we'll break down the rulings and get your thoughts on the law.

democrats (202) 585-3880, republicans (202) 585-3881, and independents, all others, (202) 585-3882. send us a tweet. or you can post your comments on facebook.com. or you can e-mail us. we'll get to your thoughts in a minute. joining us on the phone is elise viebeck, a health care reporter with "the hill" newspaper. what is at the center of the dispute in both of these court cases? guest: the plaintiffs in this cases are arguing that subsidies for obamacare plan exchanges are illegal. the case they're making is the actual statutory language of the affordable care act only allows exchanges that are run by states to issue these tax credits to make plans more affordable.

what's in jeopardy are subsidies for more than 5 million people in 36 states where the federal government ran the exchange through house care.gov. it's a very big case. >> which courts ruled and how did they rule? >> the first ruling we got yesterday was a long waited ruling by the dc court of appeals. it was a three judge paneling l panel of that court which cited with the plaintiffs. it was the first time the plaintiff has had a win like this. the judges wrote that, in fact, they agreed that the irs in this case did not have the legal authority under the affordable care act to issue subsidies through those federally run exchanges. so it was already going to be a huge day for the plaintiffs, it was the first time they had won in federal court. and then a few hours later, the fourth circuit court of appeals, which is based in virginia, issued its ruling and came to the complete opposite conclusion. they sided with the government

and said in fact, the irs did have the authority to issue the subsidies because there was ambiguity in the lawen those judges said that it in -- they would defer to the obama administration and its regulation. host: what is the political make up of these two courts? >> that's a great question. the dc circuit court is dominated by judges who are appointed by democrats. so in that case, it was a little bit surprising to some people that a three japanel of that court would ultimately side with conservative plaintiffs to oppose the health care law. and in fact, the courts overall make up is very important here because the next step for the government is to appeal the ruling, which means to ask the full dc circuit court to weigh in on it. and in that case, it's almost certain that the government would see a favorable outcome for its argument, because there are more democrats than

republicans on that court. host: how did more democrats than republicans get on that court? >> they were pinted by the obama administration following some senate reforms that became easier for the white house to get the piece through, after a lot of conflict with senate republicans in filibusters. so that's going to be a conservative criticism of this whole process since the government is ultimately going to get bailed out here, because of court packing that is the -- that's the term they've been using. host: what do you think happens next and beyond that does this go to the supreme court? >> that is the question on everybody's minds, because right now, given the outcome of yesterday, there is a circle split, which is the kind of situation that tends to get the justices attention on the high court. what happens next is the

government will file its appeal en bunk, and ask the full court to way in and get a positive outcome which would eliminate the circuit split and make it less likely the supreme court would take the case. we should note there are two trial court cases currently in progress, that could ultimately hit the seventh and tenth circuits, and give those conservative plaintiffs another win. so there's always an opportunity for a circuit split here, but if the government wins its appeal, it does become less likely, but not completely impossible, for the supreme court to take the case. host: if this -- the dc courts decision is upheld, a ruling against the health care law and the subsidies in it, who is impacted by that? >> it's about 5 million people all around the country who live in states that use healthcare.gov for their obamacare enrollment.

so these are mostly a rest state who refuses to create their own health insurance exchanges under the law out of a political opposition to president obama and congressional democrats. so the effect would be wide ranging. there is a lot at stake right now about exactly how bad it would be. certainly it would plunge those exchanges into chaos because a lot of people enrolled in obamacare specifically because they were getting a tax credit to make their plan more affordable, when you take that discount away fewer people ultimately will come into that exchange, particularly fewer young and healthy people. and then we're back into that insurance debt spiral fear that so many people talked about last fall when the exchanges were rolling out. for example, you know, 100,000 people on an exchange are young and healthy and they decide not to enroll, because they can't get a tax credit, premiums go up

for everybody. there is a real risk of chaos here. >> if you have a subsidy now is it in jeopardy? >> it is not in jeopardy now. the obama administration said yesterday the subsidies will continue to be active while appeals courts deal with these cases. so there are no immediate changes. however, if there is ultimately a legal outcome or an injunction against the subsidies that are successful, in that case it's even possible that some people may need to pay their subsidies back. that was the question that was raised yesterday, and has not been fully answered by the administration. host: elise viebeck, you can follow her reporting on "the hill." host: let's turn to you and get your thoughts on the affordable care act. what are your impressions? after these two conflicting court rules yesterday?

independent caller, we're taking your pulse this morning on the health care law. what are your impressions? caller: you know, because of laws like this, for many different reasons, i'm completely against barack obama at this point. i voted for him. it's because of acts like this i will not be voting for him in the future. watching the program so far since it started this morning, the five minutes i've been watching it -- host: we apologize. let's get more phone calls in here. we want to get your thoughts on the conflicting rules from the court yesterday. reaction up on capitol hill, of course yesterday. we'll begin with the speaker of the house who had this tweet after the court rules, saying today's ruling is further proof that obamacare is completely unworkable. it cannot be fixed. and then you have tom lathum

saying the court case proves again aca unworkable and cannot be fixed. hr 3165 would repeal and replace this disastrous law. couple democrats for you, chris murphy from connecticut saying we've seen this play before. outliar lower court dents aca and higher court correct. the federal exchange subsidies will be upheld, is the senator's prediction. reason rises above reckless partisan ruling by 2 gop appointees, as the fourth circuit court of appeals unanimously upholds the aca subsidies. john in akron, ohio, democratic caller what are your impressions of the affordable care act? caller: i'm thinking, you know, people don't realize the government pays for a lot of stuff, and they're going to pay for health care for some people no matter what we do. so why not let the subsidies

stay what they are? host: okay. all right. ron in mobile, alabama, good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering how come everybody is going let's go to the courts to find out what the law is, and all they're doing is say yeah, but now we want the courts political. i think the courts should be aplite i call and go for the law. let's see what that says. that's what we're asking. host: all right. well at the white house yesterday, weighed in on the court ruling. here is what he had to say. >> what this administration believes is the legal basis for our case is strong, and we have effective advocates at the department of justice who will be making that case before the dc circuit. it is pretty clear, even to those of us who don't have a fancy legal degree the intent of congress was to ensure every eligible american would have access to tax credits to lower their health care costs.

>> there are various supreme court decisions, one written by justin keegan, who take dim views of the idea that government bureaucrats rewriting laws that don't turn out as they expected. given that out there, as well, why are you so confident that your legal basis is sound? >> the other legal expert that i would cite is the district judge who ruled in this case, who would anticipate that the government would implement the law in line with congress' intent. and this judge, who ruled in this case at the district level, did say there was simply no evidence in the statue itself or the legislative history of any intent by congress to support the claims that are made by the plaintiff. so i guess to put it more simply, it's the view of this administration as agreed by the judge, to maximize benefits for

people all across the country, millions of americans are benefiting from this, that that is cleanly in line with the easily understood intent of the united states congress. host: responding to those conflicting court rules, from the "washington post" this morning they write this. conservatives spent years laying the groundwork for the challenge, which they consider their last best chance as hollowing out the federal program. urging them not to set up their own marketplaces in part to anything any fire the effect if the courts ruled their way. four cases have been working their way through the court, among them the dc and richmond cases. the suits argue that congress intended for the subsidies in the form of tax credits to get only to people in states that set up their own insurance exchanges, also referred to as marketplaces. the article goes on to say, next paragraph down, lower courts have sided with the government, which contended that congress meant for the subsidies to be

available in all states, including those that left the job of setting up the marketplace to the federal government. it says it said the intent was obvious from the law's context, which is why the internal revenue service wrote rules clarifying that the subsidies would be available everywhere. david in maryland, independent caller what are your thoughts on the affordable care act? caller: i just think it's really ridiculous that, you know, the republicans doing everything they can to stop this law. i don't understand why they, you know, don't -- don't see that number one, this is something that the individual mandate is something that it was their idea in the first place. and it's only because president obama, you know, got it passed that they are railing against

this. it's benefiting millions of people. it's improving the economy, and you know, i don't understand why they keep fighting against it. if the states that -- if the governments that -- you know, that didn't accept it and didn't, you know, allow it to be implemented as far as the medicare supplement in their states, they just hurting their own people. host: you're calling on the independent line. have you voted for both democrats and republicans? caller: i voted for clinton twice, bush twice, and obama twice. host: so david does this issue, you're critical of republicans on this. does this make you want to get out and vote against republicans? is that -- is it enough of -- caller: there are many things that i really do not like about how the president has handled

many things. but one thing that really, really, really gets me upset is that the republicans are willing to throw the country under the bus because they just want to stop everything that the president has done. i don't agree with abortion, i don't agree with -- i'm definitely conservative on a lot of issues, but i tell you what, one thing i really think that it's really hurting this country, and it's undermining our democracy is the fact that the republicans, you know, from day one, before he got in office, has tried to stop everything he is doing. they're not really working for the american people, they're not really looking at how, you know, they can help the economy, they're not doing their job. they're just -- they're just trying to stop him. do something. host: how old are you? what do you do for a living? caller: i'm 50. i was 25 years in the air force.

and i worked on -- on the caterpillar engine. host: murray, in colorado, you're next. caller: yes. i was going to tell the folks that my wife had cancer just after she got on obamacare. she got on it in january. and in march, she got cancer of the bladder. and through the whole thing, it would have bankrupted us. you know, we might have lost our house because of it. but the way it turned out, the affordable care act picked up most of the hospital and the doctor bill, and we were left with a $500 bill to pay, which i'm tickled to death to pay it. and like the gentleman before me was telling you, i don't understand what the republicans

are trying to do to destroy this man. he's trying to do so many good things for our nation, and he just been -- i'm 72, incidentally, and my wife was 63. and it completely saved our household. host: okay. geraldine is a republican there. good morning. caller: good morning. this law makes no sense to me at all. if we are the government it's like the people on my street getting together and saying you have to buy a corvette. well, and because you can -- you're working, and you can afford a corvette, we're going to help your neighbor who can't afford one. i'm sorry, the basic premise of the law is flawed. it should never have been enacted. and the government -- the people of this country have no idea that -- of what liberties are being lost and it's a big one through this law. thank you. host: the issue of these tax credit subsidies you think that is fundamentally wrong? caller: i think the whole bill

is fundamentally wrong. the government is telling you you have to buy something. host: okay. this is from "the new york times" this morning on the two rulings yesterday. they report this, that under this ruling, many people could see their share of premiums increase sharply. subsidies reduced the average premium to $82 a month from $346, according to the administration. so that could be the impact if the dc appellate -- appeals courts decision is upheld. we're getting your thoughts on this this morning. your impressions of the affordable care act after two lower courts yesterday had conflicting rulings. dealing with this issue of subsidies for those that can't afford health care coverage on the federal exchange. we'll go to allen, next, in bellevue, michigan, independent caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. my comment is the last lady that just talked about corvettes on her street, she has got to be delusional. she putty much is saying i got

mine, forget about anybody else even though she might have got hers in an opportunity is tick window in the economic system, but all of a sudden it's like hey, anyone that isn't exactly lucky like i've been, then it's too bad you're sick. it's a sin to be sick and people like that's philosophy which is sad for all of us. thank you very kindly. i used to be a republican, but until they straighten up their act and get off this sour grapes they're on there's no way can i vote for them or advocate for them. and that's sad but thank your. you're gorgeous. host: the republicans yesterday, here is some reaction from the house floor yesterday. michael burgess, republican from texas, a doctor, who has been on this show many times, who is very critical of the health care law, wants it repealed and replaced, here is what he had to say in reaction to the court

rulings. >> this morning the united states court of appeals for the dc circuit upheld a challenge to the obamacare health insurance subsidies being granted in federal exchanges. what does this mean? the affordable care act was written so the tax subsidies for insurance premiums were only allowed in state based exchanges, but so far 14 of the 50 states have set up state based exchanges, many others, including texas, are in federal fall back exchanges. today's ruling said that these states are getting subsidies illegally. this means 7 1/2 million people could potentially owe the federal government thousands of dollars that they would are to pay back. mr. speaker this law was a disaster from the start. it was a rough draft written in the senate committee, came over here, it was rubber stamped by the house and then it went to rule making at the federal agency. so is it really any surprise that it's ben being dialed back by the courts? between this and the hobby lobby decision it's clear it was all wrong and 7 1/2 million people

are now paying the consequences. host: texas republican michael burgess on the house floor yesterday, reacting to the court rulings. we're going outside of washington to get your take on the court rulings and your impressions of the affordable care law. we'll get to more of your calls, your tweets and e-mails in a second. first the front page of the atlanta journal constitution, purdue is the winner in the run off in georgia. businessman david peru stunned georgia's political establishment by capturing the party's u.s. senate nomination in his first run for office. the former ceo of reebok and dollar general, won by a narrow margin, setting up a battle with political newcomer in the fall. demme shell nunn's father sam was a four term u.s. senator. that is the race come november.

