are 150 5 million people who have employer-based health insurance. because of the tax laws they are being subsidized by the federal government. my employer contributes $12,000 per year. for somebody like me, my marginal tax rate is 40%. it is almost $5,000 per year we are getting in subsidies because of a special provision in the tax laws. the bigger subsidy you get. the poorer you are the lower subsidy you get. most importantly, it encourages people to get richer benefit policies.

they can get a dollar and health benefits from their employer left to their marginal tax rate is the percent. they can get $.70 in income. this tends to lead to over insurance. we know about new people coming into the exchanges? about 65% are buying the silver plan, the second least expensive plan. that gives you an actuarial value of .7. let me tell you about this term actuarial value. what it means is that if you take a large group of people for a standard plan, the plan will pay 70% of the expenses.

so they are enrolling in this plan. the percentage of people who are young -- i think it is about 20%. i think the hope was that this number would reach about 35% or 38%. the average cost of the plan, as i indicated earlier, the average is 15% inplan -- it the congressional budget office, that was the original estimate. as i indicated earlier, all certainlys that -- i do not expect rapid inflation next year. some of our callers indicated, we will have really high increases in some plants. some plans will be negative. but this is the way health insurance almost always works, except there are usually not many negatives. host: this shows 57% of those enrolled in exchange lands were

previously uninsured. what does that data tell you? >> it tells me people that previously did not have insurance are now enrolled. i think the majority of those people have not had insurance for one or two years. i believe about 20% of the people who have employer-based insurance previously -- it tells me that 20% probably would have lost their coverage if it were not for the marketplaces. because if you have employer-based insurance, you are not eligible to enroll on the marketplace, except under very technical circumstances. k is on the line for all others, calling from michigan. caller: i am a constitutional scholar. i have been taking courses and have been going to lectures. i am enrolled in college and taking constitutional studies, history, and economics 1:01 am and contrasting the similarities

of progressivism, marxism, and others. once said lenin centralized health care is socialism and if you control health care, you control the individual. what we need to do is let people is anhat, basically, this attempt of government trying to centralize -- they have already centralized education, the economy with the federal reserve, and now centralizing our health care. oftom line is the control government over the individual, and i will never comply to this. guest: well, i understand how you feel. i can't say we always have -- i can say we always have to be concern when we have new government rules and regulations that it is not stifling innovation and energy, which

comes out of our free enterprise system. let me also note this -- socialism means government ownership of property. the affordable care act does not have that. act, thefordable care government is setting new rules and regulations which were not there before. theres far different -- are two examples of government socialism, that meaning from doctors all the way to insurance. one is the military health or does health care system and the other is the v.a. health care system. host: related to that, we got this tweet -- how does the aca affect v.a. medical? some veterans are not medicaid-eligible and no health care. guest: i think if you are eligible for the v.a., this affordable care act does not

continue. if you are a veteran but not v.a.-eligible, you are eligible for the of for the care act. georgia, nancy is on the line for all others. you are on with jon gabel caller:. caller:-- you are on with jon gabel. caller: i have my own health care insurance. i am self-employed and i have a policy under aarp, a supplemental policy. my sister cannot buy aarp in her state because they do not offer aarp. what would have been a lot smarter and a lot better would have been to offer insurance across state lines so it would be more affordable, and insurance companies could reduce their rates by offering different plans across all the state lines. also, why not have an affordable account, insurance accounts, instead of having the insurance

policies? why not just if people as certain amount and let them buy their own insurance? also, i do not understand why we are looking at this land will -- plan when all you have to do is look at the v.a. plan, and you know what the health care system is going to look like in 10, maybe 20, years. those are my comments. by yourk, i take it question that you and your sister are on medicare -- is that correct? host: she's not on the line anymore. guest: ok. first of all, why she cannot buy -- let me say this, you have got the same insurance companies selling in almost every state. there is absolutely no difficulty getting a license to sell in a state. the reason we have state

regulation, and the state regulations have certain consumer protections and reserve requirements -- it has protection against taking people off their plans. that is why we have state regulation, but there is no difficulty of humana going into or anyee or virginia other state. that is not a problem. the affordable care act is not the v.a. system. the v.a. system is a government-owned and run system. the affordable care act, the government is acting like a referee. it is setting the rules. and the most important rule is that just because you have bad health doesng bad not mean that insurance companies are entitled not to sell to you. charge they entitled to you higher prices. before the affordable care act, insurers in the small-group and

