u.s. from missiles. you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. host: a $15 billion optimize that will make it through both chambers by friday because of the recess. miller and bernie sanders are going to outline their agreement this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span two. congress has other bills that .ould like to get to this week

it emergency funding for the influx of unaccompanied minors across the southern border. its recessress delay to address the southern border if it can't get the legislation passed and agreed to in both chambers this week? border state residents. you can join the conversation on social media. us.can also e-mail we will get your thoughts. joining us is warrant a. she is with politico. its own bill in the senate has a version as well. house take up the legislation? >> you can see it happening this

week. of contention in that republican caucus about this bill. is there enough for border security? you're going to see john boehner reallyin mccarthy working their conference this week before they schedule a vote to ensure that if they put it up they have the ability to pass it. democrats will not be joining in their efforts. host: democrats will not vote. why is that? >> there are some reasons. anti-pelosi is opposed to changing that 2008 anti-trafficking law in conjunction. as as fine doing it process of legislation and doing hearings and having that go through normal order. she doesn't want that to be supplemental because that is immigration policy.

there is also the amount being spent. it is much left than what the president had asked for. democrats are not going to come and do what they have done when speaker banner has not been able to call off republican votes. that is unlikely this time. the headline from your colleagues on this issue is they face a big test. it where are the sections in the gop coming from? >> what you see here again is those conservative members of the party of the believe most spending in emergencies should be offset. you have some border state members really want to see more

border security measures put in there. you have those who disagree generally with how we are handling immigration. they want to see much more there. this is an interesting group that is opposing this. it could lead to trouble for the gop. story on have another the politico site. here is a quote from corn and. wings of both the democratic party and the republican party willing to do nothing on this if they don't see what they want? either no revisions to the 2008 law or spending for the republicans? >> that israel for republicans.

have beenthink they the leading voice on immigration reform. for the august recess they don't think they will be punished if nothing happens. they want to see it done. people have called it shameful. they are standing strong that they wanted separate from the anti-trafficking law. in the republican party you have a split between people who say they will get punished i latino voters in the midterm elections. there are some who don't see that as a threat. you're going to see that play out to that -- throughout the entire week. is a slamdunk for doubts -- senate democrats?

a slamdunk is hard to the senate. there is so much acrimony in that chamber. leader andmajority mitch mcconnell get along. it is more likely they will pass something. is it something the house could pass? that is highly unlikely. do the two bodies have to go into conference committee? can they do it before friday which is when the senate leaves for a five-week break? some say of course we should keep working and stay. some say would be against the law to stay past the august recess. it is some procedural archaic rules in the house bylaws and say they have to recess by

august. it would be archaic. nobody would be going to jail. those who really stick to the letter of bylaws are talking about that. a question for our viewers. should congress finish this before they leave for the five-week rate? reached between the house and senate on the veterans affairs health care bill. can this get past the wings of a post -- both parties by friday? >> this is much more likely. we really thought it was falling apart. wereummit democratics criticizing. it looked like they were walking away from negotiations. they accused each other of giving up.

we are hearing that bernie sanders and jeff miller have reached a deal and come much closer. theire going to unveil proposal for how to fix it. and could actually get past sent to the president before the august recess. host: we will have coverage of that news conference. this is a $15 billion price tag. that, what are some of the highlights? anyou are going to see ability for veterans who have been waiting for medical care to leave the v.a. system and take care privately at the v.a.'s expense. if they live far from a va hospital, 40 miles is the agreed-upon distance, you will

secretary the.a. ability to fire senior managers accused of mismanagement. they can obviously fire those who are ill performing. timekes a very long because of federal rules about letting employees go and their process to appeal. this was one of the reasons the controversy started in the first place. v.a. more to come on this deal in the house and senate. warren french, thank you for your time this morning. thisrn to all of you on border security issue. should congress do something about it for the adjourned on

friday? we have a democratic color up first. go ahead. you're on the air. one last call for you. you are on the air. let me go on to larry in mississippi. good morning. caller: i blame this on the republican congress because the senate passed a bill with both republicans. the house did not even taken up and they try to blame it on the senate. the v.a. -- host: should congress addressed this before they leave? caller: there is no reason that they should not. they are doing this intentionally. they think it will help them during the midterm elections. to gotino vote is going

for the democrats. because of this reason. darlene. caller: i would like to see airplanes ready on the border to take these kids back here in maybe give them money to help them. takeids that are here, them and put them on the white house lawn and at camp david. martha's vineyard would be a good place to have them while obama is on vacation. the schools where obamas kids are. let them put up with these kids that know no english so the teachers have to help them. host: can i go back to the first part of this? you were talking about solutions. should the president do that on his own without congress passing any legislation? caller: if he would do the

sending back on his own but he won't do that. he wants to keep everything and spend $4 billion. we don't have that kind of money. people say immigration. when my grandparents came over they did not have free food and free welfare and free everything. they had to work for it. host: on your point about sending them back on airplanes, this is a section in the washington post.

that is in the washington post this morning. 10 planeloads per week going back to central america. we are asking you should congress delay its recess if it cannot get order legislation through boast chambers and agreed to from both sides. lynn is in oregon. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i have the idea. this is what we are going to do. put those kids on buses and send them around the country to all the embassies. let them cap out in the front yards. then they have to send them back. host: should congress have emergency funding? caller: let those countries pay

to send them back. should dothink they the recess. their?at, you broke up caller: they should stay in recess until yet this past. [inaudible] host: pat i have to let you go. country andnt the the united states to be more countrieshe plight of where they have upheaval and their governments are not stable. lots of children are put in orphanages. there are churches in oklahoma

that support those orphanages. these children have no parents and have no place to go. i am wondering if some of them this lineg sent by and we don't know it. should giveat we them amnesty. i think we should be better stewards of the people that are needing help. i am sure some of them have parents. i'll bet many of them don't. i would hate to turn them back to nothing. that is the best i can come up with. they need to delay the recess. it does say that the obama administration is considering a plan for hundreds to apply for

refugee status in their home country where gang violence rages. they would apply in their home country and that would set the process for them to be able to come to the united states. derek is in texas. congress deal with this issue before taking a recess? caller: they should deal with this as they should deal with many issues that have been placed before them. iss is an issue that something they should take forward and do their job. host: this is from the christian science monitor. this is their weekly magazine.

this is what the president had to say on friday after meeting with the leaders from central america. this is what he had to say about congress. >> it is my hope that speaker boehner and house republicans will not leave town for the month of august without doing something to help solve this problem. have a supplemental that

provides resources for security and additional immigration judges. resources foronal central american countries and providing facilities and opportunity and security needs to deal with the smugglers. we do get that done. there have been a lot of press conference is about this. we need action. host: the house majority let -- whip was asked about the president's remarks. we are here right now. the president does not want to work with us. he had a lot of time on his schedule to secure fundraisers. he has no time to secure the border. he is not taking his job seriously. the house has laid out what we will do to solve this problem. the present was to sit back and

play politics. he does not have time to work with congress. we will get this problem solved. >> you are not answering my question. if you don't have a deal, if the problem has not been solved or a plan to deal with it has not been addressed, will congress delay its recess? will you delay the recess? >> if the president does not want to do his job, it will sit in the senate or go to the white house. he still has to take leadership. he is the president of united states. they are trying to fund raise office. at some point he should say do we really want to solve this problem. you're not willing to commit to postpone your recess if need be to deal with the senate

democrats. you're not willing to commit to delay the recess. >> we are not on recess. we are ready to work. we will do our job this week. if the president just point fingers, he could solve this problem today. he does not want to solve this problem. we will stay and work. we will get our job done. i would like to see the senate do their job. we are not going to wait for that. the majority whip in the house. he is the guy that counts votes before a bill comes to the floor to make sure that they have enough to get past. we did this.

this is a tweet from senator dick durbin in the senate.

this is a story with the headline from politico. a patricia is in the garden city, new york. it should congress deal with this border issue before adjourning? caller: absolutely.

it is a disgrace what is going on. everyone is speaking of humanitarian issues. let's start with our own people. i go into manhattan every week. i see people laying all of the streets in new york. when i question the authorities are noty these people put into facilities we don't have the money. how do we have money to take care of children from honduras and el salvador? it is so frustrating to me. i see people struggling. host: brenda is in florida. caller: i have three points to make. i consider myself to be a christian. i consider myself to be a humanist. this is a refugee crisis all

over the world. all of these so-called christians are so up in arms about people, what who are alive? the president declare reisch -- martial law? i don't have much. i have a house and i live alone. i would take in a couple of families. host: this is on twitter. this is a tweet.

old bridge, new jersey. what do you think? problems are systemic. system once new workers into the country that are lower wage. every abandoned house is being fixed up for them to come. theseare people in countries pushing these people north. they are pushing them north. for more brown people in north america. no human is native to north america. josh in will go to illinois. they should delay the

recess. i get three days off the year. i have a serious problem with that. host: robert is in virginia. should congress delay its recess? why can't congress take a vacation? about all of the atrocities and other countries except for honduras and el salvador. when we hear about that in the media? host: there hasn't been enough coverage of what is going on? caller: i don't see any. i don't see enough and on the news about honduras and the atrocities happening there. i don't see gang fighting. i see no that.

i see what is happening in europe. host: do you doubt that it is happening? caller: i don't see any coverage. how can i believe it? caller: i have three points. people would save lots of tax dollars if everybody that was elected to legislate would be docked they're paying for every day they are out on the campaign trail. why should we pay them to be on the campaign trail? shouldork in congress guarantee their next election. i watched oning, television how the cia overthrew the honduran government during the eisenhower regime.

this is happened all through central america. thosee destabilized countries and made them what they are. children, wese don't have to ask what jesus would do. he told us in the mark and luke. host: the los angeles times this morning on the situation between israel and gaza. the new york times front page this john kerry was having difficulty accomplishing a cease-fire.

amas is holding up for commitment to open major border crossings and ease the embargo after failing to get the benefit it anticipated two years ago. that on the front page of "the new york times." also in the papers this morning it says that israel renews its response to rockets. this is in the "wall street journal." they cite a poll. many israelis support the offensive despite its mounting combat losses. thousands of people demand and

the withdrawal from gaza state staged the -- largest antiwar rally since the start of the offensive. agenda, onongress's friday they adjourned for five weeks to go back to their districts. it will return and step number -- in september for 12 days and then will adjourn again until the november elections. congress love the deadline. virtually no one expected congress to have enabled overhaul in the lead up to the midterm elections. lawmakers appear to be punching -- punting on issues that would appear to demand urgency.

we turn to all of you this morning. should congress delay the recess until they address the border issue? democratic caller. dannnny, you are up. caller: yes, they should delay it. congress has not even confirmed an ambassador for honduras down there. on 24/7, regardless of where he is. the white house goes with him. people need to understand this and wake up. host: what about those that argue that congress leaves washington for a so-called recess?

but they go back and do work in their districts. holding townhall meetings and addressing their constituent issues back in their districts and their states. you can write your congressman, you can call him. as the lady spoke a while ago, if they do their job, they would not even have to come back to their district. republican. caller: hello. where do i start? anything,ants to do get off his ass and at least stop his vacations. do what mike rogers says. host: we lost ralph. gene from mississippi. independent. caller: good morning. , i have ainterest technical question.

between to be discussed the congress, senate, and president. all other law enforcement officials in the united states to aid in apprehending and removing people who are here illegally. host: are you talking about the national guard as well? know, just on an everyday basis, your city police, your deputies, your sheriffs, your deputy sheriffs. we have all kind of law-enforcement people. i was a judge for a number of years. i have no disrespect for anybody who comes here lawfully as an immigrant. but to me, the people who come across our borders are just like people who break into our homes. host: ok. i'll been a, georgia. go ahead.