politico had this headline in reaction to the results of yesterday's georgia's run off. can democrats take back georgia in 2014? democrats have made a national cause of turning texas blue even though the chances that wendy dave is will win the race remains small. georgia, on the other hand, is happening now. democrats here don't have to wait for the demographic projections to come true. the states voting population is much more african-american than even ten years ago. latinos are on the rise and there's a business community relocating to the atlanta metro area at a pace that looks a lot like the migration to northern virginia the past 15 years that turned both states into presidential battlegrounds. that from politico this morning. and front page of "usa today," susan page's piece, three bets made on the midterms.

they are 100 days to go before the midterm elections. she says that democrats face headwinds from history and happenstance. since world war ii six presidents have been elected to the white house twice in the sixth year midterms for the previous five the president's party has lost an average of six senate seats and 27 house seats. six of the senate races this year are democratic held seats in the unfriendly territory. 100 days to go before those mid term elections, and president obama is hitting the fundraising circuit. yesterday he headed to california for three days with donors, gining up funds for democrats in 2014. george in genes burg, pennsylvania, a republican caller. good morning to you, george. what do you make of the court rulings yesterday and the affordable care act? caller: well i'm thrilled that the one court has decide against

obamacare. now i believe we need health care, but not at the expense of religious freedom. i don't know what the other people there -- the powers saying they're leaning republican party because this or that. that reminds me of catholic who leave the church because of this or that. as far as i'm concerned, good riddance. democrats get the worst of republicans, the republicans get the best of democrats. we have to go back to a godly nation. this president is good and he supports murder of innocents, and all the other things he does, he's a lazy -- host: george we'll go on to doug in illinois. what are your thoughts, doug, good morning to you.

caller: hi. i'm a republican caller. but thank you for taking my call. first time caller, really enjoy the show. host: welcome to the conversation. caller: the representative that had you on a bit earlier as a republican earn it's a good thing to try to get people insurance that can't afford it. i think that's something we should be striving for. i think it is obvious that this whole obamacare bill was just rushed in and had no support from the other party at all, was just ramped through. i think we're reaping what we sewed on this bill. to say that somehow we can divine what the congress meant that these -- this other district court made this decision they can just divine what these folks actually wanted in congress or what they meant as opposed to strictly interpreting what the law says,

which is has been my opinion what their job is, i just think it's a bit -- i think they need a wake up, i really do think there is things going on here that we just have to be mindful of. we can't say sometimes they're going to go our way, sometimes they'll go the other way. host: let me bounce this off of you. this is the opinion of u.s.a. today's editorial board. they write, as three other courts have now ruled, this interpretation ignores the intent of congress. when those seven words are read in the context of the entire law, it's clear that congress never meant to limit subsidies to state exchanges. and it goes on to say, one of the plaintiffs is a man who makes $20,000 a year, and whose after subsidy cost of an entire year's worth of insurance would be about $20. if he and the other plaintiffs prevail, they'll be able to go to an emergency room that will have to treat them. passing the bill on to

taxpayers. ending this kind of free riding are people who refuse to get insurance even though -- even when they can afford it, was one reason obamacare was needed in the first place. doug, your reaction? caller: i would say the parasite free riding is rhetoric. but i think it's clear that from my understanding that the bill didn't indicate there should be such a thing as a federal exchange, and that was somehow created by -- to say that all of a sudden we've turned over law writing now that some framework can be written by congress, and that the bureaucracy can determine what it all means and set it up as they see fit as the representative earlier said, i think we've completely got our three branches and the balance of power completely turned on their head when we turn everything over to the fourth

branch, the washington bureaucracy. i think it's ridiculous. thanks for taking my call. host: about opposing view for u.s.a. today, free market advocacy organization that coordinated and funded both of the court cases, and it said, he writes in here that by structuring the law this way congress gave the states an incentive to establish their own exchanges and thereby avoided a national exchange that would have been costly, different and politically toxic. as the huge problems that played health cave.gov demonstrate congress at least in this respect got it right. on so congress -- he says congress wrote the law for there to be state exchanges, and that these subsidies work for state exchanges. what are you thoughts? lynn, san antonio, texas, independent caller. good morning to you. caller: hello. my main problem with the affordable care act is it makes

you buy so many things that you don't need. i'm 69-years-old. i've had insurance all my life. i've been without things to make sure i had it. but i only bought the catastrophic care and a few other things. that's how i could afford it. now all these new people, the reason they're having to have subsidies and such is the government is forcing them to buy care they don't need. they'rer forcing me to buy care for babies. host: okay. caller: i promise you i'm not going do have any more babies. host: all right, lynn. earl, good morning,. caller: good morning. after listening to this conversation my thoughts has changed so many times, but it had caused me to reflect on 2001, i think 11, when america was struck with a disaster and everybody talk about we are all

americans. now i listen to these people call in here, and listen to how they're talking about their fellow man, perhaps to deal with the eventuality of sickness, that the burden -- the system always burdened the community before this health care act was passed. it burdened it. and it took congress over 60 years to even deal with the conversation about health care. and these people who call, it's like ignorance is something else, especially arrogant ignorance. i thought i remembered that congress wouldn't deal with the health care issue because most people wanted a system that was what they call socialist im. so these americans, i don't know what they problem is. it's like a woman who is never satisfied with nothing. you can't do nothing to please them. host: how do you get your health insurance? caller: i'm very fortunate, or blessed i should say, because i'm a retired firefighter and i put in years, saving lives and whatever you all want to call

it, and i was able to pay for insurance. but i recognize that in the department, we saw people was unable to pay. we saw them, those who didn't have and i couldn't leave them on the street and just leaf them there and put them aside. we have to take care of them because it was humane. but they don't seem to put no humanity in none of they conversations. host: brent in charleston, west virginia, good morning to you. >> thank you for taking my call. i think it's important when we look at all of these court decisions about the aca, it's important to remember that if the supreme court had done their job in 2010, and actually interpreted the constitution of the united states, and interpreted it for what it says, we would not be dealing with this right now. i have yet, and i have had many conversations, with supporters of the aca, and i have yet to

receive an adequate, sufficient answer to this question. which section of the constitution of the united states empowers the federal government to force citizens to purchase a good or service? and, which section of the constitution empowers the federal government to apply -- and this term is used loosely -- to apply taxes selectively, and the criteria for the application of a tax is in the aca, if they disobey the federal mandate. host: okay. caller: in the constitution is our government empowered to do that? host: on twitter a couple reactions for you. gary says the aca was voted on by democrats whose leader said we need to pass it to see what's in it. and we wonder why there are problems. jim says the issue is whether legislative intent can overrule crystal clear language.

it's to be decided by a partisan judiciariy. keeping your thoughts this morning on the affordable care act after two courts ruled differently yesterday on this issue of subsidies for those that can't afford health care coverage when they enroll in the federal exchange, but first want to go through headlines with you on the front pages of the newspaper this morning. we'll begin with the "wall street journal" on russia. u.s. lays out the case against that country. u.s. intelligence officials presented reporters with their most detailed case yet tuesday. the russian backed ukrainian separatists shot down a malaysian jetliner last week. if officials relied on photographers, social media, voice print analysis of ukrainian communication intercept to make their public case that a likely sa 11 antiaircraft weapon fired from separatist controlled territory shot down the commercial

airliner, killing 298 people onboard. the evidence cited, however, didn't raise the case for russian involvement in the shoot down to a new level of certainty. officials said they were still working to refine evidence and may offer more in the coming days. with that story for the "wall street journal." inside the "new york times" this morning, despite anger over the downed jetliner europe shies away from sanctions on russia, says that in the end there was plenty of tough talk, yet no real punishment for russia, despite calls from australia, britain and the united states, who have all accused russia of supplying the missile that brought down flight 17 to take a tougher line. despite widespread anger over the plane's downing european nations shied away measures that would further isolate russia. europe's leaders have largely decided they will have to live with the newly assertive russia.

goes on to say this, after china theness he lands is russia's most important trading partner. the russians and dutch invested billions in each other's country. official stay tick ticks show russia imported 7.2 billion euros in office equipment, food and flowers from the netherlands. also from "the new york times," putin pledges to help but sees limits on his role. president putin said that he would use his power to persuade the russian separates but that was limited and he seeks to reassure russian citizens that sanctions and the reaction from other countries are not having impact on their country. an independent caller, good

morning, danielle. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was calling on the legislative intent to make health insurance premiums affordable to all. if that was actually the legislative intent to make insurance premiums affordable to everyone, why did they make it so you had to buy it through a government marketplace in order to qualify for any subsidies? if i went down to my local insurance shop and bought my own insurance policy, i don't qualify for the subsidies, even though with the exact same income and the exact same policy i would qualify for thousands of dollars of subsidies if i got it through a government exchange. host: okay. robert, fork washington, maryland, what do you think? caller: my thought is that there's no better opportunity

for -- to ensure that the health insurance stays as it is, than to go and vote. ideally -- well, let me go over this. the health care law as it is written is exactly what was passed by congress. there are provisions in the law, the existing u.s. law, that provides for the changes that was made that were made by the irs, to be effective and to stand. and the courts have not really recognized that that is the case. now, as was pointed out recently, i'm glad you read that part about the person whose -- who filed the complaint, or one of the complaints anyways, and how it affects them, but what that does not do is point out

how it affects so many other people in america who were unable to afford the -- will be unable to afford any increases that come up in the health care plans. host: all right, robert. back to the newspapers on the foreign conflict, sticking with ukraine, the headline in the "washington times" is u.s. is planning to help the ukrainian military within the next few weeks the group of defense department representatives who specialize in policy will head to kiev to eval you on eight specific program that's the u.s. may want to help bolster. that is the front page of the "washington times" this morning. also the washington post this morning with these headlines, the rebels have turned over the victim's remains and the plane's black boxes from that malaysia