individual market often competed who is best atg identifying high-cost cases. males are the lowest cost people in the world. they could get very low premiums. that was the strength of it could the weakness was if you were really sick, you cannot buy health insurance because nobody wanted to cover you. let me note one other statistic, and that is how health -- just a few sick people account for most expenses paired the sickest 1% will account for approximately one-quarter of all health-care expenses. the sickest 5% will account for about 50% to 55%. so left to themselves without rules, without the right rules for my health insurance companies will compete by keeping sick people off of their plans. host: let's go to the lines for

enrolled in exchanges. tom from san jose, california. caller: i was on my wife's policy through her school district, and i had a blue cross policy. i was paying 1000 dollars a month. and they dropped us ready for obamacare. so i took it out. i went on the exchange through covered california and got the exact same policy. the blue cross plan them policy, and i am paying the same amount, $1000 a month. so i go to my doctor and my doctor says we do not take covered california, and i say it is the same policy, but of course i am talking to the receptionist. well, we do not take covered california. i asked why, and they told me it does not pay as much. and i asked as much as what, and they said it does not pay as much. and i said, you take medicare, don't you? doesn't it pay as much as medicare? and she said, no, it pays less

than medicare. ton i went on the exchange try to look for another doctor, and i am telling you, i am having a heck of a time because 50% of the doctors are turning down my blue cross plan them that i am paying $1000 a month for. i think it is durable, and i also want to know if they are getting paid less than they are paid through medicare? guest: right, right. first of all, this is the fundamental paradox or political difficulty of controlling costs. what you spend is somebody else's income. so when we control costs, what we are really doing is controlling the incomes of hospitals and doctors and other providers. ondid a study of the data the exchanges, and we find one problem is when you want to know what providers are in your

network, it takes you over to the insurance company. the insurance company will usually give you information on, in general, what blue cross covers, but not your specific plan. to your question about -- are they paying less? is, i think this is why ash think that the exchange plans, with a have done is they have gone through narrow networks. i do not try to sign of every doctor. , try to identify the low-cost high-quality doctors, and i only signed up for them. and this is a narrow network. with this does is it gives the insurance company more negotiating power, and it gives bigger discounts. would it also will do if it is widespread is it will bring about price competition among doctors and hospitals like we have not seen before. but you are seeing the other end of it at this time. i am sure there are some doctors --t do not want to exchange

accept the lower payment rate which is occurring because of these narrow networks. joe: milton, massachusetts, is on the line for all others. caller: hello, good morning. i wanted to know, what is the percentage of medical expense? i heard the greatest percentages are the last six months of a persons life. is that the understanding? guest: well, for medicare, in the last six months of life does i can tell you, the last year of life, about 25% to 30% of total ,edical costs are for medicare incurred in the last year of life. here is the problem, most doctors cannot predict when people will die. some kindshere are

of clinical cases such as certain kinds of cancer where you have a pretty good idea of predicting. but, say, cardiovascular disease, that is not easy to predict. ont: a call from virginia the line for all others. caller: good morning. it has been nice hearing different opinions. here is a fact. you just got done saying that socialism and socialized medicine is where the government owns the system. barack obama, and you can youtube this, and i remember seeing it on television when he was running for president, barack obama's ultimate goal with health care is single-payer , which means the government controls everything. barack obama and the people that support him want, and their ultimate goal is to get rid of

for-profit health care and to get rid of for-profit doctors and to get rid of for-profit prescription medicines. youtuber thing, you can this, the president is saying this on camera. yes, it will take about 15 to 20 years to get rid of the for-profit health care system we have. so ultimately, what the gentleman said a few callers ago, the ultimate goal is socialism, socialized medicine to much aware there is no private company making a profit off of medicine or health care. and that is socialized medicine, and that is barack obama's ultimate goal. i wish you would recognize or at least acknowledge that that is what the president said while he was running for president. iest: i do not think he -- think what he said, and i thought it was earlier than