-- albany, georgia. go ahead. have not seen obama do anything important as far as the border crisis and raising minimum wage. when it comes to the affordable care act, they can jump around and make lawsuits and try hardest to pass bills. what about the issues that are really important? on whether or not congress can get this border bill done as well as the veterans affairs bill, this from "the wall street journal." the house is approved seven spending bills.

those are some of the other issues that congress has to deal with before the november elections. the november elections, below that story in "the wall street journal," state of play. republicans chances of winning the senate are coming into sharp focus with several apparent paths to a majority. a look at where the key races -- gopnd how the gip might control those. " the wall street journal" and "the new york times" say it is looking better for the republicans to take control in the senate. lawsuiter mentioned the

the republicans have against the president. house speaker john boehner writes the opposing view in "usa today." we are defending the constitution. the employerose mandate. so again if we prevail in court. it is the letter of the law that was passed by congress and signed by the president. you simply cannot unilaterally rewrite it. the "usa today" editorial board disagrees saying that the lawsuit against obama looks like a political sideshow. that is the editorial for "usa today." joseph in from illinois. a republican.

what do you think about this border emergency funding? off, i just want to say good morning. as far as everything goes, it sounds a typical congress. on vacation,to go obama has to go on vacation, everybody has to go on vacation. at the end of the day, let's get it done first. let's take care of business. business before pleasure. you've got to get it right. host: ok. all right. the house and the senate trying to work this week to approve a tentative deal to address the waiting list at veterans affairs health care facilities. the negotiators, jeff miller and bernie sanders, worked over the weekend and they announced that they have a deal that they will talk about more this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. tune into c-span 2 if you want

to know more details about it. the legislation has to get through both chambers before friday. let me go to larry in galveston, tennessee. democratic caller. caller: good morning. think they should stay in session. the republicans control the house of representatives. they control the purse strings of this country. it reflects our failure in foreign aid to the central american countries. countries withse their problems. i would rather help them there on their side then try to do this. their children are way. it is more economical long-term wise. it reflects on the

republican-controlled house of representatives, how they have failed on every turn, no matter what the issue. it does not matter what the issue is. it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. it is them against them. roost.s come to this action has come to roost. we, as the citizens, we ought to just look ate to what is actually happening on the ground. journale "wall street lowe's quote reports this. the surge at the border -- the wall street journal reports this. the surge at the border complicates the gop pitch to hispanics.

wanda in trenton, florida. republican. caller: they don't need to delay it. anything the house passes, harry reid is going to sit on anyway. why delay it? they might as well go home to their districts. theirbut the senate has own legislation. should they try to work together? caller: the house is not going to work with the senate. the house has sent too many bills over there that harry reid is sitting on. he will not let them vote on them. host: ok. on twitter -- william in florida, an independent caller. caller: my thoughts are this. every governor of every state has the right to call upon the national guard to make martial

law. to closey do not want our borders at that river, make it a 50 mile or 25 mile radius from that border and let the national guard have the authority. anybody crossing that river within a 50 mile radius, let the national guard arrest them, transport them back to the border, and put them back across. i'm disabled. i've been disabled since 1993. i can't even get what belongs to me. giveet the government will everything to the immigrants that i have worked hard for to give to them. a couple of more topics here for you this morning. actually, just one. let me focus on the issue with russia and the tensions between russia and ukraine. that was part of the many topics on the sunday talk show. senator charles schumer is on

"meet the press." [video clip] >> putin has shown he has no conscience. he redoubled his efforts and rearm the rebels. it is about time we took tougher action against putin. he is a schoolyard bully. what i learned in brooklyn, you show the weakness, they take further granted. you show them strength, they back off. our strong hand is the diplomatic and economic. raise the sanctions, the economic sanctions that really hurt russia already. we should remind the europeans who have to be part of the sanctions that they should not be like 1938 europe, where appeasement governed. if they appease putin, they will not stop him. he will get worse. second, we should take up a pneumatic action. we should tell putin and the russians that if they keep this up, we will move to expel them them along with the europeans, from the wto, and we will not allow the world cup to go

forward in four years in russia. pay thes to be told to price. we have to be smart about it. militarily, we don't have the strength. they have the second largest army. no american troops -- no americans want troops in the ukraine. we have strength economically and diplomatically and we should use it and do everything we can to get the europeans to stop this policy of appeasement to read it will just make teabags -- québec stronger. -- putin stronger. for: another debate congress. right before they adjourn this friday for five weeks. what to do about russia. cnn's "state of the union" yesterday. [video clip] >> the best thing the united states can do is send a message to russia with very strong sanctions coordinated with the europeans. i would expect he will see that in a couple days.

>> as strong as the u.s. sanctions? >> we believe so. >> you think angela merkel will put at risk the energy that flows into germany with stiff sanctions of the sort the president has been calling for? >> yes. thatindicated last week the energy sector, the arms sector, and the financial sector are on the table for european sanctions. we will continue to develop that package with the europeans. we are confident that there are going to be strong actions. host: the debate on the sunday talk shows about what to do next with russia. washington's from russia and more from europe as well. -- more sanctions from russia and more from europe as well. should delayess the recess that is slated to start friday. theiry do not accomplish goals.

barbara, what do you think? waser: i think congress elected by the people of america. before they decide that they need a wonderful vacation, they need to do something. they have done nothing since they have been there. they should do what they were elected to do. they have sat on their behinds and done absolutely nothing. everything the president has tried to do, they have not done anything about it. they now decide they need a vacation and then they will criticize the president for taking a few days off. he has tried everything he can to get on the people on board. no, i'm not in favor of them taking a vacation at this time. they need to do what they were elected to do for this country. ternary next, we will -- turn our attention to the israeli-hamas conflict. .e will hear from shadi hamid we will be right back.

♪ >> next month on booktv's in depth, former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul. he has written more than a dozen books on politics and history. join the conversation as he takes your calls, e-mails, and tweets. sunday, august 3 at noon eastern. tune in next month for mary frances berry. discussing court decisions. in december, arthur brooks. in on c-span 2's "booktv."

television for serious readers. ,> on the communicators tonight two members of congress talk about their technology legislation. >> we crafted an amendment that says this, under 702 of the act, you can collect data and we now know from the snowden disclosures that it is a lot of that may also include the information of americans, even though that cannot be the purpose of the collection of the data. that the amendment simply says was that if you want to search that lawfully acquire database for americans, you should get a warrant. not that you cannot get the information, get a warrant. >> the basic premise of the dot sure that themake control over site of the domain name system that we know we are

getting ourselves into. >> democratic representative california and representative john shimkus from illinois tonight on the communicators. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public appears -- affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room for congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. and offering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are c-span. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you by a public service -- as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with shadi hamid, the policy fellow for middle east at the brookings institution.

about thelk israeli-gaza conflict and the role of the other countries in the region. twos begin with the central players. let's begin with hamas. what is there and him? game?: -- their end guest: they want to ease the blockade to allow goods and services to come in. gaza is pretty much trapped. there has been so much civilian loss of life. hamas needs to go back to their constituency and say, this was worth it. your lives are going to improve. that is how they can claim some degree of victory. i would say that is the most important component. they also want to be able to build popular support in the west bank. there are two key theaters here.

hamas has gained in that respect. we have seen growing sentiment in support of hamas' position, certainly on the west bank. the future of hamas? what are they hoping to do? what is their future? is certainlyfuture difficult, in the sense that israel is not willing to beingile itself to hamas a dominant player in the palestinian seen. -- scene. is why when hamas and the palestinian government announced a unity government, israel was concerned about and opposed that. how do you normalize hamas and bring them into the political process? that has been the elephant in the room for such a long time. even when you have the u.s. sponsored peace negotiations,

those are done with mahmoud abbas. what do you do about hamas? hamas is designated as a terrorist organization according to the u.s. and according to israel as well. the other option would be to eradicate hamas. we have seen time and time again that that is not really possible. inas is deeply embedded palestinian society, in terms of social services, parallel institutions. they have mass support. not a majority, but a significant portion of the population. you cannot really eradicate a group like that altogether. that is why it becomes such a dilemma. eradication does not work. also veryg hamas is sensitive and controversial, considering their status. host: who then is negotiating with whom right now? guest: that has been one of the

challenges in trying to get this cease-fire. who can not one actor mediate between the two protagonists in this battle. hamas and israel. they obviously are not going to talk directly to each other. the changing status of egypt is a critical part of this as well. egypt, under the muslim brotherhood president mohamed morsi, in 2012-2013, was very sympathetic to hamas because hamas is effectively the palestinian branch of the muslim brotherhood. with the military coup in egypt, you have a new government that is very antagonistic toward hamas. in some ways, egypt wants to see hamas destroyed even more than israel does. egypt can no longer really play the role of effective mediator. they cannot be an honest broker. the funny thing is that when the

cease-fire proposal last week first came out, hamas was complaining that they were not even consulted. they heard about it in the media. egypt has not been able to effectively bring the suit tie -- two sides together. that is why you have qatar and turkey, which support hamas to moreegree or another, involved in the cease-fire negotiation. israel does not trust them. you have these different potential mediators, but there is a real question about credibility and trust the twin the various sites that are trying to talk to each other. in turkeydoes qatar support hamas? and why? why have they chosen to be on the side of hamas in these negotiations? tar and turkey -- we can look at it as if there is an arab cold war. there are various sides. you have the pro-u.s., western

orbit if you will. that would include saudi arabia, jordan, the uae, israel as part of that to some extent. on the other hand, you have qatar and turkey which lean toward hamas and more generally the muslim brotherhood and mainstream islamist actors throughout the region. qatar are still u.s. allies but have try to carve out a more independent approach to foreign policy, were sometimes they ally with actors who do not get along with the u.s. at the start of the arab spring, they seemed to be on the ascendancy that we were seeing the rise of islamist parties throughout the region, most prominently in egypt, with the rise of the brotherhood and mohamed morsi. you have seen a shift over the past year and a half for these islamist groups have entered into a kind of decline.

