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. we will take you live

to the state department for a report on religious freedom. we will have that live for you on c-span. president obama is in town today. he is taking part in a town hall meeting at the washed fellowship for young african leaders. you will be able to watch that live on c-span two. the house and senate are in session. the house starts at noon. they will start to work on 16 suspension bills. another will be strengthening sanctions against north korea. the senate against at 2:00 eastern. for more on their agenda we spoke with a congressional reporter this morning. the house has its own bill

and the senate has a version as well. when might the house take up their legislation? >> you can see it happening this week. there is lot of contention in the caucus about this bill. are they giving too much money? is there enough for border security? you are going to see john boehner and kevin mccarthy really working their conference this week before they schedule a vote to ensure that they have the ability to pass it. democrats will not be joining her efforts. >> they will not be able to depend on democratic votes. leader nancy pelosi is really opposed to changing that 2008 anti-trafficking law

in conjunction with this supplemental. she is fine doing it as a process of legislation and doing hearings and having that change go through more order. she doesn't want tied. that is immigration policy. there is also the amount being spent. it is much less than the amount the president had asked for. democrats are not going to come in and do what they have done when speaker boehner has not been able to pull off republican -- revise enough votes to pass something. the gop faces a test of this porterville. where are the defections coming from? >> that is coming from various parts of the gop.

the conservative members of the opposed to most spending. they think it should be offset. some of the border state numbers want to see more border security measures put in there. you have people who disagree with how the government is handing -- handling the emigration crisis of the unaccompanied minors and want to see more there. the interesting group who is opposing this may cause trouble for the gop. -- to have come together. in politico, there is a quote from corn and. there?

>> there is very especially for republicans. it is less of a fear for democrats. they are the leading voice and immigration reform. when they go home for the recess, they will not be punished by voters. they want to see it done. who have got people called it shameful and advocating their duties if democrats don't vote on it. party, youblican have people who go home without addressing it they're going to increasinglyby growing parts of the population in latinos.

some people don't see that as a threat. you're going to see that play out entirely here in >> the senate has her own version of the slimmest -- legislation. they want to spend more money. is this a slamdunk for senate immigrants? >> a slamdunk is hard in the senate. it is more likely that the senate does pass something. the question is if something will pass the house. the two bodies have to go into conference committee. how long can that take? this is a five week rate coming up. some say we should keep working it is against the

law to state passed the august recess. there is some procedural archaic rules in the house bylaws and say they have to recess by august. it would be archaic and nobody would be going to jail. there are people who really stick to the letter of the bylaws. >> that is the question for our viewers. another issue that you have written about in politico is this deal that was reached on the v.a.tiators health-care bill. how is it looking? d?n this get passe >> this is much more likely. many thought was

falling apart. wereenate democrats criticizing the house republicans and the house republicans were returning in-kind. they walked away from the negotiations and both sides accuse the other of giving up. and jeff miller have reached a deal. they have a compromise. theirre going to unveil proposal for how to fix it. passeduld actually get if they were quickly. >> we will have that news coverage at 1:30 p.m. eastern. billion price tag for this deal. what a summary highlights? see that areing to

and who have been waiting to leave the v.a. system and seek out care privately at the v.a.'s expense. for veterans who live far from v.a. hospitals. 40 miles is the agreed-upon distance. you're also going to see the ability to give the v.a. the ability to fire senior managers accused of mismanagement. the problem with the v.a. is they cannot be firing those who because5 -- performing there are rules about letting employees go and the process to appeal. this would give him authority to fire people. that is one of the reasons why this controversy started. to come on this v.a.

deal. much.you very >> both the house and senate are in session today. c-spanate will be on caller:. there appears to be an agreement on legislation for delays at veterans health care facilities. there will be a news conference today. that will be live on c-span caller:. kerry. from john he is at the center for american progress. c-span3. be at 1:00 on unanimously agreed on a statement for humanitarian cease-fire. the secretary-general had a

brief effort. >> good morning. i'm about to brief the security council on the role of the peacekeeping operations. before i do, i want to update the current situation in the middle east. reinforcing last night's call of the security council. we called for an dish -- unconditional cease-fire. as you know, i issued a statement yesterday calling for a 24-hour extension of the cease-fire. i did the same this morning.

