host: we will be broadcasting the results tonight, beginning at 6:30 on c-span two. marcello, georgia, david, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i just want to comment on a caller from arkansas, and another one from maryland. it is refreshing to see that the caller from maryland in seeing a light. i hope that gets through to the rest of the state. the caller from arkansas who explained that he worked for 63 years and collected all of his benefits within six years. i'm also recipient, and i feel, as far as i can figure, i have been a recipient for 2.5 years, and in another 2.5 years,

i will have received everything i paid in. my woes come from me not planning. that is clearly my fault. than $1100 per month. i have to say, i'm elected official in my local community, but only gives me about $300 per month. you can do it, you just have to live within your means. we live in a society that something does not know how to live within its means. host: you said you blame yourself for not planning. if you had, when would you have started, and what would you have done differently? caller: i had a wonderful start , and i completely fumbled it. i had stock, there was a program, they would come out every two years, and you could buy stock in the company.

it would have really flourished had i stayed. just that one thing would have sent me out pretty well for retirement, plus muscles of plus my social security. you have to live within your means. that's all it is. we live in a nation of entitlement. anon't consider my entitlement, something i paid into, but once i get past the five years, it is an entitlement . i will be paying more than i paid in. you have to live within your means. we just don't do that anymore. when you have a government that does not live within its means, the federal government, and it is not required by law, like we , as legislators in my community. we are required by law to balance our budget. lead by they do not example. we appreciate your

comments and all of your calls. we will get back to this issue a little later on. up next, i want to tell you what is ahead on the program. being adoption day for the iran nuclear deal, we will be joined by michael singh of the institute for near east policy. dan glickman after that, former secretary of agriculture. he will talk about the transpacific partnership deal and how the tpp will affect the u.s. agricultural industry. the16th anniversary of capital newspaper, "roll call," c-span has been sitting down with the reporters and editors of the newspaper on the stories they have covered. esse set down with us

to discuss a shooting that took place, the year before "roll call" first began publishing. [video clip] call" year before "roll began publishing, for puerto arrived onnalists capitol hill with intent to commit harm. on the way into the house gallery, the capitol police officer stopped him and asked if they had a camera. a set know, but they had a pistol. on house was in debate immigration. one person stood up, unfurled the puerto rican fight, and shots were fired. bullets. hit by the the most severely injured was alvin bentley of michigan, hit in the chest. another member of congress, pencil.

wrestle three to the ground in the gallery. capital please had to close down the grounds. one reporter was almost shot, not realizing the puerto rican terror attack had taken place. all four were eventually apprehended and handcuffed in front of the capital that day. it was a pho that made waves around the nation. 1, 1971, there was another terror attack in the capital. a bomb exploded in the senate. there was no one injured during the attack, fortunately. someone called about 30 minutes before the bomb went off, and alerted the capital dispatcher that there had been a bomb planted in the senate. the weather underground claimed responsibility for the attack. again, capitol police stepped up

security measures. installed metal detectors at the entrances. a lot of members were alarmed, even though there were no injuries, fortunately, during the attack your the next terror attack on the capital was in 1983, also in the senate. the bomb exploded in the alcove. again, no one was injured. a late-night session that was scheduled had been canceled. on that same day, members have been discussing security measures in the capital after an israeli terror threat. they installed bulletproof glass around the capital, and stepped andecurity for the visitors professionalizing the capitol police force. managingsingh's director for the washington institute for near east policy, and joining us on "washington journal" this morning to talk about the next steps in the iran nuclear deal.

yesterday, sunday, being called the adoption day. what does that signify? guest: the adoption day for this deal basically signifies the start of a clock. the deal was obviously adopted back -- negotiated, we should say, back in july. it was endorsed by the un security council. for review.period there was review here in washington, it was a contentious review by congress. the deal made it through the review. the deal also made it through a review in tehran. now, essentially, october 18, the states ands the deal have to start implementing their commitments to the deal. now, you saw president obama and his counterparts in the european union signed some quarters that would put sanctions relief into place, not right now, but when iran finished doing the things it needs to initially due under the deal.

centrifuges,ball start to send out or dilute its enriched uranium, so forth. once that is done, the deal comes into effect, the sections release comes into effect. host: back to the process of review -- you use that term review. it was noted that it was not treated in the united states as a treaty. congress weight in, but they did not get an up and down vote. how about the iranian parliament ? did they have to approve it before move forward? guest: the iranian process is a lot more ok than the american process. it was not clear that the iranian parliament would review the deal until the iranian supreme leader said that they should review the deal. it underwent some debate in the parliament. ultimately, they approved it. even after they approved it, it

subsequently got approved by a council. the process in iran does not process.hing like our it is bit of a more ad hoc process. host: the steps now that adoption day has come, the steps that we, the united states and the p5 plus one will be able to to make sureve iranians are living up to their part of the bargain, what to include? guest: the steps they have to take is to get there program to a studies state -- steady-state over the next 5-10 years. what they must do is go from where they are now, a pretty robust program, to the lesser program. that involves taking of the core of their plutonium producing reactor so it cannot produce plutonium. it makes taking thousands of

centrifuges and mothballing them so they basically have 6000 left in place, as opposed to 19,000 or so that they have now. it also means taking their stockpile of uranium, and reducing it significantly. they will do it either by sending the uranian out of -- uranium out of the country or diluting it. one question that the iranians will face is can they do all the steps? these are steps they have probably not taken in a significant way before, and how long will it take? is the organization responsible for observing that the steps are taken? guest: this will be the international atomic energy aea.cy, the i they will certify that iran has taken these initial steps. by iaea also has to certify,

the simmer 15, that iran has past nuclear research. this is a controversial part of the deal because that investigation, that report happens according to a timeline. a lot of people have said, this is just a way to put this issue aside. host: michael singh is our guest, a middle east expert for forwashington institute near east policy. we're talking about iran nuclear agreement, adoption day, yesterday. we welcome your calls. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 745-8002. if you want to treat us, we are at @cspanwj. a headline from "usa today" this morning, "obama orders waivers to iran sanctions."

the waivers will go into effect only once iran meets its agreement under the limiting its nuclear program. is there an idea for a timeline for how long those sanctions will be listed? what is the monetary value of those sanctions? guest: as far as the time i, the iranians would like it to be as short as possible, whereas, the united states and its partners in the p5 plus one are interested in iran complying fully with these commitments. iranians have said they can get months.e in two a lot of experts, including myself, are skeptical that that is long enough for iran to take those initial steps. i anticipate it will be something more like next spring or summer before we see implementation day, which is the day on which the sanctions will be listed. in terms of the value of the sanctions relief, there are couple of different parts.

