be over the long term less expensive for those engaged. when you look at the international ecosystem when it comes to this, i have been told about those in the business that 90% of the engagement is in data only. so very small part of it is conversation. what is also great about this is up to the carriers and airlines whether to admit that type of conversation. >> commissioner clyburn tonight on the communicators on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. our guest is susan ferrechio.

she's the chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner. thank you for being here. walk us through. what are the major story lines running on capitol hill this week? guest: everyone is going to be talking about the debt limit. the treasury secretary said he needs the debt limit to be raised by the end of february. otherwise he will run out of ways to fund the government. our borrowing limit is now at $17.2 trillion and that's going to need to be raised he said by the end of february. congress is in this week. the senate is in all week. the house is in until wednesday because the democrats have their annual issues retreat so they'll adjourn on wednesday. that's just three days. there's no deal yet. we're going to be all paying very close attention to how republicans because they run the house. not the democrats and they need to come up with a plan to agree amongst themselves on how to raise the debt ceiling and then take up legislation on that.

once they pass it out of the house, the senate will need to decide whether they agree with that or not, it's by the democrats. you will have a tricky negotiation there. after that, the president can sign it. so the debt limit is the big issue on capitol hill this week. it's not expected that the house will come up with a solution by the end of this week. that leaves them with very little time because they're not going to be in session again until february 25th which is just two days before that deadline. the dominating story line in congress will be the debt ceiling. there are other issues as well. there are other legislations going on in the house and senate including a bill in the senate to stop a planned cut to cost a living adjustment for military retirees. there's been a lot of protest over that. it was something agreed to by the bipartisan budget deal passed earlier this year. most legislators want to get rid of it somehow.

the democrats and senate have come up with their own plan. they want to take it up today at around 5:30 with a test vote to see if they can get the 60 votes needed to begin debate on this. it will restore the proposed cuts but it does not include a way to offset it in the budget. so it would add to the deficit. that means it's less likely that republicans will support it. so we're not expecting that to pass. host: on the topic of debt limit. you talked about a short week. what are you hearing from house republicans? there are some republicans in congress, no matter what they are not interested on voting on raising the debt limit. guest: they believe raising the debt limit will hurt the economy in the long run because we're borrowing and borrowing. eventually that will take up a lot of our growth, just having to pea the -- pay the bills all the time.

there's another group who say if we're going to raise the debt limit, there needs to be equal cuts in the budget. that doesn't look like it's happening now. democrats feel like they have the upper hand on this. they don't want a strings attached debt limit increase. i actually think what we're going to end up seeing is a bill that passes in the house with democratic and republican support and the people you'll see on that are republicans who don't want threaten a government shutdown and democrats who would like to pass a debt limit increase without any so called strings attached. i think it's headed more in that direction right now because let's think back to october when the republicans really took a hard line on spending and we ended up with a government shutdown. their numbers really plummeted in the polls. they are very much aware of the public eye being on them in this situation and taking the blame for even a threat of a

government shutdown. that gives democrats a little more leverage in this deal making. which you may end up seeing potentially a no strings attached or clean debt limit increase pass bipartisan in the house with democrats and republican support. it may end up being a last minute thing that happens on february 25th when they get back. it's possible that they'll do something this week, some folks in the leadership tell me it's not likely they'll do something this week. but it's looking more like potentially a clean debt limit increase. host: our guest is susan ferrechio of the washington. er. you leak to join our conversation this morning, republicans the number is 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880, and independents 202-585-3882. susan you mentioned that bill from the military retirees.

explain to us what we likely to see on the senate? guest: this is a bill sponsored by mark pryor. he's a senator from arkansas. this bill would essentially restore those cuts at a cost of about $6 billion. if the cuts were not restored, the cola or cost of living adjustment reductions would amount to about 1%. i've seen some estimates that, if you were the rank of captain, that could cost you $80,000. this bill will restore that money. but again it doesn't include a way to pay for it. it will add to the country's deficit. taking out parts of the budget, cuts elsewhere or some other way to raise money to pay for that. the problem with that, in the senate, we have the dynamic of 55 democratically controlled

votes and 45 republican controlled votes. you need 60 votes to clear this test vote or cloture. it's looking less likely that you'll see enough republicans join democrats are reach that 60 vote threshold and the reason is that they want to find some way to pay for this. there has been lots of ideas out there by republicans and democrats to pay for this legislation. this one includes no pay for as we call it. host: let's go to the phones. first call is from elizabeth from pennsylvania, harry is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have a question about the extension of the unimplement benefits. what -- unemployment benefits? what is the hold up? i know a lot of people who don't want to vote republicans because of this. is there going to be anymore talk about the extension of

benefits? guest: absolutely there will be. one problem with the extension of unemployment benefits is how to pay for them. the democrats who run the senate has taken up this legislation in various forms. the last one, as you just mentioned accurately was just a vote shy of reaching that critical 60 vote threshold. there are some other underlying factors in the that's slowing down legislation. that is seniority of very much in the weeds what's going on in congress. there's a little bit of a fight with democrats and republicans over how the floor on the senate is run. the republicans feel they're not given adequate opportunity to amend legislation to have their say on legislation. they're also angered over a recent move by the senate democrats to make all executives in judicial branch nominees by the president require only a

simple majority for passage and not the 60 votes. because of that republicans come far less cooperative. i think the unemployment benefits are an example of that. it's a cost of $6.4 billion. there are somewhere around 1.7 million people who are needing these unemployment benefits. this debate will continue. i can guarantee it. i think democrats will continue to bring it up. it's possible that it will reach a solution. the problem is also too in the house. it's got to be paid for in a certain way or republicans aren't going to go along with it. that's why we're seeing the gridlock here on that particular measure. host: next caller comes from elkin, maryland, carol is on the line for democrats. good morning carol, you're on " washington journal." caller: i was talking about the

extension of unemployment of how soon do you think they'll pay it? guest: great question. i know they're going to keep trying to pass it. it's hard to say, a lot of us aren't quite sure because of the various dynamics in the house and the senate, the need to pay for it a certain way. i think republicans want to pay for things one way, democrats want to pay for them another. then there are going over the amendment process. there are also republicans who believe that federal unemployment benefits have been extended for five years now and it's time to wind that program down. you're still eligible for state unemployment benefits. the federal benefits has been around for a long time. it cost tens of billions of dollars. some republicans think because the unemployment rate is developing, it's falling to 6.6%. now maybe the time to wrap it up. of course many people disagree

because the unemployment picture is not that rosy in the united states in particular people that have been out of work for a long time. the debate will continue. host: one of the issues that has been polarizing in congress is the issue of immigration reform. senator chuck schumer talked about his new proposal on the senate. let's listen to a clip from meet the press. >> let's enact the law this year and simply not actually start until 2017 after president obama's term is over. i think the wrap against him if he won't enforce the law is false. he's deported more people than any other president. you can actually have the law start in 2017 without doing much violence to it. you move the date back december 31, 2013 the deadline for people who can get

legalization and citizenship. it would solve the problem. make no mistake about it david, this view that we can get this done in 2015, 2016 is false. you'll have the republican presidential primary, pull people over to the right. it's so simple. let's say to our republican colleagues, you don't trust obama, enact the law now but put into effect in 2017. host: susan your take? guest: well, i think schumer is probably accurate in saying that the presidential election year is not the best time to take up immigration reform. this become so political even more so this year. this idea of waiting i think is an interesting one. one of the republican arguments against immigration reform is the fear that president will not enforce border security. again, that potentially put that

issue to the side. the larger problem with that, republicans are wary of negotiating with president obama which will be necessary to pass a bill now. part of that reason is you might recall his state of the union address and prior remarks where he talked about taking bold action this year with or without congress and relying on his phone and his pen. republicans have watched him do that and watch hid make moves that sidestepped their concerns. we're talking epa regulations and who is deported and who is not. other issues as well where he has used the executive action to go around them. they're wary negotiating with him on legislations for those reasons. that doesn't -- schumer's plan doesn't address the negotiation

process. the second issue is that republicans are less likely to take up immigration right now because it divides their own party. if you're dividing your party in an election year, the focus will be on the divided republicans. ...