flight. a headline below that, at the bottom of this page, is that ukraine will need billions more in financing this year, according to economists, so that on the ukrainian economic situation. front page of "the new york times," on the situation between israel and hamas, their headline, hamas gambled on whereas its woes grew in gaza. little background, hamas has been struggling. it broke with over his brutal fight. and weakened its alliance with iran. it lost in egypt. unemployment in gaza is around 50%. having risen steeply since israel pulled out its troops and is it hers in 2005 and severely restricted tightened border

restrictions. hamas appeared powerless to end the near blockade of its border by israel and more recently by egypt. it could not even pay its 40,000 government workers their salaries. so this on the front page of "the new york times" this morning, some context as to what led hamas to the strategy that it has now, against israel. and then also in the papers this morning from the "wall street journal," u.s. flights as you know were barred for 24 hours, many of the airliners making that decision ahead of the faa yesterday. take a look at this. this is the share of passengers traveling between the u.s. and tel aviv by carrier in 2013. u.s. airways makes up 11%, delta 17%, united 24%, and the israeli airliner makes up 46%. they're still flying in and out of the tel aviv airport. next headline the middle east

division is spoiling u.s. deployed macy. secretary of state john kerry despite the ban on flying in israel did say today they're trying to broker a deal and it says egypt, the author of the crease fire plan original plan, and its allies in saudi arabia and the united air and emirates are at loggerheads about the future role of the group. the intensity of the fighting between israel and hamas, which turned into a ground war last week is raising concerns among mr. kerry's delegation that the sides are moving to entrenched positions. the piece goes on to say that the united states believes that turkey and qatar told hamas to reject the original cease-fire deal. this from the section of the financial sometimes show that's turkey's prime minister yesterday showed sole darity

with the victims of the conflict there. that in the financial times. we have a couple minutes left here to get your thoughts on the affordable care law after two conflicting lower court rules yesterday. jim in silver spring, maryland, independent caller. good morning, jim. go ahead. caller: the main thing along with the affordable care act is that no effort would ever -- was made to find out how other countries do it. after all, they set up national health care systems is not new. lots of countries have done it, and the experts who might have provided it were not called on. and particularly i'm thinking about a fellow named tr read who is a former reporter with the "washington post," who has

written a book called the healing of america. and i would recommend everybody to read that book, because it has a lot in it about how other countries have set up their health care systems. host: okay. caller: they're very fair and we have a lot to learn if we would just ask. host: all right, jim. we're going to get one last phone call here. caller: good morning. my point i want to make is the judiciariy in the market is no longer an objective body, it is too impartial. most countries the judiciariy is an objective impartial body. we have democrats, republicans on the supreme court. we have democrats, republicans on every part of the judiciariy. that's part of the problem. i don't understand why republicans would be against subsidies for the poor.

they give subsidies to big oil, all these countries get subsidies. why would republicans be against 10 million people getting subsidies for insurance? it's beyond comprehension. host: we're going to take a break, and we'll come back and talk with jim himes. on the democrat sick side his take on the aca rulings, as well. and later kansas republican tim huelskamp, who sits on the veteran's affair committee in the house will join us to talk about his priorities for the agency. we'll be right back. >> 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. this weekend the house jew dish

he h airy committee considers the impeachment of a president and the charge of abuse of power. >> you have questions about what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate watergate committee were indeed impeachable and thirdly can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them? >> watergate, 40 years later, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span-3. this weekend on book tv's afterwards. >> i thought it would be compelling to tell the story of a white family and a black family with the same name, who comes from the same place, and follow them from slavery through the civil war, reconstruction, civil rights movement, up until

today, and compare and contrast. >> author chris tomlinson, how the legacy of slavery still effects american society. saturday night at ten eastern, on c-span-2 afterwards. for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences. and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, recreated by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter.

"washington journal" continues. host: we're back with congressman jim himes, democrat, serves on the intelligence committee. let's begin with the intell generals that was unveiled to the reporters yesterday about the downing of malaysian airlines flight 17. laid out the case against russia. what do you know as a member of the intelligence committee? guest: at this point, there is very little doubt that this attack was undertaken by eastern ukrainian separatists and there is very little doubt, although if this were tried in court you would want a little more evidence than you have, you might find missile parts and that sort of thing, but even that said there's very little doubt this was done by the eastern ukrainian separatists, that this is not something you look at these guys, this is not something they pulled off on their own. at a minimum they got training and assistance and so one way or another russia's hand is very much involved in this tragedy.

host: where is the evidence? guest: you know, as the bodies are examined and as the wreckage is examined, even from a distance we can look at, for example, the side panels of the aircraft and see that there was shrapnel that helped breakdown the aircraft, consistent with the use of a sa 11 missile. as you get closer and more opportunity to as i said look for missile parts to look for other forensic evidence on the site, what happened will be clear. there's enough sort of eyes and antennas in the region picking up who is talking to whom, optically looking at what actually happened. i can't get too into the details but not a lot of doubt about what happened. host: how many briefings have you had? guest: the intelligence committee has been kept constantly up to date, the leadership. we have been provided when we came back yesterday, we were provided with the latest on what our intelligence community

thinks and that's what i say what i do, that there's not a lot about what happened. host: what should be done? what should be the next step from the united states, if this is the case, if the evidence points to russia's involvement? guest: the key thing here is, you know, the president of the united states, it was two days before this tragedy the president announced new sanctions by the united states, and that's good and that's important. and the real linchpin, though, is will europe go along? europe trades a lot with russia. europe gets about 30% of their energy from russia. they're doing exactly what they've been doing all along, making a lot of noise but being careful that they don't ultimately damage their relationship with russia. by the way, you know, what happened here is appalling, and putin needs to be called out for it. but we also need to remember here that we are engaged with the russians in some terribly important things that are absolutely essential to our national security. of course at the top of that is there is the ongoing negotiations with iran on making sure that they don't ever get a

nuclear weapon. so yes we want to push the russians hard, call putin to the carpet but we don't want to so scotch that relationship that our ability to work with russia and making sure iran never gets a nuclear weapon is compromised. host: do you have concerns that the president appears weak? guest: of course it's now become a cottage industry in this town, you know, you can pretty much assume exactly what any republican in washington is going to say because it will be the opposite of the president or critical of the president, which is sad, because in foreign affairs i'm old enough to remember a time when we had tough fights about taxes and spending and domestic issues but it used to be part i and the ship ended at the water's knowledge. this time, of course, you know, the president's critics are saying it's all his fault, which is absurd. even our ability to dramatically influence what's happening in places like syria is somehow the president's fault. you know, the president i think if you look at his time in office can be criticized for specific things.

but you know this idea, you notice the president's critics when they say he's looking weak and the journalists say what would you do, people like senator gram comes up with things like the president needs to call putin a thug. well, okay, that's not exactly the best foreign policy. host: the headline in "the new york times" this morning putin pledges to help but sees limits on his roll telling the people that the other countries have asked russia to have influence over these separatists. he says he will try to exert that but sees his role as limited. >> he controls the separatist. he arms them and trained them. you know, that statement is just crazy. and he's put himself in a box now. i think domestically in russia, the taking of crimea and the

ongoing rebellion in eastern ukraine it served him well domestically. russians are feeling strong. the long run game for putin is not a good one. guess what, europe is smart enough to figure out they can't continue to get 30% of their energy from russia. putin maybe in the short run has high domestic approval ratings but he's leading his country into worse economic straights than they're in today. host: how do you get inside the russian people when we hear these news reports from russia tv that the making these claims that the united states is responsible for mh17, and all of these other reports that seem erroneous? guest: look, all you can do is tell the real story. and you know, people will always be subject to the propaganda of their own government, it happens in gaza, it happens in syria, all around the world. eventually the truth prevails.

and you know, we'll do our best to make sure the world understands what is really help evening in ukraine and what happened, but putin is, you know, a spy for a long time. he understands how to do propaganda, and you know he's going to continue doing it. host: yesterday several airliners, u.s. airliners canceled flights into tel aviv. faa followed up later saying we will not allow u.s. airliners to go there for 24 hours. what intelligence did they have that there was a threat? do you think that was a wise decision by the government? guest: it was certainly a prudent decision by the government. you don't need to be an intelligence genius to know why there is concern. israel is not a lot bigger than the state of connecticut, which i represent. it's a tiny place and you got hamas and gonzalez. launching rockets several a hour, all of which has a range easily to hit the airport in tel aviv. you know, it's not like hamas has the kind of missile that brought down the airline he over

ukraine, but they are constantly launching missiles and that poses a very real threat to aviation. i think the decision as long as missiles are in position to reach the airport is a prudent one. host: more issues to talk about you, because you wear several different hats in congress. let me get to phone calls first. todd in robinson, illinois. you are on the air. caller: good morning. congressman, i just wanted to know how you can be so absolutely certain that russia did this? i'm not saying that they didn't. all i'm saying is there has been no investigation whatsoever, you know, the black boxes haven't even gone to the malaysians yet, and here we are, we're doing exactly what we did with iraq. we're doing exactly what we did with syria. when it -- you know, let the investigation happen. before we start pointing fingers, before we get into

another war, let the investigation happen. guest: todd, look, it's a fair point. a lot of people remember what supposedly watertight case for weapons of mass destruction in iraq. before we do anything dramatic, let's make sure the case is locked. and you're right about that. but look, nobody is talking about going to war. the idea that we're going to do what george w. bush did and send troops into awe rain, it isn't happening. i think i mentioned this when i was talking about it, if we had to prove what happened in a court of law we would probably need more evidence. the bringing down of an airliner is not something that happens quietly. and you know, for obvious reasons i'm not in a position to discuss all of the evidence and intelligence that is out there, but at this point, we're pretty close to the point where i think a case that the separatists did this would hold up in court. the important point of what you said is, and this is why it's so

frustrating, that doesn't mean there's a button we can push where the situation has changed or better. because we're not doing what we did in iraq, which was rely on a case in order to go to war. that's just not on the table. host: you said the u.s. will not be sending troops. there is a story in the "washington times" that the u.s. is going to help the ukrainian military, the defense department saying a group of representatives who specialize in strategy and policy will head to kiev to evaluate specific programs that the u.s. may want to help bolster. guest: which is a very different thing than we did in iraq. look, the long-term answer, and i think everybody recognizes this, is for first of all putin to stop supporting these guys in eastern ukraine and some arrangement, peaceful arrangement to be made between eastern and ukrainian and kiev. i think the theory is you'll recall two months ago the ukrainian military was just a disaster. they were everywhere, failing,

abandoning their posts. they have since bench more aggressive and much more competence but if we're going to create the kind of stalemate -- i think putin will jump at that, we're going to need to make sure the ukrainian military is in a position to defend their own country. host: in michigan, republican caller. hi, bob. go ahead. caller: i got a few things i got written down i would like this guy to a try to attempt to defend. dumping illegals, lying about illegal deportations, the nsa, the ap, fast and furious, the va, russian reset, syria, health care, keystone, epa, climate unchaininged, government shut down, the president shut the government down, not ted cruz. we have a marine in jail in mexico and this guy is flying

around at fundraisers. henry lou is gates. border suppression, that's on your side, not ours, sir. communists, he pointed -- host: so bob what is the point? caller: any other president would have been out of office. this guy gets away with murder. host: congressman? guest: that's quite a list. i will try to attempt to -- i'm not going to. look, with all you don't respect, maybe a little more c-span and a little bit less fox news. that was the grab bag of everything that fox news and my friends in the recane caucus of the house in particular have tried to hang around this president. now, you listed about 20 things there that would take the rest of this show to go through. let's start with your first one. been wase. it was a real tragedy, absolutely was, four americans killed. i sit on the intelligence community. i had the opportunity to

interview everyperson who was on the ground. the kind of things bob was suggesting, and we heard every conspiracy theory, every whacky idea out there, they were dealing drugs, that they were handing shoulder fired antiaircraft missiles to people in benghazi. all of it is utter pay loney. and again, that comes from somebody who spent a lot of time talking to people on the ground. it was a tragedy. the state department did not have the kind of security that they needed there, that should have been there. now bob frames that in a very partisan way, it's the president's fault. guess who supplies the money that allows the state department to provide security? it's the congress of the united states, the senate the democratic congress, and in the house the republicans. those are top points against the president, most of which in some cases have some reasonable basis in reality. what happened at the irs was appalling, and the fact that e-mails got lost was nothing

short of appalling, and a massive failure at that agency. the point is bob's line of thinking this is all about the president. there has been absolutely zero evidence that the president had any hand in any one of these particular so-called scandals that the republicans have desperately been trying to promote.