iran will have some assets unfrozen, being held in foreign banks. that probably amounts to $50 million of usable cash, in addition to $100 million that is tied up for various reasons. the lifting ofan sanctions on the oil sector, various different sectors of iran's economy. bere, the value will tremendous for iran. it is a removal of isolation that iran has been under for decades now. host: is there a piece of the sanction -- you mention oil, will the united states be able to import oil or other goods? not see anyill economic activity between iran and the united states. the sanctions would prevent a ,.s. oil firm going into iran that would stay in place. host: mandated by congress?

guest: mandated by congress. the sanctions being listed are the secondary sanctions or extraterritorial sanctions. these are the penalties that the united states put on foreign firms doing business in iran. the other sanctions that get lifted, as of implementation day, are the united nations sanctions. the u.s. asians are the ones that will remain in place to stop u.s. companies from doing business in iran? the date ofctates the implementation? guest: it is dictated by the agreement itself. but the agreement says is iran has to basically complete its gover commitment before implementation day can happen. those will be certified by the iaea. basically, there also has to be consensus or agreement amongst the other parties of the deal, the p5 plus one, the iran has done these things. host: we will go first to larry

here in washington on the republican line. caller: good morning. the first thing that iran did, the second supreme leader gave the permission of foreign associated press, whoever, 500-1000 feet. iran has missiles underground, not for peaceful purposes, why would it be underground 500 feet? they are showing you what they will do. they made a replica of the u.s. nimitz and fired upon it. towards -- what is this new movie, "bridge of spies"? that is where we are heading. .his is a dumb foreign policy

we will pay the price for, the whole world. in addition and the firing of the iranian tests missile. what is the general thought about why the took place? the caller is getting at is this is a narrow deal when it comes to the iranians. it really only requires iran to take limited steps with regards to his nuclear program and in exchange, iran gets brought sanctions. that has been controversial what we see is really more of the same from iran. made no commitment to change its regional strategy. the united states did not require it to.

we see iran sending more troops to syria, holding not just a washington post reporter, but two or perhaps three other american citizens. another criticism of the nuclear deal is not only did it not require iran to change in strategy more broadly and not only did it not really bring about more broadly u.s. and iran missiles, but it left out of the deal as well. a lot of people including myself with say iran passes in the part of itsn fact nuclear program in a sense because you cannot have a nuclear weapon without a delivery vehicle. the fact that the deal does not only restrict those activities but it lists restrictions on his activities right up front. what iran did test in that missile under the deal was a violation of sanctions because

the timing because the deal had not been implement yet. it is something the president has agreed to allow under the deal. about there talking deal with michael singh. we welcome your comments. -- kelly is in rome, georgia, republican line. thank you for taking my call. i noticed a few things ever since the iran deal has gone into agreement. they already violated two things. he was told he could not leave the country. the missiles can already reach israel or anything like that.

those missiles are meant to reach places like the united states. they have not changed their rhetoric at all. about wiping israel off the face of the earth. it seems our president wants to sing cum by with the iranians as the iranians put thousands of back -- in syria .ncluded russia it is a disgrace of what is going on and everyone, and not before everhostages

allow on the iranians into that room, those hostages would have -- before ever allowed them in the room. host: a tweet -- guest: kelly raises some of the same issues the previous caller raised. it is a limited deal that left a lot out. we are not getting as a result of the deal a broadly changed policy from the iranians. i think the administration defended that in two ways. number one, nuclear weapons are the biggest threat we face. at least the deal gets those off the table. one could argue with that to the extent the deal affects iran, a limited amount of time and it only affects one

out of three elements of the nuclear program. he gets to the question of fuel. we do not see a broader change in policy. stepmay be the first getting this big source of tension out of the relationship. now maybe we see a broader reconciliation. if anything, iran passes actions since the sign of the deal have suggested the opposite, that we of iranntinuation passes hostile policy toward the to moscow and beijing and other national partners for friendship. steps taken essentially is evidence of that. frankly, i think it is hard to

know with him now because it is hard to know whether he being leverage, or with another fashion in iran, but i think officials for every channel they can for his release. host: the subtitle in the wall street journal last week, he was convicted in that journal and the right in the piece the obama administration failure to compromise --be a you were involved in the national security in the bush administration. was iran a concern in your tenure? a tremendousas concern. progress toward a nuclear weapons capability, in 2002, the secret nuclear

discovered in iran here there was a decision to pursue the basic policy of imposing pressure through sanctions through credible military threats, pursuing a diplomatic negotiated agreement. model did not really change over the pursuing tenures. what a lot of critics are unhappy about his they think the objectives of american diplomacy to rid iran of its capability changed along the way under the obama administration. host: let's hear from mary in michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to say i agree with everything the young man has said as well as most of the and kelly especially hit a nerve. he does others i would like to bring up. one is, i believe from watching the senate hearing, we are now

if they to help iran are -- remember what we were , where we were slowing cyberhere centrifuges week. if anybody else to turn iran, we are now required by the israelnt to help them if tries to attack them in that way. the second thing is i believe we arealso required, if they saying this is iran passes my we're getting back with sanctions, fine, but america believel be paying i about $10 million per year for iran to inspect its own nuclear military sites. is that our is that not correct?

so these two issues are issues that came up in the congressional hearings. of, will we be required to help iran guard against nuclear sabotage, and what would be the inspections of military in the iran, where the iranian said, they were offsites. consider, they would declared civilian nuclear sites, president obama said that is not the case and there is no blanket exemption for any sites. on the first issue, i think there is a lot of nuclear cooperation offered as part of the deal. is under various subheadings, nuclear safety, scientific research, and so forth. to bethings are not meant stopgaps against the united states or any other country responding to a iranians cheating under the deal. they are not meant to help iran guarding it. they are extended as a form of

nuclear safety. i think what we will need to keep be very close i on, the united states and others, is that these activities do not for otherover countries helping iran with aspects of iran, which are not allowed under the deal. that would require a careful monitoring and inspection. the second part, that one of the key controversial weaknesses in the deal is that iran does not give inspectors a right anytime or anywhere. if inspectors feel there might be a military site were frankly any other site which is not a declared nuclear site but they worried perhaps covert nuclear is going on there, then there is a back-and-forth between the inspectors in iran. it is a 24 day time before the issue comes to a head.

the way the issue is resolved at the military site were perhaps iran is doing sampling of its own with some level of supervision, it has not let some folks in washington or elsewhere to deal as though this will be an airtight process. now it really falls upon the obama administration to that this inspection and monitoring process could happen in a way which satisfies the critics and the international community. there is dan in alabama, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. in the first place, this was an international agreement between six different countries. the way it was set up, all had to agree to the whole package.