it is time for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian cease-fire. in the name of humanity the violence must stop. i have just returned from the region. heldsix days i consultations with the leaders in the region. john kerry has been working tirelessly and valiantly to end the fighting. i have continued with a number of calls. withe a long talk netanyahu, urging him to agree an honor the international

communities, and effort and call for a humanitarian cease-fire. have struck israel and gaza. except that.should all occupying powers have an international duty to the tech their citizens. that disappointed dangerous hostilities resumed on sunday. fragilenday evening, a calm has been established. there was a great respite.

we saw scenes of indiscriminate destruction. man-maderibed it as a hurricane. neighborhoods read boost to debris and rubble. buildings were buried under twisted wreckage. the death toll kept climbing. the fighting has claimed well over 1000 palestinian lives, most of them civilians. hundreds of them children. hamas rocket fire has claimed three civilians from israel. this came as a result from an

assault. we were sheltering families. we were sheltering women and children who have sought refuge from the fighting. it is imperative to do so. there should be accountability for this outrageous crime. there must be accountability and justice for crimes committed by all sides. on friday and spoke with our staff to thank them for the heroic work. one of our colleagues told me there is no safer place in gaza. they have nowhere to run. ony are trapped and besieged a speck of land.

every area is a civilian area. school is and target. the casualty and damage figures raise concerns about proportionality. 173,000 gazans are seeking protection. i repeat again my call on israel and all parties to do more to ensure the safety of these sites and the security of the people who have sought sanctuary there. palestinians have a responsibility to stop the fighting out. they need to address root causes

to break the cycles of endless suffering. , more suffering and siege will only hurt innocent civilians and further isolate israel and empower extremists on both sides and leave our world less safe. thell continue to work with palestinian president and global leaders to deliver peace that the people so desperately need and so fully deserve. thank you. it that with all of these efforts there have not been a longer-term cease-fire?

a matter of their political will. humanity as show leaders. both palestinians and israelis. fight, itcontinue to is only the helpless civilians who are being killed and suffering. to stopeen encouraging the fighting. then we will sit down together and address all of the root causes and put the root causes on the table. those of been my three continuing messages. it is very simple. i am repeating again. we cannot continue to see people

killed in this way. these leaders are making their people be killed by others. it is not responsible. to primeve reached out minister netanyahu several times. hamas is the other party to the conflict in was there an effort made to get you to meet with hamas? >> i have been talking mainly to prime minister and the palestinian president.

our communications with hamas has been in direct through the the turkish government. theve been speaking with foreign minister as well as the prime minister of turkey. whatever the means of communication may be, it is imperative that both sides must stop. listen to the appeals from all the people around the world. people are deeply concerned about what is going on. people are concerned about what they are seeing every day.

this is an issue of humanity. there should be a compassionate leadership. they should take care of the lives of their own people. >> some have expressed for the councils the security was fiddling while rome burns. why have youency, not called for a resolution? i should not have any comment on what the security council members have decided. everybody hoped and expected that the security council would take a resolution. that is legally and politically binding.

they have agreed to have a statement instead of resolution. believe if the parties have a political will, whether it is a residential statement or resolution, they can stop this violence. it is not the format of this resolution. before the security council has taken such action, many world leaders have been appealing and urging the parties to stop the violence. that should be a moral voice. john kerry and the foreign , made the joint

comment appear. this was on friday evening. i think this should have been immediately respected. it goes immediately. began andighting continued. i issued two statements yesterday and today. i hope together with the security council and the presidential statement, the parties will honor and respect the international community. thank you.

view, doesr point of that square the responsibility of escalations? why is it taking so long to have this investigation concluded? the palestinians say it is your responsibility as the united nations to provide palestinians international protection. >> i understand your concern. that is my deepest concern here in we have not had a conclusive investigation. , we were ableng

to see the situation. this investigation continues to have a conclusive result. i have been urging those who committed this attack should be brought to justice. 2009, the office was shelled by israeli tanks. i went there myself. the violence, i was only able to speak with our staff via video and express my solidarity. this investigation will continue. thank you very much.