that, was that if he had his choice, he would like a single player plan, but that is not possible. there is nothing he did in 2009 -- to10 to push a singer push a single-payer plan. let me add this, there is also social insurance. medicare is social insurance. it is a government-run program. medicaid, some of medicaid, also is the government-run program. but that is different than the government owning everything, as it does in great britain. is on thea in ohio line for all others. yes um i amo, norma. host: we are here. caller: i would like to read a little thing out of the "miami-dade health paper." is said -- the caption was that

paid to give the doctors back the license. it said the reason why is attorneys said that the doctors would not take medicare if they took their license away. $145,000have committed worth of fraud, but that is the way it goes. and medicare goes ahead and pays the doctors first, because they want their money first, and down the road they will read what it was about. i think medicare is creating fraud. cannot speak to this specific case. obviously, fraud is a really big problem and health care, both for medicare and medicaid and also for private insurance companies. and i think there is more and ine money invested

investigating fraud, both from the federal government and from private insurance companies. last caller for the segment is in conyers, georgia, john. caller: good morning. he quit comment about some of the statements about socialism. few calls back is absolutely right. the distinction in terminology, whether it is total control or total ownership or have control or have ownership, it is, like, fascism and communism are basically two different sides of the same coin. in barack obama did give speeches in 2008 in support of a single-payer system. there is a quote from obama talking about employer health-care coverage.

he said "we will not be able to eliminate employer health-care coverage immediately. there will be a transition period. it will be phased out over time." mine lives in germany, and he says their speechcare -- i read a by the president of german's version of our ama, a self-proclaimed liberal, president of the largest organization of its kind in germany. at the annual meeting in 2009, you would not believe what he said about the health care system. theust excoriated politicians, public officials, and media for covering all the rationing going on, the and equities, extremely long waits to see specialists, the weight senior citizens are being

treated. a middle income earner in germany pays well over the marginal tax rate. the total tax burden is 70% plus of his income. you might say, well, they get great services, but i beg to differ. , for: well, first of all those that think the affordable care act is a segue to single-payer, let me point this out, we can move to a single-payer in just a matter of months. all the infrastructure is already there. it is medicare for everyone. the affordable care act was an extension of the current system to my changing the rules. the umpire changing the rules. there was never any intent to make it a single-payer system. what it does set up for the structure is to have a system

without employer-based health insurance. this is what the republicans have often advocated. there is basically no employer-based health insurance, but instead, everybody would go on the exchange and by their plan. as john mccain -- john mccain did not have the exchange, but credit, anda tax everybody would have gotten the same amount of money to buy health insurance. what the affordable care act does is it sets up a structure that if we were to decide to move to an all-individual plan, it is there. the structure would be there. host: jon gabel is a health care research senior fellow at no rc at the university of chicago. thank you for being with us. when we come back, we will be joined by former congressman henry bonilla to talk about how to end political gridlock here in washington. first, news updates from c-span radio.

a.m. -- five years after the nasa satellite designed to track carbon dioxide lunch into the ocean after liftoff, the space agency is launching a carbon copy of the vehicle today, this time on a different rocket. the mission is designed to measure co2 levels which fluctuate with the seasons and also fluctuate in different regions of the earth or the mission is designed to last two years and could provide data that will help scientists and making predictions about future carbon dioxide levels and their impact. the president set to nominate mr. mcdonald later today to be the secretary of the veterans affairs department, and twitter is alight with many comments. it white house correspondent for cbs news tweets that the former procter & gamble executive robert mcdonald is a west point graduate, a former army captain,

and highly regarded corporate executives whose management skills are much needed at the v.a.. tweet toof fox news the top democrat on the house is commenting on the nomination for the v.a. secretary, saying no one person is going to solve all of the v.a.'s problems. president obama will be making this announcement today at 4, 30 p.m. houston time at the v.a. headquarters. you can see -- you can hear it live right here on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines. years,over 30 five c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, conferences, and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local table or satellite provider. watch as in hd, like us on

facebook, and follow us on twitter. now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone in any time with c-span radio on audio now. 6-8888 twol 202-62 here public affairs forms and the "washington journal" programs. and get a recap at 5:00 p.m. eastern on "washington today." and you can hear audio of the sunday public affairs programs. c-span radio on audio now. 26-8888. long-distance or phone charges may apply. "washington journal" continues. to endere to discuss how political gridlock in washington, d.c., as henry bonilla, a former member of congress. thank you for joining us. you work with the commission on political reform, a bipartisan policy center. tell us what the commission

does. guest: it is a stellar group. the founders are a group of bipartisan senators and started the organization back in 2007. this particular commission that i have been serving on for the last year has been made up of a good, strong, bipartisan group, former elected officials, senators, house members, people from the private sector, people from academia. and we wanted to look at some strong recommendations on how to try to get congress out of a ditch. their ratings were in our are in the tank. i saw was about 8% or 9%. if you figure in the margin of error, we are approaching zero. it has become dysfunctional. i think both sides would agree on that. well-respected senator that was quoted in the newspaper the other day that said he is now living through the most unproductive time in his life here it's a things have changed a lot since the middle of the last gate, and we wanted to come up with some common

sense ideas as to how to restart some of the productive years that congress enjoyed in previous decades. host: you said things have changed a lot. why do you think that has happened? guest: i think it is because the country has changed, especially because of the economic challenges we have had in recent years, the recession. i think it has brought out a lot of strong feelings on both sides across the country. members of congress reflect the attitude of the country. they do not just show up here, get off an airplane, and say i am going to be difficult and hard to work with. they get an earful when they go back home. during previous years when it was a time of high salaries and the economy was booming, nobody really got worked up about what was happening in washington, d.c., but since the recession occurred and people became more concerned about entitlements, about spending, and all of those issues, suddenly the emotions

started to percolate. i think that is the genesis of what we have today. host: the bipartisan policy center has released a number of recommendations. what are some of the highlights? guest: people have to understand that compromise is important. people compromise in their own homes, churches, and places of business. some of the recommendations we have come up with a laugh or more compromise to occur. we strongly recommend that instead of policies and bills being resented by the leadership on both sides, they get back to the process of letting members of congress and senators work these bills through the system. it is called regular order in washington. it is similar to what you see in the workplace and many areas. ,mployers who allow employees empower them to give the job done, generally have a more productive, happier system in place. this is similar. i remember sitting through many

markups in committee, as they are called, and negotiations with senators over the years. we thought it was difficult back then, but at the end of the day, it was productive. when you return to that order, you wind up making relationships you would not have had otherwise. i am a republican, but some of the strongest allies and friends over the years were with democrats who would sit there until 1:00 in the morning, sometimes later, working these bills through, going to conferences for the senate. if we return to regular order, rather than having policy dictated from the top on both sides, we would go a long way towards fixing this. another thing we suggested was having five-day work weeks, which a lot of americans go -- what am a five-day work weeks in washington? we recommend that three weeks at four that the house and senate synchronized their calendar so that they're in session at the same time. right now, the calendars seem to be set by their leadership on the house and senate side without any real consideration

as to what the other side is doing. if can you be productive half the team as out-of-town? so we say let's work for five days at a time for three straight weeks. that also means that you probably have to stay in washington a little more. then you take one week off to either go back to your district and work with your constituents in your state or you can take family time, whenever you need, and then come back. you are elected to be a full-time senator or house member. so this is something else that we strongly recommend. host: our guest as henry bonilla, a former congressman who served through 2006, representing texas. the number for republicans is 202-585-3881. for democrats, 202-585-3880. .ndependents, 202-585-3882 i wonder if you can talk to us a little bit about how your recommendations are being received in congress? guest: we have not had any

strong feedback yet. sometimes it takes a while for messages to get back to leadership offices. i know the former senators that have led this on their side have already communicated with the senate leadership, but no strong reaction yet. same on the house side. but we're hoping that at least someone listens to us, because at this point we're not aware of anyone who has put together a set of recommendations like this anywhere. if half of them are implemented, that would be a huge success. we're realistic about this. most of us who are working on this have been in this town for a long time, and we understand reality. host: there are a lot of really interesting ideas here. but given that things are so polarized, how do you actually get them to come to pass and get people to agree on anything? >> we are on the outside now. a lot of leaders on this commission have a reputation that they can at least get this in front of the right people and

congress. the first call is from north carolina, cecil on the line for independents. caller: yes, i enjoyed the program c-span, and at my age of was the in 1930, my dad .ingle proprietor of the family everybody was in the same circumstances, but the problem it takes toy is draw people to earn an income to put a roof over your head. and out of the depression, i have had situations where i had to help my dad after school. he got to the point where he was only working two days a week, and we worked things out. andrecession development the way this country has developed this last century, we

found that we could make a lot of money. now we are misdirected. people an idea, two earning an income and at family, which is not exactly right because it should be as it started before. and working out of that depression, we became more efficient. new products came out of the war . so i think things have changed in this country and not for the best. guest: well, i appreciate your comment. i am not sure what the question is. again, this commission was set up to try to work through some of the difficulties. the gentleman mentioned the difficulty of working things through with the family. some of the parallels can be inwn from family interaction

washington, as well. this is not an institution made up of a bunch of buildings and just simply yurok receives. people run this operation in washington, and i think a lot of principles can be learned from families who have had to get it done over the years. att: talk about the process the bipartisan center, do you get public input? guest: we have had meetings in four locations across the country over the past year to get ideas, and there was disagreement even among our group. we had volunteers doing this. sometimes we would have very heated discussions about political fundraising, for example. one of the recommendations we made is to limit political fundraising for pac's to only leadership of the members and senators and

washington, d.c. if i was still in congress, i would probably be spending close to half of my time just fundraising for your political action committee, for your campaign to midi, for the congressional political action committee that you have to or your republican national committee, democratic national committee, and sometimes your states for fundraising. so you are just calling all the time. you're holding events all the time. you do dinners every night. and you're supposed to be a legislator. we understand completely, and i did the fundraising, as i needed to, but there are leadership pac's i hear that are being formed already for members that are not even elected yet. so i think it has gotten a little bit out of control. , mike is onn, texas the line for republicans. caller: good morning. my thought is that we have a bicameral legislature with a senate and a house.

there have been a currently over 230 builds the house has passed that have not yet, and will not, received a vote of or down by the senate. i would contend that the senate, that harry reid -- [indiscernible] for president obama. it is a valuable tool for obama to keep the senate. that is his number one motivation at the evening of the year. the second thing is in the house , my representative has offered amendments to bills in the house , gop bills, and the entire senate, the gop has offered nine. nine cents 2010. so that is a germ at eight difference in cooperation between the house gop and democrats there versus the senate where harry reid runs with an iron fist. guest: as i pointed out at the beginning, the sender -- the

sinister i quoted habits to be a democrat, and he mentioned it is the most unproductive time of his life being in the u.s. senate. there has been a changing culture in terms of what amendments are allowed on both the house and senate side. the fix have really skewed to a minimum or the lowest levels ever for amendments of the senate. you are right to talk about the dysfunction that is not even allow bills to be voted on. i think there is a lot of frustration among not just on one side politically, but on both sides. i do not care what party you come from, we are elected come here to washington. you would like to try to have your ideas presented and to see how people would feel about them. not just in terms of debating, but in terms of voting. there is a tremendous amount of frustration, because the leadership does control what goes to the floor on both the house side and the senate side. i think you are right, sounds like you have studied some of the statistics from the last few years, and the number of bills

and amendments that have come forward to be presented, even allowing them to be debated and have votes, has sunk to new lows. host: michael from new jersey is on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i am on the line for independents, actually. host: sorry about that. caller: no problem. i have not really heard anything about giving more days off for these guys. but i would like to see, eventually, if possible, a system where each and eventual can vote on each individual -- we have things like immigration and so on. if we can have each individual american voting on each individual discussion, then we

can get rid of some of this nonsense. i am a little bit worried that possibly the republicans will be taking more control of the senate. think thel, i gentleman is suggesting that the american public vote on each and every issue that occurs up here. that is not going to happen. havesystem is just -- i never heard a suggestion like that before. but i think people would understand that regardless of what side you are on politically, that is why you elect your member of congress and your senators to represent you in washington to vote on these issues. i would imagine that most americans will understand if, let's say you have 100 issues come up, ranging from immigration to health care to budget bills and veterans issues and all of that, you would wind up going to the polls almost