am i right? so you keep saying obama allowed it here at what about the other five countries? it is an agreement and russia, china, the u.k., france, and the united dates, endorsed by the entire un security council. it is absolutely right that this is now an international agreement. i think from the perspective of the united dates, the deal could without gone forward united states agreeing to it. the provision in the deal could not have gone forward without u.s. acquiescence or the u.s. was not the hardest line. people would recall episodes where the foreign minister was tougher on some of these provisions than our own provisions were. fair to says whatever is in the deal, it is not solely the responsibility of

united states. you cannot simply dictate the terms. but i think it is fair to say the united states is at some level comfortable with these provisions. they have been defending them. i think it is not in this case unfair to associate these provisions with these provisions. host: with iran passes new money, they could lie bonds. , when iraneet violates the treaty deal agreement, what will be the options for the u.s.? please adjust the u.s. sanctions not affected by the plus one deal. we talked a little bit about that era go ahead. obviously h amend is concerned i would say that nothing in the deal allows that and hopefully nothing in the deal makes that easier. the bigger concern, i would say,

would be dual use items that could have an extensible purpose but also could have a covert nuclear purpose coming into iran. this attempts to police those purchases but i believe that procurement channel is something that needs to be improved upon. you look at it and the deal and it is not efficient. we have to be careful not so much about the purpose of a full-fledged nuclear weapon, but a concern that is not effective one where the other by the deal, but by the civilian cover purchases of related items. when it comes to violations, one criticism of the deal is that the only penalty for violation prescribed in the deal is previously prevailing un security council sanctions, which means the entire deal is essentially canceled. it is a very significant penalty, which makes you think

it will probably only be applied in significant when there are major violations. the question is what about incremental violations and small violations of the deal? there is nothing in the deal about that and neither the united states nor our european partners have spelled out in much detail how he would respond to those violations. the concern is there will not be responses to small violations theyhen inspectors feel need access to a site, if they do not feel 100% sure, maybe they will not press the case for access knowing the result could be the unraveling of the deal itself. we will need that to address. we need to come up with a many in -- a menu of items. host: a very well-publicized wants -- watch. did nots the missile violate the nuclear deal.

president obama was asked about whether it did and he spoke at a joint news conference last week with the south korean president and here's what he had to say. obama: iran has often violated some of the missileions surrounding testing. to youition with respect and resolutions and prohibitions are unchanged with that too missile programs. staying -- this i made very arounduring the debate the iran nuclear deal. the iran nuclear deal solves a surefic problem, making they do not possess a nuclear weapon and this is our best way to do that. does not fully resolve the wide range of issues where we have got a big difference.

are going to have to continue to put pressure on them through the international community where we have bilateral channels, to indicate tothem that there are costs bad behavior in the region and around the world. why wasn't missile testing part of the iran nuclear deal? guest: this is a bit technical. the nuclear deal does not stop iran from conducting the nuclear test. it is nothing in a deal that says iran cannot do this. what the nuclear deal does is previous prohibition on such missile tests found in u.n. council resolution in 1929. that resolution is still in effect, but it will not become implementation day. in a middle time where those resolutions are still in

effect but we contemplate lifting them as soon as it happens. what the president is saying is, this does not violate the nuclear deal because it does not prevent iran from conducting tests but it does violate security council resolutions that come implementation day, next spring, it will not violate resolutions which is problematic because the president says the deal is meant to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. iran would need a missile to watch a nuclear weapon at another country. iran would need an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the united states and one big concern is if the deal allows iran to continue to perfect the missile capabilities, if they choose to violate the deal in a future, they may be well-positioned to have just that capability. host: 15 or 10 minutes or so with michael singh heard republican line, kentucky, go ahead. republicanifelong

and i always vote -- voted accordingly, but i have done a little research into how accurate ron paul was whenever -- was inoffice office. he must be psychic because everything he said has come true and nobody listens to him. i am just curious where we would be today if ron paul was elected marginalized not by the establishment media. there are now doing the same thing to rand paul. rand paul leads in all the polls and gets more money from individuals, he gets more money from the military, and now the media does not say nothing about him because they know he is such

a threat. but we little off topic welcome your comments are were talking about the iran nuclear deal. i had a friend in iran, it's the wondering if sun is still alive, are there still parties like that available that would block people from doing this? on top of that, whatever happened to the green revolution in iran? guest: the green revolution was tremendously significant, in many ways a precursor in 2011 or you had millions of people out in the streets of iran, crush in a quite repressive and brutal manner by the iranian regime.

it set off an acrimonious political contest in iran where you had mounting political opposition even within the regime factions, the hardliners against the supreme leader. ,n many ways, the election regarded as a pragmatist in 2013, perhaps a way for the regime to release some of the steam and some of the pressure. is,ink the question now will the expectations iranians have invested, that he will be able to deliver a better economy and a better life, maybe a loosening of some of the social and political positions, can he deliver on those things? iran has a parliamentary election in march of next year how theill in fact see deal and the diplomacy of the united states has affected iran's internal politics when we watch those parliamentary

elections. one thing that is clear, the supreme leader said no more dealings with the united states. the iranian courts have said the handshake that the foreign minister had with president obama at the u.n. general assembly was asked --. so it is a very controversial issue with iran, the idea of a further warning with the united states and there is plenty against it. a map of iran's key nuclear sites looking at iraq. here, four sites listed which one concerns you the most? what concerns me the most about the facilities is none of them will be closed in this deal. the ones that were revealed in 2002, they were kept secret by the iranians in a nuclear weapons related work. they are aboveground facilities.

the underground facilities revealed to the public by president obama with his french and british counterparts in 2010, that one very deep underground and really has no clear purpose other than a nuclear weapons purpose. the iranians have built all of these facilities in violation of international obligations and the net effect and the end years after the 10 or 12 of diplomacy is that all of the facilities to some extent will remain operational. the one that is most concerning is the facilities very deep underground because if iran were to choose to eventually convert that to the weapons is, it is probably the most difficult for perhapsntend with and they need a deeper or more well guarded facility. democrats line, virginia, welcome. caller: good morning.