thank you. >> we will be live the state apartment for john kerry. he will address the report on international religious freedom. that will start at 11:15 a.m. eastern. the president is in town. he is in a town hall meeting. for 11:10 a.m.ed eastern. you can watch for that on c-span2. the house is and at noon today. gets toive business work at 2:00. another strengthening sanctions against north korea. members will debate a resolution authorizing a lawsuit against

president obama for not ample money the health care law. the senate is in at 2:00. forll to extend funding highway and mass transit projects. nomination of robert mcdonald. house and of the senate veterans committee have reached a resolution. they are holding a news conference today. that will start at 130 a.m. eastern on c-span2. to members of congress talk about the technology legislation. >> the amendment said this. you can collect data. we know from the snowden disclosures that it is a lot of

data. a that may also include the information of americans. was ife amendment says you want to search that lawfully acquired database for americans, you should get a warned. not that you can't get the information. get a warned. act ispremise of the.com to make sure that when this last system,over domain name that we know what we are getting ourselves into. 8:00 eastern on c-span2. tv, ron paul.ook

it is written more than one dozen books. his latest is on the american education system. he will take your calls for three hours on august 3 at noon. be mary frances berry. in december, arthur brooks. in depth on book tv. otelevision for serious readers. >> we will be live at the state department. the kerry will release report on international religious freedom. we will have that for you on c-span. the conflict between israel and hamas and how arab countries few hamas. >> we are back.

we are here to talk about the began with the two central players. let's begin with hamas. what is the endgame? host guest: they want to ease the blockade to allow goods and services to come in. right now gaza is pretty much -- trapped. they need to go back to the constituency and say this was worth it, your lives will improve, and that is how they can claim some degree of victory. that is certainly one. i would say the most important component. they want to be able to build

popular support not just in gaza that the west bank. two key theaters. over the past two weeks we have seen growing sentiment. certainly on the west bank. >> what is the future of hamas? what are you hoping to do? what is the future? is certainly difficult in the sense that israel is not willing to reconcile itself to hamas being a dominant layer in the palestinian thing. when the faction of the president announced the government, israel was very concerned about that and opposed that. the question is, how do you normalize hamas or bring them to the critical process?

that has been the big elephant in the room for some time that even when you have un-sponsored east negotiations, they are done with the president. 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. hamas is deeply embedded in 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. normalizing hamas is also very 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. there is not one actor who can 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 one degree or another, more 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. host: how does qatar in turkey support hamas? and why? why have they chosen to be on the side of hamas in these negotiations? guest: qatar 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. turkey and 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. turkey and qatar have been more 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 are now back in the drivers seat

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? even 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 middle east, 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 large numbers in gaza, they are 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 understand that palestine has a kind of emotional connection, just because of the history. it is also kind of metaphor for 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. host: the un security council demands a humanitarian cease-fire in gaza. it had a midnight meeting to approve this resolution. it would allow for the delivery of urgently needed assistance. do they wield much influence? guest: the 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? guest: 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. since hamas was elected in the 2006 elections and when they were able to control gaza and push five to -- fata out, gaza 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. that is also has hamas was 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 week situation, that situation of desperation, you are more likely to move aggressively and do things you otherwise might not do. host: 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? guest: this is one of the big concerns. that hamas was diverting resources that could be used to improve the lives of people to build gaza and invest in the things that can actually make a difference on the ground level. much of that funding, it is hard to say how much 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. you have hamas leaders in exile 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. it is fair to say that hamas, it 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. that is why we cannot see hamas 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. host: shadi hamid is a policy 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. people are bringing up, for the people bringing up the fact that israel is using disproportionate force, 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. you can target hamas fighters 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 these kinds of attacks on apartment blocks or buildings go ahead. is it 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 gazans and hamas that it is not 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

-- demilitarization with 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 demilitarization of gaza, that is not particularly realistic. even if we think it is preferable, how do you yet hamas to agree to demilitarization? militarization is the essence of who and what they are is a partly militant actor. this 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. host: let's listen to what a 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. women, children, old men, 1080 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? what is 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 amodei boss -- mahmoud abbas, he 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 seen as a positive step, as long 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. the speaker is pointing out some very important points, which took him a very long time to get to. some of my questions are, was 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 tunnels, and 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. host: mr. hamid? 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." we don't have 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 operating in its own universe. 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. hamas does not have strong 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.

they also believed in israel's 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. hamas has 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. they have not been as clear on 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.