caller: representative himes very rudely dismissed that gentleman. i did not like it. it was kind of arrogant. first of all, ronald reagan on the domestic policy, but i agree with him on foreign policy completely the way that he handled the old soviet union. all, that ist of not just everest. ,here is culpability there particularly from the people who are nothing but scum. barack obama is not qualified for the job. realesn't have any management experience and he is overmatched by vladimir putin. vladimir putin is a highly intelligent former kgb officer. how is that for intelligence? i disagree with the

conclusion. he may be popular with his people in the short term, but he has driven his own economy into the ground. there are reasons to be critical of the president, but in his five years the recession has turned around into 9 million or 10 million jobs created in the private sector, record highs, businesses more confident. boudin has taken his country in the opposite direction, where the russian economy is on its knees. he may have a temporary burst of popularity in russia because he took crimea, but in the meantime, europeans are saying guess what, we will be getting our energy from somewhere else. the jew know what russia had to offer europe? natural gas, that's it. you don't see a lot of russian technology, entertainment, education. vladimir putin may have high popularity ratings today, but in the long run he is disastrous for his country. with respect to the president,

again, like any president he has done some things right and done something's wrong. on some of the worst economic times that any modern president has faced since the 's, he has of the 1930 turned that around. he has passed legislation that reigned in the respect -- the behavior on wall street. controversial it provides benefits to millions of americans. he has reversed discrimination against gay people in this country. either way, he killed osama bin laden, right? the list goes on and on. i did not mean to be rude about caller ran toher the list of things against the president, some of which are true, the irs scandal is appalling, but it is important to recognize the progress that this president has made. host: this from twitter --

host: let's go to william in marion, indiana. guest: jim, can you hear me -- caller: jim, can you hear me? guest: yes. of the i am a member nation, but i have participated in three state economies. why has president obama not brought intelligence from ukraine already in terms of the force determining the warriors in these campaigns? why is the commonwealth not using the a.k.a. of judicial government from 10 months ago? i am a strict democrat because of the force of the economy. you will have to call in

on the democrats line, then. were you following that? guest: not really. it seems like he was asking why we don't have more people on the ground in ukraine. we are providing some assistance to the ukrainian government. it is very much in our interest -- remember, this is where it got started, ukraine was trying to figure out if we were going to go the russian way and participate in russian free trade, or are we going to go with the european union and theirwith them and adopt political approach? that is the answer. by the way, that's where they're going. we need them to integrate into europe and not go the way that is rapidly becoming a rogue nation led by a guy who is making, some people think, strong, but there is no strength in fomenting terrorist activities and going against

international law. eventually that comes back to bite you. host: sam, democratic line. caller: good morning. the representative continues to destruction [indiscernible] host: let's get the congressman's take on the situation. concerned about my support for israel, i do support israel and their remarkable story. in a one of democracy

tough spot right now. in a brutal conflict with a terrorist organization. just as in ukraine, we need to make sure that that conflict is reduced to a point where negotiations can resume. it sounded like sam was going in the direction of trying to point fingers, establish blame. you can spend a lot of time doing that. there has been a lot of loss of life in the region that is tragic. israel as mind of the cease-fires of the egyptians and the ones they have called for. their civilian centers have deliberately been attacked by , putting their activists

in schools and mosques so that when israel goes after them, there are civilian death. to do here, of course, is to say that what is happening here is a tragedy and pullback, get back to the negotiations. >> should israel agreed to economic relief for gaza? >> look, we should always be open to humanitarian relief for people who are suffering and a lot of people in gaza are suffering. be very sureto that if that happens it is not relief that calls at the hands of hamas they can be sold on the black market so that they can buy guns. the way that hamas has treated their own civilians, using them has -- as human shields, it is appalling. anytime there is a civilian ovulation entire stripe, as many

palestinians are, you want to look for ways to alleviate their pain. okeechobee, florida, republican line. go ahead. that's fine, it is okeechobee. host: ok, all right. caller: i want to tell mr. hines, first off you have some great talking points, you know? speak from the heart instead of obama's talking points. you have these points down so pat, ok? he has been after mr. russian president putin ever since he kind of disobeyed obama when he wanted to get snowed in back. that's when he started going after russia. the minute the something happens, it is all mr. putin's fault. host: let's get a response. guest: i'm not sure what she

means by the president going after russia. not the first time. remember, let's be clear what happened here. vladimir putin went into a neighboring country and took art of it. the crimea. the president did not go after him for that. he could have. vladimir putin did something that was blatantly illegal. and it is not the first time. vladimir putin has always, in the countries surrounding chechnya and other countries very,nding russia, being very aggressive. i'm not sure i agree with the characterization. vladimir putin is a rogue actor and it is not just the president's concern, it is ultimately the european concern about how the sky gets brought back into some semblance of a normal relationship with his neighbors. ukraine to impose sanctions on russian individuals and firms." you are on with congressman jim

himes. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am a proud american who loves this country. i have prayed for this country for years and years. i have always ask god for wisdom. i just leave it there is a zero democratic in the arty in that they have endorsed all of these things that are abhorrent to god. an american indian, a cherokee, and our president has wanted to enable races to racism. saying that it is like races to be a redskins fan. well, we adapted to the white man, the cherokee did. can i ask you to get your point, your question for the congressman? caller: yeah.

i just feel that there is a reason for all the evil in the world. be of good cheer that we win in the end. it is square pegs fitting in round holes. they just don't fit, this administration has gotten off center. host: ok, all right. congressman, any thoughts on that? we disagree over many things in this conversation, and we should. the strength of the system is that we come together and that they don't building up the street and have those debates. we should, that is a strength. one thing i hope we don't do, he started his statement by saying that he loves his country. that is true of everyone here. we all try, whatever god we worship, to do right eye that god's ideals. i am reminded by something that lincoln said -- i forget the context, i think it was during the civil war when he said that we should never read dodd would be on our side, that we should

pray that we would be on god's side, and that is a better way to think of it i think in terms of whether the republicans or democrats are more consistent with god's will. host: you are the national finance chair for the d triple c. "obama raises funds while international crisis looms." his trip to the west coast drawing criticism yesterday. three fundraisers, some of that money going to the d triple c for the midterm elections. should he be doing this? is it appropriate? >> is the whole system a good system that relies on huge amounts of money to influence our elections? absolutely not. i was a staunch proponent of the stoop -- supreme court's decision, bringing huge amounts of money into the political system, millions of dollars into senate races and house races, that is a bad system. that said, it is the system we have had for a long time.

this is another one of these doing like -- obama is this, obama is playing golf. during the rack war, when we were at war, the president at the time, george w. bush, raise money for his party. this has been true for a long time. host: how much money has the president raised for the teacher will see? guest: i don't know, the d triple c gets its funding from democratic members of congress and huge numbers of grassroots supporters around the country. the president, obviously when he holds a fundraising event, attract a lot of attention. host: we will go to jan. caller: i agree with one thing and disagree with the other. i disagree with you on benghazi. i believe the president should not have been at one of these withign raising funds these movie stars and hundreds

of bottles of champagne on the night after our oil was murdered and for eight hours waited for help from the united states military. to the hearings. during the hearings it was brought out that there was a neighbor, a neighborhood in al qaeda, which is where the people in libya asked for help, they wanted guns on top of the buildings. they did not get it from obama. can you address the items she just laid out? guest: sounds like she was , and i have heard many of these conspiracy theories. it is just flat out wrong. plain flat out wrong. look, we have had seven or eight within theons, some

congress. some with ambassador pickering or ambassador mullen, completely refuting these series out there. let's be clear here, there was not a call for help that went out. our military assets in the area were far, far, far away in ways that would have made it impossible for them to get there for an event that was happening in a one to two hour time frame. let's not forget that this was a tragedy that we can learn from and those that continue to try to suggest that it was the president's fault, that is going to stop us from learning what we should learn from, which is that in dangerous areas we need to secure our facilities and ambassadors and it is up to congress in both parties to adequately fund state department security and other security to keep our people safe. coventry, connecticut, jim, democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning.

guest: hello, connecticut. .aller: yes, sir i have a very quick statement. keeps invoking how tough ronnie reagan was, who i voted for twice and i would vote for again, he did what was right for the country. 250 marinesn got and sailors killed in beirut, lebanon, by hamas. how is thomas doing today? at the big picture. every president makes mistakes. to squawk about the ghazi, which is a tragedy and it happened -- look at the history. the ignorance of the history of america is unbelievable. the republicans were in charge. from the second you take the oath of office your number one job is to protect the people of the united states of america.

you allow the largest attack on american soil in my lifetime. i am 50 four years old. you have got some nerve to squawk about an ghazi, which was a tragedy. >> i will leave it there, jim. steve, independent caller. >> thank you. i had to sigh when i heard the congressman talking about food having notn contributed really anything to the culture, the arts, and by i am hearing something there, not sure what it was. at any rate, not contributing to arts and entertainment. the united states, what have we been doing? promoting and exporting sonography and ghoulish of violence, demeaning our young people, demeaning families and

women, promoting utter decadence in the name of women's rights. what have we been doing? silesia my risk, whatever her name is. guest: miley cyrus. caller: whatever her name is. the democrats are promoting this. host: how is that? caller: to the extent that there is no objection to it and the congressman here is holding up american exceptionalism as though we are the virtuous beacons of liberty. host: ok. guest: i don't i commented on putin in arts and entertainment. i guess one of the sad things is, gosh, you think back on russian history, russia has massively contributed to culture, music, tchaikovsky, check off, stravinsky, the same is true of the united states. jazz was developed in this

country. aaron copland, the blues, huge contributions. is there lowbrow stuff? probably the lowbrow stuff over there is worse than here. as fathers up to us and community leaders to say that we like this stuff and don't like this other stuff. it is certainly not up to the government to say that. guys like me, like that officials of the government don't get to tell the people of the united states what they get to listen to and watch, which i think at the end of the day is a good thing, but it does mean that there is some stuff out there that some people would create -- think of is real armitage. jimmy, republican caller. caller: it looks like the morals of the united states are starting to deplete a little bit. one of the things i would like to know is -- you keep protecting the president on things like in ghazi, things that he does oversee. there are oversight committees for this.

why does everyone always come back to say the president is the one that got a lot in? special forces got bin laden. they trained to do things like this. the only thing our president didn't was say go. i want to see the president -- the military stay strong. our whole government needs to get back to a moral standard where everyone is equal. how do you feel about that? you pointingeciate that out, it is absolutely right, it was some incredible men and women in our community, it was a lot of people that helped to get bin laden. no one has any doubt about that. as you pointed out, the president said yes, which is a massively consequential decision for his presidency. he did not have 100% proof that bin laden was in that building. if it did not, or if we have lost for, to use the number of the ghazi, look what happened to jimmy carter when he gave the go-ahead for the hostage rescue

mission in iran. you are absolutely right, it was our young men and women in uniform that did the work on the ground. but this president put it all on the line to accomplish something that had not been accomplished for years prior in terms of getting and bringing to justice the man who led the most horrible terrorist attack on u.s. soil in our history. two lower courts yesterday had conflicting rulings on the affordable care act. the bc appeals court saying that some should not be going to the federal exchange. this is the "washington times" editorial board. "the wall street journal," editorial board is saying this -- "they violated the affordable care act by expanding subsidies in the plain statutory language that repeatedly stipulates that these credits shall flow only

through and exchanged -- and exchange established by the state. your take? from two veryd conservative newspapers. the two judges in the d c wereit court of appeals both republican appointees and guess what, the one judge that oppose that was a democratic appointee. we have politics at work here more than legal issues. on the legal side of language is ambiguous. i talk about state exchanges. when language is ambiguous, courts say that it is not clear what the language says, but what was congressional intent? there is absolutely no doubt that the congressional intent was to provide subsidies for all americans, not just the ones in states that decided to start exchanges.

in the d c circuit this will be heard by the 11 judges in the circuit. what they will eventually do is say -- look, what did congress intend? there is no doubt. step from the legality of this. we are in this ongoing fight where a lot of people just want to do away with obamacare in its entirety. step back from the legalities -- as i always said, there are things in the affordable care act that should be fixed, that don't work, but at this point those who delight in the possibility of failure of obamacare, just imagine -- i don't think that this will happen, but that this decision is upheld? that would mean that millions of americans in 36 states now no longer have health insurance. toy no longer have access hospitals, doctors, they cannot take their children to doctors. is that something to celebrate? something that we want for the american people? saidnors in those states

they will not expand medicaid. the program that revives health care for poor people. poor people in this country are sick and dying because of the political decisions taken by those governors. why did they decide that? let's assume the best of their arguments, that they can't afford it. really? the greatest, most powerful, richest nation in the world that can fight wars in afghanistan and iraq cannot afford to keep people from dying by expanding medicaid? hast this out in court, but let's remember what this is we are talking about. do we want to support the most vulnerable in our country? host: "the new york times" anded it an ominous ruling, "the virginiain, court got it right in favor of

the health-care law." democratic caller, hello. good morning, you are on the air. [ringing] to that is not supposed happen. tony, chapel hill, tennessee. good morning. to you all. to talk i have been watching c-span for a long time. you are bad about cutting people off and you don't want to hear what they have to say. i have a statement and a correction. veryman right here is the reason we need to get rid of incumbency. i have not elected but two people to my congress and senate because i vote for independence. people say you lose your vote. don't be stupid and hope for independents. is, when in the devil are we going to stop blindly following israel? come on, people.

well, i appreciate your comment. in just about 100 days the american people will have the opportunity to throw the bums out, if they want to do that. every single one of my colleagues is up for reelection in november. the beauty of our system, which doesn't exist and many other places around the globe, you will have the opportunity to weigh in on who represents you hear in just about three months. good thing. obviously, i hope my constituents will vote, but most importantly i hope that everyone out there will make their voices heard and exercise their right to vote on election day. host: before congress adjourned it sounds like order security needs to be addressed in terms of funding. that there needs to be some emergency funding passed. the story this morning is that there are two dueling bills, the

senate will have a bill that is $1 billion less than what the president wants and the house is going to have a bill that is a little bit less than $2 billion. host: a challenging issue, like so many. a lot of our callers this morning talked about being --guest: a challenging issue. like so many. a lot of our callers this morning talked about the moral right. it is almost biblical, this crisis, in the sense that we have children, innocents, showing up on our border. how we do with that -- deal with that 20 years from now, it is almost a biblical moral test. i saw a sign in california -- not our children, not our problem. back to the bible, those who god has favored have not always wanted to assume the burden that god has placed on them.

abraham, moses, you name it. how they assume the burden defines who they are. the premise that we have to do right by these children and not quickly send them back into harms way where they may be killed -- that doing that right, the word in legal circles is due process. meaning that case-by-case we will have to take these children and make sure -- the law requires us to eventually send them home, but we need to do that in such a way that we make sure we aren't sending them to a neighborhood or community where they will be killed. to your question, that will require some funds. the headline this morning ," "the washington times "house gop wants national guard on border to halt influx of , accelerating deportation hearings for unaccompanied children." guest: there is no question and

i agree 100% that the borders must be secure. i don't think many people does agree with that. but i am not sure that that fully answers the question. by the way, there is a lot that we have talked about that we need to do. we need to make it clear to the people there that you cannot show up on our borders and expect to be made a citizen. have amagine that we perfectly secure border with americans staring across a fence at 20 children who are dying of exposure and thirst, whatever. this is a rough area. what then? what do we do? just say that this is not our problem? we will watch those children die? i am all in favor of a secure border. that's fine. but let's not kid ourselves that that alleviates this almost biblical moral obligation that has been placed on our shoulders to make sure that some very vulnerable and innocent people are taking care of. host: the front page of "the

houston chronicle," saying that the national guard cannot stop the border crossers, but the advocacy of putting the guard there is the political message it sends. so, in a humanitarian crisis we will send a political message is a sure mark let's focus on what we need to do here, focus on the crisis that will make us as moral beings feel good about the way we did that. jeff, good --host: morning. caller: i was wondering, i watch her show all the time and i think it is great, but when will you start doing something about domestic terrorism on the internet? hurricanes, mind control, hurricanes, tornadoes, -- host: what are you talking about? things that have it -- caller: things that having going

on for the last five administrations with the internet. host: we will move on to the next caller. i need to put that on the license plate. what i wanted to say this morning, how is it that so many americans can profess not only domestic affairs but foreign policy as well? they must be all the meat -- in all the meetings that you are in in the mornings. i just wanted to say that this morning. that ithanks, not sure caught the question, but appreciate the comment. this morning the finance committee is having a hearing on the dodd frank legislation --host: this morning the finance committee is having hearing on the dodd frank legislation. what is going on with that? guest: it will be an interesting hearing. there is a panel to talk about it at the four-year anniversary.

chairmanank, who was and whose name was on that bill, will be there. i hope it will be a good discussion. like so many of the things we are talking about this morning, dodd frank has done some very good things. these toxic mortgages that were sold to people, where the person who sold the mortgage knew that the family had no chance of ever repaying -- that is a thing of the past. derivatives, which were a massive market, are now regulated. that's a good thing. of course, no law is perfect. hopefully the criticisms will get outed today. hopefully it is not all about the politics, hopefully it is also about the substance. wall street, of course, the words you want to use when you want to scare people, appropriately so, wall street went out of control in 2008, but we need to remember that the balance is important.

yes, make sure the catastrophe of 2008 never happens again. on the other hand, you know, banks are what allow us to borrow to send our kids to school, to borrow to start a small business. we need to make sure that that stays vibrant. we will be covering that hearing, by the way. go to c-span.org or coverage. shelbyville, tennessee, republican caller. caller: how are you? guest: hi, judy. caller: hello. i have a couple of things. first of all, i am disappointed that presidents are -- i feel like i don't have a president of the united states. he is strictly for democrats. all the democrats do bad but i don't believe that the republicans are always right . when the president is out there campaigning and using taxpayer dollars for millions to be flown here or there to campaign, i

think that's wrong. but it depends on what president it is. then the housing market, thatest rates are so low we, as elderly -- and we are elderly, can no longer earn money on rcd's. we are down to what, not even 1%? for the ones of us who cannot afford to be in the stock market to take the chances of the up and down. there. will leave it we are running out of time. guest: judy is right about the interest rate things. for those who rely on bond rates , one of the tragedies of low interest rates -- which we have today because it is supposed to help the economy recover, but there is a terrible cost borne by people like judy who rely on interest. the only thing i would say about that, i agree with your other statement, taking us back to the conversation about how we elect

people in this country. i hope at some point we all agree that no president, no member of congress, no senator should spend most of his or her time raising money. one thing that you could note is that whether a republican or democratic president is flying around the country doing fundraisers -- and i am not saying that they are good, i look forward to a day when they don't have to do that, but when they do that, the parties reimburse the military and others with the cost of moving the president around if it is political. quickly, housing legislation, where do we stand? guest: representatives delaney and carney have just proposed reform of fannie mae and freddie mac that would have the government as a backstop to the housing business and have it in a much more disciplined way than it was in the past. you would have the private sector participating in guarantees and bringing discipline to a market that in 2006 and 2007 was very

undisciplined. it is one of the great done things from 2008. we are hoping that maybe we can get good bipartisan support for the idea. on theou can learn more congressman's website. thank you very much for speaking to our viewers. guest: thank you, greta. next, we will be talking to kansas republican tim he will be talking about the waiting list at the v.a. centers. and later on we have an exclusive from "popular mechanics" about the technology used to destroy serious chemical weapons. first, a newsupdate from c-span radio. two ukrainian military fighter jets have been shot down according to the country's defense ministry. beenlanes may have carrying up to two crew members each as bodies from the malaysian airliner shot down in

the same area last week he and arriving in the netherlands. fighting continues between israeli troops and militants in the gaza strip, but the associated press says there is a glimmer of hope on the diplomatic front, negotiation's to broker a truce are making some progress. secretary of state john kerry, who flew to israel today, said there has been forward motion but still work to do. turning to the influx of central americans crossing the southern u.s. border, senate democrats and house republicans are moving separately to cut the president emergency spending request for the situation. the senate will being unveiled today by barbara mikulski would allocate $2.7 billion for more immigration judges, detention facilities, and other resources, a $1 billion reduction in the president's request. house republicans were expected to go even further with more limited spending focused on

enforcement provisions. the result, according to the associated press, looks like a stalemate, because the annual august recess is just around the corner. congress is in session today and you can watch live cap -- lighthouse coverage on c-span, the senate live on c-span two. both in at 10 a.m. eastern. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. weekend -- >> this weekend, on "afterwords your co->> i thought it would be compelling to tell the story of a white family and a black family with the same name, who come from the same place, following them through slavery, the civil war, jim crow, the civil rights movement, up until today, and compare and contrast. >> chris tomlinson on his families slaveowning history and how the legacy of slavery still affects american society.

he speaks with lumbar tomlinson, the brother of damien tomlinson, about their families lineage as former slaves. saturday night, 10 p.m. eastern on "afterwords." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman tim huelskamp. the president has nominated a new veterans affairs secretary, bob mcdonald. he was on capitol hill yesterday or his confirmation hearing. i wanted to show you and the viewers a bit of what he had to say about his priorities. [video clip] >> in the midst of these problems, in the midst of bitter partisanship, why do you want this job? >> thank you for the question, chairman. it is a good question, a question my family and i have talked a lot about.

i desperately want this job because i think i can make a difference. i think that my entire career, whether it was starting at west point, being in the second airborne division, being a proctor and gamble homologue of the most admired companies in the world for 30 years, has prepared me for this task. no higherere is calling and this is an opportunity for me to make a difference in the lives of the veterans that i care so deeply about. congressman, what do you make of mr. mcdonald? guest: a tough question to answer, why anyone would want that job, and i appreciate his background, but he is stepping into a department that by all accounts has some cultural problems, lack of accountability, cultural retaliation -- as we heard. it is an uphill task. when he comes in he cannot remove the top employees unless the senate approves of our bill in the senate that allows the theetary to take control of

department to fire noncontrolling higher-ups in the bureaucracy. it is going to be a difficult job, but i appreciate him stepping up and his background, but it is similar to what he butd at procter & gamble, my understanding, a cultural problem with a long ways to go. get a vote, but you sound like guest: you support his nomination. i think is going to be confirmed. but what we have heard is always the same thing, everyone cares about the veterans. actually having good results in changes, we have not seen that and a long time that is what we hear from whistleblowers. that they will make positive suggestions and get criticized and retaliated for telling the truth about some of the problems there. host: the acting v.a. secretary last week called for more money to deal with this problem. we want to show the viewers why he thinks more money is needed.

[video clip] theet me briefly address need for additional resources. the greatest risks over the intermediate to long-term are that additional resources be provided only to support increased purchase care within the community and not to materially remedy his torch shortfall in internal capacity. such an outcome would leave the v.a. even more poorly position to meet further demands. we have been working closely with the office of management and aja to develop ever asked for funding. are largeamounts under consideration, in the context of size and budget they are moderate percentage increases in terms of expenditures. furthermore a substantial portion of the funds required are nonrecurring and would not be reflected in long-term fund rates. resources required to meet

current demands, covering the remainder of fiscal year fort in through fiscal year 17, totaling $17.6 billion. these funds address only the current shortfalls in clinical staff, space, information technology, and purchase care necessary to provide timely, high-quality care. the acting v.a. secretary saying with the agency needs. here's how it breaks down, $10 billion to address the waiting lists, $6 billion for infrastructure improvement. can you support that? we cannot. in hearing after hearing we have heard about the lack of integrity of the data. we don't know the workload, the capacity, the waiting list. the problem was not that they did not have enough facilities, my understanding is, it was that they were misleading, and is and manipulating the data to achieve

bonuses and leaving veterans to wait. at one whistleblower clinic we heard that doctors in this particular hospital were seeing four or five patients per day rather than a full caseload. but we have also heard from .thers within the bureaucracy it is not about money, it is about the culture, doing a better job in changing the veterans administration direction. be a said that this would modest increase. >> since 2002 through 2013 we have had a 100% increase in the department of v.a., outstripping the number of veterans coming in . throwing more dollars is not the problem. in the hearing we heard that we had to make sure that every employee is rewarded for good behavior and importantly we need to provide veterans a choice of going outside the system. i think that in many cases the v.a. culture does not support that type of choice.

is from the veterans affairs website. this is from their 2015 request from the president's proposal. they are looking at $62 billion for medical care, which they say counts for 87.7% of the v.a. budget. it is significant. over the last decade congress has been very generous in terms of meeting the needs of our veterans. but throwing more money into the system, thinking that you would somehow fix the system by another hospital? in a rural district, like mine, veterans need more local access, but they have to get the permission of v.a.. i had the case of a 94-year-old world war ii veteran who said you had to come into the hospital to update your ascription. he is not physically able to make it. his local health care is called not good enough by the v.a.. if we tapped into local

community resources and gave veterans a choice, we would not be talking about these increases. again, that is the culture of the v.a. and it is not working out very well. to calls thist morning, we have a line and set aside this morning for veterans as well. jim is a republican in texas. what is the name of your town? caller: [indiscernible] host: ok, go ahead. youer: i believe that should have elected boards of veterans every one of these hospitals where the people there are responsible. jim, that is a great suggestion. i am certain that various employees have suggested that. whether internal or external, we need more accountability in the system. i hear a lot of reports from veterans who say that they get good care when they get in there, others who say it is lacking.

the question right now is to get to the veterans to our languishing without care. these are atrocious situations from inside the v.a.. a board made up of veterans providing oversight and accountability would be a great addition. thank you. host: democratic line, virginia, go ahead. the 87%ou stated that was spent on medicine medical care alone. most of these v.a. centers don't have enough funds to update their systems. like, most have gone to public agencies with electronic medical records and things like that. when 87% is used on medicine alone, that is not enough to improve and update your system and to accommodate change, to lower prices for veterans being able to speak to your doctors through electronic means. i think they actually need the extra funds. guest: i appreciate that, but

what we heard in the committee was that billions and billions of dollars have been wasted on technology. actually, today the department of defense cannot communicate and talk to the v.a. and it is not for lack of spending money. it is for lack of a system and a procedure and a way to communicate and work those systems together. the money has been thrown at it and wasted. i was shocked to learn today at a local hospital that they were hesitant to let a member of congress come in and visit with employees and staff. they admitted that their scheduling system was a dos based system from the 1990's, but in committee after committee we are told that everything is just fine, meanwhile they are spending money on a 20-year-old system. they need to have an independent outside assessment coming in saying -- this is what we need to do. we heard from a panel of health

care experts who said that we create centers of excellence and bring in community health care resources. again, i represent a very rural district, where veterans are expected to drive hundreds of miles before they can get to a hospital. they could get the care much better and easily in the local community. of thehis is a map country with gray circles representing the wait times that are less than 30 days. the dark loo is more than 60 days. blue circles dark we are seeing here. a lot of light lou. have you seen improvements in the waiting list at the v.a. since this story broke? there is no way of telling, the data has been falsified and manipulated. measuring, i believe, they said 500 different metrics. that is just one of those.

they are great at generating metrics, but week after week we don't know what the numbers really are. how do you throw money at a system and measure results when you don't know what job they are doing? how well are we using current that? i have seen and heard that it is not working out very well and the idea to hire more people and throw more money at it, certainly a lot of folks are not taking advantage of the specific resources. those are the questions we are trying to get down to. that is why you need a cultural change. leadership goes all the way to the top. the president has known about the problems in his years as president. the president has got to step up and say -- hey, i am going to step in and personally take control of this situation. the president's nominee testified yesterday on capitol hill. we covered that and showed you a bit, if you missed it.

you can see more on our website. gary, tennessee, go ahead. this is nothing new. this has been a problem for years and years. the v.a. has been underfunded and, as a result, veterans have not gotten the medical care that they really have earned with their service. we spend trillions of dollars to go to war, but we are afraid to spend a few million dollars to take care of the people who are and mentally affected by the actual process that war is. guest: a response? --host: a response? that, a 156%eciate increase, it is not about the money. we are hearing that from folks inside the v.a., whistleblowers with investigations going on at

70 different facilities, investigations of retaliation. brave workers coming forward saying that they care about the veterans. let me tell you how they are manipulating data, etc.. here we have a proposal to spend a bunch more money on a system where there is no accountability. host: supporters say that the increase is not enough. that it is only now in recent years that you have seen the large numbers go to the v.a. for treatment. that ate are not seeing all. again, below the secretary level every bureaucrat, every appointee who came before the committee in the last two years to whom we asked the question -- do you have enough resources? the answer is always yes. that is surprising. you would expect a bureaucrat to say that they need more money, but they say it is not the money, it is about the system and the culture. you hear people who really care.

they say it is not about the resources, it is about accountability. we see the v.a. giving promotions and bonuses to people who are not doing well at the executive level. at the bottom you have people working hard without being rewarded. i think the system is upside down. we are giving money to folks who are doing a bad job about rewarding those who are doing harder work. the idea that if we have another 1000 employees he will fix the system? that is not what i have heard. a bill tohouse has fix the situation. the senate has a build. how confident are you that it gets approved and sent to the president before the november election? i know that we have been working hard on this and trying to get to the bottom of it. we had subpoenas, after many years, because the v.a. refused to answer our questions and we are finally getting that response. but this idea that somehow the

current administration wants to throw more money at the problem without getting to the basics of the need of cultural accountability, that won't change anything. i hear that from veterans groups and from veterans, that it is not about the money. we have to make sure that we know how the money is going to translate into better, or care. the house is very insistent that we allow veterans a choice. right now a veteran has fewer choices about anyone else -- fewer choices than anyone else in america. that is not right. back to calls, independent caller. it is: respectively, always about the money. it is always about the money. please give these returning veterans the money they are asking for. i have no problem with that. give them the money. again, veterans do

want more money thrown at the system. thank you very, very much. guest: i don't know if colleen is a veteran, and i don't know if you are, thank you for your service if you are. that is not what i hear from veterans. adding more doctors would be helpful, but providing accountability, holding folks accountable for their actions in the system -- these secret waiting lists, we don't know if anyone has been punished or fired for violating the law. the office of inspector general submits report after report for the last decade that has not been put into practice in the v.a.. all we are asking for is changing that system, providing accountability. as jim suggested at the beginning, let's have independent, outside experts looking at improving the system. the best experts are saying that this is the worst functioning system we have in america and it should be the best functioning.

that will take changes at the presidential and secretarial level. gallup recent poll by appears to mirror what the caller was just saying. when asked about the ways to fix the problem with the department of veterans affairs, 16%, the most, said to provide better care in a more timely manner. do you think that there is a way to do that without more money? as i indicated earlier, the data is unclear. the information has been manipulated and corrupted. we have seen billions of dollars thrown at the v.a. for i.t. systems. we would like a system of electronic medical records that when you leave the service of our country, you walk over and the records are sitting there. that has not happened and it has never happened. it should be able to happen. but it was not because money was not spent on that.

i wish that spending a few more billion dollars would solve the problem. i am pretty confident that we will be appearing 10 years and saying -- my gosh, people are still waiting for care? there is the capacity in these systems, if they can put a system together that ties the veteran and the v.a. together to provide accountability. host: our line for veterans, bob is from jacksonville. , folks.er: good morning let me tell you my short history with the v.a.. what happened was, i was discharged in 1957. when i got home i called the v.a. and they gave me an month.ment for that same a lot of them are discharged by

214 to come in. 57 years i have been going there. 57 years. i would not be talking to you right now if it was not for them. this is the greatest health care system in the world. it is socialized medicine. most countries in the world have that. but we don't. that is the only form of socialized medicine that we have. host: bob, what do you want to happen? leave it alone. it works perfect for me. glad it is i am working perfectly for you, but what we have seen, we have veterans died languishing, waiting for care, veterans waiting for years for care. our office is not different from any others. we have hundreds of hundreds of caseworker request because the veterans cannot wait to get into see services.

they should not have to call their congressmen to get through the red tape and bureaucracy. toin and again, it seems work for those, but it depends on the facility. there is no standard of accountability across the system . one hospital appears to have good reports. the next one, not so good. we have people that died in pittsburgh because of the clinic there. we have seen that in florida, phoenix, elsewhere across the country. currently there are 70 active investigations of manipulation of data that is illegal. we don't know of a certain person that has gotten fired for misleading congress and manipulating the data. we hear good stories from veterans that get in there, then we hear the horror stories of those who left -- to get left by the side. for and he received that care. but we hear a lot of stories otherwise we.

host: kansas republican line. -- kansas. republican line. about: i have a question increasing residencies for medical students. accountability is a huge issue. i know medicaid is a huge influence. there are a ton of positions that are hiring in next couple of years. the influx of people coming back from war and population growth, --as wondering if you could if congress was ever going to raise those. there are currently bills going through. guest: there's a lot of discussion about that. i'm making sure we have enough providers.

that is a growing problem. the current situation, there are less folks that feel like they would enter a system because of the present health care law. that is impacting folks throughout the profession. that agrowing concern generation of doctors that are reaching retiring age -- many are retiring early because of the new health care system. it's going to impact the v.a. we tell our bosses and supervisors how we can improve the system and we get fired. we point out those things. have five or six just in my congressional office but have called in. they don't want to tell me their name for fear of losing their job. of lawsuitszens underway and dozens of investigations. folks looking into, going after the very people who want to improve care and have great

ideas. the house veterans affairs committee on thursday will be having a hearing on how to restore trust in the veterans affairs department. is whistleblowers say money not the problem. what do they say is the problem? it varies by situation. it's basically a culture of unaccountability. everybody gets treated the same whether they are doing a good job or a bad job. this is how we can improve productivity. the whistleblowers pointed out that supervisors asked them to change data so it looked better. way to are a great encourage behavior as long as it's tied to better care. we saw a scheming of the system that was brought forth by whistleblowers. people should lose their jobs if they are playing with data, including putting veterans on

secret waiting lists. we discovered 18 different schemes. care.s not improve it worsens care. they should lose their jobs. case.s a sad the whistleblowers want to show up to work every day and be rewarded for doing a good job. but they see somebody down the line doing a poor job and they are not held accountable. host: bill is a democrat in ohio. i've got a couple of points i would like to make. , if these demonic republicans would stop starting wars every time they get into the white house, they would not have so many veterans needing health care. expensive, is very if you haven't noticed.

months in the10 hospital and it completely broke us. we are below the poverty line at this point. where have you been? for more than three years, you've tried to destroy the health care law with all these worthless votes. it's your oversight job. where have you been? guest: a great comment and concern about where congress has been. we have had hearings. we just found out in the last two years that the ba was making up the numbers. they are manipulative the data. -- manipulating the data. undersecretary after under-secretary, i did not know that they had this many. subpoenastart issuing

of a system that should be the best in the world and we find out it's not meeting the needs how do i knows, that they've had 358 veterans on the secret waiting list? door andin the front demanded answers and they refused to answer those questions. they had a gag order in which employees could not talk to the media or members of congress. we finally broke through that. saying,and congress is if we throw money, it will go away. it's not that simple. it's a culture of non-accountability and i hope he continues to get good service. it should be the case for every veteran, not just a select few who make it into the system. host: kentucky. democratic caller. let me make two points

before i addressed the current issue. americans consider the fact that all the senators and congressmen that have been -- theye for so long create the debt and they pay the debt. they created the debt by starting these wars. if it was as easy as throwing more bar of money at it, that might help the problem. that's what we've been doing for far too long. including republicans. congress and various presidents -- before president obama, he

heard about these stories and sat there during his campaign. it's going to take presidential leadership to come in and say, we are going to be accountable and provide proper, correct data . there is a complete lack of v.a. at the that the data actually measures. we want better care. another $10 billion won't fix the problem. host: a veteran in miami, florida. you're on the air. my facts think i have correct when i say that the v.a. .ervices 10 million veterans at the majority of which are vietnam era like myself. the v.a. employees 320,000 people. i'm not sure what the budget is. for those of us who think that universal health care is the

solution, can you imagine a system that has to serve 30 times as many people? how are we going to pay for it? his numbers are pretty close. 156% increase in spending from 2002-2013. what we are suggesting from the house position, given veterans a choice. if they don't like their care at the local va hospital -- veterans have traveled 300 miles to go to the hospital. i've got a local hospital just down the road. enhance capacity and competition and choice. forced to go to one facility. if you don't like it, good luck trying to get options to go elsewhere. they say they allow that to happen, but it's a cumbersome process.

host: springfield, missouri. republican line. this is for the representative. when i was in the marine corps .rom 1972-1976, i was overseas my wife sent me divorce papers. we have a son. it was a hardship to go to a medical facility 80 miles away. hospital was 20 miles away. .hey gave her a card why can't the v.a. get this and giveraightened out our veterans the luxury of having one of these cards to go to these local hospitals instead of being on these dam waiting lists?

i have humana as my supplemental. v.a.'t even fool with the because it's such a messed up deal. i feel so adamant against the veterans administration. you see one doctor one time and another one the next time. you're in the middle of no place, technically. host: a card where you can go house addresse that? guest: they addressed it partially. we are not asking to reinvent the wheel. we have a medicare system. we have a tri-care system that works well in that sense. you have options and choices. whenke that drive 80 miles

they can get the care at home -- you mean like medicare? yeah. given veterans a choice. give veterans a choice. the v.a. has vehemently opposed any proposition of choice. veterans should have the options other americans have. higher up folks at the v.a. said no, we don't want to allow that. they will help improve the system. host: before the november elections, you might have to vote on another issue. the situation on the border. [video clip] >> he said eyes would run out of would runugust -- ice

out of money by august. it could dramatically scale back the amount of money president has requested from $3.7 million to $2.5 billion. need all department the money the president has asked for? >> the department of homeland security has asked for $1.5 billion. to focus on immigration and customs enforcement. the request is for $1.1 billion. the million of that goes to tension capability. goes to$100 million supporting the law enforcement efforts in central america. the funding we have requested is very targeted at the tension, deterrence -- the tension,

deterrence and removal. -- detention, deterrence and removal. if some of the assumptions behind the numbers change, we want the flexibility to transfer department ofhe homeland security or from the department of health and human services over to dhs. host: your thoughts? guest: i guess the request is being reduced by the administration already. if we want to address the problem, throwing money does not solve the problem. we've created a magnet by the president's statements and failure to enforce the law. i wish we could solve the problem with $1 billion. it's not going to solve the problem. fight ninen a different ways where the president can do his job in enforcing current law.

-- they have identified nine different ways where the president can do his job in enforcing the current law. appreciate your time. thank you for talking to the viewers this morning. up next, the magazine series continues with the technology used to display syria oscar mccullough weapons. -- syria's chemical weapons. >> louis vuitton sus says it is canceling all flights to tel aviv for at least another 20 or -- lufthansa says it is canceling all flights to tel aviv for at least another 24 hours. there is no sufficiently reliable new information that would justify a resumption of their operations. followcellations

tuesday's recommendation which strongly recommended that airlines not fly to tel aviv after a hamas rocket exploded near the airport. to germany this week, our top aides to president obama -- they are working to frame up ties with the european ally. denis mcdonough and president obama's counterterrorism advisor are both in the german capital for meetings with their counterparts with intelligence and security matters on the agenda. back in washington, congress will hear testimony today detailing how undercover investigators used fake identities to get taxpayer subsidized health insurance under the new health law. at the gao is still paying premiums for those policies even

as the obama administration attempts to verify the phony documentation. the gao will deliver its findings this morning. c-span radio is covering the hearing. it's one of many taking place today as congress continues working ahead of their august recess. you can watch live house coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon it ministration. -- nixon administration. >> what you have here are questions about what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activity that had

been found out by the committee and by the senate committee were impeachable. can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them? >> watergate, 40 years later. sunday night on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. part of our spotlight on magazines series, we are taking a look at the june cover of popular mechanics third the new american soldier. inside an exclusive story about destroying syria's chemical weapons. the contributing editor joining us from tallahassee, florida this morning to talk about this piece. the title of this piece is the neutralizer. what are you talking about here? guest: the neutralizer is

designed to destroy chemical weapons. a deployable hydrolysis system. takenaratus that can be apart, put together from a world. anywhere in the it can be put together in 10 days and then run around the clock. it's a portable chemical weapons destroyer that can be deployed anywhere in the world. host: what is it supposed to destroy? caller: it can destroy anything out there. the current mission lists two types. weapon.primary if you are able to get it to a battle site as is, the mustard is already weaponize.

chemicaldary precursor , the components of sarin gas. it would have to be mixed with a catalyst in the cold to be weaponize. some kind of alcohol. quite as dangerous as the severn itself. arin itself. , as it's neutralizer called. why was this machine built? how did the government know it would need this machine? reference torliest beginning the building of it mentions the fact that the has a chemical

weapons stockpile to destroy. it pursued the capability gap in destroying our own weapons. it was put on a fast track as the situation in syria was worsening. the story, you have this graphic. how it works. nearly 550 metric tons of chemical weapons will be destroyed on a u.s. navy vessel using a pair of machines called the fields deployable hydrolysis system. walk us through how this works. begins with the 2200 gallon titanium reactor tank. , ais filled with a reagent type of bleaching agent that helps break down the chemical weapons. it's heated to 94 degrees and begins to circulate the turbine.

20 feet of piping. another machine with a large keg.nium ta it's fed into the machine and will meet in the pipes called static mixers. if you were to look at the mustard gas element, it's a misnomer because it becomes a sludgy, oil like substance. it would sink to the bottom. you are exposing the surface area in the static mixers. with the mustard gas, this goes back to the titanium reactor. it it is stirred by large blades and it will spend time in their cooking untilre it's taken to an interim holding tank.

acidity is neutralized. so it's not sod destructive and it finally goes to a holding tank until it's taken off the ship. host: where is this process being done? where are these chemical weapons being destroyed? what is left after they are destroyed and where does that go? a cargo ship that was with a ship off the coast of italy. the hazardous waste was loaded onto it. has left italy for international waters and the process is undergoing now.

the latest report i heard was 15% complete. the are working around the clock, six days for maintenance of the machine. it is destroyed when it reaches about the toxicity of household drano. two will be taken to different plants. one in england and one in germany. processmercially viable that is done pretty regularly. there won't be any disposal need. it is 99% the weaponize. eweaponized. host: this machine was created

sarin gas is bug spray for people. how do they know that this machine is safely destroying these weapons? guest: safety is always the first concern. a lot of the technology and research and time and effort went into making this machine as safe as possible. there were 10,000 hours of edgewosis experience at od. that's where most of the lessons were learned. the missions were tested and retested. they tested them on the cape ray. ready.w was host: we are talking with bucky

mcmahon who has the exclusive in popular mechanics. of syria'sing chemical weapons. the machine built to do so. we will take you work questions and comments in a moment. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. 2.dependents, (202) 585-388 lafayette. you're up first. used forhy can't it be repairs can't we use it in small canisters? host: using what? caller: the gas they are destroying. y aren't we taking

them and using them ourselves? oft about the security transporting these chemical weapons and the united states taking them? it's an issue of transparency, isn't it? the united effort by states alone. china and russia are providing security for the operations. it's beautiful and of the most missions -- it is viewed as one of the most dangerous missions. to get the chemicals from 25 different sites in syria to the port and then loading them onto the ship. also under the observation of the u.n. one of the reasons whites being

done in international waters is because it would have been some sort of objection to taking them directly anywhere. it would be like a political hot potato. host: what is the governing body of chemical weapons? you write your piece about the rules of the road before this machine was built. you were not allowed to transport chemical weapons from state to state were country to country. guest: they have different rules. they were trying to outlaw the existence of these weapons. you don't want to see anybody gaining by another country possible loss. the prohibition of chemical weapons is pretty small. country's loss. host: you said 15% successfully

destroyed earlier. hess syria given up all of their has syriaeapons -- given up all of their chemical weapons? guest: yes. according to the u.n., all weapons have been removed and have been loaded onto the ships and have left syria. host: bob in maryland. democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. what part does halliburton and have in the manufacturing or disbursement of the chemicals? they are nullified, can't they be expelled into the water? halliburton did not come up in any interviews.

could it be expelled into the water? it's not as good of an idea as the incineration that's planned for them. host: oceanside, california. independent caller. it's constantly frustrating. it's widely known, chemical weapons are being funneled to the al qaeda fighters by turkey. it's the freedom fighters using the weapons. host: tell our viewers what your piece is about. are talking very specifically about the effort to destroy these chemical weapons. -- therectly familiar is no end to it. the conspiracy theories can be

found online. " --e of the word "alleged the use of the word "alleged." host: talk about the crew on board the ship. who are they? aret: a lot of the crew designers from the edgewood chemical and biological center. they built the machine themselves and they know it inside and out. they have put their lives on hold after developing the machine. they are doing it. 64 personnel. engineers and mariners supporting them. host: they are volunteers? guest: they are civilian engineers. employed by the u.s. army civilian corps.

they volunteered for the mission, certainly. host: were they vetted for security reasons? guest: absolutely. character, reliability, skeletons in the closet will come out. d.c. washington, independent caller. i have a two-part question. engineers --cal -- how do we dispose of these items?

guest: i had trouble hearing that question. host: are you still there? the connection is not great. can you repeat your question? they are stealing the chemicals. what is it that sanitizes the chemicals and mixed them safe? i know science can only be as accurate or as safe as needed. host: is it as safe as needed? guest: i would have to say yes. thoroughly was performed by experts in the united states. they have 10,000 hours of experience doing it. they understand better than anyone how dangerous it would

be. the cape ray set up is redundant in terms of protection. the machines are within a pressurized tank. a giant one-way valve. nothing will escape from the machine itself if it were to leak. mission ofong is the the people aboard this ship? how long will they be in international waters doing this? guest: the estimation was 60 days-90 days. they will have to be dodging weather. a big storm could force them to shut down. they will be cruising around as long as the weather holds up, 60 days. host: what is plan b if this

doesn't work? guest: this was plan b. it's a very well known technology. it is bound to reduce these less toxico a much the world has plenty of experience in dealing with. there is a machine now that can go to them. host: what was plan a? guest: a land-based route. syriatroy the weapons in or to move a lab like this on the road somewhere.

to provide security for it. that would have been extremely difficult. it would not have been welcome anywhere. political expedients of putting it on the ship was that it's international waters and easier to defend. host: gary in ohio. democratic caller. caller: i'm hearing talk about these chemical weapons. fluoride was condemned as a chemical weapon. now, we have laws in the united states that put any city over 10,000 people, fluoride in the water. fluoride. 80% it drove people that's. -- it drove people nuts. that's what they are using to e whole thi

population in the cities. that's why they don't take an interest in anything but their own lives. they can barely function because of the fluoride. host: stephen california. independent caller. steve in california. guest: why is there no why is there no responsibility in the destroying of these chemicals? these manufacturers have no concept of maybe they should be taking these things in another direction. taking these formulas and making these weapons. -- who isyou research making these chemical weapons?

was that important for the inventors of the machine that's destroying them to understand? guest: not particularly. with antry organization pesticide plant can make sarin gas. these are not very sophisticated weapons. cult used it in the tokyo subways. it was not a spectacularly funded organization. proliferation of chemical weapons is a high cost to the world. host: what is the cost of the machine? guest: about $5 million. there are six of them. host: is there plans to make more? guest: not at this moment, no. host: can this technology be

used for other purposes? guest: it is pretty singular . do one jobgned to . the gas they dig up from thea, is it possible -- mass destruction they were , they were in iraq shipped over to syria and that's where they're at right now. do the soldiers carry something to show when they are under a gas attack? and colorless. do they have the capabilities of making more?

guest: i don't know the answer to the first question. i imagine that the u.n. inspectors have some sort of device to ensure their safety. as for the capabilities of making more of these weapons, the facilities were the first to be destroyed. that was a huge step in the right direction to prevent the comeback of these chemicals. they are not so hard to make. it will be an ongoing task. that's what the opcw is all about. to see an eye on it where these things are being manufactured and destroyed. host: you said earlier there were 25 sites where they collected these chemical weapons for destruction. before they were destroyed, did the intelligence community

analyze to figure out where these came from? sure there was previous knowledge waste on satellite imagery -- based on satellite imagery. think much progress could have been made without the cooperation of assad regime. they gave information on where these materials could be found. it was a matter of getting to them without being shot and doing the destruction with whatever tools are there. the rest had to be trucked to the post. host: ray in florida. independent caller. caller: i was wondering, i heard you mentioned earlier that they were going to incinerate it. wondering, what will

upthe particles that are put into the atmosphere that will be floating all around the entire world? smoke thatus is the is going to be released into the air? smoke used to be nothing and then we found out it does have some negative effects sometimes. what are the safeguards for what we are releasing up and the atmosphere? guest: that's a good question. destructionfor the went to companies in germany and finland where they do it on a regular basis. that has beengas

asked if realized as possible. i don't really know of its more dangerous or less dangerous than other manufacturing byproducts that enter the atmosphere. doubt it will contribute anything positive to the atmosphere. but it would not be done if it were not as safe as possible. host: florida. republican caller. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. 10 days ago, there was a small article in usa today that said the sunni insurgents have taken over a factory that contained 2500 rockets. most loaded with sarin gas. does this not fall under the category of weapons of mass destruction? i assume they were produced during the hussein regime.

host: any thoughts on that? it's a region that is out of united states control. make.ery easy to proliferation supplies no one. the fight is ongoing. this the neutralizer in exclusive story written by bucky mcmahon for the july edition. ing $5 million.st to bring them back to the united states? are there plans to use them in other areas of the world?

guest: not yet, no. there is not a future mission internationally planned, to my knowledge. yes, they will be brought back in the to work destruction of u.s. chemical weapons. host: is this breakthrough technology? guest: in the sense that we did not have it. hydrolysis in itself is that has quite a few demands. neutralizing elements. high city is a problem. the smaller you make it, the more prone to danger it is. -- high acidity is a problem. host: knoxville, tennessee. republican caller.

these chemical weapons that they keep on making. the united states, is there no way that they can stop them from making those chemical weapons? back in 1955, i was in the thisary and they had mustard gas and teargas and all these other gases. they've been keeping on making them ever since then. is there no way that they can keep them from making those weapons? keep peoplean't from making weapons, period. a certain mindset wants to instill a type of terror. it's a way to attack a fellow human being.

has --rible effects it the stalemate w produced the worst in humanity. the syrian civil war has been grinding on, taking hundreds of lives and creating refugees. desperation arises. talking to bucky mcmahon about his exclusive and popular mechanics magazine. the summer, the net states military is taking chemical weapons the syrian government , putting them on ship and destroying the messy. the technology was developed in maryland. this is the story of how they did it. called "the neutralizer. ." how big is one of these

machines? guest: they can be put into standard shipping containers. -- nott can be larger one part can be larger than that 20 foot length. it's 20 feet tall, like a giant keg. there is a pipe it drains into. it's like an erector set. host: who gave the order for the machines to be built? guest: it came down from pretty high up in the department of defense. we will have a need for these machines down the line.

how are chemical weapons destroyed -- how were chemical weapons destroyed b before this machine? guest: in bigger machines. the hydrolysis process is the easiest, most efficient way of doing it. ways of dealing with other weapons. detonating them. there might be a half dozen or different types of chemical weapons. much did these older machines cost in comparison to $5 million for one of these newer machines? i don't know that there would have been a standalone unit you would put a price tag on before this. thatis taking everything

would be needed spread out on a military base, particularly where they are handling a lot of chemical weapons. it would be quite an area. tanks, as, handlers, massive apparatus. to figure out how to make this packable and transportable. new york.o to al in democratic caller. caller: thank you for your dissertation here. i have the article in popular science. how does the gas from the weapons get into the machine safely? guest: carefully.

trained involved is handling hazardous materials. they have hazmat suits. they will be breathing gas from tanks. they are suiting up and are it.y to handle the u.n. cruise overseeing the transfer of the chemicals from the syrian sites to the posts were making sure that there was no risk of spills there. -- have these containers like handling vi volatile chemicals that the world uses. is no lack of experience in doing that in the shipping industry. host: kentucky. public in line. -- republican line. question.have a

could you elaborate a little bit process for breaking these chemical agents down? have asked --lors s have asked about how you can be sure that you have destroyed these chemical agents. it seems you could do it with a mass spectrometer. i'm not an expert. thank you. to say thatot going i'm an expert. i learned what i could. -- the bondals between the phosphorus and the fluoride is relatively weak. they come in contact and begin to degrade quickly.

it's about how to do it efficiently and handle the safety once you've done that. machines come with a portable lab where they do quite sophisticated testing to make sure that they are no longer recognizable. pieceyou write in your that the field is the playable hydrolysis system, destruction efficiency is a near impeccable 99.9%. it can churn through between 5-25 metric tons of poison per day. remind our viewers how long this crew will be out in international waters destroying these chemicals at that rate. guest: there are 600 tons. distributed over three

decks moving around cautiously. slower onboard a ship. it should take 60 days-90 days the weather. whethe in nashville, tennessee. independent caller. caller: good morning. i would like to ask two questions. aren't all weapons chemical weapons? how much money is being spent on a yearly basis? thank you. all things are chemical. there is quite a bit of legitimate outcry that chemical weapons are not really worse than commercial weapons.

if you are going to be shooting rockets and dropping bombs, why distinguish? towards is moving saying that these particular kinds of weapons, after the , theys of world war i try to outlaw them. it's like the red line in the sand. do not cross into barbarity by using these poisons. host: bucky mcmahon, you write about where this machine was invented and put together. the army's edgewood chemical biological center. what is the center and what is its role? do a lot is where we of research on the nature of

chemical weapons. where we study how to destroy them. where the technology can to make a machine like the field the playable hydrolysis system. destroying ourr own stockpile. deployableld th hydrolysis system. host: is this the only site around our country where this is happening? weapons into chemical and the destruction of the u.s. stockpile? guest: i believe there is another. bluff inf -- pine alabama. host: we are talking with bucky mcmahon from popular mechanics. destroying syria's chemical

weapons. --twitter back to the situation in syria. syria has given up and handed over all the chemical weapons that were on the list to be destroyed. what were those chemical weapons? sarin largely the precursors. producer, dx. host: just those two? are there others not on the list to be destroyed? guest: if they did not acknowledge, we don't know. it becomes the unknown unknown.

attacks that were studied by the u.n. inspectors were all of the sarin gas type. it is not specifically a chemical weapon, but if you deliver it, it makes a place uninhabitable. said, this is an exclusive by popular mechanics. how were you able to get this story and get access to the details about this technology? guest: the department of defense wanted to tell the story. that is the big thing. has been a fan of popular mechanics since he was

an engineer. doneof the work that was -- pride in the work that was done. it could have taken years, but they got it done in six months. host: how were they able to c ut through bureaucratic red tape? guest: from a design point of view, there were different inngs simultaneously building one part and seeing how it would go in getting the next .re done concurrently using computer designs, programs . where they really cut through was more in the design and preparation. host: why do you think they really wanted to tell this story? it's a feel-good story. bites dog. man

here is a machine to destroy the most karen this weapons we make -- terrible weapons we make. host: bucky mcmahon, thank you for your time. to go to the house where they are about to start their morning legislative session. e gavel-to-gavel coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]