have been morer isolated and the tension between them and the saudi's and the egyptians on the other hand has gotten worse. that is the arab cold war i am pointing to. that is why it is such a fractious atmosphere in the middle east now. that is why it is so hard to get things done. it is so hard to have effective negotiation. host: where is the arab league in all of this? guest: it is no longer really an effective actor. there was hope early on in the arab spring that the arab league would come to the fore and play a more assertive, independent role. again, the arab league is a product of the various arab actors. the saudi's and the egyptians seatow back in the drivers when we we talk about the

broader arab world and there is not an interest in having the arab league being an independent actor. it has become subsumed under saudi and egyptian priorities in the region. host: the arab leaders are one thing in these different countries. what about the arab people in these countries? do we know what they are saying? ?ven via social media about the situation? guest: we generally know that there is broad arab sympathy for the palestinian cause. this has always been one of the primary open wounds in the the one thing that unifies different arab populations together. for the most part, they do not agree on a whole lot. there are a couple of things. opposition to u.s. policy to one extent or another. dislike or hatred of israel. and support for the palestinian

people. that does not necessarily means a more -- support for hamas as a political actor. sometimes those two things get blurred. i don't think people are putting a lot of the blame on hamas or most of it because they see israel as the primary problem here. when people are dying in very aree numbers in gaza, they going to blame the more powerful party. that is israel in this case and israel has used disproportionate force. what we are seeing now and what arab leaders have to be concerned about is a gap between what arab governments are saying and doing and the kind of anger and sympathy that you see on the popular level. that is where the egyptian authorities have to be careful because there -- they seem to be closer to israel than hamas. the longer the conflict goes on, more egyptians are going to be asking, why isn't our leadership

taking a stronger stand in support of the palestinian people? host: what do you think could be the follow-up from that? guest: i don't think it will translate into any major destabilization for the egyptian government. it just means that the level of dissatisfaction and dissolution is going to grow. that does not mean that president -- the president does not have to worry about that right now, but in terms of how he is trying to position himself as egypt's new president, those initial impressions are going to stay and could solidify over time and that could start to be a major liability for him on the domestic scene, especially if the economy does not improve. i think that especially as we americans try to understand -- i think people ask sometimes, well more syrians, multiple times more syrians have been killed, not just over the past couple

euros, but over the past couple weeks, and those massacres have not gotten as much attention -- people ask and understandably so, what about syria? what about iraq? more muslims and arabs are being killed there. outside observers need to has atand that palestine kind of emotional connection, just because of the history. fors also kind of metaphor arab helplessness. arabs look to this and say, this is a kind of usurper, this outside power israel, they have come in and they have humiliated arabs and the palestinians in particular, time and time again. for men arab perspective, that is how we have to understand it -- from an arab perspective, that is how we have to understand it. it signifies this ongoing humiliation. that is why it is able to rally these groups together. the un security council

demands a humanitarian cease-fire in gaza. it had a midnight meeting to approve this resolution. allow for the delivery of urgently needed assistance. do they wield much influence? u.n. is an important player in terms of how they can set the town and try to bring -- tone and try to bring different groups together. they can try to put international pressure on israel and hamas. obviously, they have limitations in terms of any binding authority. the israelis have historically not trusted the u.n., particularly on this issue, simply because they see that there is a kind of anti-israel sentiment on the part of the general assembly. the 50-plus majority nations tend to have a more anti-israel approach.

we should not overstate its importance. at the end of the day, it has to be players like the u.s., that actually have pull with the israelis. that is why the u.s. remains a critical actor. we can talk about america's to climb, but at the end of the day, the israelis don't trust the europeans as much. they are not going to trust their arab and middle eastern neighbors as much. the u.s., even though there is more and more tension between the u.s. and israel now, the u.s. is still israel's strongest supporter and strongest ally in the international community. it is very hard to envision any kind of successful resolution without the u.s. putting its skin in the game and exerting pressure. host: let's get to a couple phone calls and then we will show you what the debate looks like on the sunday talk shows. stephen in shelbyville, indiana. caller: good morning. you are looking fine this

morning. you did a fine job. i have a question about the blockades that nato does. is that what stirs up everything? host: the blockades. is that what stirs up everything? the humanitarian situation in gaza has been quite bad for quite a long time. there was a previous cease-fire in november 2012. there was an expectation that after that, there would be an easing of goods and services blockades. that did not really pan out. was elected in the 2006 elections and when they were able to control gaza and out, gazato -- fata has been in a difficult situation. you have not really seen an improvement in living standards. there is not really any light at

the end of the tunnel. that is the basic structural problem here. when you have a very small piece of territory and gaza is pretty small, it is called the gaza strip for a reason, when you have 1.8 million people who are packed into that very small space, it becomes such an incubator for militancy, for radicalism. if people don't have hope and a better life, they are more likely to see resistance. by that we mean some kind of military opposition to israel as the only way to improve their situation. was is also has hamas seeing things in the lead up to this conflict. they were in a week is asian. weak position. a were not able to point and say things are getting better. when you are in that kind of situationtion, that

of desperation, you are more likely to move aggressively and do things you otherwise might not do. 50% unemployment i read in the newspaper last week. hamas is unable to pay their 40,000 government workers leading up to the situation. how is hamas spending the money at it has from its allies in the region? did they not spend it on the people of gaza? and instead on the military efforts? the bighis is one of concerns. that hamas was diverting resources that could be used to improve the lives of people to in theaza and invest things that can actually make a difference on the ground level. much of that funding, it is hard exactly, went to the building of this sophisticated tunnel network to replenishing their military

arsenal and the rockets. the problem with hamas is that it is trying to be two things at once, a governing entity and political party, but also a militant faction that uses violence to advance political ends. those two priorities come into conflict and that is also mirrored in the very structure of hamas as an organization. you have the political wing on one hand and the military wing of hamas and you are seeing signs of increasing tension. in exilehamas leaders and hamas leaders inside of gaza. you have an insight-outside tension. hamas is trying to appeal to various constituencies all at once. that can kind of lead to internal contradictions. , its fair to say that hamas has put, we have to be honest about this, it has put civilians in harm's way.

it has kind of intermingled the civilian and military aspects inside of gaza itself. they are firing rockets from civilian areas. see hamasy we cannot as a traditional state that has an army and fight its wars and battles in the conventional military sense. we are talking about asymmetrical warfare, where they are essentially within the civilian population and you cannot really have a hard and fast separation between the civilian and military components. is a policyhamid fellow at the brookings institution. here with us for another 20 minutes or so. we will go to jim in south carolina. a republican caller. caller: regarding this whole concept of disproportionate force, do you think that our american forces should up approach the taliban differently

, to make things more fair? is that the same kind of analogy? host: do you ask that because you see a contradiction? caller: sure. , for thee bringing up people bringing up the fact that israel is using disproportionate they should question whether we use disproportionate force and whether we should fight our wars differently and whether we would be willing to suffer more casualties like they think israel should to make things quote unquote fair. host: what do you think? guest: it has been well-documented that the u.s. did use disproportionate force in many instances. whether in iraq or afghanistan. those criticisms are nothing new or particularly original. i would say that it is hard to make comparisons when the

context is so completely different. when we look at israel's offensive in gaza, we see whole blocks, entire neighborhoods leveled. fightersarget hamas and that is justified. does that mean that if you have one hamas fighter in a room and there are 10 civilians in that same room or that same building, does that mean you go ahead and risk the loss of 10 civilian lives to get that one hamas fighter? that is where there has to be more care in determining whether onse kinds of attacks apartment blocks or buildings go ahead. worth the civilian life? that is what has been so problematic. israel's incentive structures are misaligned. essentially what israel is trying to do is convince the

is notand hamas that it worth it. if they pummel gaza enough, next time around, hamas will think twice. the us is the kind of strategy of disproportionate deterrence that israel has been using. that explains part of the reason why we see such a massive use of force. the only way deterrence works is if you convince the other actor that the costs are simply too high. host: let's listen to what the prime minister of israel had to say on the sunday talk shows. he was asked what is next on "state of the union." [video clip] >> obviously, we hope we can get a sustainable quiet as soon as possible. the only path to do that is by adopting the egyptian initiative that basically has unconditional, no conditions, except to begin to address the cease-fire, the cessation of all hostilities, and try to address

the two underlying issues, security for israel to militarizing gaza from all these rockets and tunnels and so on and social and economic relief for the palestinians. i think the two are intertwined. you cannot get social and economic relief for the people of gaza without having a short demilitarization. otherwise all of the money, the concrete, the cement will not be used to offer relief to the people of gaza, but to build more terror tunnels and more rockets and more missiles. we need to militarization. that is critical. >> do you disagree with the characterization that israel is thinking about significantly broadening its operation in gaza? candy, we will take what action is necessary to defend our people. host: what do you make of him intertwining the militarization withmilitarization

economic relief? some papers are saying the fact that he even brought up economic relief perhaps is an opening. guest: yes, but what he is asking for in return is thatitarization of gaza, is not particularly realistic. even if we think it is preferable, how do you yet hamas ?o agree to demilitarization militarization is the essence of who and what they are is a partly militant actor. .his is a problem israel wants certain things in the cease-fire agreement that the other side simply is unable to agree to. it also goes vice versa. things that hamas wants, and unconditional humanitarian relief to gaza, reducing the blockade, israel is not willing to accept that. that is where we have this impasse. israel is concerned that if this

cease-fire arrangement allows for a significant improvement in the lives of gazans, hamas will be able to claim victory. both sides want to save face. they are also emboldened by their own domestic constituencies that are asking them to dig in. it was -- it is almost a game of chicken. who is going to blink first? that is why it is such a destructive environment. what aet's listen to senior adviser to the palestinian authority president had to say, also one "state of the union." [video clip] israel has a hidden agenda to really destroy and to totally destroy the palestinian reconciliation that has been culminated by the formation of an agreed-upon palestinian government. israel wants to give gaza totally separate from the rest of the palestinian territory because all of this aggression

is totally unjustified. i was very shocked that the prime minister was speaking about avoiding civilians and so on. 80% of those who have been killed in gaza are civilians. old men, 1080n, palestinians have been killed in the last 18 days. 80% of them are innocent people. they are claiming that they are sending messages to them. these people have no place to go. a school was bombarded by the israeli army. host: what role as president abbas playing in all of this? their relationship? the palestinian authority relationship like with abbas? guest: this is an important piece of context. there was a reconciliation agreement before the conflict started, they were trying to patch their differences. they were trying to move in that direction of getting the run house in order. it is worth noting.

the palestinian official is correct to say that the israelis were very concerned about this development. they have been publicly, for quite some time, been staunchly against any kind of talk of a unity government between hamas and fatah. when the palestinian authority went in that direction and even when my mood a boss -- mark abbas, hes -- mahmoud was trying to reach out to them. when the israelis saw that, that was potentially a dangerous situation from their standpoint. it is fair to say that something which would have otherwise been , as long positive step as the palestinians are divided internally, there cannot be any kind of solution. i think many observers saw that as a positive step. the israelis did not. they had incentives to undermine

this reconciliation agreement. host: let's get to wendy in jacksonville, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. speaker is pointing out some very important points, which took him a very long time to get to. was of my questions are, hamas as filing opposed -- violently opposed to israel and part of their charter, they are calling for the destruction of israel, they built all of these if they are concerned about the civilians, why then outputting the civilians into the tunnels? you have massive infrastructure where these people could go and be safe, but nobody seems to care about them. hamid?r.

guest: one of the problems with the discourse surrounding hamas is that, yes, they do things that the caller mentioned, yes, they put civilians in harm's way and the could be doing much more to ensure their safety, but hamas, they are a fundamentally rational actor. it is problematic to look at them as "evil." to like hamas, but we do have to understand that they do things for a reason. this is not an al qaeda style terrorist group that is universe.in its own this is a political actor. in terms of tracking hamas over it he word of time, they do respond to incentives, threats, and pressure. hamas does benefit from the loss of civilian life. the higher the body count is,

the more sympathy there is for their situation in gaza. that is what i mean when i say that incentive structures are misaligned. have strongot incentives to bring civilians into tunnels or shelters or otherwise. there are not really shelters in gaza. that is the unfortunate situation. israel and hamas both have incentives for the body count to be high. in terms of hamas being violently opposed to israel, there is no doubt about that. hamas does not believe in israel's right to exist. we also have to look back to the plo decades ago. in israel'slieved to instruction and were a terrorist organization. over time, they were able to come to terms with the idea of an israeli state. not because they liked it. but because israel israel.

it is a fact on the ground and they have to be pragmatic and realistic. not reconciled itself to israel's existence, but it has suggested that it may be open to a resolution along 1967 borders, if they get certain things and return. ony have not been as clear that as we might like. but terrorist organizations are able to evolve. they are able to change. yes, their charter is very problematic. but organizations are not permanently bound to their charters. they can change those charters. they can change their policies. host: we will go to ann arbor, michigan. a democratic caller. caller: sharif. two comments. he said hamas is a rational actor. i suppose he means in this

sacrificeat they palestinian children in mortars so that they bring in popular this content and hatred -- discontent and hatred for israel's position in this process. i really don't consider this to be a moral act on the part of hamas. the other comment i have to do -- has to do with his characterization that israel has a military coup. what happened is that there was a popular uprising demanding that -- egypt has a military coup. what happened is that there was a popular uprising demand that mohamed morsi step down because they did not like what was going on. , including think tanks in the united states, cannot give up the standard western criteria that if

somebody comes in in a popular election, they should be ruled by a popular election. the egyptian people had the wisdom of realizing that there was not going to be an election to remove the muslim brotherhood. really my viewpoint. host: thank you. guest: first of all, yes, hamas is not a moral actor. is anyone really immoral actor in the middle east today? don't think anyone is claiming that they are a middle -- moral actor in the first place. somewhat tangential point about the military coup in egypt, the promilitary people in quitehave made these frankly absurd claims and i'm surprised to hear the caller , 20-30,000,000 people protesting. no one takes that seriously. that is an utter joke. all outside observers agree that the number was large, but 30

million people in a country of 80 million, the public spaces and egypt cannot even accommodate a fraction of that number. we here in the u.s. to believe in the importance of democratic elections. if someone is democratically elected, as bad as they are, you cannot get rid of them through a military coup. it has become clear in egypt, that the military is now been charged. -- who is in president is called former general assisi for a reason. the military did intervene to depose morsi. some aspects, this is a classic military coup. we are talking with shadi for the policy fellow center for middle east at the brookings institution.

he also served at the state department as the former public diplomacy specialist from 2005-2006. he wrote a book. what is this about? guest: sure. the book looks at the evolution of islamist movements before and after the arab spring. i spent time looking at the muslim brotherhood in egypt and other islamist movements and trying to understand how they were in opposition and they were in a weak position before the arab spring started. then they were faced with the temptations of power. that is why i titled the book that way. they had a political opening. they took it. that turned out to be a very fraught decision. looking back, we can look at it as a major mistake. they came to power to quickly. as the color red foley noted, rhere was popular -- calle

rightfully noted, there was mohamedsupport against morsi of the muslim brotherhood. i think it is very important for us as americans, as outside arervers, to understand who these islamists? after the arab spring, they rose to prominence. there was a lot of confusion about what these groups stand for. it is important now to make distinctions. in iraqot about isis and syria and these extremist groups that are vicious and violent. there is the other side of that, these mainstream and relatively that may bet actors quite socially conservative, they maybe liberal, they believe not many things that we are comfortable with, but they have agreed to work within the political process to democratic -- democratic elections.

it is very fractious. it is important to make distinctions and not lump them all together. host: we will go to texas. johnny is there watching us. independent caller. 1946-47, 1948, 1949, there was no israel. israel did not come into existence until my team 54. how did israel come into existence and what towns did it take over to do it? guest: israel came into existence in 1948. that is a very long and fraught history. understandto really why this conflict is so difficult to resolve is because it is not about what happened to bang weeks ago or two years ago on it is a kind of living history.

palestinians and israelis are tied to their founding moments, if you will. it happened in 1948 and it was a great victory for the israelis, but a great catastrophe on the palestinian side. beyond theseve hatreds that draw on a very long history of suffering and all of that? i think that the palestinians would say that many of their ancestors, their fathers and grandfathers, were pushed out of their towns that many of them were living in what is today israel proper. some left fallen terribly, but many did not leave voluntarily. that is why this question of what you do about the palestinian refugees has always been a major sticking point in negotiations. them a symbolic compensation, do you give them right of return to the west bank and gaza, but not to where they

were originally? that has become a very difficult internal debate. i think the israelis will look 1967, there48 to were several wars with their arab neighbors. they took that as a fundamental reflection of the bad faith of their arab neighbors, that these arab countries wanted to push israel out of the middle east altogether. int is why there was a war 1948, there was a war in 1956, and in 1967 and in 1973. each of the- with subsequent wars, things continue to be quite thorny. we are still dealing with the fallout and aftereffects not just from the 1940's, but from 1967, where israel was able to acquire, through force, the west bank and gaza.

ever since 1967, that has been the key question that according to you and resolution 242, countries cannot acquire territory through the use of force. those territories have not become independent. they have not become part of a current or future palestinian state. we are still dealing with the legacy of 1967. host: i think by that answer you might have just answered this tweet. some think it is not so much culture as history. guest: i would be careful about putting too much stock in this being a cultural or religious conflict. yes, religious sentiment is strong. palestinian muslim brotherhood. certainly, on the israeli side, you have far right religious groups that see the west bank and gaza as today a and samaria and being their rifle land.

as beingand samaria their rightful land given to them by god. this is a conflict about completing claims on territory -- competing claims on territory. we should not make it into this metaphysical thing where they hate each other so much and they will never be able to resolve it. two have come close resolutions at various points, certainly in 2000. there is a big debate about how close they were. looksknow what a solution like. that is what is so frustrating and tragic about this. we do know what a two state solution looks like. the vast majority of the west bank and gaza, 95%, would go to the new palestinian state. there would be some kind of shared sovereignty with jerusalem. the israelis would have to give

something up on that. it would be some kind of right of return, likely symbolic, through compensation, maybe a small number that would actually go back to israel proper. the rest would go to the new palestinian state. we do basically know what this looks like. all of those issues of exact return on exact right of , on the shared sovereignty of jerusalem, those of the sticking points. also, you have the palestinian and israeli leaderships that are accountable to their own domestic constituencies. there is a fear that if they seems to be too conciliatory are giving too many concessions to the other side, they are going to be seen in history as the ones who gave it away. nobody wants to be remembered that way. i think that those thomistic mastic pressures have to be factored in as well. host: let me get one more phone call. barry in florida. caller: i really don't know

where to start. the first thing as the other day i heard on television someone read the article seven of the charter of hamas going to kill every jew they can find. you don't negotiate with someone who wants to kill you everywhere they can find you. this moral relativism that i is reallymr. hamid outrageous. he himself said that hamas uses the resources that they get, the 425 million dollars that they share with the palestinian authority, for military purposes. you do not they do not take care of their own people. he himself says they use civilians as targets. the caller,ld ask what is his alternative? the other option is to eradicate hamas from the face of the earth and to literally erase them, but you cannot to that.

it is a fool's errand. it is impossible. it has been tried before. the israelis are not even trying to do that because they know it is a fool's errand. inas is deeply embedded their society. that is the situation with most islamist movements, these mass movements across the region. they reflect a social and religious conservatism in their society. they're good at providing social services to constituents on the local level, and that is a source of the popularity. i am being very cold here. we can think of hamas as the most evil organization on earth, but if you cannot eradicate them, you have to find a way to live -- they are there, so what is the living arrangement going to be? that is the question we have to

ask ourselves. and if they are rational actors, as i contend they are, then they are responsive to international pressures and incentives. so that is where the international community becomes very important. where turkey becomes very important. they can put pressure on hamas to accept certain cease-fire arrangements. so i just think that we cannot be thinking about these solutions that are not actually going to happen. you negotiate, ultimately, with your enemies, so, yes, hamas is an enemy of israel. the pending on your perspective, it can also be seen as an enemy of the u.s. but you negotiate with your enemies, because you do not want them to be doing the things that they have been doing for the last few decades. the same thing was said about lo, but, but -- the p they became a more normalized

political actor in the region. that does not mean it is going to happen with hamas. but you look at the available options and you try to pick the one that is least bad. host: for more information and to follow his writing and thinking, you can go to brookings.edu, and he is the policy fellow for the middle east. thank you for your time. return domestic side here, talking about how many americans are getting insurance under the affordable care act. later, your money series continues with a look at the $40 billion u.s. missile defense system built to protect united states from a possible missile attack from rogue states such as north korea and iran. the system has proved unreliable in controlled tests and they're concerned it would not actually perform in an eventual attack. first, an update from c-span radio. eastern, more.m. international news.

the un security council has called for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian cease-fire in the gaza conflict between israel and hamas. the council adopted the statement at an emergency meeting just after midnight as muslims began celebrating a holiday marking the end of ramadan. the call for a cease-fire foes who attends -- new attacks launched by israel and hamas, despite going back and forth on proposals for another temporary halt. to makeoon is expected remarks today in new york at the united nations, and c-span will be covering that event. you can hear him later in our programming schedule. to ukraine, an international police team abandoned its attempt today to reach the crash site of the malaysia airlines plane. this for second day as clashes flared nearby. with government troops intensifying their push to take that more territory room pro-russian separatist rebels, the death toll is mounting steadily.

the united nations released new figures today showing that more than 1100 people have died in more than four months of fighting. two americans in liberia have become infected with the ebola virus. the disease has killed 129 people in the country, and more than 670 across the region. the president of liberia is closing some border crossings and ordering strict quarantines of communities affected by the evil outbreak. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> on "the communicators" tonight, two members of congress talk about their technology legislation. >> a crafted an amendment that said this -- under 702 of the act, you can select data, and you now know from the snowden disclosures that it is a lot of data, that may also include the information of americans, even though they cannot be the purpose of the collection of the data. let the amendment simply set was

if you want to search that lawfully acquired database for americans, you should get a warrant. not that you cannot get the information -- get a warrant. >> the basic premise of the dot com act is to make sure that when the nation relinquishes its last control over sites over the domain name system, we know what we are getting ourselves into. >> democratic representative from california and an illinois republican representative, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on .the communicators" on c-span2 "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with paige winfield cunningham, health-care reporter for a e, here to talk about the 10 million who have gained insurance under the affordable care act. when did this news come out, and who are these 10 million that we are talking about?

for thehis was a chance administration to tout the numbers as saying the affordable care act is working like it was intended. there has been a number of estimates already that has come up, but this number was closest to what the administration had originally said his first in number of people who gain coverage. of course, people got coverage through the exchanges and also through medicaid expansion. we still do not have specifics about how many of these folks were previously uninsured. we do have information about how many were younger americans, of course, which has been a big question. how many of the young people would get coverage? ofut one-force the 20 ages 18 and 40 two. i think the administration is still crunching the data a little bit. we might get more information in the future about how many of the folks were previously uninsured.

the administration took the opportunity to put this number out that was published in the new england journal kind of saying, hey, this is yet more evidence that the law is really working. does thatillion, what mean for projections as the exchanges open up again this fall and more people are going to be able to sign up? few months away, and romance starts again in november. there are still a lot of uninsured americans. not as still probably -- didn't, but -- and reducing the number of the uninsured. about 40 million uninsured remain. the cbo estimated that in the first year of enrollment about 42 million would still be uninsured. so the goal for the administration is the chipping away at those numbers through the next enrollment season, and you can see they are already trying to ramp up efforts,

messaging efforts. you're going to see a lot of advertising in the states that had lower rates of enrollment. so they say that it has been theessful in so far as first year's goals, but there is still kind of a long way to go. host: do we know why there are 40 million that remain uninsured? guest: well, there are probably a couple answers to that question. one is that a lot of these folks have not had insurance, possibly for most of their life. it is a demographic that is particularly hard to reach. there have been some struggles with reaching out to some of the minority communities, such as the spanish. there are high rates of uninsured there, yet, the spanish-language version of healthcare.gov had a lot of problems at the beginning. i think there was a lot of discontent from the spanish ofmunity about the ease

trying to inform people about the website and get them enrolled. so there are those kinds of challenges. and then there is, you know, people who might be in their 50's or 60's and just have not had coverage, and it is hard to kind of explain why they should get coverage. so a lot of kind of different challenges, so i think they are trying to kind of approach this from a lot of different ways. they these states where are seeing low enrollment, or the republican states, democratic states? is there a pattern? do -- a lot of it has to it does not necessarily have to do with whether a state is red or blue. take north carolina, for example, they are on the federal exchange and generally a pretty conservative state that is opposed to health care laws. a lot of politicians there are opposed to it, yet it has been at the highest rates of enrollment in the exchanges. of course, other states where you have seen high enrollment, california, new york -- so a lot of this -- the states that are

running their own exchanges, a lot of it is related to just how well the exchange is functioning. kentucky has perhaps the best and they hadhange, huge enrollment numbers. it is kind of a mix of who the demographic is, how the administration has done with outreach in that state, and then as far as the state-run exchanges, how well they function. host: we're taking your comments and questions about the latest on the affordable care act. paige winfield cunningham of politico. you can start dialing now. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. others,ents and all 202-585-3882. the other news we heard recently was about these two conflicting court rulings over subsidies in the affordable care act. what did the affordable care act say about subsidies for the exchanges? questionat is the

being debated. it is interesting, the dispute is really over a few words in the law. so you have these conflicting rulings host up last week, the set down the obamacare subsidies and the virginia appeals court upheld them. the dispute is whether the subsidies can flow through the exchanges that are run by the federal government. of course, that is most of the exchanges, 36 of them, so this would have huge ramifications. the courts came to opposite conclusions. it really stems from a lack of clarity in the law. when it was passed, the process was very messy. a lot of the language did not get cleaned up the way lawmakers intended. so the section of the law that talked about these subsidies for the low income to be able to buy insurance refers only to the state-run exchanges and does not specifically referred to the federal-run exchanges. so they are bringing the

challenges, saying that means that the subsidy was illegally awarded, essentially, through the federal-run exchanges, and they need to be blocked. we had these two rulings from the federal appeals court. the administration is repealing the one in d.c. so probably the next movement on that will be a full appeals panel hearing in d.c. on that this year. ast: we will talk more about coming up. first, let's go to art in clearwater, kansas, republican caller. caller: good morning. there is not a month -- not enough mention of other alternative plans that are in thecally exempted affordable care act. that is plans like chminist ries.org, christian health care ministries. that is one, and i have. the other thing is about the language you mentioned a moment ago not being cleared up.

that is simply because the affordable care act was passed without bipartisan debate and without careful adjusting before they passed it. they did not look at it. they passed it first. host: did you hear the first part of his comments? guest: yes, i think it had to do with the grandfather plans. folks have in 10 coverage are still in plans that are not compliant with the affordable care act. that is because last fall, the administration gave more over,cy to plans to roll to give them a little bit more time to comply. so you are right about that. your second question -- too: saying it passed quickly and that is why a mistake was made. guest: right, and i think both sides would probably agree with that. the process by which the law was

asked, it had to be passed in a rushed way to enter specific rules because they were not allowed to revise the final version in the senate. they would not have had enough votes. so the final version of the law .as never what was intended so, yeah, both sides would definitely agree with that. that is where another western came in in these two lawsuits which was -- what did congress intend? what was the real intent there? the advocates for the law are saying everyone wanted the subsidies to go to all of the exchanges, clearly, and they should have written that and, but they did not. that was the intention. republicans will argue that, no, the intent was to incentivize states to run their own exchanges by saying you do not get these subsidies if you do not do that. that was kind of another big question in this two lawsuits. host: if you have a subsidy now

and you are enrolled in the aca, is a jeopardize at all? guest: not right now. you get to keep your subsidy. host: stanley in florida, independent call. caller: i have regular insurance, catastrophe insurance. i was paying a good sum for that. when obamacare cannot, i applied for obamacare, and it was cheaper for me to go on obamacare than to have catastrophe insurance. and thank god i did, because right after i got it, my were right as my wife was rest to the bad knee.ith a then i had a major attack, heart attack, and i had to go to the hospital. i am grateful for my health care, and i'm tired of seeing everybody tried to appeal its and stop it. if you want to stop it, make it better. do not stop it.

we need health care. we give millions of dollars which every country in the world. why can we not afford to give something to the poor people who really need it? host: what were your hospital bills like for your wife and/or you? guest: $73,000. host: how much did you have to pay? $1400. $1200 to host: because of the affordable care act? caller: yes. they are still taking care of my wife. i think it is a great thing. i think they should stop fighting it. now i am worried about florida not taking the subsidies oh they can do their own plan. they're talking about taking it away from us again. host: ok. we will talk about that. paige winfield cunningham, which fight is going to go to the supreme court? guest: that is a really good question. it is still unclear whether this

particular fight will go to the supreme court. i think we saw chief justice roberts so -- show a lot of hesitation. he did not want to throw it out two years ago. it is hard to imagine that the court would dismantle such a huge part of the law. at the same time, the willingness to take up these cases. .e will have to wait and see i'm sure both sides, at some point, will appeal to the court to take up the case. so maybe next spring, maybe the year after, who knows? host: latoya, georgia, democratic caller. caller: i have two questions. the thing is, when you asked [indiscernible] she said 40 million people are not covered.

she went through each item. but what you left out, ma'am, theyhat in each red state, designed medicaid to come in, so they have a lot to do. so when you tell something, tell it all. tell it all because that is the problem. when y'all come on tv, you don't tell the whole story. you know every red does not let people come in. greta, why is it that c-span seems to me so right when you ask questions. it seems like a good thing that everybody get health care. it is the first time i heard some of the call and say that health care is really working. so why can't we talk about that instead of the negative part? the negative thing is that it is more white people do get medicaid and welfare than anybody else black, so you'll have to tell the truth. host: ok, we will take up those

issues. guest: you are right that about half the states have decided not to expand medicaid under the law. that is a really important point. that is -- has required the cbo to downgrade its estimates of how many people would get coverage. of course, the cost of the law, because fewer people are able to take advantage of medicaid, those people that would have otherwise been eligible in those states. it is mostly these red states that are deciding not to take the expansion. of course, at some point in the future, they could decide to reverse that decision. of, isn her second point the affordable care act working? she said that first caller was very positive about it. guest: i mean, that is still something that -- it kind of depends on what benchmark you are judging it by, i suppose. if the benchmark is, is it expanding coverage to uninsured americans?

yes, it absolutely is. it is not expanding coverage to all uninsured americans yet. republicans will talk about the cost of health care and questions about whether when the supposedassed, he was to reduce welfare costs, and is it really doing that? as far as the key goal of getting more people covered, yes, it is working in that regard. host: a republican caller in florida. caller: hello? i am calling from altamonte springs. let me help clear up some of the questions that have been asked. when you talk about 10 million people, the young lady talked about telling the truth and telling it all, if you do that, you have to start with the president absolutely lying to the american people about if you already got it, you do not have to worry about anything changing. the reason i make that point is you have about 315 million

people in this nation, and it was supposed to cover 40 million did not have it. of course you will have people calling and that are happy. but you have to deal with the ones who had it, like myself and others, who are not being impacted, and although there have been extensions that have been dealt with which will hit us in the next couple years, so that is number one. number two, when you talk about the people being covered, it is important to decide on its these people had insurance or if they do not have insurance. deal withgned to people who did not have health insurance. help those individuals who did not have it. i was perfectly fine with it until after the fact, and then we find out that it does not only does help those individual, but it has a total impact on the entire health-care system. that is what we're dealing with now. one last thing, you talk about the wording in the bill, the one where they are fighting over. words mean something when you

talk about legislation. there is a difference between saying something -- you must pay something or you can pay something. if that is what the language says, that is what the language says. host: ok, we will leave it there. guest: to your second question, that is a key question. how many of these people were previously uninsured? the administration has not said, has not given a specific number on that. yet, we may get that at some point. there was a kaiser survey that came out last month that 10timated that about six in americans were previously uninsured. i should note that that estimate is higher than some other estimates we have seen. other estimates say maybe only 30% to 40% were previously uninsured. the number is still disputed. but the caller makes a good point, and this is sending that republicans in congress really were bringing up a lot over the

spring. hey, you can count these numbers, but if these are people that already had coverage and are just switching, then what kind of an overall impact is it really making on the country? host: nevada, independent caller, go ahead. morning.es, good i would like to finally get a chance to tell somebody how it has impacted me. we lost our insurance after 43 years. i always had insurance through my employer. now i have to go to the v.a. my wife has zero insurance. it impacted us tremendously. we cannot afford it. it was going to be $1400 a month for obamacare. we had great insurance. that is the part i do not like, the fact that i was lied to. host: got it. tell me how many --

host: what were you going to follow up on? guest: there are winners and losers. there are stories like the folks like the color who had insurance under their employer. a business with fewer than 15 employees, they are not required to offer coverage. there have been some stories of businesses that have drug coverage because they are saying the cost is too much. if that is the case, then there are some folks who did have good plans, but it is important to remember that there are anecdotal stories on both sides. when you have something bipartisan, you have both sides bringing out different elements. host: we have a line for democrats, republicans, and independents. is a democrat in virginia. go ahead. caller: hello.

i just wanted to point out -- is it possible that in that 40 million-some-odd uncovered by insurance people, included in that number, is it the people in republican states who were not allowed to get on medicaid? secondly, the gentleman that just called and said he lost his and president obama lied to him, actually, he probably had insurance that he was paying a reasonable amount of money for, but if he, god for bid, and his wife got sick and were hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills, then he would find that that insurance would not have covered what he needed to cover without him having to go into bankruptcy. host: all right.

her first question about this 10 million figure we heard about -- -- the statese that did not expanded to medicaid? guest: yeah, as we pointed out earlier, does include people in those states, for sure, and that is half of those states. you're talking about a substantial number of people that were originally intended to have coverage under the law that now do not have coverage. host: could that go up a lot with these states -- states refusing to expand medicaid? hub ofyeah, that is the the administration, hoping that eventually governors will realize that if the federal government covers the majority of the cost of the medicaid expansion, so the first year it was 90% and then it goes down a little bit, to 80% or 85%, but they are still paying for most of it. the argument that is a republican governors rejecting it, saying this is forcing us to expand our program and

eventually we will have to cover more of the cost sometime in the future, hypothetically. but, yeah, the numbers could shift dramatically more if these states decide to expand. host: the people who complain i had insurance before and did not get to keep it and now it is more expensive for me under the affordable care act -- has there been a study done on what type of insurance those folks had and was it less? did it not cover as much? guest: it is complicated because you have so many different elements and health insurance that you have to pay. you have a deductible, premium, co-pays, and all of those numbers can kind of shift. plays a lot of new requirements on insurance plans. so things like preventive care, the insurer has to cover without charging a co-pay. at the same time, there have been complaints about deductibles being a lot higher among having to pay more before your insurance actually kicks

in. theyremiums have actually, are still increasing. there has been a lot of discussion about that lately, but the premiums we are seeing for next year do not seem to be increasing at a much faster, higher rate than they were before the law was passed. that is hard to answer in specifics unless you really know about the plan, but those are kind of like the general things we are seeing. clarksburg, pennsylvania, joe, independent caller will stop --independent caller. to validateuld like that thought of as being lied to. for 35 years, the government has been lying to us. vis-à-vis my health insurance, i had blue cross blue shield personal choice, which is a good plan. adult for it my entire life. i work for myself. because of obama, my insurance went from a $1500 deductible, which was hard to manage as it

have a $6,500 personal financial responsibility in-network deductible. can you explain to me how that is benefiting me? i used to be a truck driver. regulations crushed that. i used to be in the environmental business. regulations crushed that. how is this good for anybody with calluses on their hands and a sore back, the ones that pay the bills for you people in washington to piss all that money away? probablyu are right, not a good deal for you. the philosophy been on the law is you are allowing these older people to enter the market now, sicker people to enter the market for the first time. this means that people who are younger and healthier and maybe have these really good plans now have to bear more of the costs. there are limits in the law for how much more insurers can

charge for people based on different things. basically, evening the costs that everybody is paying. there is something called age-ratings where insurers can only charge older folks a certain amount more than younger folks. that sort of thing. i think you will see more of a leveling, i suppose, of the cost of lands. and certainly for people that had a better deal before, they may find that they are paying more. host: we're talking with paige winfield cunningham, health-care reporter for politico. we have a democratic caller on the line. indiana and i in have worked in the hospital for the past three years. ironically, they do not offer me health care insurance. i would very much like to have health care, but our governor has decided to opt out of the affordable care act and leave his fellow hoosiers floundering.

will go onight, we to brenda in tallahassee, florida, republican caller. caller: i am on medicare advantage. i am a senior citizen. ever since obama took over and started this affordable health hee act, he brags about that has done away with the doughnut july, my medicines in popped up to almost $300 a bottle for medicines for my heart. i bought one which is normally a $281.-pay, and it is now from july through do sober, it dumped up almost $300. i also have to get plavix and crestor. you know what i am doing, i am not buying my medicines, thanks to obama, from july until

december. how about that? what is going on with medicare advantage? guest: i do not know what she is talking about. the law does close the doughnut hole. one of the parts that the administration has been most willing to talk about and talk over the last few years. another sort of big question with medicare advantage is, of course, the cuts to the plan. that was supposed to bring in some more revenue to help pay for the law. the administration has actually scaled back those cuts over the last two years. it has turned into a political talking point. republicans have really hammered the administration over these cuts. generally, medicare advantage has been a very successful and popular program will stop about seniors are now

on it. it seems the intent was to make sure the federal government is paying the same amount for as they offertage traditional medicare fee-for-service. host: daniel in hastings, michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple points about anybody talking about all the bad things and even people with insurance did not look at the pre-existing condition clause in the affordable care act. i mean, i had insurance all my life. you know, two different places. myi would have showed up for next insurance premium for a new carrier and had a pre-existing condition, i cannot get insurance. to me, that was just a bigger thing that needed to be fixed in the law, and i am glad it was. another thing that people do not look at is -- they complain about $5,000 or $6,000 which is

comparable to some of the offers before the affordable care act. but under this clause, you have an incentive to be healthy because of your prevention, your physicals, your pap smears. all those things are covered. so if you take the initiative in this country to try to be healthy, you can save money. under the old clause, you cannot. it did not matter. you are paying for that. yout: it is interesting point out the pre-existing conditions part, because that, along with the provisions for coverage for adult children, that pre-existing conditions provision is, like, one of the only things that republicans really like in the law. actually, it is something that they have proposed in a number of plans that have been out there. fall,an was for post last and the republican study committee suggest that in a

number of other republican lands. i think that is something that is pretty widely agreed on, that you should make sure the people with pre-existing conditions can still get coverage. that part of it is controversial. as to the deductibles tom a you know, what the caller said about advocates ofcare, the law talk about that a lot. you know, that our health care system does not have functions that incentivize people to get their care before they really need serious care. that was one of the reasons that that part about the preventative care was added into the law. , you know, it is kind of individual. obviously, you're not going to be happier if you are paying a higher deductible. insurers,s a way that by raising deductibles, are keeping the cost of premiums lower.

kind of a trade-off. host: pennsylvania, trudy, republican caller. caller: i like the comment from joe, and i also liked paige's answer. i am a republican and am self-employed. we had a family business for years. we saw our health insurance premiums double in early 2000 after bush took office. i think that this obamacare is a good thing. it is helping people who need help. i think all people in our country should be helped. i think the blame should be put on the health-insurance industry. i do not understand why more is not being done to tighten up these corporate laws so these people can stop raping the american people and reduce our rates. because any kind of insurance industry, you have people that use the insurance and there are people that do not use it. that should be enough of a profit -- these ceo's, because

they profit share, they want all the income to go to their profit-sharing plan. i do not understand why the blame is not being put on corporations for a lot of these industries which should not have been deregulated or should be regulated. in my opinion, health insurance should be regulated. host: all right, paige winfield cunningham? that: there are provisions limit how much insurers can spend on overhead. it depends on the size of the 75% at, but it is 70% or least of that has to be spent on actually paying out health care benefits. so the law does contain measures trying to make sure that insurers are not profiting more than perhaps people think they should be. as far as the premiums, the caller is right, they have been going up for years. sometimes by double digits,

often in the low double digits. host: are they expected to continue to rise? hard to say.s i do not think the projections perhaps, reliable or concrete, because we do not know how many people will be signing up and exactly who they will be. but what we are seeing right now, even with the low double-digit increases, that is really comparable with what we have seen for about a decade. host: minnesota, democratic caller. caller: first thing i want to say, i have been paying attention -- if you live in a state where they set up their own plan and the people in it is doingfor it, great. it seems like the states where it is doing the worse have the people that are fighting it. and then a comment on medicare. i get my mom's medications every month, and her medications were

cut in half as far as the doughnut hole thing. the other lady called in saying it doubled for her. i think that is not true. payments,our mom's the cost of her drugs have been cut in half? caller: yeah. host: ok come all right. guest: as far as your first comment about the states that are fighting the affordable care necessarily not true, actually. i mean, you have seen some states that were really ahead of the game in trying to set of their exchanges and have really struggled. i mean, or again is sort of the best example of the pack. it immediately started working on its exchange. it put a lot of money into it, and it has been a complete disaster. maryland is another example. it is partnering with ken a kit now. oregon is going to

healthcare.gov. some extent, but a lot of the states that were excited about putting up their exchanges, they have also fumbled. in louisville, kentucky, independent color. caller: the for of this, they said they wanted -- they said people cannot afford insurance. you know what, i know that is not true. there may be some insurance with policies that were high, but there was always the open market. you could go out and get a high deductible insurance policy. when i hear that lady who called in saying they would be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars and they did not know they would have to pay in those policies, that is not true because most of these policies have a maximum out-of-pocket that is set. insurers have to have that maximum out-of-pocket expense.

insurance available for the employees, and these employees make decent wages. but they do not want to pay for the insurance. so there are a lot of people out there who were able to get insurance through their employers, and if they cannot, they can always go buy insurance on the open market am a but they just chose not to buy the insurance because they simply did not want to pay for it. host: all right, paige winfield cunningham? big questions the right there. you hit the nail on the head. should people who think they do not need insurance or do not want insurance be required to buy it? you know, there are different takes on that question. as far as the catastrophic coverage, the caller is right, you could go by a plan. that is what my own brother did. he is a 23-year-old healthy young man, and he went and bought a plan. those are still available on the exchanges. the thought is they are not actually that different from the

next step up. and you cannot apply subsidies towards the catastrophic plans. you have seen pretty low enrollment in those types of plans. there has been some discussion creating a about copper level plan which would be even more toned back, for people who want a lower premium and lighter coverage. in woodbridge, virginia, independent caller. daughter has cystic fibrosis, so the fact that if we were to change insurance, it would be ridiculous. she would go into the high risk pools. as far as getting regular insurance, that is right, you can do that. but there is a problem with the cap. right now, there is no cap. host: how have you seen your

medical bills change? caller: oh, my god. $350 for a three-month prescription of enzymes she has to take with every mill has now gone down to $20. so it is a huge saving for us. of herthis is the kind son that is most benefited by the affordable care act -- this is the kind of person that sees the most benefits. those are the stories you have seen the administration really touting. it is hard to dispute those stories. folks that have faced massive medical bills, so the affordable care act is really great for them. host: you can follow her reporting on politico.com. paige winfield cunningham is their health care reporter. next, our your miniseries continues with a look at a $40

billion u.s. missile defense system that was built to protect united states against countries like north korea and iran, but it has proven unreliable in controlled tests. we will get to that right after this news update from c-span radio. started herin has own subscription-based online network. the sarah palin channel went live on sunday and bills itself as a direct connection between the former alaska governor and gop vice presidential nominee and her supporters. also on tv this week, former white house press secretary jay carney. he is appearing on letterman wednesday night. politico reports a shaun donovan will not be the only new face at the office of management and budget when he is sworn in as director today. melanie russell newman, who has the only be will be new associate director for communications and strategic planning. senator the playbook,

bernie sanders and congressman jeff miller have reached an theement to reform department of veterans affairs legislation which will touch on short-term and long-term needs of the v.a., according to an aide. the two lawmakers worked continuously through the weekend to craft a deal before congress heads home for their five-week recess on friday. specific details of the agreement not immediately clear, but any legislation would likely give the v.a. secretary a broader ability to fire senior officials accused of mismanagement. the deal also expected to allocate money for veterans who have been waiting medical treatment for longer than 30 days, giving them the ability to lead the v.a. system for care. the deal must be approved by the full house and senate. the two lawmakers holding a news conference at 1:30 eastern time, hear it live at c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> next month on booktv's "in-depth," ron paul.

he has written more than a dozen books on politics and history, with his latest "the school revolution," on america's education system. join the conversation live for three hours on sunday, august 3, noon eastern, and watch next month for mary frances berry. and a supreme court expert discusses court sessions. we have a best-selling author in november. in december, arthur brooks. that is on booktv, television for serious readers. 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 are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on hd, facebook, and follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. last on mondays in our hour, we take a look at your money, how your taxpayer dollars are being spent. today's topic is a missile-defense system. david willman with the "los looking at the $40 million missile-defense system proving unreliable. what is this talking about? guest: the ground-based defense system that is generally intended to defend against a limited nuclear missile attack. that would be an attack of a scale presumably less than a superpower could render from a

"rogue" state. that was the idea when president george w. bush called for the system in d sever 2002 -- in 2002 to be deployed and operational in 2004. host: how would it work? guest: these are ground-based interceptors that are based in california and alaska. these ground-based interceptors are really rockets. you can also call them missiles. they are tipped by something vehicle which is about five feet long and weighs about 150 pounds. so the rocket is launched, and it would go up into space. once it is up there in space and all the three stages of that like it used to in the manned space program, the its vehicle is propelled on

own and is traveling at an extremely high velocity, 14,000 miles per hour. it has sensors and is supposed to intercept an incoming missile from an adversary in space. it would intercept that missile just as it is guarding its descent after apogee. midcourse it would attack, hence the name, midcourse defense system. the ground-based interceptor launch by the u.s. would be intended to take out that enemy missile in space through a violent collision. rendered.ve is it is called hitting a bullet with a bullet. host: what would happen next? guest: presumably all the debris would scatter and incinerate upon reentry. it would fall and not hurt someone.

host: would somebody need to push a button to make this happen or is there a sensor to it? byst: it is operated human beings originally. the launch has to be approved by the chain of command. the american demand is based out of fort collins. ourd has been a key part of offensive system, as well. that would be involved. different commands at vandenberg and one other command would be used to intercept missiles coming over the arctic circle and near the north pole from one of these rogue states, be it north korea or iran. important to distinguish that this system was originally intended to defend against a limited non-superpower attack. we still have the doctrine of mutually assured destruction,

vis-à-vis russia and china. in fact, the ground-based midcourse defense system, everyone acknowledges it would in no way be equipped to stop a superpower attack which would have hundreds of not thousands of nuclear tipped warheads, and this system is not equipped to counter that. host: in these rogue states -- is there a command center that people are watching 24/7? guest: we have intelligence agencies with all the assets they should have, including satellites and assets that are part closer to those points of potential origin that are watching 24/7. that if thereped were a launch, it would be seen rather quickly. in the word would become you negated all the way through to the ground-based interceptors. host: how much has been spent so far? billion oreast $40

so on just the ground-based midcourse defense system. others will tell you that that number does not include a lot of costs that should not legitimately be separated from it, such as radar which are extremely expensive. so some people who are quite knowledgeable about this say the actual cost come if you really cut it ever thing, could be double. host: it could be? when will they know? when is it supposed to be operating? two toi am talking about eight. it has been operating since the fall of 2004. to present, we have four ground-based interceptors sitting in silos at vandenberg, and we have another 26 sitting at fort greeley, alaska. administration and

secretary of defense hagel has enough we will grow up to 14 additional ground-based interceptors at fort greeley vitae end of 2017. host: why? guest: that is a question that is discussed among policymakers on the hill and elsewhere. but the original basis for doing this was a concern that north korea and/or iran were interested in pursuing an option that would include nuclear missiles. does not have a nuclear .apability north korea has experimented underground with nagler explosions but does not have an offense of nuclear capability, according to our intelligence services. they have tested ballistic missiles. i would say it is fairly unimpressive to date. but there has been concern, going back a number of years, certainly to the clinton

administration forward, that north korea and/or iran were interested in doing this. to add a little bit to that, the clinton administration was interested and, in fact, supported nesting potential ground-based midcourse defense system. a lot of research was done. the conclusion was we are not going to deploy until we are anisfied that this is effective system, and effective technology. there are many members of congress who were extremely dissatisfied with that, and that culminated with tongass congress -- with deploying a commission chaired by donald rumsfeld in 1998 or so. within a year, the rumsfeld commission issued a report that said the intelligence agency's estimates of the capabilities and designs of north korea and iraq and other potential adversaries cannot be trusted, and that really added fuel to

the resolve of some who wanted to deploy this system. now, of course, we know george bush took office in 2001. his defense secretary was donald rumsfeld. so bush declared in december of that the u.s. withdraw from the u.s. missile treaty with russia, and he was very interested in pursuing this limited missile defense system which one year later, he then declared would be deployed and would be made operational in 2004. host: is it reliable? would it work? guest: based on my reporting, i do not think there is any reasonable confidence right now that this system is reliable. there are a lot of very well-intentioned people and good scientists who are working hard on it to make it better. but, again, my reporting shows that the original rush to deploy withy saddled the system

tremendous problems, because there was not this rigorous engineering process of testing, having failure or success, going back to the drawing board, test more, test more. systems engineering that gets you to a point of higher confidence before you deploy and make something operational. we have a network of ground-based interceptors and kill vehicles that are really prototypes for the most part. they do not have consistent configurations one to the other. so even if you have a successful test with one interceptor and kill vehicle, it does not give you great confidence that you will have it with others. the overall scorecard for this theem as maintained by missile defense agency is that there have been 17 flight tests warheadintercept and target, and there have been nine successful intercepts. of great concern to people who track this program over a long

amount of time is that the track record has gotten worse instead of better over time. the last 10 attempted intercepts have resulted in six failures, four successes. that is not confidence. ,ost: david willman investigative reporter with the "los angeles times." he has this headline on an investigative piece -- $40 billion missile defense system proves unreliable. eric, new jersey, independent caller. good morning. i think it is really crazy how we are spending $40 billion of our money on the missile that may be unreliable sometimes. harry --o think that host: ok, we're going to move on

to pennsylvania, independent caller. caller: i wish i would have heard his last statement. i missed it. first off, we have cut so much in the military. we have the least that we have, and yes, i believe we could do better spending. but my question is -- we have backed israel with their iron dome system, and that has been 99% accurate and has kept them safe. is this comparable to that? if it is not, why can't we get some from israel? isn't iran chummy enough with cuba? if that is the case, can we experience another cuban missile crisis? raises a good she point about finite resources for military spending. that is really an issue in this

era that we find ourselves in with sequestration and, for the first time in memory, that is really an important issue in question that covers over the defense systems. if you want to send the money is the system, then it imperative that we have an effective system. the caller mentioned the iron dome system which has gotten a lot of publicity. i am just a little bit cautious about percentage rates of success for either the patriot or the iron dome at this point. we saw the original plans for patriot.

i think a more reasonable analysis when we got beyond the fog of war was it was less than impressive. that might be true iron dome. it is getting a lot of kudos right now. it is a fundamentally different technology than the defense system. iron dome is hitting. crude, little scud missiles. they are launched from short range. it has a range of up to 44 miles. it is catching things on the downward arc. it is entirely different. less sophisticated than what we are talking about for the united states? >> by huge orders of magnitude less sophisticated. i don't have the figures for iron dome. the government is supporting that.

one of the major contractors that is central with our defense system plays a pivotal role with iron dome. >> jack is from oklahoma. caller: i would like to know how do we get our money back from those people who fraudulently took it? host: referring to the $40 billion? caller: yes. where were the parts made? where they made in china or mexico? parts?making our importants is an point. onset, theaid at the systems called for by the president of united states to be rushed into deployment. that is what the united states told for.

rumsfeld lifted all of the standard for cure my rules that ordinarily would have applied. what that means in part is research and development funds to be used easily for employment purposes, that is otherwise prohibited in defense spending. there were no specific performance criteria for the system. if you ask if the system is nine 417 meet the original criteria? there was no original criteria. important when we are looking at incoming nuclear missiles and if you miss one of them you have a catastrophe. jack referred to the components. what do we know about the origin of the components?

my knowledge is not encyclopedic. i can tell you there have been significant problems during the span of this program with quality of components. you are dealing with highly sophisticated technology. that vehicle is a dense bundle of technology. if you have a problem with one , if it gets excited during the intense vibrations and varying temperatures, you have a failure. components ishose very important from a quality and troll standpoint. host: michael is calling from kansas city, missouri. caller: i haven't heard any comment to the naval capacities of our military. guest: that is a bright spot in

our missile defense armaments. called egis.hing it is intended to defend our ships. typically it is used in battle situations. record is very impressive. it is at least 90%. 34. 28 for they have hit 18 of their last 18. it has benefited from a much greater history of engineering rigor than has the defense system. that is unfortunate. egis has been so successful that we now -- think of the difficulty of hitting

medium-range missiles. let's say up to 2000 miles. that is not an insignificant challenge, but you are doing it in a vessel that is bobbing in ocean water. tremendous engineering resources and capable people at the ready. start?hen did egis have a couple dozen ships that equipped in this way. it is a huge retrofit for a ship. it has its own kill vehicle. it is a lighter package than the ground-based system. you are firing from a ship so extra weight makes it much more difficult. there is a huge vote of confidence in egis. we are now moving toward something called egsi ashore.

the obama administration has initiated an adaptive approach for europe which will eventually have destroyers in the mediterranean that is assisting with missile defense and tended to defend allies against iran. that is where it is oriented at this point. we will ultimately have capabilities in both romania and poland. ashore wille egsi be brought into those venues. it began over a decade ago. host: larry is in knoxville, tennessee. caller: i have a question related to deterrence. we are providing this information to our enemies overseas.

is the information of reliability of any use to them? guest: i think that is a critical question. flip sides of transparency is people can see what is going on to a greater extent with our programs. it is no secret that north korea followody else who can available reports from government agencies that the ground-based defense system has had a tremendous amount of difficulty. hasnorth korean program been entirely unimpressive and its ability to launch missiles of any distance reliably. they do not have the capability to tip their missiles with a nuclear weapon. thank goodness.

the: jerry is in california. caller: who watches the defense secretary when they decide to do these things? they can just go out and waste aliens of dollars. -- billions of dollars. nothing seems to be able to stop them. i would like to know why they can't go out -- host: are you wondering if congress approved it? caller: apparently it wasn't. they just decided to deploy this thing. is getting at the politics of missile defense. this is quite a subject. let's take it in stages. george w. bush unilaterally withdrew funding from the

treaty. that did not require approval from congress. he deployed a ground-based missile defense system. that has been agreed to and funded in every budget cycle by the congress and majorities of the congress of the united states. in readingd is transcripts of the congressional hearings having to do with this subject, members were much more inclined to be pointedly critical in their questioning in public hearings of the concept and the utility of this defense system at its outset. pointk at this systemging the defense seems to be a nonstarter among members of congress. people can raise questions if they wish.

it seems the program has solid footing. the big asterisk is what can we pay for? i was struck in my reporting that when people inside the missile defense agency, including its then erector -- said they director, had reliability issues. they needed to slow down the growth of it and get our hands on what is reliable. members of congress in critical there are two states that are the epicenter of this contracting. they are arizona and alabama. senators are tireless advocates for protecting and expanding the missile defense system. particularsions in

has missed a few opportunities to challenge anyone who is saying to go slower. that includes the missile defense system director. there is some very stark quotes that we have in our piece from senator sessions and senator shelby. has raised the specter of if you are challenging the growth of this are you committed to the defense of this country? he cares about costs that he also cares about the defense of the country. host: richard is next.

caller: good those patriot missiles be put in our nuclear submarines? we can bring them closer to the shores. wanted to seey nuclear missiles in cuba. f-16s in thathose boneyard in arizona and load if we ever have a pearl harbor we have a reserve force. f-16s might not have the bells and whistles. they can have the same firepower and you could double the firepower. can you answer those questions? egis: we do have the

system. this is a number of ships equipped with antimissile missiles if you will. standard missile three's they are called. ships can be deployed to any theater of the world within a reasonable distance. richard raises a critical point about what we can and can't see. my geography tells me that north korea is closer to the shore. maybe we could get in their closer. we have satellite capability. wething above the ground, have a good chance to see what is going on. iran is tougher with more interior. foralso have the potential belowground sites. itthe time that silo opens, is tough to perhaps have

real-time knowledge of it. host: the controlled tests of the system have proven unreliable. where do they do these tests? how do they test it? guest: they are done over the pacific ocean. they are very difficult to stage. they cost $200 million. host: they have done 17? guest: yes. a lot more are needed to gain confidence in the reliability of the system. have our what we target missiles being fired in the islands. they come up in a westward direction toward the pacific coast. one of our ground-based

interceptors from california. we attempt to intercept that target over the pacific. the debris we hope falls harmlessly in the pacific. oceanwaths of the pacific are cordoned off with warnings. commercial air flights are divergent around. fishermen are warned. you don't want to be hit i one of these following pieces of debris. host: kurt is in maryland. caller: hello. my question or comment relates spent fact that we have $40 billion trying to hit an arrow with another arrow. very little has been spent on trying to kill the archer.

can you explain that? clearly hitting the arrow with the arrow is a supreme technical challenge. people in our military will tell you that if we have reliable intelligence, and that is hard the and the serious poised to launch a nuclear missile and we will not wait back and see if any of our antimissile defense systems will work. with the consultation of the we would attempt to wipe out that adversary before anything got off the launch pad. host: chris is and alabama. -- in alabama. i have one simple

question. where are the parts being made? are they being made in alabama? guest: there are tens of thousands of parts that are used in the midcourse defense system. i don't have a scorecard here of where they come from. that there wasn't some foreign supply of some of those parts. go back to myo notes to get stronger on it. host: you can go to the los angeles times website to see the story by david wellman. for the yourocus money focus. caller: good morning. i have a question.

money has been spent on this unreliable this'll defense system. have foreignf we countries making different components for this complex missile system, why aren't these today beingally made in our own country? host: the uc and national -- do you see a national security issue? guest: there has been a lot of debate in congress about foreign sourced components for our computers use for national security purposes or everyday

pcs that contain viable information. that is an ongoing and valid discussion. host: edward is in connecticut. caller: hello and good morning. haveestion is what do we in place in case a missile does make it through our defense system? host: what is plan b? would be recovery and retaliation. there is nothing beyond that. act knowledge or stipulate that the threat is credible, it is so important that the system be made reliable. i know people are working on that now. up this program has been ably

troubled. the first line of defense? it is a defense system that is autonomous for deployed ships nearshore. the midcourse system is our only homeland system against inner continental ballistic -- intercontinental ballistic missiles. this would not protect against a superpower? guest: it has no chance. host: jared is in philadelphia. on the would you comment time it would take to respond in a case where an intercontinental nuclear missile would be fired? with the president have to give

the order to attack that missile? how much time with they actually have? would we have the time to respond? guest: time is of the greatest value in these contexts. i am brought back to a manic note from robert gates. a particular point in time when he was the secretary of defense and the north koreans had a test that was coming up of one of their missiles. we knew it was a test. we do the weekend it was going to be conducted. was returnings over a bridge from the chesapeake. he pulled over for a conversation in live time as to what was going on.

doubt amonger of people who are responsible for protecting the country as to whether it is really a test or might this thing be stupidly aimed at us. we need to make darn sure. the inclination was to approve a launch. the secretary of defense would be in touch with the president of the united states. those communication systems are in place and one would hope seamless. host: does the president have to give a call? give: i think he has to the immediate call or the authorization to the secretary of defense. i think the secretary of defense had the authority himself. host: marshall is in illinois. whatr: it was interesting you said about the command and control authority. i was wondering if our soviet have similar

capabilities. my thoughts were what you were alluding to when you talked about how senator shelby was giving zero options about the defense of the country. you were talking about quality control. this goes back to the first gulf war. i remember george bush senior with that doctored up for. it turned out that half of those due to the destroyed patriots and not the scuds from iraq. host: you are right. guest: that was president eisenhower's concluding speech about warning about the defense industrial complex. it is also a reality that in

these states, these are good paying jobs and thousands of them. anyone representing those constituencies cannot be insensitive to those jobs. country to bee paying attention to these factors. they are very real. by people whod are in the missile defense agency were trying to slow things down. i mentioned the previous fromtor who got agreement all parties involved including secretary gates to postpone the construction of a new missile field in a fort greeley. there was a lot of expense that goes into holding a new defense field. silos, youve new

have to fill them with more missiles. general riley wanted to shift that money. in a short. period of time, that unraveled. wanted thedirector secretary of defense on that trip. he explained his position on postponing. the secretary of defense prevented him from accompanied him on the trip. was elected by an alaskan senator who is very pro-missile defense spending. secretary gates reversed his earlier agreement and said let's complete this missile field. those pressures from the contractors and members of congress representing those constituencies are indeed very

powerful. that the caller mentioned other countries like russia might have similar defense systems? guest: they do not. host: why not? guest: we would have to to ask them. it would probably have to do with prioritizing the expenses. it is an enormous expenditure for a system that is not reliable. the nextare going to caller in missouri. caller: good morning. i worked in the aerospace industry in southern california. i am retired now. there was a question about this from a previous caller. in my experience we used to print -- retest the microchips and circuits before we would put them into the circuit boards.

these came from many different countries. them wasre rate of almost identical except for the chips that came from japan. they were noticeably more reliable. about half the time when circuits fail, it is the assembly of things and not the components themselves. i wanted to add that to your talk this morning. guest: i appreciate that. 1980's, i did work with the san jose mercury news. testingto the extent of and how we can trust the testing of the integrated circuits. that broughtought guilty pleas from a chipmaker in silicon valley.

systematic falsifying of test records for these integrated circuits which were being placed in sophisticated weapons systems. that is of critical importance. host: what is next? is -- the very next up step is to improve the reliable of the -- reliability of the system. they want some redesign of the kill vehicle. a the next step will be to watch what is done and to what extent the redesign has been deployed. out about 14 new interceptors. host: if you missed part of our

conversation, you can find the piece at the los angeles times. thank you for your time. i appreciate the conversation. that does it for today's "washington journal." enjoy your monday in the rest of the week. >> here in washington both chambers of congress are in session today. members are in the last week of work. we will have more the schedule in just a moment. coming