i have twp, -- two comments. he said hamas is a rational actor. i suppose he means in this context that they sacrifice 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. the west, including think tanks in the united states, cannot give up the standard western thinking of 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. that is 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. as for this somewhat tangential point about the military coup in egypt, the promilitary people in egypt have made these quite frankly absurd claims and i'm surprised to hear the caller bring it up, 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. the person in -- who is president is called former general assisi for a reason. the military did intervene to depose morsi. and some -- in some aspects, this is a classic military coup. host: we are talking with shadi hamid, a policy fellow for the 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, there was popular -- caller rightfully noted, there was popular support against mohamed morsi of the muslim brotherhood. i think it is very important for us as americans, as outside observers, to understand who are 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. talk a lot about isis in iraq and syria and these extremist groups that are vicious and violent. there is the other side of that, these mainstream and relatively mild islamist actors that may be quite socially conservative, they maybe liberal, they believe that many things that we are not 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. caller: in 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.

certainly, to really understand 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. how do you move beyond these 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. you kind of give 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 back from 1948 to 1967, there 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. that is why there was a war in 1948, there was a war in 1956, and in 1967 and in 1973. which east -- with each of the are 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 he 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. so far, 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. hamas is the 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. -- judea and samaria as being 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. they have come close two resolutions at various points, certainly in 2000. there is a big debate about how close they were. we do know what a solution looks 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.

and 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 borders on exact right of return, 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 make a deal that 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 hear from mr. hamid is really 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 take care of their own people. he himself said that they use civilians as him.

click the other option is to eradicate hamas from the face of the earth and just to literally erase them but you cannot do that. it is a fool's errand and impossible. the israelis are not even trying to do that. know it is a fools errand. hamas is deeply embedded in their society. problem with the mass movements across the region, whether in palestine, egypt, tunisia, that they reflect a social and religious conservatism in their societies. and that is a source of their popularity's. i am just being very practical here. we can think of hamas as the most evil organization on earth that if you cannot eradicate them, you have to find a way to live. they are there.

what is the living arrangement that is the question we have to ask ourselves. radical actors and are responsible -- responsible to international pressures. that is where turkey and qatar become in the picture. i just think we cannot be thinking about a solution that are not going to happen. ultimately with your enemies. yes, hamas is an enemy of israel in depending on your perspective can be seen as an enemy of the u.s. but you negotiate with your enemies, because you do not want them to do the things they have been doing for the past few decades. the same thing was said about but 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 try to pick the one that is least bad. you can go on this, to brookings.edu, the policy fellow at the bookings institution for the middle east. >> my pleasure. rex live picture of the state department for john kerry. this morning expected to introduce the report on international religious freedom. expected to make prefer for marks and assistant secretary of department of religious democracy. should begin shortly and will have a live when it starts here on c-span.

president obama taking part in a town meeting at the summit of the washington fellowship for young african leaders. that event underway right now. you can see it's on our companion networks. ingres's in session today. at noone it's underway eastern. 16 suspension bills on the agenda. live coverage on c-span. later this week i'm of the house legislationpick up authorizing a lawsuit for president obama for failing to implement the 20 ton -- 20 health care law. boehner introduced a statement on that, saying in part he overstepped his constitutional authority and is the job of the house of representatives to defend the american constitution and remain focused on the top priority. i believe the president actions will waive of areas the work requirements and welfare exceed his constitutional authority area so

on the advice of legal experts, the house action will focus on his decision to extend twice the deadline to institute the employer mandates with the health care law. he believe this offers the best chance of success. as itl watch this effort unfolds here on c-span. 2:00enate will be in that eastern for confirmation votes on several of the president's nominees. votes at 5:30. extend funding for highway and mass transit projects and to vote on the nomination of from it -- robert mcdonald to be the next veteran affairs secretary. watch live coverage here on c-span two. again, waiting for john kerry to ask us international religious freedom and the report on international religious freedom being released this morning.