every other day. that is not realistic. ont: columbus, georgia, eric the line for democrats. caller: good morning. thatted to make a comment gridlock is not anything new to the united states. we have a divided government where democrats, at this point, we control the house and the , ande, and the presidency republicans hold the house. so you will have an inherent gridlock when you have that type of system. if you go back to obama's first term, the first congressional term back in 2008 and 2010, democrats got a lot done because we control both the house, the senate, and the presidency. so we were able to get a lot more done. i think until that happens

again, you are going to have this gridlock. that is my comments. thank you. thet: well, i appreciate comments. of course when either party has dominance over both branches of government, the legislative and executive branch, you will see more agreement more quickly. but in reality, that is not what happens more times than not. you have to be able to sit down with members of the other side and say, hey, we have 10 issues here, and we agree with seven and put the others on the shelf or whatever, and get it done. ideally for either party, they would like dominance in the congress and in the white house, but that does not happen all that often in our country historically. host: we're talking with former congressman henry bonilla who is working on the bipartisan policy center's commission on political reform. the number for republicans is 202-585-3881.

democrats, 202-585-3880. .ndependents, 202-585-3882 wilmington, north carolina, a call on the line for independents. caller: i would like to understand from the guest is it that has ?eople so against the wall there is absolutely no wiggle tom whatsoever for anyone express an original idea. i mean, i am so sick of this obamacare and all the bills that are presented in the time that .akes on and off the floor you know, to be created and then -- it is so wasteful.

i mean, there is so much to be done. hello? host: you are still there. caller: they talk about wanting to get jobs created, but there are no bills that suggests that. something as simple as a background check for gun control -- you're talking about the legislators are there to represent the people. all the polls show that the people support it. at, it is not even come to vote. it is crazy. i do not get it. is there something you can't explain about the system? well, you are right about the contentious atmosphere that we all live in now in this country. and ofe these votes -- the previous guest before me had to listen to some very contentious comments of people that were very worked up about

the topic at hand, and that was obamacare. however you feel about it how much it is an issue of strong passion and reaction. you are right, there are probably too many votes right now that are dedicated just to trying to repeal it and whatever. i have always been of the state onmind that, hey, if you are the opposite side of something that has passed, the game is over, at least for that session. it might not be over when there is a new congress or new president, but while this is in place, game over. look at the scoreboard. if you keep trying to replay the game over and over, you are wasting a lot of time. wait for an opportunity perhaps in another session when there might be some progress on the position you're advocating. you brought up the gun control issue and that is one of the most passionate issues that comes up across the country. you have to remember that polls that are held

they go from coast to coast may not apply in particular states. they can be skewed very differently to just because you have an overall pole that supports a particular issue like the uncontrolled, it does not mean that that is the case in every state and every congressional district. that is why you often times the contrast between what is being said overall from coast to coast and what actually happens in washington, d.c. have made recommendations in reforming the electoral system. one of those includes a national congressional primary day in june. other efforts are to increase voter turnout. what is the most realistic? act onstates have to these. we put these out on the table to have a national primary day in june. so you do not have these things peaking and these states fighting over who is going to go

first, especially in a presidential year. everyone is jockeying for super tuesday a whatever primaries are remaining in august and september. so we suggest, can't we at least have the states consider having one day so it all gets done at once, and then people do not have to be jockeying back and forth between washington and their congressional areas or their states, trying to jockey for these different primary days? then you have different primary runoff days and it gets even more complicated. one of the strongest recommendations is to try to take the redistricting process out of the hands of the political officials that are elected and have it be done by a commission. iowa does this, for example. while it may not be perfect and some might say this is a bad idea, well, there is no perfect solution, but we feel like the contentious fights that occur in state legislatures to try to

jockey for position in the stacked difference and to write lines forggly congressional districts would have less of a chance of surviving and a greater chance of just getting done. maybe states can come up with some kind of computer system to do it aired start of the most populous point in your state and work its way out. have a machine do it, for example. you talk about being programmed as nonpartisan, that idea would be ideal. host: a call from virginia on the democrats line. caller: i have two suggestions that i think would help. the democrats can at least try to work with the republicans. one is i keep hearing previous callers say that none of the job skills we get through the senate because they would get killed or harry reid will not bring them up. how about a jobs bill that does

not give tax breaks to the rich? do republicans even have a jobs bill that is not just a giveaway of it rich or some part giving tax breaks to the rich? if you can do a bill without that, it would actually help americans. democrats would be right with you. another one is on keystone pipeline. right now, all that canadian oil gets to be sold to any other country. there is not anything in that bill that says a certain percentage should stay in the united states. as a democrat, if i could see a at least 50% of that oil or whatever is reasonable needs to be sold only to the united states because we want to have independence with our oil, it needs to stay in the united states. if you do not do those two

things, then you really do just want to give it to the rich and you want to let the oil companies just make a profit using our land as a conduit to the international markets. upst: well, the lady brings some very good points about two issues that are very contentious and very complicated. i am not an elected official now. i am part of this group that has served many years in the congress before. so i am not on the front rows of trying to develop energy policy or tax policy, although certainly americans have been calling for tax reform for many years. those are issues that have to be -- i would strongly recommend that you get in front of your elected official, your member of congress and your senator, and express these views. that is what the system is all about. host: i want to ask about other recommendations they get to the heart of what we have seen lately in the senate. the report recommends that it should be the policy of the

senate that changes to rule at the start of the new congress. talk us through that. guest: we did make that recommendation. it compares to a football game or basketball game where you want to change the rules at half-time or in the third quarter because things were not going the way you were hoping they would. i think that is absolute common sense. i do not care whether republicans are in charge or republicans are in charge. these recommendations on this particular point were made by some very senior senators, former senators, that have seen how this operates for many years. so you would think that somebody would want to listen to that. but i compare it to the ballgame to where you want to change the rules in the third quarter because it is not going well. i think most americans would understand that we should not be doing that. host: a call from temple hills, maryland, independents line. caller: i had a question.

it is kind of funny that i keep hearing that the populace is not smart enough to make any decisions. but when you're talking about the elliptical system and all the gridlock, a previous caller said something that was prolific. he said if you create a system where people can vote on specific subjects, the problem is a lot of times when bills are created, they are so convoluted, it is hard to figure out exactly what to vote on. if we simplify the concept of the bill and put it up on so many internet apps, ways to vote on things, and recognize exec we what you're trying to vote on, if you simplify it for people to understand without the jargon, i think people could vote on it. then the representatives could actually represent what the people want. in the u.s., we actually want that to happen. a political revolution so we can have our say.

if that does not happen, it could boil over. we do not want to have that. the youth of today is getting upset with the way the user going. everyone is becoming independent. i think we need to get with some people who are really into the technology aspect and can actually build the system so we can have our say. each district, each location, they have their own views, and they really want their voices heard. something that would probably have to start with rewriting the constitution to have votes, again, every week or so on major national issues. my understanding is that most bills now are put online pretty quickly to be reviewed. yes, they're complicated. for example, you might have a bill proposed by someone in new mexico, special interest for an energy policy, and that might conflict greatly with someone from massachusetts who wants to amend the bill and put additional language in it him

and that might differ tremendously from someone from south dakota who then wants another amendment put on it. it gets complicated. 1.i want to make, the gentleman points out the desire that he has to vote on every issue. that sounds great in an ideal world, but if you look at the statistics nationally for voter turnout, it is pretty sad. often times, people who complain about the process are the ones that do not even bother to vote. i am not just talking about federal elections. in my home state of texas, we sometimes get recognized for priding ourselves and being self-sustaining and very active and aggressive at what we do, but even in the state of texas, my home state, sometimes elections held for school boards and school bonds that have a lot to do with teacher salaries and supplies in classrooms in your area, the turnout for those elections is under 5%.

then people wonder -- well, who is messing this thing up in the first place? i think at the end of the day, the american people have to look at themselves. they are the ones -- these members of congress, the capital is right there, and they do not elect people to serve in this institution -- if they do not elect the right people by having higher voter turnout, then we are going to wind up in the same boat. thes amazingly -- statistics we see on voter turnout is unbelievable. there was something decided the other day in the state of texas with a little over 8000 people who turned out to vote in that primary for that candidate. i think that says a lot about the american people and how they need to take more responsibility themselves for what is happening right here. just 7% ofp found americans say they have either a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in congress as an

american institution. that is down from the previous low which was 10% in 2013. gallup went out that in 1973, 40 2% of people said they had a lot of confidence in congress. what does that make you think as a former member? changed al, it has lot. not because i was there, but my last full year was 2006, and it was not in the tank like that. i pointed out similar numbers this morning. i think i used the think -- figure 8% or 9% for favorability of congress. of thebecause divisiveness and bitterness we see him and not just here in washington but in the heartland -- if you recall, i think it was the summer of 2007, it was the first time that people in mass that were very angry showed up at town meetings and started screaming at members.

i was in congress for 14 years and never saw that happen during my time. but this was not generated just all of the sudden by what is happening in d.c. it has a lot to do with a lot of the policies being advocated. before the most part, this was a bottom-up development that happened across the country. virginia,ll from democrat. caller: good morning. to thank youlike for your service to our country, first of all. i have been a registered democrat from many, many years. i am now not sure whether i am a democrat or republican. i am an individual. my question to you is -- we had a senate bill that came out of the house judiciary committee, and it passed with a bipartisan 5-2. of 1

that was sent to harry reid, the senate majority leader's, office. -- whotion to you is decides what bills, when they are passed by a partisan votes -- by bipartisan votes, would get to the senate floor to even be voted upon? that is a question i have. and i do vote, and i have contacted every one of my representatives in the state of virginia. just last week, senator warner, he knows how i feel. guest: it sounds like you follow policy very closely in washington. frankly, i wish most americans studied the issues and new about the process even as much as you do so far. so who allows these votes to go forward for a bill that has passed with strong bipartisan support like that? it is simply the leadership, whether it is the majority

leader in the senate or the speaker on the house side. on rare occasion -- i am not sure there is a process for this on the senate side, but on the house side, there is a process by which if you can get enough members to sign what is called a discharge petition, on the house side at least, then you can get your bill on the floor immediately. that happens very rarely, however. so it is the majority leaders, regardless of who is in charge, on the senate side and the speaker on the house side that have the final say as to what bills are voted on on the floor. host: mindy at -- linda and marilyn, independent. caller: i want to call -- follow-up on what some of the other colors are talking about. i think we should be able to vote on the very contentious issues like on control, immigration, social security.

and although most of the people do not show up at the polls for general elections, it is probably because they feel that it is sticking with the lesser of two evil spirit democrats are pushing amnesty. republicans want to kill social security. this is not where the majority of the people stand. why can't we vote on the things that are really contentious? that is all i am asking. guest: i think i have answered the question a couple times already this morning. but that is not something that is going to happen overnight. it is a strong opinion that callers are having this morning. they absolutely need to stress this directly to their house member or senator and to propose an idea like this. missouri,ard from democrat. , i am callingow on the democrat line, but i have been a republican most of my

life. i am 76 years old. but the republican party changed so much, i had to go to the democrats. -- whole southern south [indiscernible] they have put the country on justfor the last six years on account of a man being black. i just do not think it is right. this has gone too far. do they want another civil war or what? i am sorry, that is the way i see it. not sure howi am to answer that question. i am hispanic here die was born in a housing project in south texas. i understand that there has been a history in the country of people considering positions because of a persons ethnicity. however, i think we have come a long way since then. i do not see racism, as the

gentleman suggested, as hard of the process thus far. now there are some groups that still exist that are about pro-african american, pro-hispanic, pro-asian, whatever, and it is my dream -- i'm taking a position here on the grandstand, but i would just hope in this country that we can quickly get to the day where you're just simply on your merits and your accomplishments. it does not matter what your ethnicity is or your gender. americans should look at a potential leader just purely and theirhe facts history. i would never, as a hispanic american, support a hispanic leader just because of their ethnicity. female orpport a whatever ethnicity if i thought that they were the absolute best

for the job. i would hope the most americans would start thinking that way as well. host: unfortunately, we have to leave it there. is on a mission for political reform at the bipartisan policy center. thank you for being our guest today. guest: thank you. host: that is all the time that we have. please be sure to join us tomorrow at 7:00 for "washington journal." we go now to live coverage outside of the supreme court. we're expecting the final decision in a matter of minutes. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] t we will win!ha [chanting