welcome for your presentation. has had a nuclear program for a long time, and at times, the united states has supported and encouraged that program for a lot of people who worked in the program were trained in the u.s. and no one. that since no new country aside from israel, which does have a nuclear weapons program, when the nuclear without all these years -- nuclear route all these years, it would reduce the likelihood of further proliferation in the region, and internationally. it was strengthen the nonproliferation regime. as an indication, when the iranian parliament approved the

deal, one of the conditions were one of the things the bill that they passed, one of the stipulations was that the government worked toward the nuclear disarmament of israel, which has the region's is only nuclear undeclared arsenal. do you think the deal will actually encourage israel to be more open about its nuclear weapon program and perhaps ultimately lead to a middle east nuclear weapons free zone, which countries in the region have u.s.raged that which the with israel's agreement has generally tried to stymie? at the wayou look nuclear weapons have spread in the past decades, it is not

right to say there have not been we have seen pakistan develop nuclear weapons and we have seen north korea develop nuclear weapons. speaking, nuclear weapons because of the capability upset the balance of power in the region in states which consider a nuclear weapons state to be arrival, will want to develop weapons of their own to balance that capability out. i think the concern about the iran nuclear weapons deal is not that it somehow sets a gold standard in nonproliferation. it doesn't. because it does allow iran to pursue iranian -- uranium enrichment, it allows them to pursue heavywater reactors with plutonium. it does not require them to account for the past nuclear weapons research. in the regionals like saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, now suddenly have a stronger and ended to pursue

incentives of their own, maybe not to pursue an action alert -- actual nuclear weapon, if iran she's on the deal. a lot of that decision-making comes down to the question of the united states role in the region. a lot of the countries feel as though the united states is see the deal as evidence the united states wants to extricate itself from the region's's problems. the sense that we now have to fend for ourselves may further reinforce the desire to get nuclear weapons. i were the effect will be the opposite, rather than reinforcing globally, it will undermine them. host: we are reading a lot of reports on the deal. what are some of your primary sources in terms of educating yourself on the deal above and beyond what is reported in the media? of primaryerms information, one of the best places to go is the energy agency which puts out reports on how iran is or is not complying

with a deal. i also look around the community here in washington and elsewhere, there are a lot of experts on both sides of the deal, those supporting it in those criticizing it. like -- who is at harvard university now. people like robert i'm point, -- back in thern, now think tank community here. one thing i think is quite important is that we not reduce this to a partisan question. the question, given iran's's record of supporting terrorism, is probably the most serious national security issue we face. we can have a debate as to whether this is a good or bad deal, but it is important to approach this in a bipartisan way, the question of how we address flaws in the deal, and how do we reinforce

nonproliferation force globally so we do not face this again in the future. quick comments on twitter. the white house tweeted today marks an important milestone for preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. another view from salt river, the spat act, the right has been dismissed as not a real option. from john, connecticut, democrats line. myler: i am still scratching head why, given the bush doctrine which drove our foreign policy when the paper was 1997, given libya, syria, iraq, and now

afghanistan, our biggest ally, egypt, now ruled by an iron hand. why did every single republican in the house and senate vote against the diplomatic to iran's's nuclear deal? it seems to me they are all still clinging to this neocon strategy which was a total disaster for our country. .oney spent are you for this negotiated treaty or not? the interesting thing about a congressional debate is prior to the deal being signed, there was a strong bipartisan consensus about how to approach the issue. iran sanction bills passing 99-0 in many cases, obviously unusual in a very polarized washington for anything to enjoy that kind of support here at what you saw

in the congressional debate was it was not just republicans voting against the deal. you had quite a few democrats in the sense that the folks on the fence were not republicans but many democrats who were conflicted about which way to vote. even those who were supportive of the deal did so with great becauseions, basically they felt our other options had been foreclosed by that point. concerns over the deal are bipartisan and widely shared. it would be a big mistake to try to cast this in terms of the iraq war, libya, bipartisan neocons and so forth. i do not think that is helpful for resolving a serious national security issue. whoever is the next president, they will not have been responsible for negotiating a deal and will not have had a personal investment in it. they will need to look at it carefully and say what are the upsides and what are the downsides and try to protect the upsides and address the

downsides, and you will also need to look for congressional help in doing that. there will be a sanctions component. iran passesaddress support of terrorism? use the otheran tools we have which are still powerful, like sanctions, so again, i think it is not that these folks who are expressing concerns of the deal are not in favor of an agreement. the question is does this resolve the issue and this -- i think they reach the inclusion that no, it in that -- it at best kicks the can down the road. -- michael say singh. you can follow online or on twitter. continuesn journal" next we will hear from agricultural secretary dan glickman.

we will talk about the transpacific partnership and how will affect agriculture. we will talk about trade in agriculture and food safety. segment, wer money will look at last week's's decision by the social security administration not to include benefits in 2015. during the 60th anniversary been sittinghas down with reporters and editors to talk about high profile news innts the paper has covered the past 60 years. hannah has recently sat down with us to talk about some of the major security incidents that took lace on capitol hill in the first six decades, including the suit -- the shooting of two capitol police officers in 1998. in 1998, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic force his way into the capital. it was a july day and he was intent on weapon

carrying out a shooting. once he entered, he set off a matter -- a metal detector. -- he shot himd dead and seated to an office. to shoot weston while sustaining the injury that killed him and then weston was taken into can -- into custody. the shooting her vote talk of a separate screening for visitors. after 2001, and the attacks on there was increased incentive for the members to find the money for that and get the building of the visitors center underway. there has been an ongoing debate. the pendulum swings between access and security. you want the members of congress to be safe and feel protected,

but they also do not want people withse a cherished access an open campus. of putting a talk fence up around the capital, some more hawkish members are supportive of that idea but ultimately, it is not an easy idea to sell that congress has its own private police force and it will have a closed off building. the police department, and the members who have jurisdiction over the police are pretty vigilant about police encroaching on the rights of visitors. it is a huge part of the mission to make sure people can protest. to encourageant upon people's first amendment rights but they do not want people who might be there to do harm get too close to the capital.

i want to remind you you can read more at rollcall.com. is joining us, the former agricultural secretary who served as the representative from kansas from 1997 to -- 2004. we are here to talk about the transpacific partnership, the trade deal recently agreed to and how it might impact agriculture, the food safety, and other issues. what does the partnership and compass? agriculture along with other sectors of the economy are extremely involved and subject to the wind of national trade. we sell more overseas that we purchase here in the united states. trade is life or death for corn, who produce wheat,

and other things as well. this agreement is not heaven on earth. i tried to tell people trade agreements are not necessarily an economic miracle. but the trade is important for u.s. agriculture as well as other parts of the u.s. economy including industries that rely on economic property rights to keep america in the game and keep us engaged in the rest of the world. the agreementdone or congress does not improve the agreement, it will allow america to disengage, which is not good for the economy. host: what is the process on congress approving it? how much time to they have? guest: i am not exactly sure. it will not the approved until butbeginning of next year the agreement is set up and my expectation is that it will be approved. , formern glickman