as you take a by district by district and is hard to get them to sign on to it. the national leadership but like it done. you start getting a pushback from the republican base where there is no real strong support for immigration reform. not what you call a pathway to citizenship. host: tennessee sum that up for the well? guest: the republicans took their annual retreat in cambridge, maryland. reporters are not allowed to listen to the conversation.

we rely on reports from lawmakers. when the immigration reform or postals and ideas were being be dividedthey could into three groups. there was a group that didn't want any reform. they want to leave immigration alone. another group thanks immigration reform is a good idea but now is not a great time to do it. minority,oup, the said let's do it now. saying now is2/3 not the time to do this. that leaves the leadership in a tough spot. they are getting a lot of and big from congress business groups who think now is the time to do immigration

reform. they were putting pressure on republicans. john boehner has said he wants to start moving on immigration and he would try to move bills independently on border security, guestworker agricultural programs. he is running up against opposition from his own conference. the majority is saying let's not do this now. republicans cannot go anywhere when they have 2/3 of their conference saying no. feeding the distrust that already exist between house republicans and congress. spelled ala has temporary halt to the immigration reform. i think this will resurface and republicans will be behind it at

some point. right now it will be dormant. host: cindy in pennsylvania. you are on "washington journal." caller: yes. hello. i would like to see this unemployment come to an end -- not come to an end. i have lost benefits. i do work but i get partial benefits. job that in to do a 16-year-old kids do and i am 50 years old. it is hard when you have a lot of hours and your hours are down to the bare minimum like 10, 15 hours compared to 30 hours. i need the extension.

needready to lose -- i this extension. guest: democrats are making known that there are people who really are suffering and need federal unemployment benefits to pay their mortgage and rent and buy groceries. the economy is not healthy enough to support everybody. people are being forced into part-time work. their wages are not growing. this is all the reality of the economy. that is why this will continue. one move the democrats are making is to highlight income inequality. they are talking minimum wage increase.

there will be a hearing this week where lawmakers will examine the idea of calling for an increase in the minimum wage up to $10.10 an hour. increase over 40% the minimum wage right now. this is a big part of the discussion, how to get people's wages higher and that will include more discussions about revising the unemployment onefits, which expired december 28. the number of those who need them is growing the cause more people are running through their state benefits. i think the debate is going to continue on capitol hill. ist: next caller in ohio rick. about: i think the facts

congress is more people trust the terrorists than the trust congress. controls population 75% of the wealth. 3%, 5% of the wealth when i was growing up. it is the democrats and the republicans. you are put on your tv, being brainwashed. what you're seeing today on c-span, this lady is talking about unemployment benefits and to raise the minimum wage. are responsible for trade policy and tax policy. there is a great book that everybody must read called "taking back the rust belt one

radio station at a time." politician, king and schumer -- these are east coast democrats. my point is, we still have a community radio environment before deregulation. thatn on my radio station, information is being manipulated through the east coast, the jews , and the sounds with clear channel and time warner. guest: we have an increasingly all arise congress and an increasingly polarized country. we have had these swing elections where one year we are electing people who are further to the left and another year

electing people much further to the right. where alt is a congress philosophical gap has grown so much. very little gets done in the way of big compromise. think back to the 1980's where there was a big deal between house democrats and one old reagan. bill clinton, welfare reform, working with republicans in the house. you don't see those big deals happening anymore. there is a real polarization. inple are really divided this country on the way forward. there is a lot of anger about the way things are getting done. rich are getting richer. they gap between the classes is a big one. it has caused a lot of anger

amongst people who are struggling. wages have not been going up. they have been stagnant. the president has used executive action and call for an increase in the minimum wage for federal contractors. he has control over that. that could be an echo effect into the private sector. you might see more private companies raising the minimum wage as well. janet yellen will be on capitol hill on tuesday and wednesday to report to congress. what are we expecting to hear from her? yellen waschoice of in part because of the flexibility on the taper. the quantitative easing is,

easing down where we print extra money to keep the government healthier. we're supposed to be tapering that off, depending on how the economy goes. i expect the taper to continue but the interest rates, she is not going to raise interest rates. i think those will stay low. we have slow economic growth. sort of stay the course for right now. there haven't been big enough improvements in the economy to suggest she would make a major change. she is very new but has been vice chairman. she is one of the most experienced people we have had on the job. it will be exciting to hear her speak to congress. host: she will be speaking on

tuesday. the senate committee on wednesday. you can find those hearings on c-span. robert is on our line for republicans. make two would like to comments. i have been republican for 60 years. i cannot understand how the republicans can turn their back on almost 2 million american people and their families. everybody wants to look for work. they are not doing anything for us. they should say, how can i do this to the american people, my own people? are they kidding? political differences between the democrats and republicans? it is ridiculous. why don't they straighten up and fly right instead of this

nonsense? ll, is how to create jobs so that people do not require federal employment benefits, because they eventually run out. if we keep the economy healthy by not putting money into these big programs, that that will create more jobs so people can work instead of rely on the government. where the parties have not been able to agree. increase would like to jobs through stimulus spending that would increase infrastructure, work, education, public sector employment, where the federal government can have some and troll over employment. republicans are more focused on private sector growth through

lowering taxes for companies, making it easier for small companies to expand by removing onerous regulations. republicans would like to see sectorin our energy where there is a lot of promising developments, including the keystone pipeline approved by the president. they believe that is a job creator and it would run through the united states and canada. the president has not approved that project. republicans believe it is stalling because of the democrats. republicans are not going to approve more stimulus spending. it has come down through congress and they believe it has not helped the economy. you have besides not getting anywhere on that front.

gridlock and you can hear the frustration invoices of people unable to find work. host: we have a question from twitter, monty. guest: a lot of democrats would like to see that happen. a lot of leading democrats. senator schumer is a member of the democratic leadership in the senate. the situation is this. ansides are negotiating, ir and the united states. if sanctions are approved, it ability tor iran's complete these negotiations for larger, the nuclear arms situation in iran. the president is behind the

steel. he doesn't want iran sanctions to move through congress. he thinks it would cause a deal to implode. the democratic majority leader in the senate, harry reid, he is trying to keep a lid on that. he has a lot of members who would like to move on those sanctions. the house has taken them up and pass them. you are likely to see an alliance in the senate. i do not think we will see sanctions move at this time. i think they will wait until the period.he negotiating that is not what a lot of democrats want. they would like to but something in place now that

would warn the irradiance, sanctions against them. i do not think that is going to happen. host: seana on our line for independents. force. united states air nebraska regional group. 1 [video clip] % cuts. they just went through 20 years. a term limit 18 and most of us retire around 44, 45 years old. this should never have happened. 1.5.years cola was %hey would only have gotten .5 cost-of-living allowance.

politicians find it easy to cut benefits because less and less of them in congress. they have never served their country in uniform. thank you. guest: i think you will see legislation this year that will restore those benefits. they are already partially forored -- fully restored disabled veterans. of signing white between the parties to move that provision. it is possible we will see in the upcoming debt limit deal. republicans are talking about a potential deal to restore the cuts to military cola increases c-fix.e dot-f doc-fix needs to be happen.