>> once again, we are waiting for secretary of state john kerry as he will release the report on international religious freedom. while we wait, a segment from this morning's washington journal with a guest discussed a published report by the new england journal of medicine that finds 10 million people have gained coverage under the affordable care act from this morning's " washington journal."

reporter hereare to talk about the 10 million who have gained insurance under the affordable care act. when did the news come out and ? >> thishe 10 million was a chance for the administration to tout the number saying the affordable care act is working like it was intended? there have been a number of estimates that have come out but this was closest to what the administration originally said as far as the number of people who have gained coverage. that is people who got coverage through the exchanges, medicaid expansion. have specificst about how many of these folks were previously uninsured. we do have information about how many were younger americans, which has been a big question.

that is about a fourth of those who have enrolled between the ages of 18 and 42. 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. host: 10 million, what does that mean for projections as the exchanges open up again this fall and more people are going to be able to sign up? guest: just a few months away, enrollment starts again in november. there are still a lot of uninsured americans. this is 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 successful in so far as the 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 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 community about the ease of 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. host: these states where they are seeing low enrollment, or the republican states, democratic states? is there a pattern? guest: a lot of it has to do -- 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 run state exchange, and they had 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. independents and all others,

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? guest: that is the question 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 d.c. court 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. host: we will talk more about a 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 specifically exempted in the

affordable care act. that is plans like chministries.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. about three in 10 folks have coverage are still in plans that are not compliant with the affordable care act. that is because last fall, the administration gave more leniency to plans to roll over, to give them a little bit more time to comply. so you are right about that. your second question -- host: saying it passed too 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 was never what was intended. so, yeah, both sides would definitely agree with that. that is where another question 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 wife was rushed to the hospital with a bad knee. 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 it 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? caller: $73,000. host: how much did you have to pay? caller: $1200 to $1400. 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. we 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.

host: latoya, georgia, democratic caller. caller: i have two questions. the thing is, when you asked her, you know, [indiscernible] she said 40 million people are not covered. she went through each item. but what you left out, ma'am, was that in each red state, they 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. host: on her second point of, is 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 law was passed, he was supposed 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. it is designed to deal with 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 estimated that about six in 10 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. caller: yes, good morning. 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. guest: 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 caller 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 dropped 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. rose 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 insurance 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 -- does it include -- the states 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? guest: yeah, that is the hub of 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. the law does 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. the premiums have actually, they 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. it is a question 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. host: clarksburg, pennsylvania, joe, independent caller will stop --independent caller. caller: i would like to validate 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.

i paid for it my entire adult life. i work for myself. because of obama, my insurance went from a $1500 deductible, which was hard to manage as it was, and now i 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? guest: you are right, probably 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 plans. 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. caller: i live in indiana and i 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. host: all right, we will go on 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 care act, he brags about that he has done away with the doughnut holes, my medicines in july popped up to almost $300 a bottle for medicines for my heart. i bought one which is normally a $27 co-pay, and it is now $281. 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? host: 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 one-forth of seniors are now on it. it seems the intent was to make sure the federal government is paying the same amount for medicare advantage as they offer 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. if i would have showed up for my 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. guest: it is interesting you 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. one plan was for post last fall, and the republican study committee suggest that in a number of other republican plans. 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, you know, what the caller said about preventative care, advocates of 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. the deductibles, you know, it is kind of individual. obviously, you're not going to be happier if you are paying a higher deductible.

but that is a way that insurers, 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? guest: there are provisions that limit how much insurers can spend on overhead. it depends on the size of the insurer, but it is 70% or 75% at 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. >> good morning everybody, how are you? david, i went you out here with me. why don't you come out here on the other side? um -- i am going to make a statement. then i need to rush out of here. i have a phone call in 10 minutes. i will leave david here with you. david is a nominee and not going to say anything at this point in time. i wanted to have a chance to introduce him to all of you. as we release the international religious freedom report, which

we believe is a very important statement, that underscores a major challenge around the world -- it is also a pleasure for me to introduce president obama's nominee to serve as our ambassador at large for international religious freedom. confirmedrmed and if by the united states senate, he will lead efforts to make progress on these issues of religious freedom across the globe. that is rabbi david sapperstein. i would like to say a few words about the events in gaza and what we're trying to do. i just returned from the middle wereand paris, where there a series of discussions about