agriculture executive. growth in american agriculture p what segments of aquaculture do you think will benefit the most from the passage of the ttp by congress? guest: all segments. some are more vulnerable to trade like dairy because of spring competition in world markets. the basic farm commodities sold largely to feed animals around the world, those will benefit. certainly, livestock will benefit. disagreement, the problem is america faces restrictions and the rest of the world with the entry of our product. parts of theother world in southeast asia particularly, it is important we break down barriers and gain access to the markets. other things like restrictions on our product for sanitary matters, those become

of much greater conformably -- conformity or more prediction will access in the markets. it is not a miracle in an of thing, but without this it will certainly setback american agriculture. take us back to the passage of the north atlantic free trade agreement. ?hat was your role member ofas a congress from kansas and quite honestly, it was one of the most controversial things i voted on arell because trade issues by and large the not -- not the most popular things he vote on in the world. nafta became a symbol for everything wrong with the economy. a loss of jobs, a loss of image and the rest of the world. i think it was good for america but was not the perfect

situation like a lot of people claimed. while trade is important, other factors have a lot to do with the economy. i argue america needs to rebuild its infrastructure, roads, bridges, ports, airports, seaports, electric grids, water systems, you name it. i think the middle-class would be benefited by both a trade agreement by -- as well as by a significant investment rebuilding our national economy putting people back to work kind of in the same way we build the interstate highway system. the trade agreement, we cannot put all of our eggs in to appear the second thing we need to be doing is a significant rebuilding of american infrastructure.

have modern bridges, modern highway systems, electric grid that is very competitive. is another part of the plan to rebuild the economy. we also cannot with an isolation of trade either. host: our guest is dan glickman talking about trade and agriculture. , useu are a republican this line -- democrats -- independence -- you can also send us a tweet. so did a piece a week ago or about the implementation of the trade agreement. ofwas on the anniversary nafta. they wrote about a farmer, a by nafta.mer

they write in their that mexico has had a dampening effect. in the piece, they said according to the department of fresh tomato production in florida has fallen 41%. meanwhile, tomato production in mexico has gone the other way. florida tomato growers argue they cannot compete with a lower wages and less environment oversight in mexico. guest: there are always winners and losers in agriculture when you have trade agreement. clearly, some of the fresh .roduce can be grown overseas dode agreements have got to a better job. they allow us unpredictable competition in the u.s. market. pork,vestock industry,

poultry, and cattle. talk to mexican producers, they will tell you the exact opposite. they will tell you america has got too great an advantage as a result. that is the problem. there are some people who benefit more and some people benefit less. by large, nafta was on the positive side for america but there were some losers as well. from being secretary of agriculture, what is your background with agriculture before you came to washington? my father wast: not in the agriculture business. president clinton appointed me secretary of agriculture and i was there for six years.

after that, i went into the motion picture industry and i am now at the bipartisan policy center where i'm doing my best to try to promote bipartisanship in government, which is not easy. host: you must of been affected by issues of things like hiring -- pirating. majority of revenues for the production of american movies comes from out side the united states. trade is a big issue and intellectual property protection and paris he is also a big issue. that is out with in this trade agreement, protections against internet -- intellectual property protection. we have a lot of calls waiting and this is carol. , how the trade agreement will affect labeling on foods because there are some countries

where there is no way i would want to eat chicken, processed were slaughtered in china. can you give me more information on that? guest: the trade agreement itself will not specifically answer that. by and large, most of those within theaintained own regulatory system. it will not directly deal with the problem you are talking a list of is host: the benefits were put out. new say it will provide activities for exporters, in 11 countries across the asia-pacific region, and expanding demand for u.s. food and agriculture among the 500 million consumers outside the u.s. the ttp strengthens trade rules and provides access

japan, and these would be countries you would not be in before? the market system would be working as well. you look at southeast asia, these are huge markets for american agricultural products, particularly in livestock. x and the grants. want to eat better and have a diet that is more in the middle-class diet. they need large quantities of the agricultural product. the agreement makes it easier for the u.s. producers to sell the market. host: let's hear from tom in daytona beach. caller: good morning. my comment is, i went online. you talk about nafta. i have heard people say it is .ore of a bipartisan thing

to vote on it, 61 republicans in the senate budget reform and 38 democrats voted for it in the senate. 234 of thee, republicans voted for nafta, and 200 on the final vote of the democrats. the republicans push this nafta deal through. i am from a small town in north carolina that was the furniture manufacturer of the world. all the furniture manufacturers were there. all those businesses were gone. you have to take into consideration that when an industry like that goes downhill, the cause of a free trade agreement that is not a fair trade agreement, it affects a lot of people. , all types ofiers

and the problems we are having with paying into social security and things like that, those were all important to the american people working. i think he raises a point that was good in this context. some american businesses were impacted negative three -- negatively by america. by and large, the evidence is pretty we're that overall, we gained more than we lost. that isody who lost, not much of a consolation. i understand that. of the naftap some problems when it comes to worker andts and worker safety related issues when it comes to standards. is ather thing i would say lot of jobs were lost over the

last 20 years not because of net -- not because of nafta but because of technological revolution, high-tech industries requiring less workers to do things. it is why we need to find a way to produce jobs in the country with united states citizens. building our country's infrastructure is a way to produce a couple million middle-class, good paying jobs and help the economy flow much more naturally within infrastructure that really works. the airports are better, they are more modern, more roads and highways and bridges that maintain much better than ours the countryarts of not doing a good job. it is more problematic in terms of the future of the american economy that even the trade agreement is. we have to do both of those things. we cannot only do trade.

you have got to heal the country itself through its infrastructure repair. op-ed, thew your baltimore sun and a number of other papers, a big plan for infrastructure. you write that the term sounds wonky. you drive on roads and not infrastructure area you cross a river on a bridge and not on infrastructure. infrastructure means private sector jobs for americans, modernizing airports and fairways, power grids to accommodate new forms of generation, it is economics 101, but it is also politics 101. i will pull this off, the headline from the weekend. a $320 million transportation bill. is congress going to get to any of the structure plan when it is difficult for them to get the basics like a highway bill done. a big problem.

that is one of the things we have been able to do fairly easily one president eisenhower was president, he was a of to pass the act which created the highways in the country. the problem we have is most people want to improve infrastructure but they do not want to pay for it. the only way to pay for it is raising the federal gas tax, not raised in 20 years, when we had very low energy crisis in the country, or finding a way to repatriate money to build the new infrastructure. the political problem on infrastructure, whether on highways or anything else, is that you cannot do it without finding the money for it. hasy, our political system been afraid to tackle that problem. if we do not tackle the infrastructure problem, the american economy will weaken. caller: i think we should make a

deal. trade deals pass the if they are willing to properly tax present day financial arbitration. thank you. ok.t: i do a variation on that. to beot think they ought tied together. i think a trade deal ought to be separate from taxing financial institutions. but i would have liked to have seen some tied between the trade deal and a bill that would rebuild american roads, bridges, and highways as we talked about before. that is a huge job reduce or, two or $3 million jobs. all over the country, we could have revitalized this. tandem would be something i would oppose.

host: rochester, new york. caller: yes, hello. thatou name me one deal the united states has made, one trade deal since the 1950's that has benefited the average american and not benefited the 1% of all the money? industriese are many which does not have a lot of 1% people in the production of food and fiber in the country. they move more product overseas, whether it is the corn producers or the wheat growers. there are certain people in other industries, particularly the high-tech industries around the world, that have benefited by this. i will not tell you the trade deal has benefited everybody in america. it is just not true. on balance, they have been -- importantr the

for the country. we can deal with the chinese more effectively on economic issues and those kinds of things. aain, i am repeating myself lot we cannot put all of our eggs into the trade basket along. we can do both as a society. mentioned through safety laws a little bit ago, a question for you on twitter, if the people in asia do not trust their own formula, how can we know it is safe for our children . assuming she is talking about imported baby formula. strengthened the food safety agenda in recent years to our regulators internally will not and should not allow any product to the country that are unsafe. that is the number one job of the usda and the safety of people in other agencies as well. notwithstanding that, we need to

have international standards on what is and what is not safe and what we found in the past is a lot of our products get stopped sometimes because of the allegations when in fact the allegations are not made on the basis of good science. the newer rules make good science more applicable. dwight in is tennessee, independent line. mine is about the trade deficit. the year before nafta was signed, we had a surplus between ofico and the united states $28 billion. can you tell me how much surplus we have today? know thedo not answers. i know the surplus has been down for some time, but in real terms, it has gone back up again and i think it is pretty close. is sold between the countries. some products that we increased

andexports into mexico others in some parts of agriculture and in some parts of manufacturing that we did not. large, we are one north american continent and it is beneficial to the united states that the nafta agreement basically provided positive results for most in the industry. host: we are in an election year and further, locating the passage or the future of the trade promotion authority in congress, some of the comments of hillary clinton, long awaiting her position on the transpacific partnership. she announced this last week. ms. clinton: i have been learning as much as i can about the agreement but i'm worried about currency manipulation not being part of the agreement here we have lost american jobs for countries particularly in asia to have engaged in p or worried

the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits and patients and fewer consumers. are still a lot of unanswered questions, it really comes down to the three points i fact that we learned a lot about trade agreements in the past years. sometimes they look great on paper. i know one president obama came into office, he inherited a trade agreement with south korea. i along with other members of the cabinet pushed hard to get a better agreement and we think we made improvements. -- looking back on it, it doesn't have results we thought it would have in terms of more exports. >> are you saying this is not something you could support? ms. clinton: what i know about it as a today, i am not in favor of what i learned about it. hillary clinton did say,

that what she knows about it, she is against it. i do not know everything about it either. i think by and large, the trade agreement is positive for america. cure-allit is not a for our nation's economic problems. we have got to go beyond the agreement to deal with the other issues i talked about as well and politicians have to be courageous enough to support raising taxes or doing the kinds of things to rebuild highways and bridges and those kinds of things. other thing i would say about the trade agreement is you do not want american withdrawal. i must say i think it opens the to exertthe chinese themselves significantly on the geopolitics of east and south asia. i do not think that is good for america. i think it really threatens the economic dominance and superiority in so many respects around the world.

we do not want a unilateral disarmament in the trade deal either. i cannot speak for the secretary and she may have her own reasons for doing the things she does, but i think it is the best thing both for the country economically and geopolitically as well. talking about trade, the transpacific partnership, agriculture, food safety, and infrastructure in the u.s. the numbers are on the screen. send us a tweet. here is canton, georgia, herald, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple of points, one, the consistent mentioning of infrastructure spending. if i'm not mistaken, the stimulus program breakthrough by

obama was a most $1 trillion. only 7% of that money went to infrastructure spending. and by his own admission, those projects were not as shovel ready as they should have been. that is number one. number two, tax receipts are the highest they have been in years. if we are not able to do it now, how is raising more taxes and taking more money out of the pockets of regular americans going to benefit americans through infrastructure? and number three, nafta. jobsep hearing these are americans don't want to do. tell that to the electronics industry, in particular the electronics manufacturing industry. these were high-paying jobs and --are told we cannot get in get enough engineers into this country to do these jobs and these jobs all went to southeast asia. all great questions. first of all, the president stimulus bill had a lot of

infrastructure in there, but other major things as well. i would pass a major program to do all the things i been talking bridges,e roads, sewers. our water systems are feeling all over this country. i'm talking about rebuilding the basics of this country. i would have a war room in the white house and put somebody in charge of this who really was experienced and running these kinds of big projects and i would put the money into that and keep our hands off to do other things unrelated to infrastructure. i think your point was made that the stimulus package of a few years back was not really geared to dealing with this particular issue. the tax collections are going up, but the deficit is still very high. by and large from the gas tax, the user fee that has largely been there to deal with roads and sewers and systems, both federal and eight, quite frankly, -- federal, and state, quite frankly, has not been

there to be used for years. ifought to recognize that the taxes were raised, or maybe other ways to raise revenues, congress really need to deal with this issue. then we can have confidence that the money will be spent on the projects that it is rates for. some industries lost and most didn't. i think this tpp corrects some of the problems in nafta. that, we needn to to recognize that the trade agreements alone will not rebuild the american economy, but without the we will be hurt very dramatically. host: on the entry -- the issue of infrastructure, want to get your take on this piece in the "national review." -- write that

guest: we have huge amounts of deferred maintenance in this country and most of it is run through the state and they will tell you they just do not have enough resources to cover what i call the general manufacturing and highway need. you find now that at least half the bridges in america need to be in the rebuilt or significantly repaired. and it is not just roads and bridges, but the electric grid, the port, the airports and seaports. most of our sanitation and water systems were built 50 to 100 years ago. the needs are just selling the moneys were raised correctly and managed welcome it could put 2 million to 3 million americans back to work. that is important for us as well. in -- dons go to john in illinois on the independent

line. yes, my problem is that manufacturing basically has moved out of our country. particularlywar ii because we out manufactured the germans and the japanese. and i just read in the newspapers this week that the is now goingmpany to build another plant, a $2.5 billion plant in mexico. words, there is more were going out of the country. we don't have american manufacturers anymore. their headquarters might be in the united states, but they are international companies and i see no reason to protect any of them when they move offshore. well, i'm an angry old man and

i've seen what has happened to american labor and it's a disgrace. host: we appreciate your to pick -- your opinion, don. guest: i don't know if he is so angry. i think a lot of people feel that way and that is why it is so hard to pass trade agreements because they see the jobs lost and not necessarily the jobs game -- gained. true that both have happened. i think our country needs a more sensible national manufacturing policy that will deal with both tax policy as well as employment policy. i will say who this, 95% of the people in the world live outside of the u.s. the only way this country is going to grow and produce jobs in the future is to sell worldwide. there are just not enough people -- to u.s. to support and support a manufacturing economy anymore. you have to deal with europe, china, africa, asia, and everywhere else will stop

america -- and everywhere else. america has to have competitive strength. what you cannot do it by closing your borders. the gentleman's point is a good point, that somehow you have to have more productive and sensible manufacturing policy, but with the recognition that if we do not sell to the rest of the world and if their borders are not open to us, americans standard of living will go down. a couple more calls. christine in maryland, democrats line will stop caller: hi, -- democrats line. hi, i want to make a couple of points. i have crohn's disease. , going about globally globally, but local farms, clean food, taking of produce and shipping it takes forever. by the time you get it to the grocery stores is not fresh.

summertime in maryland on the eastern shore, our farms, our food, the taste is totally different. you see the labels, they are even getting it from, like, mexico or canada. i don't understand going globally. see -- i don't know the name of the company, but the people who own the weed killers, they own our food companies. i don't understand it. with supere trying weeds and things like that. and we have high cancer rates, -- i can't even think. and alzheimer's. host: that's ok. you've put a lot out there. we will get a reaction from dan. want freshicans

vegetables 12 months a year and the truth is, our climate does havellow that unless we indoor agriculture. you just cannot grow enough tangerines and grapes and oranges and stuff. that is why we import a lot of food. notwithstanding that, she makes a very good point. our domestic farm policy over the years has not encouraged the growing an insurance of, shall i say, agriculture like vegetables and fruits. it has encouraged commodity crops like wheat, cotton, and soybeans. those are the ones that can get insurance and risk management protection. the last farm bill began to change that and now, more and more you are finding small -- freshf fresh food fruits and vegetables get

protection for the crops. that will provide locally and provide financial protection to be able to grow more of those crops inside the u.s. that is a positive thing that has happened in the past few years. host: along with christine concerns about food safety, roger tweets this -- think itdon't specifically dealt with irradiated food, but it does give the ability for the u.s. to properly protect its citizens on food safety front. that is something we did not take away. host: how would you grade our food safety? guest: we passed the food safety modernization act and that has taken a long time with the fda and others. food safety is something that there is more bipartisan consensus on than many other areas because everybody is impacted by whether you are

republican or democrat. host: mike in massachusetts, republican line. good morning. dan glickman was saying that you are raising taxes on gas be.fits, of course it would but how about raising taxes on the solar farms and wind farms? and thing was that could generate full -- and seeing what that could generate. guest: right now, i don't think that will generate much money. if these became mature industries producing a lot of energy, maybe. but right now, you are going to try to repair roads and bridges that are impacted by people driving on them. and historically in its country we have said that should be done by a user fee,and that is basically a gas tax and it has not been raised in 20 years. but what people want to know is if it is rate whether it will be ,pent -- if is is raised

whether it will be spent on improving into structure -- improving infrastructure. host: john on the independent line. you are on the air. caller: my question to mr. glickman is this also -- is this. we don't tax capital going out of the country to make investments and these members of the trade agreement, and i am against any other further trade code until the tax reflects investments made by these countries. -- the companies. we are running about $50 billion a month in trade deficit. we have been running consecutive trade deficits everson's these deals -- ever since these deals. deficit israll trade $600 billion in capital that is

not being invested in this country that if we did not have these trade deals might have an opportunity to be better invested in this country and to be taxed. to build the instructor, to build the country, to employ our people. i'm not against free trade, but -- per se, but free-trade should be balanced trade. losing ourent -- economic opportunity and capital and this makes no sense to me. guest: first of all, we definitely need a tax policy investment. capital i hope congress can get together in the next couple of years, even as bitterly divided as it andto look at the tax code make it more investment focused. that is an important point. but our trade deficit is largely due to a couple of factors. we have an extremely strong dollar in the past decade or two. why? because our economy so much better overall than anyone

else's in the world. the chinese have not, in fact, devalued their currency. they have kept it very strong to protect themselves internally, which has hurt us. that is one of the issues secretary clinton may have met. and we are the largest consumer country in the world. we buy more than anybody else. our general economy still stronger than any place else in the world. anda thoughtfully executed structured trade agreement with julie couple of things. we do need to rebuild the class in this country -- would do a couple of things. we need to rebuild the middle class in this country. host: next up. theer: all republicans in house and some democrats, many democrats, voted to open up the next -- the exportation of our oil to foreign countries.

beenrecently we've benefiting because we have a glut of oil, and all of us from we go to the pump have been saving about a buck a gallon of a gas pumps. -- at the gas pumps. these people who want to export it are claiming that the price price of gas, will actually dropped. which i think is completely antithetical to any kind of economic theory. if you reduce the supply way down, guess what, the price will go up. we will all be screwed. here's the thing about it, we have to keep our oil supply that we have and we could benefit greatly from this. but to sell it to foreign the oils just because men in texas want to do it, we

cannot do it. it will hurt everybody. and anybody with me should call their congressman and say stop this sale. it has never worked that way. the economics of it never worked the way they say it's going to work. host: ken brings up a topic we have not addressed yet. topic.it is an important it will markets are not just the u.s. market anymore. they will markets are global now and they flow across borders like never before and it's one of the reasons it is so cheap right now. it is because of the interconnected nature of our country and the middle east and china. i'm not an expert on this issue, but there is no way you can have just a contained domestic supply of oil that is not part of the world supply. i would say that this is one of the reasons it is so important the u.s. has the largest reserve of natural gas almost in the entire world, but we have enough to be the opec of that part of the world.

including theces sun, including biofuels, and including fossil fuels as well. i am kind of for all of these above if they can be devoted and environmentally sensible way. i'm not as concerned about the export of oil as i am concerned about the developing of all the natural resources in this country that could make us much more efficient. and that will be left on the oil side, more on natural gas side as well as renewables. glickman, at the bipartisan policy center, a senior fellow there. and he's on twitter. guest: people can send all the good notes as well as the bad news to me. i will be happy to respond. host: thanks for joining us. guest: you're welcome. at thep next, a look social security administration not increasing benefits for 2016. we will talk about that with even ohlemacher -- stephen here on the