the law cuts the reimbursement rate unless congress does something about it. they may be part of a agreement. eventually we will see the pension benefits restored in some piece of legislation before they take effect. it is going to take some time to figure out what vehicle to move it through congress. who is on the other side of this? we should not and come up with some kind of a fix? guest: there are members who cuts,if they restore the there should be a way to pay for them. a variety of ideas have come up, closing tax loopholes, raising money elsewhere in the budget to pay for it. there are not that many people who say the pensions should be

cut. some people think it is ok to help the government pare down it spending. it is a tough issue for lawmakers. no lawmaker wants to support cutting benefits for our military, particularly when these men and women have served multiple tours. this is not a great time to be on the side of cutting benefits. that is one thing that will propel this through, even though it is caught up right now in partisan gridlock. host: kathleen in chicago. caller: good morning. i keep hearing this lady say of thisans are wary president. i didn't think she american people were paying the

republicans to be weary of this president. you say theg, republicans want everything paid for. shut thehe republicans government down for $24 billion? how was that pay for? on the backs of the unemployed. how other republicans going to pay for the 16 day shutdown? places like c-span and the other people would have been concentrating on the republicans like they have been concentrating on this president. every time the president says no -- this country would be in good shape. you need to put the spotlight on the republicans. this president is going to be

all right. host: the unemployment benefits -- guest: the unemployment benefits are on the horizon. as for executive action, other presidents have used executive action more than president obama. republicans feel the executive action has been more targeted to areas that they are opposed to, and that is part of the problem. epa regulations which will hurt coal plants. it will make energy more expensive for everybody. republicans fight against that type of executive action. they are on the side of americans, not just oppose to the president. good pointmade a

about the government shutdown. the shutdown cost the economy tends of billions of dollars to have people out of work and we had to pay back pay to federal workers that weren't working. they were making a point about the health-care law, wanting to delay it. some feel justified. the health-care law had so many problems. that is not a view the democrats have of the health-care law. the shutdown was not great for the economy. that is one reason that you will see republicans more willing to pass a clean debt limit increase. they do not want to end up in the same position with a shutdown. dakotaichard in north

for republicans. thank you forall taking my call. i see the country divided. the main problem is the large government we have controlling our monetary system. thomas jefferson once said when the government and big banks can get together, your democracy is over and we are starting to see that layout. the democrats think the president and the democratic party does them good the giving them handouts. what we need to do is let the free market run so that medium sized businesses can become large corporations. the over regulations and the over taxation is stopping medium-sized businesses from

becoming large corporations. we have the same group of greedy people it in charge of this country. we will never get away from it. that is why the democrats want the cheap labor immigrants here so that the middle class gets held down and we can i get paid $30 an hour to maintain a middle-class society. mexicans and other immigrants can take the money back home and cash it in for pesos. they buy their forms back home home.ir farms back i think you'll see some big changes in the very near future. guest: interesting. there is a bill call the small reform act.ty earth fo

it sounds noncontroversial. it will probably make it through the house. for small businesses to have larger trading increments. it is supposed to help the company grow. the loosening of the requirements for small companies. republicans in the house have been moving and agenda aimed at helping small businesses increase flexibility and the ability to hire, fewer taxes. looking for ways to give the small businesses a chance to grow. small this is make up a huge portion of employers in this country. then we can start getting these people off the unemployment rolls. weekill see a bill this

move on that. you will see more legislation this year that is aimed at loosening maybe adjusting regulations a little bit. there is a bill coming up this week that would require when to develop a new role and determine the impact on the financial institution, to make sure it will not do any serious damage first. those are bills republicans would think would help the economy and allow companies to hire more workers. host: last call from memphis, tennessee, henry. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

2010, earlye late 2011, the shutdown at the end of the bush tax cuts. the republicans were set against not increasing the tax credit, or the taxes for the wealthy. them a loweriving tax increase for that. we disregarded the actual income me as far asfected the middle class and a lot of other people. we ended up seeing are taxes increase. we looked at the recent government shutdown. we gave them their number for the spending budget or the spending limit. they still refused and wanted everything they could to try to cancel out the health care law.

recently we gave them the farm bill. is there areestion a lot of places we could cut and bring our men and women back from afghanistan. stop sending money to other countries. we could stop giving money to a lot of state spending or giving the states. amount wencrease the are giving to infrastructure, money we are putting into infrastructure. why don't we give up the bush tax cuts and get rid of that and start and obama system where we cut for the middle class and , a taxe for the wealthy increase for the wealthy? guest: your first reference was

to the tax deal a couple of years ago. the bush tax cuts were expended for 2/3 of the tax base. theblicans do not want taxes to increase for anyone. the top third of the tax bracket saw their taxes go up. not.ower 2/3 did if you were in the upper tax bracket, the highest income tax bracket, your attack its did go up. that is true. for most americans, those tax cuts were preserved. infrastructure spending, democrats would like to increase infrastructure spending because that would increase jobs and be good for our roads and bridges and schools. that is almost a democratic proposal to see the

infrastructure spending increased. republicans are opposed to that. it doesn't benefit the economy. as for raising taxes on the wealthy, that is something under debate and something you're likely to see come up again. when argument against that would be when you increase on certain brackets of taxpayers, that also affects many small businesses who do a lot of hiring, just because of the way they file their taxes. by increasing taxes for people in the upper echelon, you'll hurt the economy and decrease hiring, which is one of the number one problems in the country, getting people to work and to increase their hours and pay. that is part of the debate about

why republicans are against increasing taxes. they feel it stymies growth. , thank you ferrechio so much for being with us. up next, sam baker will join us to talk about the medicare advantage program and the .ffordable care act later we will take a look at the international space station. say an officials american citizen is actively planning attacks against americans overseas. the obama administration is wrestling with how to kill him with a drone strike. cia drones watching him cannot strike because he is a u.s.

citizen. panettaates and leon are backing an effort to get an honor awarded to members of the world were spy agency. have sent aies letter asking members of congress to pass the act, the highest civilian honor bestowed by congress. operations inying asia and europe during the second world war. it was led by general donovan who received the medal of honor for his heroics during world war i. marco rubio is addressing a growing opportunity gap between people with and without advanced educations. he is: for alternatives to four-year colleges and

income-based repayment for college loans. he says congress should establish an independent agency to assess free courses offered over the internet as a transferable credits. he senate meets they at 2:00 p.m. eastern and the house in at noon. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> i think it is all a process. you grow into this role. you never get comfortable if

you're always pushing for change and growth, not just in yourself. you are never done. there is never a time when you feel i can do this the same way all the time. it is always changing. obama,t lady michelle tonight on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. our guest for this segment is sam baker from medicare advantage program." thank you for being here. we are talking about the medicare advantage program. explain what that is. guest: medicare advantage program, a subset of medicare. instead of the traditional medicare program, these are private plans that you can buy.

they can have wraparound coverage in addition to the traditional benefits. they are reimbursed by the federal government. host: how is it affected by the affordable care act? guest: it cuts medicare advantage program rather significantly. one of the bigger cuts in the law. this is a program democrats have paying insurance companies more to provide the same service the government was already providing. and insurancear companies are afraid we will see additional cuts on top of the cuts in affordable care act. host: we have a chart. what does that mean for a person involved in this program? guest: to some extent we are

still figuring this out. sayrance companies will there's no way to make those cuts without us passing that on. they will have to exclude certain expensive doctors from their networks. the argument that insurers make is that every cut gets transferred over to seniors. host: our guest this our is sam baker medicare advantage program from. if you want to join the conversation, for republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. .ndependents, 202-585-3882 explain why these cuts are happening. inst: the cuts were included the affordable care act were included for two reasons.

people thought the program was overpaying and people needed savings. an administration is trying to expand coverage and pay for that expansion and trying to make cuts. insurers were able to turn their proposed pay cut into a pay increase. it is one of these administrative cuts that was going to be layered on top. that is why you are seeing it. it is a very lean time across the board. host: peter on our line for democrats. earlieri was calling an to raise taxes on this rich to get this country back going again. they are so far out. we had 137,000 billionaires last

year. you want to pay the debt down. medicare advantage should not have been in there. they took it away. it needs to be brought back and give medicare back up where it is supposed to be. $1000 up tog $50,000, i do not think they should be taxed. the poor people are paying all the taxes. if you raise the taxes on the rich -- we have to bring the cost down. they do not want to pay the tax. let's get this country back in shape. thank you. guest: you see this debate playing out in congress. do you raise taxes or do you

cut? wants to cut our entitlement programs like medicare. you'll probably see some balance between them. these were some of the cuts back during the presidential campaign. there was a to do over romney and ryan attacking president obama for some medicare cuts. that includes these medicare advantage cuts. ken is on our line for republicans. sam baker said the government is able to pay for it. i am 64 years old. i have been around.

70's andthe late 19 we have been paying this, not the government. the seniors have been forced back into below poverty levels stealing the money. stealing money from the social security trust fund. it has got to stop. stop saying it is an entitlement. we put into the funds themselves. for every dollar we put in, our employer matches that fund. there is twice as much money but they have never shown the other dollar for every dollar we put in. when you use the word "entitlement," it sounds like a welfare program. we have been working all of our lives. some baby boomers have died and

their money is absorbed into the system. i think it is time everybody starts investigating into what is theirs. very simple to do. simple math. i like to see where we belong and what is ours. it is pitiful one senior citizens have to eat dog food to make up the difference between their rent and their electric and since 2009 they did away with the cost of living thestment by taking out utility courses and the food costs. and to bring the cost of living adjustment down. these people worked all their lives. guest: the caller mentioned the

trust funds, which gives back to the inherent tension. nobody likes to take a pay cut. not any of the stakeholders in the health care system. because of some of the cuts in the affordable care act, the trustees have projected the length of the medicare trust fund, the program will be solvent for an additional 12 years. it is that trade-off. you want a program to last longer. host: i want to go to an ad that talks about medicare advantage. [video clip] >> medicare advantage makes our medical care affordable. >> i feel there's been enough damage already without cutting

more. advantage, idicare do not know what i would do. >> i am not sure. >> we will talk and spread the word. no work cuts to medicare advantage. vote. add being run an by the insurance agency for lawmakers to see. is wrapping up because it is time for the medicare program to set up payment rates for medicare advantage. these are the same ads that worked last year. a very similar ad campaign started running. lawmakers sent letters saying you have to

reconsider the form of to reconsider this cut. there is precedent for these working. florida on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am a nurse and a long-term care provider. , thef the best things medicare advantage program benefits the insurance companies and not necessarily the senior citizens. senior citizens need the long-term care and there is restraint with such limited amount of services that could be provided through the program. basically the medicare advantage program, the insurance providers profit, not necessarily the seniors, who need the assistance

and there care to maintain their daily living. they were going to eliminate that. we did very well prior to medicare advantage coming on the scene. they do give a certain amount of care. it is all about profit. i applaud the obama administration for trying to eliminate the medicare advantage program. thank you. guest: i think the obama administration would be happy but they are trying to roll it democrats haveof never been crazy about medicare advantage. that is a big heart of the reason you are seeing a lot of the cuts that are taking effect. thatther side of that is even on traditional medicare, seniors have a lot of

supplemental coverage to help pay for other benefits that the program does not cover. medicare advantage often includes those. sometimes you getting more coverage for that price. host: we have a question from twitter. program that has been staying affordable. medicare part d has been as well, the prescription drug coverage. you are not seeing these transferred to benefits for seniors just yet. this means you can absorb another cut before we start to hurt seniors. host: gail on our republican line this morning. caller: hi.

good morning. huge problems with the health care act that is taking place. i think basically the bottom is a kickoff to the insurance companies. physicians are not going to give the best treatment they possibly can to a patient knowing they will get reimbursed for that type of care. isrefore what we have done decreased the level of care to our elderly. we are sorry you cannot have this because we cannot afford it. and therefore is not covered on your insurance. the doctor will see where te is.robleml

backsdecrease our kick our health care is becoming more of a third world health care establishment. it is a huge concern. thank you. guest: this is something else the affordable care act tried to take steps in this direction and to change the way medicare pays doctors and other providers and to shift away you get paid if you're a doctor for each service you provide. if you do a test you get paid for that. i think that is what the caller is referring to. there is a shift to say this is not a good way to have payment structure set up. maybe it would make more sense to pay based on the health of the patient.

if you're patient comes in with a particular problem, rather than pay for the x-ray and the a lump sumll pay you to make that patient healthy. host: we hear doctors are being dropped from this program. guest: that is a step insurance companies are taking. they are pushing out providers and doctors who cost them more. absorb aay for them to payment cut on their end without directly cutting the benefits they offer to seniors. some doctors are suing to try to get back into medicare advantage networks. host: odd situation. steve is on the line for

democrats. caller: ok. can i ask my question? host: go right ahead. caller: yes, thank you. cutswondering when these take place. have they taken place already? guest: the cuts in the affordable care act are phased in over a number of years. what you are seeing insurance companies lobby on our possible cuts that could take effect soon for next year. this is the time of year when the medicare agency decides what it's payment rates are going to be. that is why you are seeing this flurry of activity now. host: next up is rendered in tallahassee on our line for republicans -- brenda.

caller: i am a senior citizen on medicare advantage. from the date one when obama got in, one of his first speeches was, i am going to get rid of medicare advantage. i will tell you why. it is a good deal for the people and for senior citizens. obama wants to make sure retirees have to work into their 80's. this provide smart income for all the welfare clients, ok? myay $130 a month from medicare advantage. on.ve had my heart owrkworked toas under chp prior medicare advantage. that was $97,000 worth of work

done on my heart. and then a year ago i was diagnosed with breast-cancer and that was under the medicare advantage. the medicare advantage, my treatment without insurance or $700 for the radiation. was the total amount that was due for me was $3200, which i paid, the out-of-pocket, that i was made to pay. reid and pelosi and harry would like to see all the senior citizens just work right up through their death so that we continue paying in through fica taxes for all the welfare clients to get free medicaid and free food stamps and free

housing and help on their electric bill. and this is where our obama stands. hearing the point that insurance companies are making these ads for people who have medicare advantage generally like it. is a pretty popular program. seniors rate the program pretty well. the point is that if you cut this program enough, those cuts will check of down to seniors. host: geraldine is on our line for democrats. caller: hi. host: hi, there. caller: hi. in about thein

affordable care act. i tried to apply for a couple of weeks ago. they tell me that i had to make at least $11,000 before i could apply for. wass one of those that affected by the unemployment shut down. i had worked for 36 years. i am 59 years old now. i've been out to look for a job but i cannot find one. i tried to get the food stamps and i was told i can only get $15 for a whole month. i just want to know, i have no income now. i just sit and wait to see if they are going to put our unemployment back. after working 36 years you would think i could get unemployment

at least for a year. thank you. guest: on the health care part of that, this is a real problem a lot of people are running into. because of the supreme court decision upholding the affordable care act, there is a big discrepancy among the states. you have some states expanding medicaid and then obama subsidies kick in on top of that. you have a gap of people who are being told they are too poor to qualify for subsidies. this is the argument in trying to persuade more governors to take up the affordable care act medicaid expansion. so far that argument has been somewhat successful. there was still a lot of work to

do. have had a lot of seniors: this morning. on overall impact of the aca seniors. guest: there are some reductions in medicare advantage. there are new benefits that were added. prescriptionhole, drug coverage is being closed. a new benefit for preventive care has been added. the lifespan of the program has been extended. right now and looks like a plus. there is an argument to be made that as you reduce these payments, fewer doctors will want to provide fewer services. host: johnny in georgia. about: i wanted to talk medicare advantage.

in my point of view, medicare advantage is another form of welfare. i am 79 years old. every senior citizen paid the same amount into the social security program and the medicare program. own medicarewho advantage, that is what they get, and advantage. they don't have to have a secondary. myself, i have to have it. i don't go around saying i like welfare. that is exactly what it is. the lady from jacksonville is getting welfare. the lady from north carolina is asking for welfare. that is the way it should explain it. it is welfare.

is an medicare entitlement program and intohing that seniors pay and the government also funds. it is a publicly funded insurance program. one of the arguments against medicare advantage, a lot of the critics feel it is costing too much for pretty much the same care. welfare for insurance companies in a sense. insurance companies would reject that assertion. medicare advantage does offer a lot of benefits that traditional medicare doesn't. part of a corridors, safety net designed to stabilize the insurance market.

walk us through your piece and what you found. flashpoint that has flared up over the affordable care act in the past couple of weeks. the risk corridors are there because affordable care act created new markets in each state. we think people will be about this old, about this healthy, all the different factors they take into account. risk corridors are there in case they guess wrong. if they are too conservative and end up with a much better than expected experience in real life, they pay into a fine. if the expense was much worse than expected, to take money out of that fund. part of the equation where they take money out of the fund, you

see several republicans, led by senator marco rubio from florida, calling this a bailout for insurance companies. risk is a move to repeal core doors come even though there was a similar program included in medicare prescription drug benefits and all sorts of previous forms of that the government has undertaken. they have unexpectedly become controversial. host: us take another one of your calls. -- let's take another one of your calls. was disabledsband prior to age 65. in indiana he could not take a medicare supplement. it wasn't available. we weren't eligible for medicaid. we can go on the affordable care act exchange -- we can't go on the verbal care act exchange. our only option is medicare advantage. pay ay a premium -- we premium for that plan. there was nothing else available. they were to do away with that,

i don't know where that leads us. as my comment -- that is my comment. host: you get spe guest: it get spectrum point -- a stepping back, traditional medicare doesn't cover everything. medicare advantage plans build supplemental coverage into the plan. host: a couple questions from twitter now. guest: that is a good question. the provision that the question is referring to is something that it doesn't directly cap insurance companies profits but it says that of the premiums you bring in, you have to spend 80% on medical care, and that leaves only 20% for administrative costs and profits. host: another question

guest: the actual dollar amount depends on a lot of things. in the past, their payment rate has been bashing various studies have put it between 107 and 117% of what we pay for traditional. ed isnext up in illinois, on the line for independents. caller: yes. my question is, if obama would've left medicare alone instead of taking the money out of medicare to get this obama care going, medicare would be in better shape. i had medicare and i have my supplement. medicarebeen put with and they have taken away my supplement. you tell me how the government

can stick their nose in and try to run our people out. we've got more sense than they've got. well, if the administration had left medicare alone, the medicare trust fund, which only funds part of the program, according to the program's trustees would have become insolvent in eight to 10 years sooner than it is scheduled to now. some of these cuts have expanded the life of the program. medicare is very expensive. it is a big chunk of the federal budget. you can spend less money now and make that money last longer or you can spend more money out but it won't last as long -- you can spend more money now but it won't last as long. that is clearly the trade-off lawmakers have to make. host: deborah is on our line for republicans. caller: hello? host: hi, deborah, you are on "washington journal" with sam baker. caller: how are you? host: we are all right.

caller: ok. my father -- i was adopted by .he grand parents, long story my father was on medicare for a very, very long time. he actually recently passed away. now, all is medical bills that never covered.e even though he said he was on medicare, they never covered any of those bills. i want to know if -- because my my mother can be on this medicare advantage plan deferments kind of or anything like that, because he was on medicaid. advantage, they sell different plans in different states and it would depend on your particular circumstances. these are privately administered plans that are sold as a

supplement to traditional medicare. host: we will go to new york next. della is on the line for democrats. caller: yes, let me make something clear. medicare is funded by the government. medicare advantage is funded by private insurance companies. medicare does not cover dental, does not cover eyewear, prescription eyeglasses. along comes the insurance companies like humana and others and they say "let us take care of it can give them money to us and we will cover the glasses and we will cover the dental." this is what is draining medicare. the medicare advantage programs -- you pay the money to places like humana and they are supposed to cover the dental and the i care. medicare was never meant to cover it. coverse part a and b

visits to the doctor and her hospitalization, but does not cover i care and does not cover dental. that is why i say to these people who are calling in and saying that they're medicare benefits were cut, they were cut if you have these private insurance companies who promised to cover what they were never meant to cover. guest: that's right, to the point that we have been making should medicare advantage, one of the selling points that it has is that it covers things that traditional medicare does not, including dental and vision. again, that is the point that insurance companies are making. you are hearing both sides in the calls. seniors like the program, the program covers additional things , and it is more expensive but people get more for it is the argument they're making. host: let's go back to twitter.

comment? , raising thedea age was something that was like that was looked at. pretty much of the table now. the congressional budget office says the savings from doing that and it isegligible unpopular enough that it is not worth the limited amount it would save politically. host: jerry in rochester, new york, on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. this discussion has been very interesting. i've been following medicare advantage -- i have been a medicare advantage number for about 10 years now, and i find it very, very cost-effective. , medicare question is always promotes a very low administered of right -- administrative rate, in the single digits.

i believe it is senator tom coburn who said that it doesn't cover all the waste, fraud, and abuse in regular medicare. medicare advantage is run by insurance companies, and they might have a higher administrative cost, let's say 15% versus five percent, for example. they probably have a rate closer to zero for waste, fraud, and abuse. this, ijust to finish live in rochester, new york. about two thirds of the seniors in rochester are covered by 2 very excellent medicare advantage plans run by "nopro nprofit insurance companies." i would like to hear your comment about the outcomes. are the outcomes better, and is it more cost effective than regular medicare? thank you. guest: right, so this goes back to the same debate that insurers have been happening with the

federal government. insurers say that we are providing more services, we are better able to present -- prevent waste, fraud, and b's instead of just going after it after we think it has happened. which is how medicare approaches things. the federal government says you are still providing any much the same service, although you've got a couple of additional things running. it is still basically medicare at its core. we are paying you more than the amount we spend on medicare. that questionof has been definitively answer. -- i don't think that that question has been definitively answer. host: matt in concorde, new hampshire, on our line for independents. caller: i really enjoyed the segment. i'm disabled. have been disabled during an industrial accident. i've been on disability for a long time. i'm currently 55. ever since i was disabled, in my mid-40's, i've had to take a , noium of an 84-year-old

matter what supplemental insurance i buy. number i was disabled, one, i take a lower percentage of social security on my monthly check. it reduces the amount i give because i'm disabled before retirement. secondly, every insurance i buy, as many types of supplemental. i have no deductibles, no copays. everything is paid with my type f and my medicare. i never get a bill. i'm happy with it. it would cost me a little more. but the one thing that most people lose and they lose this rapidly because they never see it -- anybody who receives social security, social security disability, supplemental discipline. -- supplemental disability, they receive that check from the government. they pay $108 a month, $140 a month out of the check for medicare. not only have we paid into it

our whole lives, we continue to pay for it. between my medicare payment, which i never see because they take it before i get my check, and my $300 a month premium for , so i have no deductibles and no co-pays, but the thing that everybody misses is that you hear these states and broad differences. the reason is that every state has an insurance commissioner, and those insurance commissioners are related and controlled by the state. this is why we will have trouble selling the insurance over state lines. i would just really like to hear more diversity in the plans that are available, and is one color callern, -- as one questioned, the efficiencies of all the different programs. of the one thing that nobody's ever answered -- because i'm

under 64 and i have a supplemental, why do i pay the rate of an 84-year-old? guest: well, there's a lot in that question and a couple of things. one, to the caller's point about state commissioners and state insurance markets, that is exactly right. that is something that the affordable care act attempts to get act. you build a new insurance exchange, and this is for state. insurance in each the law attempts to create increased domination by bringing in more insurance companies and more plants and therefore more choices into each state. at the same time, it prohibits insurance companies from charging people more or denying them coverage because of the pre-existing condition they might have had, whatever it is. injury, that sort of