the escalating the conflict, tunnelthe rocket and attacks against israeli citizens and easing the suffering of innocent people everywhere. in gaza, and israel, in the west bank. we are continuing to work toward establishing an unconditional humanitarian cease-fire, one period thatonor the ends now and stop the fighting, allowing medicine and desperately needed supplies to gaza. and to address the threat that we fully understand, and which is real, the threat posed by tunnel attacks. and to be able to do so without having to resort to combat. that is what will come from a cease-fire. we believe the momentum

generated by a humanitarian cease-fire is the best way to be able to begin to negotiate and find out if you can put in place a sustainable cease-fire, one that addresses all the concerns. the long-term concerns as well. begin to talk about the underlying causes of conflict in gaza. they will not obviously be resolved in the context of a sustainable cease-fire discussion, but it is important to build and begin and to move in a process. that is what we are trying to achieve. that is the only way, ultimately, this conflict is going to be resolved. hopefully, if we can make some progress, the people in this region, who deserve peace, can take one step towards that elusive goal, by stopping the

violence which catches innocents on all sides in the crossfire. and begin to try to build a sustainable way forward. cesslso believe that any pro to resolve the crisis in gaza and a lasting and meaningful way must lead to the disarmament of hamas and all terrorist groups. we will work closely with israel and regional partners and the international community in support of this goal. we continue to have these discussions. there,cussions, over succeeded in putting a 24-hour humanitarian cease-fire in place. then, as the rollover time for that occurred, regrettably, there were misunderstandings about 12 hours versus 24, 4 hours versus 24.

we're trying to work hard to understand of these issues can be clarified in a way that allow the parties to allow israel, the palestinian authority, the other countries involved -- working through the egyptian initiative, to be able to find a way to silence the weapons long enough to be able to begin to negotiate. ow, the cause of peace and understanding is what brings us here today. 16 years ago, i was very proud of my colleagues in the united states congress for patenting the religious freedom act, the law that mandates this annual inte department report, order to shine the light on the obstacle that so many people face, as they seek nothing more than the ability to be able to worship as they wish.

release of this report today is a demonstration of the of the american people and the entire u.s. government to the advancement of religious freedom worldwide. freedom of religion is at the core of who we are as americans. it has been a center of our very identity. religiousd persecution and landed in my home state of massachusetts. city oftled in mthe salem, which comes from the word shalom, manning peace. newly long, even there, founded to get away from religious strife, unfortunately, religious persecution arrived on the scene. accused ofe

witchcraft and some more burned at the stake. led,ome congregations were as a result that, to break away and found new settlement. rhode island was founded by people who wandered through the woods, weeping massachusetts, and wandered for an entire winter, until they broke out on this expanse of water. they named it providence, for obvious reasons. 100 years after the pogroms set sail for religious freedom, a catholic woman was executed in the boston commons for the crime of praying her rosary. so, we approach this issue -- i certainly do -- . mindful of our past. and how come as americans, we push and work and struggle to live up fully to the promise of

our own founding. england,hrop, born in with his passionate faith and disagreements with the anglican church, was inspired to lead religious dissidents to come to america to seek freedom of worship. arabella, hef the famously said in a sermon he delivered before they landed, for we must consider that we shall be as a city upon the hill, the eyes of all people are upon us. and they have been, ever since then. and they are today. and though we are obviously not perfect, and we know that -- no place is ever welcomed so many different faiths to worship as freely as here in the united states of america. it is something that we are extraordinarily proud of. freedom of religion is not an american invention. it is a universal value. and it is enshrined in our

constitution as it is ingrained in every human heart. the freedom to profess and practice one's faith is a birthright of every human being. that is what we believe. hts are properly recognized under international law. internationalof religious freedom is a priority to president obama and it is a priority for me as secretary of state. i will make certain that i will continue to that religious freedom remains an integral part of our global diplomatic relations. the release of this report is an important part of this effort. it is a clear, objective look at the state of religious freedom around the world. when necessary, yes, it does directly shine a light in a way that makes some countries, even some of our friends, uncomfortable. but it does so in order to try

to make her aggressive. days, withll knowledge of basic truths. religious freedom is human freedom. that is why i am especially proud to be joined today by president obama's newly minted nominee as our next ambassador at large, for international religious freedom, rabbi david sapperstein. when it comes to the work of protecting religious freedom -- >> >> we will leave secretary of state john kerry here. you can to the rest of his results on c-span.org. there are 16 suspension built on the agenda and house today. speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 28, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable