then we will discuss ongoing funding for military tanks and vehicles that the army says are no longer necessary. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning, it is monday, february 24. of lawmakers are heading back to washington today. and defense secretary chuck hagel is set to propose touctions -- shrinking it its smallest size since before world war ii. the pentagon budget request will request cuts to benefits. that is part of the defense department's efforts to cut spending as the united states exits more than a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan.

we will discuss this with key members of congress later this morning. that is our topic for the first 35 minutes and our phone lines are now open. the numbers are you can also reach out to us online.\ attwitter youc a can find us @cspanwj. you can e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. chuck hagel and martin dempsey are expected to brief the press at 1 p.m. eastern on the details on this budget. a number of articles have leaked

out. the pentagon budget proposal proposes -- it will also cut subsidies for military commissaries. and it will eliminate the air -- a-10 attack aircraft. on facebook --

you can reach out to us on facebook.com/cspan. first call comes from gainesville, virginia. caller: good morning. i have a comment. the u.s. economy is coming out of a deep recession. whens $1.2 trillion president obama took over, it is now town to $200 billion. it is way past due be cut paramilitary to a comfortable level. they will continue to fight and we will be wasting money cutting -- wasting money doing their wars for them.

the time we focus on infrastructure program with the same money and hope that the republicans can come on board and support president obama's programs. thank you so much. host: more details of the pageant on -- of the pentagon budget request. officials acknowledged that budget cuts will pose greater risks on the armed forces if they are some again, ordered to carry around -- carry out large-scale military action.

there would be a larger number of casualties. our next call comes from new orleans. allen is on our line for independents. >> good morning. one of the things i would like as adress is the entire -- retired military person, i retired from the active military in 1984. i did not realize how much they had taken away as for the -- we are not getting everything we promised. wife has been a military wife for all that time. recently we discovered that she was thrown out of -- she had a in they threw me out because

i had not registered for medicare. i had no idea, they didn't tell me that. when i went to the doctor and even though i had my insurance from my second job, i discovered i was no longer covered by military. when i saw them looking into it they said i have not signed up .or medicare be i don't think that is right because i served in combat zones for two straight years. i don't think they are being fair to the military. most of these guys do not make enough money to do anything anyway. i would like to hear comments from other people. one other thing before i leave, i have had some young men who lived in michigan.

i have been seeing these kids in my sleep at night. i don't think that parents know what happened to them. sergeants.ied as it was in the 129 assault helicopter company. sleep.ep appearing in my their parents don't know what happened to them. more details coming for us on the pentagon proposal -- a five-year plan will boost pentagon spending why a total of chuck hagelillion. on monday will preview the plan along with other key items, billion 215 budget proposal.

next call comes in from texas, james is on our line for does -- on our line for independents. caller: i cannot believe how far down this country has sunk. i am a 100% disabled veteran. i put myself on the line for my country. i came out severely disabled. they are talking about cutting the benefits for military. why don't we cut the benefits for those people that are on welfare? there are five percent of our population that is disabled. so many of them are young and on welfare.

i cannot understand why we are hurting our veterans that put their life on the line to preserve our freedom? this country is sinking so low. one day we are not going to have the country. if we ask youind a quick question. a lot of militaries have said -- the department is having a long -- having a hard time balancing that. the weapon systems are outdated. we have a lot of people. a lot of our active duty military. they do not get enough pay. they now have to pay for the benefits for the retired military. a lot of our soldiers are on food stamps.

we need to cut the food stamps for drug addicts and alcoholics on welfare. if you cut off all the drug ,ddicts and all the alcoholics they put their savings onto the military and take another 50% of the remainder and put it on the national debt, this country would not be in the problem we are in. that is all i have to say. i thank you very much for taking my call. are on twitter. let's go to a cut of comments there. that to a couple of comments there -- -- to a couple of comments there --

next caller from louisville, ohio. rick is on the line for independents. caller: what is amazing is that last caller, a lot of times you get racist bigots from the south on the air. i am an author, i am a labor activist. if you go back to the state of texas, the last five wars that have been started by texas -- these are the facts. the largest military base in the free world is in texas. in other half a dozen small military bases are in texas. --never a texan get elected it started with texans in the white house. war, we sell about more arms to everybody in the

world combined. now you have brainwashing about the military. our troops in iraq and afghanistan are fighting for our freedom. that is a lie. maliciousver there as breed before the war in iraq, there,the war got us halliburton was five dollars per share. it was going bankrupt. now you cannot separate oil from more. taxes and oil, texas and more. all -- texas and war. all of a sudden you have cuts.on budget there are rogue states, religious extremists. of they put our religious extremism -- they put our religious extremism against the

extremism in the middle east. basis to talk about the pentagon. the pentagon is about religious extremists in the south. host: a couple of comments from facebook this morning. next up is paul in clearfield, pennsylvania. he is a retired servicemember. caller: the morning, ma'am. -- good morning, ma'am. i am a three-year marine veteran -- three year veteran in the united states air force.

yes, we get paid better than we used to, i agree. the we still did not get paid enough to compensate for the things we have to pay. these young kids are living off base. it is all -- it is outrageous. they do not have a lot to go on, talk about cutting the commissary. that's hard to believe. there are many, many weapons systems. i can go to the pentagon and tell them to cut much much more pentagon budget than what they are presently looking at. there is such a waste in systems. we destroyed munitions by the tons that we could've possibly used in other things.

day-10 -- and the -- the a-10 aircraft -- is a nicehagel gentleman but he has no idea what is going on in the united states. host: one of the proposals that has leaked is the secretary is in favor of getting rid of the a-10. you think we should keep its? caller: by all means. we don't have anything to eliminate -- to fill the void we are limiting. the f-16 is not going to be able to do that. i don't know where the f-35 is at. it is suffering some way difficulties that i don't know how practical it will be to get it. we have proven that the a-10 i

sths the only way to go. or replace it with another airplane that is capable. there are all kinds of ways we cnan cut the military without troops.the i suffer from agent orange and there's not enough money in the world to get me back to my health. take care. storyand other defense making headlines this morning in "the washington post" --

next call is on the line for democrats. he is a retired servicemember as well. myler: thank you for taking call. of country is falling apart. we have tens of thousands of bridges in dire need of repair and rebuilding. we can put millions of people to work rebuilding electric grids and new schools all over our country.

health care for everyone, universal health care. all this if we would quit spending trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars in the middle east. according to a may 18 article in the valley times by david the u.s. spent $6 trillion on the iraq war. since iraq we have spent money on libya and now we are in syria undermining that country. being these countries are undermined and the stabilized, including the ukraine. host: our next call is from mary . for getting the truth out and a wonderful job about the truth. off.sorry that you cut him my son is in the air force.

he makes good money. he's got good vacation. my suggestion would be for the be a part of medicare and blended together instead of having separate medicare for the troops. that concerns me. he was talking about agent orange, it needs to be all one. universal health care for everybody. thank you for your time. att: a gallup poll looking the reception of americans -- the reception of americans at president obama's world standing. chart is back from 2009

22014. the most recent poll this year, 41% of those surveyed say they respect president obama and 53% say they do not. tracks from 2009 all the way to present day. kevin in is from belmont, north carolina. he's a republican and a retired servicemember. caller: thank you. i want to straight out -- straighten out the crazy guy from ohio who blamed texas. the vietnam war was started by kennedy, who was from massachusetts. it is sad that these kids join the military for all this time and get paid hardly nothing. their benefits are nothing. i retired it makes that statement higher and make 50,000 on the pension for the rest of their life. we are never going to straighten this country up.

-- they retired and make $50,000 on pension for the rest the life. we are never going to straighten this country up. host: we have a guest joining us. thank you. implications for the power of the environmental protection agency. walk us through it. guest: this case is a challenge to one of the aspects of the regulations. way --gnificant in the they indicated that they are not theking about overturning climate change case. said it could be

regulated under the clean air act. it is a bit smaller than that. it focuses on whether the administration stretched the clean air act a bit too much in trying to regulate certain types. host: this case is the consolidation of a challenge of the epa rule. explain how they got meshed together and what we are likely to see. were: when the rules issued, obviously there was a industryposition from groups and from republican leaning states, such as texas. it in muchallenged across the board. court in washington, who heard it first, pretty much rejected all those claims. actually alsourt

did not take up much is -- did not take up most of their claims. that is the only issue that will be at stake in this case today. host: what are you expecting to hear from this morning's argument seattle walk us through some of the details that are likely to be brought up. guest: it will be a highly technical argument about the complex laid -- about the complex language of the clean air act. we guy -- we might get some indication of how far the justices are looking to push this, whether it is going to be extremely narrow or might be a bit further, which could have a impact on the ability of the environmental protection agency to use certain parks of the act. -- certain parts of the act.

they suggest congress isn't likely to update that law anytime soon. would you agree or disagree? guest: that is one of the problems generally. if you are looking at it from the obama administration's , they are stuck with the clean air act as was written. it wasn't written to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. haveway the legal issues arisen because they are trying to use an old law to combat a new problem. host: when is the court expected to make a ruling on this particular issue? guest: we will expect a ruling by the end of june. say: lawrence hurley is supreme court correspondent for thomson reuters. our topic is the budget cuts proposed by the pentagon. if you like to join our conversation, the number is --

back to her calls in magnolia springs, alabama. caller: i am a yankee. racist. a to that other person, i am also not against the jewish community or any other ethnic or religious group. i am tired of the slurs. stereotyping people because of the region they come from. i am grateful for the military.

where would we be without them? they are the first sacrificial lambs when it comes to budget cuts. i lost a very good friend to agent orange. the governor turned his back on them while he was -- the government turned its back on him. we cannot afford so much junk in this country. first of all we need our heroes in the military. ohiopeople think that an we don't have to be afraid of being invaded. look at what happened after pearl harbor. military,navy, no nothing to train our troops with.

host: next up, barry is on our line for democrats. he is a retired servicemember. caller: my main concern is that ever since we instituted a high pay we got a small professional military caste. we don't have the average citizens involved in the wars anymore. personnel we spent on is so high that it is handicapping the military from by yang the equipment it needs. i have talked to career military officers since i have retired. i really love the draft -- really love the under the draft is that the you pay

less of the citizenry is .nvolved you cannot maintain a military when you are paying private soldiers thousands of dollars in the year. back in the 60's and 70's, the average draft he had no family. they stayed in for one hitch and then they got out. there's just way too much on personnel. i am glad to see chuck hagel is in there. proud -- i am really proud to see he has made it. the perks for the general officers are getting almost obscene. we are way too gray -- way too high on officers.

host: president obama is set to host governors at the white house. all signs are pointing to democrats and republicans talking past each other. bobby jindal, a republican, set the tone for the meeting during an interview with a washington post reporter sunday afternoon. our topic this morning is the budget cuts, announce formally later today. our next caller comes from new york. frank is on the line for republicans. can you turn your tv down so we can hear you? -- caller: [indiscernible]

inyou know and love soldiers america were killed in afghanistan. we need to have people in our country -- i see a lot of people who did not have enough money for their children. the government should expand this money in our country. after a while we can improve our economy situation. the point i want to tell about that is -- i was an employee. we did not have enough money for the children. [indiscernible] it just isn't fair. because of that i think we should cut our budget for war.

we should spend money in our country for other problems. up is our line for independents. caller: [indiscernible] host: are you with us seattle you're going to take another call from jacksonville, mississippi on our line for democrats. caller: the biggest peacetime military cut we ever had was in 1955. then they opened up the louisiana. if you went to louisiana, your next stop was vietnam.

the actual start of the vietnam 1954 when thee of french was defeated. by the time kennedy was elected president, there were about 8000 troops in there. that was the beginning of the vietnam war. host: vivian in tennessee is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. no is and states has is sending troops in these different countries -- let the people mind their own business. from agentdied orange bit he suffered all those years. when they finally gave him that , my brother had cancer and

he died. they want to go everywhere, spending money over there. if you want to do something, do some fighting. why can't they control dope in these gangs and send the money back here to help the people you go they are doing everything they can to control other people. it is time to wake up, america. host: from twitter this morning -- bonus calls from a retired servicemember. -- our next call is from a retired servicemember. theyr: i don't believe

should do anything to hurt personnel of the united states army. but they should probably look getting some of these contractors. this military is becoming a corporate military. some people believe -- i believe --t corporations are making they really enjoy war because their profits go up. i think this thing about tri-care. the bulls and the commissary -- it is just a smokescreen. it cost a lot to be a retiree.

that is pretty much all i have to say. host: next up for azeri, robert is on the line. -- from missouri, robert is on the line. what do you think about the budget cut proposal? caller: i am a retired military, retired navy. i was in 20 years. host: what do you think? caller: i would like to say that these people in the war are volunteers. i was drafted and i went on. something,e to say

the waste that is going on in the military -- these people have given their lives for our country. the government is not paying for get out whento they get out. what i'm trying to say is they get hurt and they come back with legs off, arms off, and they are they're inital -- there to recuperate. all of a sudden the money dries up in the v.a. and they have to make a decision. the decision is sending these out there giving their

lives for our country -- they put them out to pasture. they wonder why they are alcoholics, drug addicts, and things like that. there is so much waste in the military. too many high up officers in the military and not enough eve five cent e sixes. e6's.andnough families, and their they need food stamps to live. in orange caller is city, florida. "washington journal."

caller: if they cut spending, why don't they cut it from their own checks first? they want to take it from the military, from social security, from -- host: are you still there? caller: yes, ma'am. they want to take it from food stamps. why don't they take it out of their own pockets? host: a couple more comments from twitter -- our topic this morning,

pentagon's budget cuts. tom's on the line for republicans up next. caller: good morning. number ofabout the personnel on defense. it is about using the technology. deploying ourk at forces in areas where we get the most -- the lady that called and had a good point. why don't we deploy our forces in south america and mexico, places where we can fight this drug war? at would give us a much better return on our investment. focused technologies on boots on the ground but eyes on the sky as well. thank you. line fores is on our independents.

host: it really takes away from the military. it takes a lot of experience away. i am willing to take a pay cut, a one percent pay cut. to do one share. bashed willing to do my share. i think you guys are doing a great job. please keep it up. thank you. host: in georgia, gene is on the line for independents. caller: the first caller from veteranans, a retired

-- i am also a veteran from vietnam. life.d most of my i wish you would give me a call. the louisiana veterans are the worst treated veterans in america. i went through the v.a. to get my agent orange form ip -- my -- everynge and ptsd time they would say you have to do this or you have to prove this or prove that. they have my military records. why should i have to prove anything? also we weren't fighting for american freedom. we were fighting for the south vietnamese peoples freedom.

the veterans are being treated in the louisiana -- i am now living in georgia and i had live in georgia. to live in georgia to get the compensation. host: is somebody trying to get these benefits, when you hear the secretary of defense was to make cuts to things like pay freezes and things like that, what you think? caller: i think it is awful. theyr as i am concerned, would make vietnam veterans. people that know what life is all about. , we fought for the south vietnamese. host: next to north carolina, judy is on the line for

democrats. caller: ready? i would like to complain about andof the equipment material that we leave -- about -- host: turned on your tv for me -- turn down your tv for me. next up is karen on the line for independents. caller: i have a major problem with our government and the ways they spend in all different areas. be a debate never about our military budget.

to me it is outrageous. i voted for president obama in 2008. porkomised no earmarks, no , no lobbyists in his white house. that is all we have seen every time. they had earmarks attached to it from all these other senators and whoever gets their finger in the pie. i think if a bill should be , it should be passed on its of no merits with no earmarks. the money that is wasted by those people that are grabbing oury and taking it --

country is in a horrible horrible mess. people don't know how our leaders do not -- will not be not be willing to rein in their spending. it is absolutely the worst thing our country is doing the military. host: that is all the time we have for the segment. when we come back we will be joined by nicholas burns, a former secretary of state and defense. we will talk about the recent unrest in the ukraine. later we will be joined by jonathan easily, a reporter for "the hill." we will be right back. >> if this deal is completed, i

think it puts comcast at the major mediaery policy debate we are going to have. i don't see them being in the public interest. i think the fcc should block this merger. it is why we have antitrust. laws -- antitrust laws. it is unthinkable that it has gotten this far. for me there is really no condition that is good enough to let a deal like this go through. usedactions are frequently as a way to shape markets. there are a lot of conditions that can be placed on the largest service provider, be its net neutrality, low-cost forring, be it a buildout the president's connect -- there initiative

are a host of things that are similar to conditions that comcast retailers -- three years ago when it bought nbc universal. -- n see it being the impact of a comcast time warner cable merger tonight on "the communicators" at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> the new c-span.org website makes it easier than ever for you to keep tabs on washington, d.c. and share your finds be it facebook, twitter, and other social networks. new tools make it simple to create short video clips and share it with your friends. links to your video clips via e-mail. just find the share tools on your video player or look for the green icon links throughout our site.

if you see something of interest, clip it. >> "washington journal" continues. host: might get the segment is nicholas burns, a former secretary of state for political affairs and currently a professor of the policy and national politics at harvard kennedy school. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you, good morning. ukraine has issued a warrant for the arrest of the president. explain to us, what is the latest on that situation? guest: the president disappeared . ? but fled --? vych simply

disappeared. he ruled under a bankrupt economy. the big issue here was ukraine had a chance to have a deeper trade and investment relationship with the european union that would have been very positive for them. former president turned that down in order to have a closer relationship with the russian confederation. ukraine is a country that is badly divided between ethnic russians in the east and south part of the country and ethnic ukrainians in the central and western part of the country. no one foresaw such a quick end to his government. now there is an interim government, that government is being given political support by the european union, by the united states. now it is a question of if they can have free presidential elections in may. the government that

has emerged, how stable is the situation in ukraine? guest: it is fairly unstable. you had this standoff between armed protesters in the streets of tf over the last several weeks and months. now that the old government has gone away, there is a real need for this interim government led by the speaker of the parliament to assert authority and literally make the trains run on time, to be able to have internal command and security in the country, to resist any , tort to ethnic russians actually go their own way. isre is a fear that ukraine so unstable that the country could fracture. the new government in tf run by the parliament has taken a series of measures to provide some stability. let's just hope the country can hold together. it is clearly in the interest of

the people of ukraine. host: what do we know about this interim government that has emerged? guest: the government is run by opponents of president -- of the former ukrainian presidents. these are leaders from the western and central parts of the country. they are leaders that would like to take their country in a more european union direction. the european union is the largest economy in the world. they wanted to open up trade and investment relations with ukraine. i think you will see that begin to happen now. the international monetary fund has also been considering a long -- a loan to ukraine. we will see if ukrainians can negotiate that. some very big decisions this new interim government has to take.

it is just temporary. they have said that they for may 25 for presidential elections for the entire country. guest is nicholas burns, a former secretary of state for political affairs, also a professor at harvard kennedy school. if you would like to join our conversation, the number is -- first call this morning comes from new york. mike is on the line for republicans. thanks. i would like to ask how the u.s. to permit expect to trust its citizens in foreign policy -- scientific evidence proves preplanned explosives brought down the towers on 9/11.

guest: i couldn't quite hear that question. host: it was part of an organized effort to have calls about 9/11 and what happened there. do want to ask about united states involvement, what are we seeing from the white house administration? seeing anare articulated view from the white house and they support this new government. they support the change that they want to see. they would like to see ukraine have an independent unified country. -- the to see ukraine as ukraine work with imf, international monetary fund. the white house is worried about the economy of the ukraine. it has major problems of corruption. economy hasn't been reformed since the end of the cold war.

there are a few wealthy business people who control most of the economy. that is the root of many of the problems in the country. i think we will see both the u.s. and the eu to do what we can to encourage ukrainians to root reform the economy, make it into a more market economy. yet butat about russia there has been a lot of talk about the role of russian president vladimir putin what he wants. he is obviously going to be very upset about the events in ukraine because his ally, the former president, just disappeared into the night on saturday and left power. he has not been heard of again. the party that is pro-russia and ukraine is an absolute disarray. it will be a great concern to the russians. as you know, the russians and ukrainians have had a very the his, cultural, linguistic connections for many hundreds of

years. ukraine was the second largest republican -- the public to the soviet union. -- second-largest republic to the soviet union in 1991. there was such a long connection between ukraine and russia that many ukrainians cannot foresee a time when they would not have a very close political and economic ties to ukraine. the worry is president put in to useee an opportunity russian influence to intimidate the new interim government of ukraine. russia supplies ukraine with most of its natural gas, which powers the economy and powers people's homes. economy in russia is willing to put its own troops into another country's affairs to decide things as it did in

georgia, when it invaded georgia in the summer of 2008. president putin is a very cynical, tough minded person. he is likely going to play a very tough game to try to regain russian influence in the ukraine. that may be the source of tensions going forward in the next couple of days and weeks. host: national security advisor susan rice asked about the role of russia can play there. we will get your response. [video clip] >> that would be a great mistake. it is not in the interest of russia, ukraine, or the united states to see the country split. it is in nobody's interest to see violence return and the situation escalate. there is not an inherent connection between a ukraine that has a long-standing historical ties to russia and a modern ukraine that wants to integrate more closely with europe. it need not be mutually exclusive. host: your take? espoo i agree completely with ambassador -- guest: i agree

completely with ambassador rice. she warned president putin against the use of force in ukraine. would bentolerable and outrages. secondly, she made a very good point that a country like ukraine can have a historic and linguistic tie to russia but it has its own political orientation. if ukraine wants to take its country into a closer trade relationship with the european union they ought to be able to do that. the end of the cold war, 20 years ago, one of the great successes at the end of the cold haveere people in europe been dominated by the soviet empire for four decades and now had a chance to choose. it does look like people of ukraine are choosing a western orientation. one would hope that president putin would respect that. i doubt very much that he will preempt i think you will see every effort made by the russian government to turn the situation back to a closer relationship

between the ukraine and russia. let us hope that this not take place for the aforesaid arms. host: our next call comes from portland, oregon. carlos is on the line for democrats. -- karl is on the line for democrats. caller: i am glad to get through. host: go ahead. glad to see your program on cd. many times i have a hard time sleeping and i enjoy watching anything to do with the government. host: do have a question about the situation in the ukraine? like to knowld what it has to do with anything that relates to america. ost: ambassador burns? guest: the united states has a stake in what happens in the

ukraine. the united states had to fight 20th wars twice in the century. we were the vanguard of freedom during the cold war. we stationed some of the american troops in europe and some of the great events of our time was the end of the cold war, the dissolution of the soviet empire and of the warsaw pact. the ukrainians were really left out of that revolution because their economy was not reformed. ofy did not have the rule law that safeguarded their private business or political interest. they were run by pro-russian and .ometimes procommunist rulers have a people of ukraine chance for a very different future. it is certainly in the interest of the united states to see as president george h w

bush said more than 20 years ago, europe should be whole, free, and peace. that is the strategic aim of every american president from president truman all the way to president obama, including presidents reagan president bush, and president clinton. we do have a stake in what happens there. united states is only going to operate through political means. there is no question we questiot use or threaten to use military force to get our way in europe. but we are a great if -- influence, political and economic influence on central european countries. we can help them achieve a better future. if we could do that, that is in the interest of our country. >> the next caller is from arlington, virginia. is things develop the way i suspect they will develop, things will be far worse than indicated. from theall,

bottom-up, not from the top-down, if they decide they decide they have a hard time dissociating with a western ukrainians, and the western ukrainians try to send troops there, i can imagine russians will be helpful to try to settle that. we settle the question about changing borders in europe when we supported independence from soviet. russians -- george started that war. this is a situation that leads to a more balanced presentation if we're going to avoid the terrible prom over there. >> i would say in response i do not agree with the color that

somehow, there was an excuse for insia to invade georgia 2008. no reason to use military force. i would completely disagree with that sentiment. at the beginning of the program, i as i said, there is real concern about the future of the ukraine, that the country might not hold together, because of some of the factors the caller very correctly pointed out. between ethnic russians and ethnic ukrainians, the central part of the country, russian speakers in the east, and the southern part of the country, the russian confederation itself has a long-term lease on the black fee for its fleet. many ethnic russians will not look kindly on the new interim government or the rule for nationalists. there is, unfortunately, a real possibility of instability or

worse, even perhaps in the most extreme case, civil war. be avoided.o no one wants to see the ukraine dismembered. raises the question, what is the right policy for the united states. they set all the right things and are doing the right things. we are looking for international lending institutions. i think the government has done what it can do over the weekend in a very tough situation. >> next up in texas, michael is on the line. thank you for taking my call. you want to look at the problem critically. you recognize we have a position where we have an external influence. the the external side,

geopolitical plane becomes a province. if you want a resolution of the problem -- the united states might have to take a somewhat careful view on careful posture. i think you should take a lead, and the united states government should step in malta -- in more to help financially. the ukraine is susceptible. in the united states, that is coming in financially. the eu should take more of a political negotiation role.

we have to be careful. we have seen this play out in cairo and many other countries during the arab spring. people might decide to pull back. not -- see america does it does not support a democratic government. we have seen it before in the ukraine during the resolution. we had a revolution fall apart. what is the guarantee here? there are many nuances. the nuances would have been complex and we have to proceed carefully. class i very much agree with the

way you characterized the situation. before saturday's departure, and the beginning of the new interim government, there was a good amount of compromise worked out essentially by the european union by the foreign ministers. the united states is content to see them take the lead. thee is no question given political and economic weight in the world, we have a role to play as well. you consider your -- the u.s. and europe were together to support peaceful change, the rule of law, and free elections in the ukraine. these are major points the u.s. administration made over the weekend. i also agree with the caller that there is a lot of complexity here and we cannot see the situation in just simplistic terms. the fact is the ukraine will

futurehave some kind of close relationship with russia. for the last 1000 years, there have been orthodox religious between the ukrainians and russians and the orthodox church. local ties back hundreds of years. there are economic links. these two countries are tied closely together economically. is fromukraine's energy gas pipelines in russia. it is not as if europe and the united states can just hope the ukraine completely detaches itself from russia. for social and political and economic and linguistic reasons, that will not happen. that is why the display -- the diplomacy has to be carefully done. you see a restraint in the comments from the united states, which is appropriate. united states is not trying to stoke the fires or violence. the u.s. is arguing for peaceful change. that is the writer -- the right

and responsible thing for our government to do. host: coming out of moscow, we will get comment out of that out of pennsylvania. are you with us, congressman? thank you for joining us. we have a new headline this morning from "the associated press," -- guest: it is not surprising to

hear that commentary from russia. there tried to use their monetary power to have a different regime today than what exists. it is not surprising to see the ukraine as eventually coming as a regional power. regime, it was their best opportunity to accomplish that. now that he is gone, it makes it so much different -- more difficult for the russians to envision how that will happen. with the opposition leaders having taken control of parliament and now the new acting president/prime minister. it is turning out the wrong way than what vladimir putin wanted and it is clearly heading in the direction of those who want more freedom or liberty or democracy

in the ukraine. >> what are your biggest concerns in the region right now jacob -- now? guest: certainly stability. more stable and more long-lasting. life in thehe daily concerns.ertainly he is clearly trying to get out of the country. there has been issuing of a warrant for his arrest. whether he is sound and he is arrested, it remains to be seen. is it looks like it is starting to settle down, a good thing for everybody. people in the ukraine to put in place the right policies in line with where people want to see their country go. if that happens, hopefully stability results.

view, has the united states done enough in this situation? >> i think the united states has done enough in terms of at least trying to support the opposition leadership and support protesters, but also our allies in the european union who are directly involved in the negotiation with the agreement a few days ago. we certainly supported that effort. more a situation where we had to allow the european union countries to really take the lead on this given the fact a lot of the unrest started over the decision not to have ukraine join the du. certainly think that was a mistake. it was a good thing the nations, with the support of the united states, stepped up to the plate and took this situation seriously and began a

negotiation that has led to a very good outcome so far. we have been supportive as a country. members of congress have been on the phones in the past week advocatend trying to for stability and the ceasing of hostilities and at the same time for democratic reforms and civil liberties. we probably just took the right amount of action here with great support of great work. the european union foreign ministers that were involved. class all right. ukrainehe congressional cochairs, thank you for joining us. ambassador, i want to get your take on that story as well about the fear or the lack thereof of the ukraine government. with: i agree very much

what the congressman just said and way -- the way he put things. the russians have been saying for the last 48 hours they do not consider the change of power to be legitimate. but russians had a bankrupt policy in the ukraine. they have been supporting the use of force and have called young protesters in the streets terrorists. that is what russians call them. the russians have been off-base. they are obviously extremely disappointed with what is happened. the problem here is russia will not take this lying down. putin, the real power in russia, sees the ukraine as inextricably bound up with the future of russia. he would see the departure of ukraine as a western leaning country as a major strategic defeat. we have seen how vicious president putin can be. in 2008.at in georgia

so i think we have to unfortunately assume the find a wayll try to to recruit their influence in the ukraine. one could imagine the russians might make a big deal about dissatisfaction among ethnic russians in eastern ukraine who do not want to live in a state where their interests are not as well served as they were under yannick kovacic. gascan imagine putin using exports as leverage to turn the gas supplies off and on as he wishes. he has done that before. we will hear more from russia's -- from russians. disappointing. they want to tell the ukraine

get through a tough time. a professor at harvard kennedy school. next caller comes from california. zach is online for independent. thank you. thank you, ambassador for your time. you mentioned the appropriateness, but i would like to question you about the appropriateness of the polish foreign minister's comments and alarming comments from the prime minister premier. the polish foreign minister said the army would be after you guys and you will be dead and there will be martial law. it was reported the prime minister essentially said it looks like their country might be splitting. the ukraine.

what is turkey's stance in the ukrainian question? thank you. the polish foreign minister, the comments you referred to were comments he made last thursday and friday. before the departure of yan ocovich. it in the press, you have got to act -- recognize this issue or else. there has been a lot of history since then and a lot of change in the ukraine. you pinpoint in your statement the real concern. the russian government has its sea. in the black the russian government will hold foro that strategic point

the russian navy. it is ukrainian territory but has been linked to russia on a long-term basis. you will see mayors and governors in the eastern part of appeal to the russian government to support them against the government in kia. division inethnic the ukraine. important to understand, between ethnic russians and russian language speak or debt speakers in the east. most of the western part of ukraine dominated by ethnic ukrainian speakers. that is a big chasm in the country and a source of division. the russian government will play on that, i think. if ethnic russians in the east appeal to russia for support, russians will make a big deal of saying their rights need to be respected. in the worst-case, that could be a pretext for russia to intervene militarily in the eastern part of the country. we hope it does not come to that. it is at least a possibility

because it is part of the playbook of vladimir putin. why you saw ambassador susan rice won the russian government publicly yesterday when she appeared on "meet the press." she was right to say that. our next caller is from new york. independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- how can i think put it. it is their region, let them take care of it. we have got a lot of problems at home. we have got to get back to taking care of our home country. with the started united states and then go help somebody else. i think it is to -- time to keep our noses out of other peoples business, really. thank you for taking my call.

it is just the way i feel about it. there is no question the primary focus of our government has to be on the economy and what happens here. but we live in the world. we live in a highly integrated and globalized world. a lot of our economic success depends on our ability to export . a lot of the ways to protect our country is to have allies around the world. we have a lot of allies in europe. when ambassador rice said we ought to support the transition in the ukraine, when she said russia should not intervene, i think she was speaking on behalf of american national interest. we cannot be isolationists and we cannot think we should not pay attention to what happens around the world. as i said before, the united states has been dragged into two world wars in europe. in addition to those, we had to of those forefront forces, supporting the soviet union during the cold war. the glory of what has happened in europe over the last 20 years

or so is that europe has been peaceful and united, more or less. europe has been democratic. we should want to see ukraine stable and to see change take place peacefully and we should has ao see the ukraine chance to prosper. all of that will help the united states of america. in a world where we can disregard what happens in the rest of the world. staten island, new york, catherine is on the independent line. caller: i just have one question for you. why it is not ok for russia -- cyprus, but it is ok for ? how come it is ok for yugoslavia -- [indiscernible] that.xplain to me

thank you. >> thank you for your questions. i would not compare these situations. you know the united states has never supported the division of cyprus. you referred to cyprus. has been divided for more than 40 years now. we have not supported that. we support peace talks that would lead to the unification. states has clearly supported the independence of the country of macedonia and have diplomatic relations with that country and that is the proper thing for us to do. the situation in ukraine is quite different. we recognize the ukraine on december 20 5, 19 91, that was the day the soviet union split up into 15 parts. we have been a good friend of the ukraine since then. we obviously need to be respectful of the internal affairs of the people of the ukraine, but we can certainly speak up and argue for democracy endthe rule of law and an

to the nefarious russian influence that has taken place in the country. there has been a consistency between president george h.w. bush, president clinton, and president george w. bush, now president obama. presidents,of those the strategic that -- the strategy is to see a united and peaceful europe. then for the united states to now support peaceful change is the right thing to do. i support what the press -- with the it ministration has been saying over the last couple of days. we will go down to another cochair. an ohio democrat. thank you for joining us. thank you very much and thank you for focusing attention on the ukraine. i am curious what you are

hearing from constituents on the issue? >> people are in support religious leaders and those seeking peaceful change inside the ukraine. they are asking what they can do. do you believe united states has done enough? is there more you would like to personally see done? guest: the united states should stand with its allies around the world and most importantly with the people of ukraine who are trying to improve their country peacefully and have run into serious challenges in doing so. there will probably be a need to deal with some of those who have had severe burns as a result of what happened. the area of medical, we may be able to do something immediately. more importantly, to be part of a financing package that will draw the ukraine to a free world

and allow her to reach her full potential. most americans do not realize how large the ukraine is geographically. can actually be a borderland. that is what her name means. not just pulling to europe, but toward turkey and russia. withs an enormous nation tremendous unmet potential. i could split -- explain a lot about that. there is probably not time. a financing package that allows to go through her current debt situation because of the absolute corruption of the current regime, it is very necessary. ukrainian people will work hard. they are highly intelligent. you can tell from the olympics, they are very athletic and talented people. passed a congress resolution a couple of weeks ago

in strong support of them and against the corruption of the government. class i want to ask you about the recent comments out of russia. the prime minister says the ukrainian government, the authority is questionable. are you surprised at all? class i am not surprised. there is a historic relationship between russia and the ukraine. is a breadbasket for the world. she is now the third-largest exporter, for example. she is to be part of the soviet union. i traveled there when she was. basically, and, other republics. the world has changed. the ukraine is now an independent nation. it needs to be treated as such and respected as such. moreace on earth suffered

in the 20th century, if you look back, then this borderland nation and some of her sister nations. nations like poland that have now come under help. and for a book written americans interested in the subject, you should read that were 32 50 million people killed in that region. there have been fights about the ukraine, about the assets of the ukraine, about the territory of the ukraine and her people, for generations. it is now time to settle down as a world together intent on allowing more transparent and open societies, and to focus attention on the ukraine and allow her people to reach their full potential. congresswoman marcy kaptur.

thank you for joining us this morning. , iassador nicholas burns want to get to an e-mail we just got in. the person writes -- i do not agree at all with the guests. -- guest: i disagree with the sentiments in that e-mail. president yannick overage use force. we should have no sympathy for

him. this is a complex situation. seismicians are a population. the sentiments in this e-mail are something we have to think about. the united states has to be careful about proposing peaceful change. it will take a long time for the ukraine to move forward any kind basis.sive it will be torn between eastern and western half of the country, based on linguistic and ethnic differences. we do not want to do anything to exacerbate those. of rights and the people it the east have to be respected and that will be a challenge of governance and leadership by the new government. can a new ukrainian government -- president turned his country toward closer economic integration with europe and try to help the people of eastern ukraine, the russian speaking

people, to be part of that and part of one country and not to see the country divide. that will be a great test to be had. >> one more call. bill in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thank you. i just came back from europe and my cousin has been there and the -- i will telld you something. i am a smart guy, 69 years old. quit playing games. i am american. i have been here 15 years and i love this country and i think everybody in america and this country has to stick together and fight what you guys do.

you are destroying the world and the world hates us. been to 60 countries and every one of them hates us. it is time for the president and do not know and i what her name was from ohio, she does not know what she's is talking about. mind our own business and look at our people in the country suffering. we don't have no streets or roads, nothing. we should be ashamed of ourselves. mind our owntime, business because it will come back and kick us in the ass. host: your response? with: i disagree everything that gentleman said. we are a great country, the most influential country in the world. america reacts peacefully to support democracy. toan give decisive support people in the ukraine who require that. what our proud of

governments, republican and democratic, have done over the last 25 years to support a unified and democratic europe. the thought that we can just stay home and pay no attention to the rest of the world, it does not work in a 21st-century. it will not work economically. our economy is so much integrated with the west of the world. it will not work in terms of protecting the country. look what happened to us on 9/11. ourave to strengthen coalitions around the world and our alliances. we have a nato alliance for the united states, dedicated security of the 26 members of that alliance from europe. i was ambassador to nato on 9/11. all of those countries voted at that time, 18 of them, voted, by consensus, to support the united states against al qaeda. these alliances help us when we need help and we have got to help people when they are in the need. the idea that president obama

would support the aspirations of the ukrainian people for freedom and for a better life is very much in them -- the american tradition. we have never been a country that has succeeded by only at what happens on our own continent and trying to be isolationists. it does not work in a 21st-century. chrysler got to leave it there. we are out of time. our guest has been nicholas burns. thank you for being with us this morning. we will take a quick break. be --e come back, we will later, we will have a week to look at how your taxpayer dollars have been spent. the focus is army tanks.

first, an update from c-span radio. >> ehlert -- eric holder is --ing to require businesses in the wake of significant data breaches like the ones that happened recently at target. general holder says congress should create a strong national standard for notifying consumers whose information might up in compromise, empowering members of the public to protect themselves if they are at risk of identity theft. returning to politics and politics, the massachusetts democratic governor signaled yesterday he would be open to the white house bid at some point, though he has previously world out running in 2016. governor patrick is only the second african american elected governor of the u.s. state and as mitt romney's successor, he was a top surrogate for president obama's reelection

campaign. he is not seeking reelection as governor this year. turning to expenses in the government, later today, chuck hagel, who was sworn in a will a -- a year ago this week, will call for downsizing the army by 40,000 to 50,000 soldiers, terminating and restructuring several major acquisition programs, and slowing growth of military compensation. he will begin traveling tomorrow to see troops and talk about the future of the force. the briefing begins today at 1:00 p.m. eastern time and c-span is covering that event. those are some of the latest headlines. 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 are -- coverage. , funded by your

local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> if this deal is completed, it puts comcast on the nexus and center of every major media policy debate we will have. in thet see this being public interest and i think the fcc should block the merger. it is why we have antitrust laws, to prevent these deals. for most americans, a deal like this seems unthinkable, that it has gotten this far and is being debated is really saying a lot. for me, there is no condition likeenough to let a deal this go through. >> transactions are frequently used as a way to shape markets. conditions lot of that could be placed on the internet service provider, be it low-cost offering, perhaps a

for schools to upgrade internet access to 99% of america'schools. there are a host of things similar to conditions comcast agreed to a little over two years ago when it bought universal. i could see it being seriously considered at the fcc. something they would approve, but with a lot of condition. >> the impact of a comcast and time warner cable merger tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: our guest is jonathan reporter health-care for the hill. thank you for being here. one of your recent articles, the pale,ne is, 20% fail to premiums. what does that mean? onst: you can select a plan

there but the final step, you do not have insurance until you actually pay the insurer. what industryout executives are saying is that 20% of people who have selected a plan have not actually pay for it and gone to the final step. when the obama administration numbers, 3.2llment million people have enrolled, you have got to pay -- shave about 20% off of that. host: what does that mean for the obama administration? they have been touting that number. >> it will be something democrats will be on the defensive about. days, cms will have to own up to the fact enrollment numbers are actually lower than what we have been reporting. right now, it is only about 80% of the 3.3 million have paid. possible -- i have

gone to the steps and i'm done, but i have not made the final steps? is that a concern? guest: absolutely. a lot of people have been getting it for the first time through obamacare. they have not been through it before. it is not always the consumers fault. we are seeing when healthcare.gov stumbled out of the gate, the ministration focus on fixing the front end of the website and let the backend, stay in development. a lot of information going to the insurers to notify them of who was signing up, never got there were sent that information so there has been a delay in building some of these consumers. it is not always the consumers fault. sometimes they are still waiting on a call from the and sit -- the insurer. >> how do you know what you are 100% done and have gone through all the steps you need? class you will get an insurance card in the mail. they are encouraging people to call their insurer to be sure.

if you paid your premium, you likely have health care. it is good to call your insurer and double check. >> our guest is a health-care reporter for the hill. if you would like to join the onversation -- if you are an enrollee for a plan under the affordable health care act, you can give us a call. the first call this morning is byron in louisiana and on the line for democrats. the guest there, and all republicans, why are they so andid of the middle class poor people having health care in this country echo what do they have against them? they act so gleeful whenever

they can announce something against the affordable care act. they realize if it ever goes through, when it goes through, they are finished. nobody will vote republican ever again. bye. i would say republicans are walking a fine line right now. they're coming up with their own and alternative to obama care that focuses more on free-market fixes, they would say. of right, itnd leaves them in a position of, when they are knocking the health-care law, they have to be very careful lyrically not to callousseem like a argument against obamacare and make it seem a bit actually care that people are getting health care for the first time. >> i want to take a look at some of the numbers on this. if you break it down by insurance company, as many as 30% of customers failed to pay premiums under the aca. 20% from blue shield,

california, and 16% from -- thesere you hearing from companies about his numbers? >> their concern could be worse. earlier in the process, it was something we were getting estimates that only 50% aid. it could be worse. 80% is not ideal. a lot of their focus right now is on reaching out to the people who have not made their payment. there are other reasons some of these people have not paid. maybe they will wait until the march 31 deadline to pay. what these insurance companies are doing is reaching out because people are really pushing them and letting them know if you want to be covered, you have to make the premium payment. becky inxt caller is baltimore, maryland, on the line for independents. she has signed up through the aca. caller: hello.

i worked very hard for three months to enroll my husband in the aca. it took me three months before somebody could figure out why it was coming out as an error. toave not even gotten built pay the premium and he is supposed to start on march 1. so i am not sure how he will be enrolled if i have not even gotten gold. thank you. christ yes. i think that is a common problem and troubling news for the obama administration. of the primary reasons people have not pay their premiums is that they are not getting their bills from the insurers and that could be because the data from healthcare.gov has not been transmitted properly to insurers. you are in a boat with a lot of the 20% that have not made their toments area i would say contact your insurer to make sure you have enrolled and ask where your bill is. in a lot of these cases, the insurers are being flexible with how they deal with these.

they will backdate your insurance policy, and sometimes they are even sending people their cars before they pay with a bill to say, you can use this as soon as you finish payment. that is one of the main reasons some of these people have not paid. to st. louis, missouri. on our line for democrats. what has been your experience in rolling? -- and rolling? -- enrolling? caller: half with you january, i gave a credit card number to pay my next ill. this week for my got my first bill. while that was going on, i spent many hours on hold with the insurance company, trying to get a build in trying to make sure i was covered and when i called, they said, yes, you're covered. when a provider called, they

said no, we have no record of him. the democratic line and we just heard from independent line. this is troubling stuff or the obama administration. all these little anecdotes of people who want healthcare.gov to work and it has been a difficult experience for a lot of people. might expect this from the republican line, a lot of people calling up and saying this is not working, but that is troubling. we are starting to hear that. hopefully, you can iron out the issues. >> i want to ask you about a recent article you wrote. what does it mean and what problems will it solve? guest: one of the primary criticisms of the obama administration during the rollout has been the numbers they are releasing are inflated because they included people that have not pay their premiums. when you try to find out from wem what percentage it is, have been learning this from the

insurance industry and not the obama administration, they say they do not have the ability right now to track who has and has not paid because they pay insurers directly. part of the backend of the website they are building out right now is an application that will allow them to better track who has and has not paid premiums. we will hopefully get more regular updates about what percentage of people have picked out a plan and have not paid. right now, it is something in the works and i imagine sometime in spring, probably april or may, that will be and we will have a better idea who has and has not paid but it is one of the things they have not been able to report on. michigan. is karen in what was your sign-up experience like echo class a little rough in the beginning. we got through and are thrilled with our plan. premiums are cut in half. asthma is no longer a

problem and we are not stuck with our policy. i would like to ask, how much money has been spent by outside opposing the affordable care act compared to outside groups promoting it. thank you. guest: a good question. i do not have exact figures but both sides are spending big on this. the primary issue of the 2040 electioncycle -- 2014 cycle, so you have outside groups spending millions to make that an issue. on the side of the affordable you have enrollment activists and outside groups their publicamp up relations blitz on this. when the website stumbled out of the gate, it was pointless advertising and supporting the law because you would send

people to website that did not work. you will see that ramp up match us in the next month, but also throughout the year before the 2014 elections. haven,s go to new connecticut. online for democrats. >> good morning. i am sure he has researched all of the information, but the the obama health care act will be a plus for the democrats. in particular, to families who have had problems trying to get health care for family members who have been turned down because of previous illnesses, etc.. i can tell you this. view,y point of republicans had better get on the stick and start discussing

issues that are meaningful to the american public out here. already voted on the health care act, something like 48 times. something that is already lost. they need to talk about, for example, why are milk prices rising? what is there about this product milkmakes the price of continually rising from week to week? issues that many are not being discussed. may i just say this? i feel sorry for the people in theykraine and the fact are having problems with their government. but i am more concerned about what is happening with our people here in our government

and the problems we are having over here. you said you think obama care will be a plus for democrats. that is an optimistic view right now. the law is not terribly popular. it is fairly unpopular. the botched rollout did not help. there is an effort by both sides to highlight anecdotal stories of the law working or not. republicans highlighting cases where someone lost their insurance and someone who is gravely ill had to change plans because of obamacare, and you have on the democratic side them highlighting stories of people who got coverage for the first time despite resisting conditions. that is a battle that will play out and we will see closer to november who is winning the battle. right now, i would call it a net negative for democrats. if we're talking about the

20% of people who sign up and did not pay when going to the system, water lawmakers saying and how are they responding? guest: on the republican side, you have constant attempts, sending letters to cms or helping human services, demanding the information the obama administration already said they cannot supply right now. on the administration side, you have a real effort to get the backend of the system up and running. it is a real liability for them as long as this remains out there. one of the big stories after the march 31 deadline will be how big of a hit these enrollment numbers take when we finally know what percentage of these people actually paid. administration can close that gap and make it less than 20%, they can say they are making progress. they will already miss their initial enrollment target of march 31.

you shave 20% off, it goes down even more. by thes a real push insurance industry, who needs and wants to get paid by the consumers, and also the administration to get this up and running. next up is gael in freehold, new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. the affordable care act has cut off care for seniors. anybody over 65, especially if you are white, that is what obama's goal was. because ifwatch out you are white over 65, there is no more medical care for you. i think i would disagree. i think there is still ample medical care. i think one issue republicans will latch onto in 2014 are cuts to the medicare advantage program, private medicare.

basically, on friday, the ems announced a decrease payment rate to insurers by two percent. when democrats pass this law, medicare advantage had always been a liberal punching bag for a while. they cut $200 billion over 10 years. in part to pay for the for the care act. there are ways republicans are spending that -- spinning that to say obamacare is hoenig -- hurting seniors. i think there are still other options available. for pop -- for some people, they might see premiums go up or fewer services offered. caller, frank, a democrat in florida. i do not have a problem signing up. i am on medicare. but my wife is signing up right now. think the gentleman is not

giving the government enough credit. someone asked him how much the people who spent a portion of obamacare do not and he did not know the answer. what i am saying is a deal this , getting up to 30 million americans signing up for health time, itthe first needed everybody to have all hands on deck. to be onhing this big and the poor -- the republicans do not supportive -- it at all, give the government credit. at any point in time, even for those who have insurance, more than 25% of the public have not

paid premiums. so give them credit. 20% of people not having paid their premiums, it is not good enough for me to join the -- that has provided all of this for the very first time. yes, well, i mean, i think the obama administration would admit the healthcare.gov rollout went horribly. there is an argument that republicans have been obstructing the law every chance they get. it,tless attempts to repeal and they have not been on board with helping the law succeed. that is certainly something democrats will be saying. there is some merit there. i do not even think the administration would call up the

rollout a success at this point. when the obama administration is in the -- releasing the enrollment numbers, you have to back and say, they will be lower than they already are and they are already behind enrollment goals. it is something that will be a political issue in 2410 something that insurers and the administration both have a stake in improving. >> i want to ask you a little bit. something you wrote about this past sunday. i want to listen to a clip and get your response. [video clip] >> this has not been what anybody had hoped for. with that is the per sonnet and

maybe this is not something i want to participate in. peel that back and show people advantages of health care and why it is much better than using emergency rooms of our for aals as primary care lot of people, i think people understand it. it helps them plan their health care. it works. it takes a lot of education. >> you can watch the entire interview on our website. your take? we're seeing right now in the run-up to the march 31 deadline is a more micro targeted public relations blitz by the administration and people who have a stake in the health care law succeeding.

friday, a senior obama adviser did a conference call with reporters. trying to they are coordinate the final push to get members of the black community to sign up for obamacare. there has been fear some of the i'm -- the minority groups have in missing the message on signing up because the trends in california right now are that hispanics are lagging in signing up. what you will see is a corrugated push to get minorities, blacks, to sign up in greater numbers. class how about some of the things the administration will be doing? celebrities always help. they have nba basketball players on board. magic johnson trying to get the message out and hoping they connect well with the black community. i think they do. basically, they are working with these mayors to build an

infrastructure. each of these cities has a different reason about why people in their community are not signing up. some people in their community are very poor. and too reliant on going to be emerged see room. anything they pay for will be some sort of sticker shock for them. they have got to do convincing about why having health care insurance is a better option for them than just relying on the emergency room. >> a question from twitter now, roger green writes, how does the aca helped millions of employed and under employed? -- gap inthere is kind of a some of these states that did not expand medicare, kind of a big issue right now. tople who do not make enough qualify for medicare and do not receive federal subsidies. i do not know what the exact percentage is, that qualify for

subsidies, but there is a large amount now. that is one of the it may -- the main selling point to hear from the obama administration now. check it out because you might get a tax break or a subsidy. host: our guest jonathan easley is a health care reporter from the hill. next up on our line from it -- andand an acl aca -- an aca enrollee. caller: i take a bit of an issue. we did not expand medicare. we expanded medicaid. as a reporter, i would suggest you report and keep your personal opinions to yourself. from your use of the word black in a denigrating way, your use of minorities, and your facial when you are humor

getting an opinion you do not particularly care for. as far as your 20%, your investigation should focus quite five calls to the insurance carrier to send a bill. carrier, fivence times, saying, well, we don't have your paperwork. ,e knew the question to ask which was the number we were california -- covered california. "we have that." now we found that the people in the insurance carrier's own room either did not have access to a computer, although they found that number and subsequently sent out a bill. so maybe the 20% failure is not

so much the part on the people that signed up or on the federal government in california. it is the state that successfully managed covered california. host: do you mind if i ask you a question about your experience? that, was your family able to enroll? guest: the difference is this. the failure to pay 20% premium on the affordable care act, they have already signed up. they cannot have a premium if they have not signed up. if they are getting a subsidy, they cannot have a figure to pay the insurance carrier. just like under medicare, where you pay a co-pay or if you have a regular insurance program where you pay a co-pay or an annual fee. out ofe -- it comes

social security automatically. quite frankly, if you do not get a bill for how much from the insurance carrier, even though the exchange has already told you how much you are going to eligibleay, if you are for the subsidy, or if you make too much money and are not eligible for the subsidy. so those several points i wanted to share with you because i think a reporter should report, and we will call it a contributor -- i tried not to use the word "pundit" -- we expect personal -- we respect personal opinion. the term was the federal government did not do too well on the rollout with the affordable care act. host: i am sure jonathan wants

to respond to that. guest: i was not blaming the obama administration in its entirety for the 20% that have not shown up. i said the bar waiting for bills from the insurance companies. part of that i think is the administration's fall. the backend is not completely built yet, so some of the communications that go between health care.gov and the insurers is not going through. to pittsburgh, pennsylvania. william is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. my whole thing on the aca is very simply if it is so fantastic and so great for america, how come there are so comewaivers issued? how congressional staffers do not have to be part of it? how come all these people are trying to escape from obamacare? certainly one of

the arguments republicans are using against the law, and they have targeted some of the areas where they think there has been exemptions from capitol hill staffers and lawmakers. you have some lawmakers forgoing some of the subsidies. saying they should not get any special treatment that normal americans do not get. that is certainly something that republicans have jumped on. and in that same vein, there are so many bureau lateral -- there are so many unilateral moves. tweaks to the law to make it work better. republicans are saying president obama is overstepping and that responsibility to enforce the laws. that is definitely something that democrats are going to have to be defensive on in 2014. host: massachusetts, mary is on the line for independents. guest: i have to echo frederick -- caller: i have to echo

frederick's complaint about reporters. it is almost like he is promoting the aca over any other alternative payment for coverage for americans. there is never, ever a proponent of single-payer health care that is on "the washington journal." you never have steven brill, who can just explain why the aca won't work. your reporters always explain the aca, which is still impossible to understand because it is just unworkable approach to payment. so i would just like to ask your reporter why you seem to be confused about -- you are confusing access to health insurance with access to health care, and why you don't cover payer movement which is active but very much uncovered by the media. thank you. guest: i mean, the media can only cover what is out there now. atublicans are putting --

some point republicans are nodding to have two put out their alternative -- at some point republicans in the house are going to have to put out their alternative to obamacare. stores willrimary be an alternative to obamacare, but right now obamacare is what something we will not probably have in the near future is why we are not talking about it much. steven writes, "if it is so important for people to sign up for the aca this year, why does the enrollment period and march 31 -- what is the enrollment. -- the march 31 deadline will be what insurance companies are using to set premiums and prices next year. you should be able to continue to sign up throughout the year. host: next on our line for republicans is jeff, from florida. caller: yes, good morning.

a couple of things. i have three areas i want to hit. everyone, we talk about the percentage of people that are signed up. it is important because the administration will not release this. it does not give a complete picture. of individuals who are signed up, how many had no insurance and were a part of the 30 million that they talked about versus individuals whose company dropped them from insurance, so therefore they had to sign up as well? until you can break those numbers down, you're not giving us the complete picture of what the law was intended to do, to do with the people who did not have insurance, not the ones who did. number 2 -- we talk about the groups who are opposing this. it is important to include the fact that the government itself has spent tens of millions of dollars to run ads and get individuals to go out and talk health care, which is

taxpayer money versus individuals who are raising the money. -- we talk about 30 million people uninsured, but i am an individual who has health care, and my company has already sent out letters in regards to possibly changes that are going to be taking place. so you really have about 310 million people in the nation, which means you have 280 million who either are perfectly fine with health care and perhaps need some tweaks. -- west area before i go are talking about the benefits of this. there are generally four to five talking points that are beneficial for this aca, which i agree with come in which means the question should be asked, why does it take 3000 pages to talk about health care until you are 26, pre-existing conditions, plus another 20,000 pages of regulations that have come from hhs?

if you are not talking about that, then you are just repeating what democrats or republicans say. thank you. guest: i think you made a couple of good points. you mentioned the percentage who had signed up, the 3.3 million who have enrolled or selected a plan, what percentage of them had health care previously and are not being covered for the first time -- and are being covered for the first time. we don't have that breakdown yet. you cannot use those as talking points. a lot of those people might have had insurance previously and maybe are either signing up at healthcare.gov because they get federal subsidies or something like that. they might have already had health insurance. you make another good point about the 30 million uninsured. most people get insurance through private employers, so this was kind of a radical transformation of this health care overhaul -- this health

care overhaul was fairly radical and it only affects a small percentage of the population. is on the line for democrats from north carolina. caller: thanks for taking my call. thank odd for c-span. i have one question and one question only. -- if you getense a subsidy in this volatile job market and you lose your job, do you have to pay the subsidy back? i know you have to contact them within 30 days, but do you have to pay the subsidy back the cause you don't have the job and you don't qualify for the federal poverty level but your estimate did qualify for it? theou answer have to pay subsidy back, and to whom do you pay it back? each specific location is probably going to be different. there are certain aspects of health insurance where if you go through a life-changing event --

you get married, you lose your job, that kind of thing -- you have other options. i don't know of any cases where you would have to repay a subsidy that you already received. basically when you get a subsidy, what you do is you get the -- you pay the reduced amount to the insurer and the insurer goes to the federal government for the balance of that plan. i don't know of any incidents where you would have to pay their subsidy -- repay the subsidy, but every situation will be different. host: on our line for democrats, you're on with jonathan easley. caller: "the hill" is a light week -- is a lightweight mouthpiece. the republicans and the right really research all the negative of the aca, and then they come on.

he was not only referring to republicans, jonathan, he was referring to people like you. administration's responsibility to ensure that the people actually pay their insurance? the aca is a vehicle in which people can gain access to insurance. the final responsibility of payment is on the individual. no matter what, no matter how that happens. my last part of this is an analogy. goes to get access to purchase a home. the first mortgage bill comes and they don't pay it. do you hold the realtor responsible for that nonpayment? and if you don't, then you cannot hold the administration responsible because people do not pay. what you have done is done this research and built your conversation around this lightweight talking point. that is what you have done, and you really need to back off of that. talk aboute here to

the 20% of people who have failed to pay premiums under the aca. we will stick with that as our topic. guest: i would like to respond to that. i did not say it was the government's responsibility to obtain payment. i am saying basically we are at a stage in the health-care law where there is a dearth of really solid statistics about how the health-care law is working, and one of the primary statistics we have is how many people have enrolled in the law. the administration, when there has been this uptick, has been quick to promote and say, look, --umber of people rolled enrolled at the end of december and we have another large number of enrollees near march 31. we are talking about the numbers that we are getting from the administration and saying, look, and roman has improved, and also we have to take a stack back -- a step back with a grain of salt

. it is not the responsibility of the government to get that money, it is the insurer's responsibility. host: our guest is jonathan a health-care reporter. you can find him in "the hill" newspaper. up next, we will take a look at the military's agent army tanks. we will be joined by marjorie censer of "the washington post." 9:14 a.m. eastern time. lawyers for mel reynolds says he was deported to the u.s. after paying a fine for violating zimbabwe's immigration laws. the attorney said today that mr. reynolds left some bob way yesterday afternoon. a magistrate friday ordered mr. a $100 fine or spend five days in jail after pleading guilty to what he called flouting the country's

immigration laws by staying longer than his visa omitted. hisreynolds, 62, who lost congressional seat was arrested at a hotel on february 17. he also faced charges of possessing pornography, but those charges were dismissed because the judge ruled police did not have a proper prosecution order. in uganda, the president is accusing "arrogant and careless western groups" of trying to, in his words, recruit uganda children into homosexuality and says that is why he signed a harsh anti-gay bill today. in its original form, the bill called for the death penalty of some homosexual acts. that penalty was removed following an international outcry. some sections do provide for life in prison. prominent ugandan gay activists say the ugandan president signed the bill because he has never met an openly gay person. turning to egypt -- the

company's interim prime minister announced the resignation of his cabinet. the surprise move could be designed in part to pave the way for the nation's military chief to leave his defense ministers post and run for president. the military backed government was sworn in july 16 of last year, less than two weeks after islamist president mohamed morsi was ousted from office after just one year. an update on the situation in ukraine. russia's prime minister says the legitimacy of the new ukrainian government is questionable. russian news agencies quoted dmitri medvedev as saying the ukraine's new authorities have come to power as a result of, in his words, "armed mutiny," so their legitimacy is causing big doubts. an arrest warrant has been put out for ukraine president viktor anukovych, who has fled to the

black sea peninsula of crimea. president obama it is looking for allies among the america -- among american governments -- among american governors. this follows a dinner last night in which he said cooperation was vital to do right by the american people. we will learn more about his meeting with the governors today when he joins the vice president and addresses the press. c-span covers that event. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> if the deal is completed, i think it puts comcast at the nexus, the center of every major media policy debate we are going to have. i don't see -- i think the fcc should block this merger and i think it is why we have antitrust mergers. for most americans, an idea like this seems unthinkable that it has gotten this far.

that it is being debated really says a lot. there is no condition that is good enough to lead a deal like this go through. transactions are frequently used as a way -- >> transactions are frequently used as a way to inflate markets. being perhaps a buildout to schools for the president to connect ed initiatives and upgrade internet access for 99% of american schools. there are a host of things that are similar to conditions that comcast agreed to three years ago when it bought nbc universal. i can see it being seriously considered at the fcc, something they would improve that something they would approve -- something they would approve but with a lot of conditions. communicators"the two at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

c-span.org makes it easier .han ever to share your finds easy search functions help you access our daily coverage of events. new tools make it simpler to create video clips and share them with your friends via facebook, twitter, and other social networks. just find the share tools on our video player, or look for the green icon links throughout our site. watch washington on the new c-span.org. if you see something of interest, click it and share it with your friends. "washington journal" continues. hour, we willast continue our weekly "your money" series to look at how your taxpayer dollars are spent. today's focus is the military's aging army tanks.

2013 to upgrade the army tanks. here with us is marjorie censer, the defense and government contractor reporter for "the washington post took a what tanks are we talking about? guest: we are talking about the abrams tank, a 130,000 pound behemoth with a traditional cannon on top, the kind of vehicle you think of when you hear "tank." and also the bradley fighting vehicle, which is used to move infantry into the field. pounds,aller, 75,000 but almost as lethal as the abrams tank. host: what is happening with these tanks right now jack o how are they used and what is their future? guest: these have really been key to the military. getting tight, and the army is starting to think maybe we need to reprioritize. maybe we don't have the money to

keep putting into these vehicles. host: how are they used? guest: the abrams tank is sort of the traditional combat vehicle that you roll out there. it has a lot of firepower and a lot of ability to take out the enemy. the bradley vehicle is used to carry troops to the field and to protect them when they get out to make sure that they are safe and can get to the battlefield. host: where were these tanks used? guest: they were used in many battlefields, but in iraq and afghanistan they have played a really important role. they have come back to the u.s. damaged and exhausted and tired from years of fighting. host: and so what is the military doing with them after they have come back from afghanistan? guest: the military is trying to refurbish a lot of them, but it wants to slow down that process. it wants to put money into other things because money is tight

and they still have a lot of these combat vehicles in working order. so they are trying to kind of think about what else can we do, but the fear is if they stop putting money into combat vehicles -- into bradley and into abrams -- and slow down the process so much, the facility and the workers that make them, they may have to close and they may lose their skills. host: have they started the slowdown already? guest: they have, and the companies that makes the vehicles are expressing a lot of concern that if they continue the slowdown, it will make it untenable to keep the factories open. host: take a look at the members. this is the spending on the abrams tank and the bradley fighting vehicle. the abrams tank, 90 million dollars in 2014, 100 81 million 2014, $181ion in million in 2013. the bradley fighting vehicle,

$140 million in 2013. guest: congress has been consistently adding more to make sure they get enough money to keep the factories open, to keep workers in congressional district employed. and to keep the capabilities in the u.s. theseorry that if we lose capabilities, it will be very expensive to bring them back online if we want to restart those lines. host: here is what senators to me and bob casey want to say. host: why would these two senators put out that statement? guest: certainly the senators

have some interest at home. they represent in districts that would benefit from this. but congress members say they are trying to -- they are trying to be fiscally responsible, saying that it would cost us more if we shut this down. so certainly some groups have accused these members of congress of trying to protect jobs in their districts and just worrying about bringing home the bacon to their districts. but a lot of these members of congress say, sure, i may benefit from the jobs that we have, but it would've -- it would affect the country. host: how are they being upgraded? guest: technology has gotten better. they can do a lot in terms of the sort of capability within the tank, where they can see what is ahead, they have a lot more battlefield awareness is what they call it in terms of the technology that you would expect in a vehicle now versus in the 1980's.

cuts ine military faces their overall budget, but also what are they saying about the future of land wars? guest: a lot of people are thinking we are not going to do a land war again. maybe we are going to a world where we are shifting to the pacific and we will need more naval equipment. maybe we are going to need more drones. but then there are the detractors that say we are not very good at predicting what our next war will be, so we need to remain agile. after today's "washington journal," we are going to the brookings institution, where they will be talking with generals from the army and the marines about the future of land wars. brookings saying we have to prepare for the possibility that there could be another land war. guest: that is the question. i talked to a lot of experts that say our record of predicting the next conflict is

pretty much a disaster, so i think a lot of people agree we want to have the capability to adapt and we want to be ready for what the conflict is. you're certainly protections that we will not have the kind of land warfare that we had in the -- there are certainly predictions that we will not have the kind of land warfare that we have had in the past. host: today we will hear from secretary of defense hagel and general dempsey. they are going to be talking about military budget cuts, what they are facing, their strategy for dealing with that. 1:00coverage on c-span2 at p.m. let's talk about the companies who build these tanks? which ones are they? host: both have prime contractors. bradley, andon the general dynamics on the abrams. then they have these networks of hundreds of suppliers that supply parts, transmissions, engines, little things like the seatbelt, some sort of little

mechanism in the vehicle. there are a network of suppliers. supplyll companies that these vehicles is really fast. host: and the suppliers are saying don't do away with these tanks. guest: some people look at a defense contractor and say you will be fine if you lose the program. then if you go to a small company that is a real jobs producer in a small town, and this is their lifeblood. if they lose this particular contract, it would be devastating for a small company. his companies have made convincing cases to their lawmakers. host: our weekly "your money" series focuses on the upgrade to aging army tanks. we want to get your comments or thoughts on this. you can start piling now. republicans, 202-585-3881.

20 2-585 time 3880. all others call 202-5 85-38 82. how many jobs are we talking about here? is hard to get an exact number, but there are thousands. extends -- network 580 six supplier companies, so you can imagine how many those have. that is across the united states. why can't these contractors on their factory floor adjust to the new weapons coming for the future drones or other types of weapons systems? guest: and maybe they can. one option is maybe they can sell these kinds of vehicles to foreign militaries, and maybe they can adapt. but these are very specialized skills honed over time, it and if you redeploy these people,

you will lose what is there. that is the case the companies are making. i don't know if everyone in the military is buying that. host: from twitter -- are about 11,000 abrams tank's and bradley fighting vehicle's in the army's inventory. about half of those are upgraded and ready to go, and about half of them are obsolete and are either in long-term storage or they are awaiting some sort of upgrade. there are 5000-plus tanks in active duty and reserve and guard units. there are thousands of tanks, abrams tanks and bradley fighting vehicles that are ready for use. host: what armored vehicles are

being supplied to local police? is there a domestic use? ,uest: we did deploy mraps armored trucks that are not meant to go into battle that are not equipped with the same kind of weaponry, but they are meant to get you safely through roadside bombs. they may have a domestic use perhaps on the border, or have -- or perhaps by local police, but these tanks will not be used on the roads we drive on. host: from twitter -- ken from california, a democratic caller. caller: what would happen to the endless war industry if journalists would use their ,latforms to inform the public

concerning building seven on 9/11 -- host: we move on to jerry. on the i am confident tanks. we should not have put any money into the tanks. they have been obsolete for the last 20 years. we should be taking care of our forces. we have to bank many in the armed forces -- we have too many in the armed forces right now anyway. host: too many soldiers? caller: yes. guest: it comes down to what the leaders are saying, and what you will see in the budget later today is that it is time for some hard choices. one of the things that always comes up is personnel. personnel is a huge cost, not only paying the soldiers but providing them benefits should they get injured once they are out of the service. that is always going ahead to head with equipment, and these the kinds of hard choices that are going to have to be made in

tightened budget times. college -- a colleague of yours has this headline this "u.s. weighs keeping 3000 troops in afghanistan after 2014." what does that mean? that is the places where these tanks are used. guest: i don't think that has a particular bearing on necessarily the tanks, but it certainly matters in terms of the budget. it is very expensive to have soldiers abroad. every choice comes with a trade-off, and that is what the defense department is going through right now. host: alan in alabama, an independent caller. caller: good morning, and how are you ladies? i was listening to the program, and she was talking about tanks becoming obsolete. i don't understand where that would come from, where that might set would come from, that

they would be obsolete? they would never be obsolete in any kind of war whatsoever. guest: i am not making that case, i think the army is saying do we need more than what we have. do we need to invest more? do we need to invest in the capability to produce more down the line? at is not my judgment, that is sort of the decisions that the pentagon is going through. franklin, in tennessee, democratic caller. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: ok. i cannot believe i am on the air. the $300 million is just a drop in the bucket for all these tanks. guest: that is the argument that a lot of members are congress are making, that it does not cost that much relative to the multibillion-dollar budget to keep these factories going, and

what it does is put a little bit of money toward reserving the capability that we may need, and that would cost a lot more to restart. that is the decision that has to be made, the argument that we are hearing from some members of congress. host: why would it cost more money to restart? guest: the argument the companies have explained to me is that if you let these facilities -- if you mothballed him, closing down, it is very equipmentto get the going again. perhaps more difficult is getting the right people, that you have these people, generations of training, people who have grown up in the factories. if you let them go, they will move into other industries and they will not come back and you will have to train a whole new workforce that will have to go through decades of experience to rebuild. at is the argument that the contractors are making. they does the army say not need any tanks at all? guest: no. the army has never said tanks

are obsolete. they are saying we think we are good. we have enough, we need to deploy the money we have into other things. and they are encouraging the companies to look outside of them. they are the only customer for these vehicles, for these in many cases. perhaps other countries may want these. perhaps they could put these skills into something else, so they could consider other ways decides us to stay afloat, and they need to put their money into other priorities. host: how many soldiers can be carried on each of the tanks? guest: the abrams, you just need enough men to man the canon. the bradley can carry up to 10 men, and it is up to them to transport them to the field. it is very tight, but you can fit quite a few men and women in there. host: is that with the military needs, nor do they need the

capacity to carry many more? guest: they are not saying if you can make this bigger or smaller, i think they are just saying we have these, they are serving a purpose, they are good vehicles, and right now we just need to do other things. from toledo ohio, kim, a democratic caller. tim, yes.is is i am a veteran. i got injured a couple of years ago. it comes down to a basic question -- we complain about how far in debt our country is, then we talk about we can afford the giantest military the world has ever seen. real simple. if we want to get down to a rational military, he can save a couple dollars. that is pretty much -- people ms. basic questions. thet: i think that is

simplest way to explain it. what exactly do we want gecko friendly, not everyone agrees -- what exactly do we want? frankly, not everyone agrees. you have the army saying here is what we want, you have congress say we decide how much money you get, and you have industries influencing both sides. congress sometimes says no. these are good debates that go on, and the difficult part, the who issimple part, is the ultimate decision-maker? so far it is congress as they appropriate the money. host: when we hear from defense secretary hagel today and general dempsey, what do you expect them to say about the size of the military? guest: i think the military is going to have to get smaller, and they are prepared to make some choices. but that is just the beginning. this is what the military says

it wants to do, what it can afford. some of its proposals may be completely untenable to congress , and this is sort of the beginning of the debates that will lead to an ultimate budget. what ever they roll, it is just the first step, and really it is kind of an opening for a negotiation that will go on for some time. host: we go to harley next in florida, independent caller. caller: good morning. i am sorry, i have a pretty bad cold, so i will speak fast and how -- and hopefully you will understand me. tonow that one went down miami. where did the other 2699 tanks go? host: do you know? guest: i am not familiar with that. i'm sorry. host: harley, why is that important? is important because light tanks are sort of heavy to

be using against the public. let's hear from neil in arlington, virginia. a republican caller. caller: i just wanted to comment that i do like the abrams tank. it has been a great fighting vehicle, as well as the bradley fighting vehicle. see us move away from using some of these tanks, and refurbishing some of them is probably cost-effective. we see really need, as in other regions of the world such as russia, developing new technology. working on a new tank and producing them in limited numbers is probably more effective. the bradley and the abrams might be less effective. guest: and work has started on what is called the new ground ground combatnew vehicle that would replace the bradley, but that work is slow

going and the money has been very limited for that program. i don't know that any of the -- that mightt compete for that work are confident it will go through. money is tight. host: michael in traverse city, michigan. we went through the first desert storm in the 1990's and got our transportation needs lacking, so we got three development program with the bob 's.e class mlsr we have those up and running, and now all of a sudden you want to back away from this will stop i think it is rather shortsighted in light of such a small amount of money. you are over on the joint strike fighter. this is chump change. we can still downsize but keep the weapons in good shape. host: michael, do you have experience with these tanks?

caller: yes, i sailed over in the vehicles to iraq. be downloaded and we return these vehicles or refurbish them, but they need to be used, they need to be cap. $300 million is really shortsighted on everybody's account there. host: what do you do for a living, and how do these vehicles serve? guest: -- caller: i am actually a retired mariner. why does the navy get all of it? the army has put several amounts of money in to make sure they can force project. what are we going to carry on all these vessels that we just brought on stream here? a bunch of jeeps? wherever we go we will have to have something there. there already are some

ready-two-go vessels. you need to keep the mariner strange -- you need to keep the mariners trained. if you don't support the ability to keep the mariners trained to sell those ships, you will not get to a war, and when you do, you will get there with crappy tanks. guest: i think your argument is exactly what both the pentagon and congress are trying to the desire to not be shortsighted. a lot of money has been spent in the last decade, and how do you make sure that you are deploying the money that you have now to keep up that investment? how do you make sure you do not waste the investment, but then again budgets are tight. not to sort of waste the investments that they have made and the skills and the vehicles and the equipment, but again, they have to sort of prioritize. you are kind of getting right to

the heart of the problem. host: there is also a lot of money spent on lobbying to keep these tanks alive. this is a graphic put together by open secrets. 14s is 2011 and february when president obama released his budget. -- can see the money goes up this, the number at $28,000, this is when the house votes at the national defense authorization act, adding $270 million for the abrams tank. every time there is an important date dealing with the abrams tank, you can see the lobbying money go up. jamie in south bend, indiana, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. ofopinion would be that general eisenhower, president eisenhower, who warned the military industrial complex will bankrupt america.

he hit that right on the head, didn't he? and george washington said the keys to a strong america, keep strong borders. he said stay out of other countries' squabbles. is bankrupting america. we cannot afford it anymore. veryw the wars are profitable to defense contractors, and you can research that at publicintegrity.org, which does a marvelous job of listing the carpetbaggers that are killing on killing, in essence. but i agree with eisenhower that the military-industrial complex is bankrupting america and it has to stop now. jean, next, democratic caller. caller: the lady made a complex sellinga comment about tanks to other countries? why would you think about doing that?

they might come back as our enemy. i agree with the caller from michigan. we need to call all of us -- we need to keep all of our tanks and supplies in good working. cut out the contractors and have the soldiers doing the cooking and everything like the used to be -- like it used to be in the vietnam war. guest: just to be clear, it cannot be sold to any country that they want. it is called foreign military sales, and the u.s. government profits withove our allies. it is not sort of defense contractors going wild and selling to whoever they want. so the u.s. government encourage that -- encourages that, frankly, because it is a way they can defray the cost. the more you produce, the less

something costs, so you can produce more and have more buyers and that can save the u.s. government money. frankly, that is something they are prioritizing more and more. things like the f 35, they are looking at other countries to help make it a really cost-efficient program. in honey creek, iowa, democratic caller. yeah, i just wanted to get -- to get an understanding here. we are making money off these ands, fighting vehicles, they make millions in afghanistan, billions in afghanistan and iraq during the war. overcharging for the services they provided and everything else like this. it is for profiteering. why don't we go back and tax and and putse profiteers the money back into our system

so that we can keep these plants running? there are quite a few abrams tanks that came off the assembly line and went straight to their bank. there. straight to host: marjorie censer? guest: i think you can accuse him contractors of overbilling or doing work the government did not want them to do, shady practices. but the vast majority of contractors are doing work the government has asked them to do. the government has made decisions about things it does not want to do. it does not want to be in charge of building bradley fighting vehicle's. moredea is that it can be cost-effective. that way if we don't need it, we can cut it off. contractors play a role. the u.s. government has decided -- it is not my decision, is this -- it is the decision of the government. they would view themselves as a

partner of the military. doing what the military needs done to fight these battles. what about the bradley the assemblyoff line and sitting in the united states? guest: i am not familiar with the instance, but there are certainly many of tanks and bradley fighting vehicle sitting in the u.s. and not being used. i don't know about shrink-wrapped and being ready to go. >> that is -- host: that is our topic, looking at the aging army tanks, specifically the bradley and the abrams. marjorie censer is our guest, a reporter from "the washington post." john mccue and railroad narrow were asked about the abrams tank line and whether or not they could be maintained. listen to what they had to say.

[video clip] >> is there anyway to get some kind of a minimum production capacity for the army during these -- >> every facility has a minimum sustained rate for stop -- sustained rate. abrams, it is far beyond our needs. but as those minimum sustained rates are figured true, we try to meet them through other needs -- through other means. those are part of the calculation. >> i would just add that we are being aggressive with our military sales programs in identifying potential suitors who need this type of equipment. so we think there is some potential there, and we will work hard toward what the

secretary said. would keep --it it would cost so much to keep it open. hearing frome you the top two officials? guest: they are basically saying keep these going. there is a certain amount they have to put in, and they are not sure they really can't afford it or need it, but they say they want to work with companies to keep these open. they do see them as assets. foreign military sales might be one option. maybe there is a way to help the buyers who make critical equipment to stay afloat. so i think the military is trying to collaborate with some of these companies, but they are also looking at their budgets and saying i am not sure we can afford to do what we need to do. lima, is that just one factory? guest: that is one plant. it is an unusual configuration. it is a government owned

facility operated by general dynamics, and the abrams is sort of its red and butter. it has also made stryker vehicles. that is just one place. ohio, in a small town that really needs those jobs. it is just one facility. i would say it is the only facility that we have in the u.s. that can actually manufacture and abrams. host: is it typical that the government owns the facility but the company runs the factory? guest: there is the bradley plant, which is owned and operated by bae. stryker. mentioned the how does it play into the budget? guest: it was meant as an interim vehicle that could last until they get something else, a key part of the army strategy.

i think they will keep upgrading it, but i don't think it is necessarily a focus like other things. host: for those who do not know, what does it do? guest: it is smaller, lighter, and faster, and it can do transport and fighting. i wrote in one and i think we got up to 65 miles per hour, -- think we one, and i got up to 65 miles per hour. they are very agile vehicles. host: what is it like to ride in one? guest: it is very tight. i can only imagine how hot it is in a place like iraq. you cansee the screen, see the information, but there are no windows. it must be very scary to be out in a battlefield in some of these things. host: what is the technology like inside? guest: the technology is improving all the time. they have cameras on various parts of the vehicles where they

can get situational awareness. when you partner that with drones and robots tom a and the cameras, that can give them a better idea of what is around them. the more they know about their surroundings and what is coming, the better prepared they will be as they head into essentially enemy territory. host: how would these tanks, the abrams and the bradley -- how did they fare in a rack and afghanistan where they haveied -- how did they fare in iraq and afghanistan where they had ied' s? mraps, they built those armored vehicles where the bottoms are shaped kind of like deflect adown v to blast, and they are heavily armored, and that is what you need to survive some of these lethal bombs.

host: what about the land in afghanistan, iraq? the terrain is hilly, very tough. when do these vehicles do best? on a flat surface? guest: both the bradley and the abrams have tracks that go around the wheels, not the traditional wheels on your home automobile. so they can go off-road. they go faster on road, but they have the ability to take whatever comes their way. if you have very small wheels, off-road in a place like afghanistan where there are not a lot of roads, is dangerous and difficult. they came up with a variant of was geared toward where there were not roads. they had to remake the suspension. next,catherine is up grand junction, colorado, democratic caller. caller: i keep hearing all this talk about the aging tanks and

the upkeep of the aging tanks, and the upkeep of the aging tanks relates roughly to the upkeep of the american people, i would think. it would seem we are taking from the poor and giving to the tanks, it and pretty soon there are not going to be any people because they will all be dying of starvation and lack of health care. they take from social security or food stamps or from some other program that is directed toward the poor, and the people really need it. host: sequestration was avoided. there was a budget deal that was struck. militaryyears is the safe from sequestration? what happens after that? guest: they are kind of putting an end to sequestration, which will save the military money. the military will still say they need to cut things out of their budget. they do not view that as to, ok,

back to normal operations. but we really need to reduce our budget. 2014 is what i am hearing from companies will be the low point. but i don't think you should expect an immediate return to the years of 2009, which was the real peak. the: we will be covering fence secretary hagel and general dempsey when they talk about the military budget today live on c-span2 at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. -- marianne, republican caller. caller: my husband worked at bae for 44 years, retired in 2010. we are familiar with the bradley. a lot of people seem to think that the government just calls up and says i want 10 bradleys and deliver them in two weeks. that is not how it works. it takes many years to get the bradley ready for the government, and if we do not

keep them in shape, i do not want to send my grandchildren off to a war where they are not covered. host: how many years out or months out does it take before a bradley is put on the production line and throughout the whole system? caller: -- five.to host: three to five years? caller: yes. host: how many can be built at a time? hader: usually they only one or two going at a time. i don't know if there were any others being built at a different plant. host: that is in minnesota? >> yes, no longer. host: what did he do? a hydraulicas assembler, and at the end he was one of the people who was doing a lot of taking the parts off

because they could not keep up with the party. out tod take pieces outside vendors to get the they could so that be assembled? host: did he have to retire early because the plant closed down? caller: no, he retired at 65 because the tip went out. -- because his hip went out. waste, i do agree 100%. but if i had a family member going over, i really want them to have something around them that is going to protect them. his trajectory at the family there. how much was he making when he started, and was it a living wage throughout his career? he madewhen he started, $2.75 per hour.

when he retired, he was making $22 and $.22 per hour. -- $22.20 per hour. we never suffered. i always worked. it would have been nice if there had been more, but people today expect a lot more than our generation did. host: was he part of the union? caller: yes, he was. host: and the union helps with those wages? caller: yes, they did. we have very good benefits. host: thanks for the call. guest: the three to five years is a great point. the military, as it prioritizes, -- we are trying to come up with a next-generation combat vehicle at the moment, but the military knows it will not be available tomorrow, it will be available years from now.

that is the challenge in particular of planning a military budget. what equipment are you going to want 5, 10, 15 years from now? .ost: we will leave it there marjorie censer with "the washington post." before we say goodbye, the michigan's congressman will not seek reelection to congress. that does it. we're back tomorrow morning. go to the brookings institution center for 21st-century security intelligence, where they are talking about this very issue, the future of land power and u.s. ground forces. thank you for watching today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]