thing. it has in the past always driven up your insurance premiums, and that is illegal now. host: we have been joined by "national journal's" sam baker. thank you so much for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will look at the international space station. first, an update from c-span radio. >> as talks resume in geneva on trying to find a way to end the extremistn syria, islamic rebels overran a village in central syria today, killing at least 40 people. on theort on the attack village came as the syrian red crescent was trying to get a cease-fire in the city of homs extended so that he could deliver more aid and evacuate more people from the area. back here in the united states, michelle obama says that a pledge by the construction industry to hire 100,000 therans by 2019 isn't only right thing to do, it is a smart thing for business. some 100 companies and associations are announcing their veterans hiring

commitments today. the initiative joining forces is a nationwide effort launched in 2011 by mrs. obama and the vice president's wife to rally the nation around military veterans. labor secretary thomas perez says the announcements are seeing it again because it is the first time an entire innospec are significant because it is the first time an entire industry has pledged to hire veterans. president obama and french president francois hollande called for a binding agreement on carbon emissions today and urged the world to get on board get in a cowritten op-ed published jointly in "the washington post" and "le monde," the 2 pledge to reduce carbon emissions and move us towards low carbon growth. both leaders deliver remarks today at monticello, the home of thomas jefferson, who, by the way, was the second american

ambassador to france, serving from 18751889. -- from 1875 to 1889. it is meant to underscore france as the oldest u.s. ally. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i had often said that when , i run,eling on amtrak not walk, to the quiet car. it this, i believe, and know, will provide for consumers, and it already has on some airlines, is more opportunity for data-rich engagement. it will open up the market for more competitors to provide options and hopefully over the long term less expensive for those to engage. when you look at the international ecosystem when it comes to this, i've been told by those in the business that 90% of the engagement is data-only. a very small part of the

conversation. what is also great o about this is that it is up to the carriers and airlines. mignon ommissioner clyburn tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: in this week's "your money" segment we look at the international space station. joining us from the johnson space center in houston to talk about it is mike suffredini, program manager for the station. thanks so much for joining us. guest: it is my pleasure, juana. host: the president recently announced that it would be extended through 2024. walk me through why that is necessary and important. thet: well, juana, international space station, as

you mentioned, has been in orbit for some time. we celebrated our 50th anniversary last november. lastth anniversary november. in 2000 and we began entered is to focus on utilization as the construction was winding down -- in 2009 we began in earnest to --us on construction as focus on utilization as construction was winding down. importantly, the commercialization of low earth orbit. as we start to look forward, we are looking for companies to make investments in space, to see whatt they can to would be profitable in the world orbit. one of the big reasons to extend is to allow the companies to iss is going to be in orbit for at least 10 more years. when a look at their profit margins and the investment have to make to do any research on iss to get it to orbit and

go through its paces, you have to have a wider horizon to look over rather than just 2020. in addition to that, it was important to make these toisions now as we get ready procure our next logistics flight and as we prepare for commercial crews to come on board. the longer time that we have two purchase services, the better our cost per flight will be. it was an appropriate time to go ahead and extend iss, and we are happy to hear it is extended at least to 2024. not: for viewers who might be familiar with the concept, explain what you mean by low earth orbit. guest: today the international space station operates at 410 kilometers. of course, that varies day to day as we drift down and then re-boost the vehicle.

it is about 220 nautical miles above the earth. lower the orbit is in this -- lowers orbit is in this regime. at some point you transition to geostationary orbit. though earth orbit is the -- low earth orbit is defined as within a few hundred miles. host: let's talk about cost. how much is it cost to operate the international space station every? -- how much does it cost to operate the international space station every year? guest: today we are about $3 billion a year. operating the station itself costs a little over $1 billion a year. however, transportation services -- vehicles, supplies, logistics , water, food, science experiments, spare parts, these vehicles, plus the vehicles to carry the cruise orbit is the remainder of the cost per year.

host: we would love it if you joined our conversation this morning. host: mike, i want to take a question from twitter now. guest: well, it is hard to say exactly how much other countries contributed to the iss. the estimates for the construction of iss on the operation to date is on the order of about $70 billion, and that is from the beginning, when president reagan asked us to consider building a space mission back in 1985 time frame. that is the estimate for the u.s. cost. contributions,

other than our russian colleagues, is less than that. they provided modules and logistic services, the backbone of the station, the portions of the in dash portions that the united states built. in addition to that, and really port -- portions that the united states build. in addition the back, and important early part was models flying to the iss> . one of the first three elements that establishes the iss, and the cornerstone to the station for several years until the u.s. segment was built up. to say exactly how much the partners have contributed, it is a difficult number to put down. but it is clear that the u.s. has probably spent more than any of the other partners that are country bidding to the station

today -- that are contributing to the station today. host: byron in alaska on our line for independents. caller: good morning. my congratulations to the people that are doing an excellent job up there. my question is, does the iss and whoever else is involved plan on collecting material that is probably far more advanced as far as material is concerned from orbitz of space -- orbits of space? they have much different elements of their compared to what we have on earth. do they plan on making a collection in the future as to where it could be used for minor technology in the near future -- modern technology in the near future? guest: that is an excellent question. of course, the space a -- space station's purpose is established and low earth orbit.

we are benefiting timidity by the research we do on board and prepare for human exploration, as well as commercializing lowers orbit. from the standpoint of the support that we are providing as we prepare to explore beyond lowers -- lowers orbit, we are supporting those efforts. by directly speaking, we are not in the business of collecting goals or material in order for us to do studies. that is other programs and projects are perhaps. mike, you mentioned several times the research that is going on on the international space station. what kind of details can you give on that? guest: that is a great question, juana, and it spans a wide spectrum of research. it starts -- i shouldn't say "it starts," but one of it is --nomenal research

fundamental research in a number of areas, physics, life sciences . we do primarily because of the research we do even in the -- the work wed do is very early on in terms of products to market. there are cases where the technology is benefiting humanity today. one of the purification systems used to run the world and if it's from the technology from -- benefits from the technology from the iss system. there is research going on in different types of vaccines. salmonella is one that comes to mind. also, micro encapsulation for cancer treatment drugs. these are all kinds of early research going on with by the agency and by commercial companies that will lead to advances in medicine and other areas that help us all out. host: next call comes from tennessee. mike is on the line for

democrats. mike, you are on "washington journal." are you with us? caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. ok, you there? host: we are here. go ahead. caller: first of all, congratulations on your success of the space station for years now, many, many years. i question for the man is what is the possibility of deeper exploration of space, and the america public, as much support as we have for the space program, why is it put on the back burner as far as keeping us informed and having more programs to show what is going on in space? well, of course, naturally, i'm involved in human spaceflight, and everything we have been doing is in preparation for human exploration beyond low earth

orbit. you heard the administration and congress talk to eventual manned missions to mars. those preparations have been going on a lower level. supports both technology development and human research necessary for us to be able to explore beyond low earth orbit. the it ministration today has -- the ministration -- the administration today has endeavor for in retfor spacecraft to go to a large asteroid ring it to the vicinity of the moon and to extract specimens from the asteroid and -- returno his home. those home. all of the systems we are building today and that will be built to support that mission are all systems we need for exploration. as he looked at the list of things we need to do to explore beyond low earth orbit, you need

a space station to do the technology development and test out the systems you are going to use, and perhaps most importantly, do all the research to make sure that humans can survive a long trip to mars and on the service and back. that is in progress today. you need a heavy lift vehicle. the space launch system, or the heavy vehicle being built by nasa today. human-rated capsule to take you there and back and support reentry at high speed that occur when you come from higher altitudes or different orbits coming back into the earth's atmosphere. that is being built today. it is called the orion spacecraft. there will be a test launch this year of the orion capsule. these are systems that are being built today. they're very significant components or capabilities necessary for exploration.

in order to go after the asteroid that we are talking about as part of our mission today, you need really an electric propulsion system. it requires a very high capacity solar ray, also in development. these systems are in the technology development stages today. you need a new space suit, which we are also studying, in fact, spending some money on here at johnson space center in order to get outside to retrieve specimens from the asteroid. you need a spacecraft that will travel out to the asteroid and capture the asteroid, which is being led by the jet propulsion laboratory today. we are looking at funding for .hat in these near-term budgets we are making quite a bit of progress towards human explanation -- human exploration

to make your just looking at the systems we are building today. put: "the orlando sentinel" out an article looking at criticisms of the international space station. i want to get your take. they report that about 15% of u.s. racks for experiments on board the station sat empty as of december 31, and a report issued last july, nasa's internal watchdog raised questions about the real benefit of station science. "a vast majority of the research activities come not to abort th -- conducted aboard the iss relate to basic research, not applied research." we want to get your reaction to that. guest: to begin with, the measure of the capacity for the international space station can be measured in a number of ways. one is the amount of up mast orbited the other is the amount of crude time involved. you can look at the total amount of power we have and whether we .re using and the capacity

today one of our biggest constraints on orbit is crude time. onan tell you that the crews orbit and the ground teams have done an amazing job with the crew members they have done all the work done to just maintain the vehicle and provide additional crude time for research. the requirement is about 35 hours a week. the crews have been doing an amazing amount of work. we're probably averaging close to 40, 45 hours per week. last week we were at 70 hours. that turns out to be a real constraint for us. it is true that not all the racks are full. in the life of a space mission, i would expect racks to receive hardware and operate the hardware for a while while the next set comes up. i would not expect the racks to always be full with operational hardware as we transit back and forth.

correct the article is in that we would like to have the racks filled with more research as time goes on, and it is capacity we have available for users. as a mentioned before with the crew time constraint, additional racks do not necessarily mean we can do additional research. to the step up commercial crew vehicles in 2017, 2018 timeframe, crew time will not be the constraints on much. that should not be the constraints on much. -- will not be the constraint so much. as far as the kind of research being done, i would agree that we are still growing in terms of the kinds of research being done. nasa does perform fundamental research but there's quite a bit of technology development going on. we have stood up and national l ab through the center of advancement of science in space. there are a number of companies that are very interested in s or building hardware

to fight you iss. particular has been applying applications on is for a number of years now and they are growing in leaps and bounds. in one respect i agree with the article. we need to increase the amount of users of iss and we need to fully utilize it, because that is why we have made such an investment. but the application is that the kind of research being done today is limited -- but the implication is that the kind of research being done today is limited and i would say that is absolutely not the case. the number of experiments anger about each day and the amount of work being done on orbit and the amount of benefit i hear from users in the community in general is amazing. and we try very hard through our links and tweets and website to show people some the benefits that the iss provides.

host: next up on our calls this morning is david in conway, messages come on our line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i really love nasa and the space station. i think it is critical for development, and i think the high-tech stuff is great. but i'm curious about 2 things. one, how many more modules to meet based on the space station -- how many more modules can be placed on the state station? and also, how much are you doing in the way of research for what is the most technical thing andnd, which is nature, making the space station sustainable through a module that has a biosphere with food than you can eat and recycling the water more efficiently? i would love to hear your comments on that.

i really appreciate your work. thanks. well, thank you very much. it always takes us feel good who arehave individuals watching what we're are doing and are interested in what we're doing and appreciate the amount of work involved. as far as the number of modules we can add to iss, that can vary. , weou add a module to iss have all of our available ports with the exception of one kind 3 limited port behind those occupied today, unless they are being saved for docking operations. ifever, we could add modules we decided. the only trick is that when you part module to the forward of the station, which faces towards the velocity vector, we have to move the docking port to the other end of the module. the module design makes a difference. whatever we attach the module to

has the appropriate docking interface on the other side of the module. from that respect, we could add modules as we think is necessary. we have a large space station, very capable space vision, and while we are considering augmentations or some types of research associated with new modules or perhaps an exploration type module for beyond low earth orbit applications, just growing a station for growing sake is not necessary. we have enough today for the capacity that is about right for the varying types of research that we do on orbit. as far as closed loop life support, great question. earthe go off beyond low orbit, we will have a limited supply. nasa's hear people say

king, and that is true, but we have a relatively reverse weistics stream so that if need something we bring it to orbit. have -- we do our life support system fairly well. ine and condensate and turned it back into portable water or water for cooling. in addition to that, when we create oxygen, out of the water osmosis system, what you end up ish at the end of that hydrogen, excess hydrogen, of course. we processed the excess hydrogen with the co2 we removed from the air to create additional water, and the result of that is methane, that we can overboard

third we are closing the loop quite a bit on iss. we are learning about the most andcient ways to do that that will be plowed back into the closed loop systems we will design for longer duration space travel to close the system even further. couple will read you a of quick facts about the international space station and come back to you for question. the international space station is about the length and width of a football field, with more living space than a six-bedroom home and 2 bathrooms. the first crew was in november 2000. it has been visited by more than 200 individuals. it has orbited earth more than 57,000 times. i think the question everybody was happy childhood dream of being an astronaut or going to space monster no -- wants to know, what is life actually like on the iss? guest: [laughs]

well, i'm one of those kids could i didn't quite make it, so i can't tell you exactly what it is like on orbit, but when the crews come back, they really talk very positively about the experience. i think it is an uplifting experience. you are up in space, you can look down on this beautiful planet of ours, which they talk about often. areave a very large glass that faces the earth, and the crews use that often on their down time to take a look at earth. you just don't have that sense when you are on the ground and .magining pictures i understand it is a very uplifting experience. in addition to that, some of the crews end up doing extravehicular activities when they go outside in their to me that must

be a breathtaking experience as well, because now you don't have to confines -- have the confines of the modules around you. you have the earth and the universe before them. my understanding, it is a very, very special opportunity. host: our next call comes from takoma park, maryland. julie is on our line for democrats -- julian is on our line for democrats this morning. caller: i would like to know the countries involved in the international space station, and goingny more years is it to roam? also, one final question, what the space station has been used about beyondlking space, beyond like -- i know the

united states is talking about and the mars, international space station playing a role in that. thank you. guest: ok, great questions. the first is that there is five agencies that participate in the international space station, 15 countries. these are the countries that build and operate the space station. over 68 there is countries that have done research on board iss. ast number grows each year, more and more research is done on board iss. you have the national aeronautics and space administration, which is, of course, the american space agency. we have the russian space agency. we have the canadian space agency. agency.nese space and finally, the european space agency.

of course, the balance of the countries that make up the 15 are from the european space agency. oh,erms of the research -- you asked about the life of station. we are studying the structural life of the station to 2028. that date was picked because it is the 30-year life span the , oft launch back in 1998 what is called the functional cargo block. and the next month, the launch of node 1. that began the assembly of iss. much of the structure was originally designed for a 30-year life, although later we switch to 15-year life. we felt it was highly likely we would get to be on 15 years -- to beyond 15 years when we did our life assessment. in addition, all of our elements

were built assuming they would toe 2 rips to -- 2 trips space. and so we didn't have to do that with any of our elements, so that was additional life in the structure. today we are studying until 2028. we have cleared the vehicle until 2020. all of the structures we have cleared 22020 we have cleared through 2028. we have the newer structures to clear a network is in front of is in frontat work of us. we believe we can go another 30 years, and with the life that we have on the structure even in 2028, we can go longer on the station if that was deemed appropriate. finally, a question i think i answered a little bit earlier, which is what role does iss pla y, there is a number of things we do. one is studying how humans

can survive in space travel. the effect on the human body and how you mitigate those effects during space travel. there is technology development, much of which you can only get -- only test in a microgravity environment, but also the unique thermal environments in the microgravity environment. a lot of those technologies you have to study in a low earth orbit. and the actual systems that we wringo mars and iss and them out to make sure they have the reliability we expect of them. host: i want to get a couple of questions from twitter now and read you just a few. guest: well, you know, i've

never done the math on the cost to fly a single crew to orbit. -- if i is about remember my math right, it takes about 700 kilograms of supply for a crew member for 6 months on orbit, if i have my math right. it is in that ballpark. but the costs i've never done. i have to figure out a way to answer that and we will have to send you the answer, juana, and you can pass it on or reported later. we will put that on our website or something so that we can let everyone know. of course we are constantly challenged to become more efficient, and we are busy working on that. budgets provide enough funding to operate the station. we are hoping that with the new

procurement of logistics vehicles we will get the cost -- flight down and inside that relatively constrained budget. canationally, the iss continue to operate with the budgets provided, but we are constantly given challenges and we try to rise to those challenges and continue to operate the station in a way that provides the benefits that we expect to get from this orbiting platform. host: next caller in springfield, virginia, on our line for republicans. caller: jhi. i'm glad you are on. [indiscernible] host: are you still with us? all right, we are going to move onto our next caller in pennsylvania. peter is on our line for independents. caller: hello, good morning.

you kind of answered my question already, but i figured i would just reformulate it. with the rapid depletion of resources here on earth, i think it is time for america to become a global leader in really going consider just fighting for everything that is left here on earth -- instead of just fighting for everything that is left here on earth. to take a role and may be for americans it will be a boon in jobs in technology and education. we will have to dismantle the get onhine and really the ball with this. i feel like that would really bring us peace and prosperity. thank you for your time. guest: well, thank you. i will comment to that. one of the reasons we believe it is important to continue with the international space station

is because it keeps america as the leader in space, which we think has national benefits, including national security benefits. when we all work together as the 15 countries do today to build the international space station, these are countries that not too many years ago were fighting each other. it does bring us closer together when we work together on achievement of this magnitude, particularly when humans are involved and the safety of .umans are involved that is near and dear to every participant's hard. it brings us together as a country. the other big benefit is for human exploration beyond low earth orbit, it is going to take more than just the resources that anyone country is willing to bring forward.

not only is it important for our national security, i believe, for us to be strong leaders in space, but also economically make sense. further, the more that smart, young engineers, or even older engineers like myself that are involved in a project together, the better that project will be. i completely agree that we do need to continue to lead in space. space is the next great frontier. we have, i think, an inherent .rive to explore it will be very, very important for this country to lead the other countries of our planet beyond low earth orbit together. host: got kind of a tactical question from one of our twitter followers.

guest: you know, we have not studied tether technology relative to iss for many years now, but several years ago, that was discussed as a potential way to create power for the station. it has implications, particularly if the tether breaks. so it was not pursued on station, and today we are not looking at that particular technology for power for station. ands a way to provide power other benefits it has for orbital mechanics, but we are not studying that for station per se. host: next up from p aurea, illinois, the line for democrats. caller: i am totally for space travel,ations and space

and i was wondering, have you done any experiments at all on the tesla theory of controlled electronics wireless? and also, have you heard of the cam trails that people are seeing all over the united states? i wonder, are you able to see through the clouds and all to see what is causing those chem trails? thet: i'm not familiar with second question, so i'm going to have to -- i will just have to beg off on that one. offar as the wireless study the tesla theory, we are not doing that on board the station. that is not to say that there could be some studies that

involve it, but we are not doing that today. host: all right, let's take another one of your calls. orlando, florida, dave is on the line for democrats. caller: hello? host: david, you are on with mike suffredini from nasa. caller: i work with teaching from space and also with an riss,ization called a amateur radio on the iss. we provide opportunities for kids in schools to speak with astronauts in orbit. could you speak about the educational opportunities that iss provides? guest: well, thank you, david, for that question. that is one of the best used ss from anon i educational standpoint through this ham radio operation you

mention. we touch millions of children around the world in the process of crews communicating with them through the ham radio assets we have on iss. in addition to that, there is a number of opportunities for small science experiments that the educational division at a and also that commercial ventures have done in order to let relatively young kids, high school age kids, do research on board iss. in fact, this is one of the things that our friends have been deeply involved in, providing low-cost opportunities ids good toso that k do experiments in space. in addition to that, we have a program we are very proud of. we refer to it as hunch. i wish i could remember what the acronym stood for at the top of my head. we offer high school kids and in some cases college kids the

opportunity to participate in the development of hardware and software for use both on the in the spaceaining station but also hardware that is used on orbit. this has been incredibly successful. we've touched in the neighborhood of 40 schools around the country and that list grows every year'. we have had everything from high fidelity training mockups to cargo bags lying on the next -- flying on the next logistics vehicle being launched by the europeans this summer to a galley table being designed and built today that would be used on orbit. we are giving kids an opportunity to not only learn what it is like to get ready for and do space travel but also to get a sense of while they are in school whether they want to further their education and participate in this as a long-term goal. we have a number of kids who have gone on to college and they

cite their experience in the hunch program. i just learned about a young lady who graduated high school and decided not to go to college , working at a pharmacy or something like that, but she had the cargo bags that are flying to orbit for us, and the company in the east that builds space it's for us -- builds spacesuits for us hired her to come do design and sew together some of these suits. it is just an amazing opportunity that is being provided both for the kids to get this experience and to find out if this is what they want to do with their lives, but also, it benefits us. i can tell you how rewarding it is to work with these kids and watch them provide important hardware and software goods for us to operate the station. host: mike, we are running a

little bit short on time so i want to ask you about this -- talked about the private space industry and how that industry interacts with nasa. guest: well, today we have to our national lab effort, we have the center for advancement of also known asace, casis, a nonprofit organization whose job it is is to bring commercial industry to iss. we participate with them in terms of analyzing opportunities and making sure we can provide those opportunities are there is a number of companies that are and itpating today brought on board universities and other government agencies. before them we started casis. this goes back to what i was talking about earlier. it is our plan to deploy a

number of small satellites, 33 , actually,33 in all will be deployed between tomorrow and about a week from now. the lancet share of these are being provided by a company called planet -- the lion's share of these are being provided by calmly called planet labs. low cost. they can fly a constellation and look at a number of areas over the earth several times. because of the low cost nature , they can sell it at a reduced cost. we have a platform being developed for precise pointing at things like hyperspectral imager is that help folks study any number of things on the planet, both from agriculture on the way to finding minerals and

resources and oil and gold and things like this. they're completing the construction so we can fly in space. there is a number of efforts out .here i would encourage folks to go to the website and look at what the opportunities are and what they are doing. host: well, mike, thank you so much for joining us. our guest has been mike suffredini, program manager for the international space station at nasa. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you, juana, very much. host: that is all the time we have for this edition of "washington journal." make sure you join us at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. have a great morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute]

>> both the house and the senate return for business today. the houses back at noon eastern for speeches with legislative work adding underway at 2:00 eastern. goals include one dealing with financial regulations, allowing the financial stability oversight council to set aside rigorous and some the consumer financial protection bureau. we could see work on a bill to raise the debt limit. senate is also back to 2:00. lawmakers were work on a bill restoring cuts to military pensions could you can see the house live on c-span and the senate on c-span2. the heritage foundation is hosting a daylong and servant of policy summit today. features figures include senators ted cruz and mike lee and congressman jeb hensarling . former senator jim demint serves as president of the

organization. you can see this on our companion network c-span3. i think it is all an evolutionary process. you grow into this role. my sense is that you never get comfortable if you are always pushing for change and you are never done. there is never a point in time were you say i am done and i can do the same thing all the time. it is always changing. >> first lady michelle obama tonight at 9:00 p.m. >> i have often said when i am traveling on amtrak that i run to the quiet car. this i