"washington journal" this morning. ♪ tonight on c-span's new series "landmark cases," by the 1830's mississippi and new orleans had become a breeding ground for cholera probably because of dumping in rivers. to address this, the louisiana government only allowed one slaughterhouse to operate in the city district and the other slaughterhouses took them to court. follow the cases of 1873. we are joined by a constitutional law attorney and michael ross, author of the book

"justice of shattered dreams." to help tell the story of this time the south and the personal stories of the butchers and the courts and supreme court justices involved in this decision. and we willake -- be sure to take your calls and tweets. each caseckground on while we watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it is available for a 95 -- eight dollars 99 cents -- $8.95 plus shipping. c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016 where you will find the candidates, the speeches, the debate, and most important, your questions. this year, we are taking our road to the white house coverage asterisk across the country with our student can contest -- our

white house coverage into classrooms across the country with their student cam contest. lid on tv, live radio, and online at www.c-span.org. >> "washington journal continues. host: every monday, we bring you a your money segment where you look at issues of the pocketbook the issues of 2016 as the social security administration is announcing that they will not raise benefits due to the cost of living. stephen ohlemacher has been writing about this great deal. the headline here says social security turns 80 and changes are needed it to save the program. is socialate issue

security not increasing benefits. why is that echoed guest: -- why is that? law, when you have a cost of living agreement, or commonly known as a cola, it is based on inflation. if consumer prices go up, benefits go up. if consumer prices stay flat or drop, benefits stay the same. is they cameened out with december -- the september numbers for consumer prices and it shows that prices are down overall from a year ago. and because of that, by law, there can be no cola. host: to see was affected by this, the numbers of social security recipients or beneficiaries, about 59 million americans receive benefits. about $72 billion are paid in benefits month. retired workers receive on average about $1300 monthly and disabled workers get about $1100 monthly. there are 79 million americans

expected by the year 2025 to be receiving benefits. currently, about three workers for each beneficiary and that will change to two workers in 2025. -- 2035. is this something that they should have seen coming? has this happened in the last couple of years? guest: this has been coming because of gas prices. interestingly, congress institute adjustments for three years ago. only three times has there been no cola. it has beenrecently pretty cap because all three times have been since 2010. host: we are going to open up our phone lines a different, based on age group. we have a line for under 30. 31 to 50 is a separate line. 64 is another.

and then for those over 65. the numbers are on the screen. at can also send us a tweet cspanwj. what will be affected in terms of the monthly social security check? guest: as you said, nearly 69 million people get retirement checks and this includes retired workers, disabled workers, and also spouses and children. there are others who are affected by this, like disabled veterans, federal retirees, and about 800 million people who get supplemental disability income. we are talking about a little more than 1/5 of the entire nation's population. host: when consumers go to figure out the cost of living adjustment, what are the things

that are included in that figure? social security doesn't do this calculation. this is done by the department of labor and the bureau of labor statistics. they come out with the consumer price index every month and they have a number of different indexes. this is called the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers. it is a very broad index of energy, housing, food, entertainment, education and they look at this whole basket of prices and how they change. index, calledr is -- it'sor short, biggest influence is gasoline or oil. and we know what has happened with gas prices. i just checked aaa this morning and the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $2.26 per gallon. that is down about $.85 from a year ago. cbiw -- cpiw,he

it was down from a year ago. host: a number of people are talking about it -- it is not just the gas prices, but everything else going up that has not been taken into account. guest: sure, but these things are taken into account by the offset in the gas prices. food has gone up 1.6% in the past year. clothing has actually gone down 1.3%. what is really important to older people is medical care, up 2.4%. that is lower than the historical average, but it is still going up some. host: speaking of medical care, there is a parallel issue with social security benefit for 2016, and that is, medicare. the "washington post" writes about it in their lead editorial sunday.

tell us what is going on there. first of all, back up. most people who get social security and medicare have their premiumspart b deducted from social security. these are the premiums you pay for patient out care, going to doctors visits. congress did not want people to have their social security benefits reduced, even if there was no cola. so they put in something if it if there is no cola, we will freeze your medicare premiums, but not for everyone. they will be frozen for about 70% of the people.

what that means is that entire premium that would be spread over everyone now will be concentrated on about 30% of the folks who get medicare and a into about 15 million people. of those are hiring can people and new beneficiaries. regardless of what your income was, if you are new this year or next year to get medicare, you will pay the higher premium. it is a big chunk of people who are also on medicaid, very poor people, states have to hit -- have to pay those premiums, so that will hit states. ont: lots of calls coming in social security and medicare. we have broken the phone lines down by age group. on the 65 or older line in louisiana, alonso. louisiana, go ahead. caller: hello, are you there? host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: i was just went to ask

since it's not impossible to get a raise in 2016 that president obama do another deal will redo 300 -- we do a $300 one-time payment for seniors. guest: that is a possibility. 2009, when they passed the economic stimulus package there were these payments. i believe they were more like $250 for people on social security to make up for the fact that folks did not get a raise in 2010. i have not heard a lot of talk about that. what i have heard discussion on do hill about is to something about these medicare premiums, and it's not just the premiums but the deductibles as well and those will go up for everyone. there has been discussion, led by senator ron wyden from oregon, to mitigate these premiums. the white house says they are interested in it, but congress is controlled by republicans, so

this is probably going to be a political issue. that, thereflecting headline this morning, hopes jim for deal to avert medicare premiums bikes. -- hopes are dim for deal to avert medical premium spikes. next caller, go ahead. newspaper, the daily press explained, a terrific writeup saying that they use three months, july, august, and september, and that is the measuring device. the rest of the year is not ,ooked at as far as increases and if any increases at cap and -- has happened in those months then we get a cola. if it stays flat, we get nothing. what worries me and concerns me -- in fact, i-old

will be 74, so i'm getting up there, and i'm getting about $1200 a month to live on. i can pretty much get by on that kind of figure. but the scary part is the medicare. when we are older like this, i am with an aarp supplement health plan, and my god, the prescription drug plan is going -- $1300 a a month month in that area. drug tier one and tier two supplyuble from a 30 day up to $20. is, hey,trying to say we are getting nailed on the 20% supplement. in other words, medicare is covering 80%, but we are getting

just hammered on the supplement. it is out of control. and social security, the little bit of money they do give us is eaten up in medical costs. the government should really be honest with us and express and get this out. host: ok, charles in virginia. guest: he has raised a couple of points. first, how they measure these consumer prices to determine the cola is correct. for july,the cpi august, in september, the third quarter of the year for last year, and the average it. for july,ake the cbi august, and september of this year and a measure that. they see what the change is and they want to have time for getting ready for the end of the year. it is getting it ready for december, but it is actually affecting your payment in january. he raises a good point about these other costs.

the medicare part b programs do not apply to medicare part d in perception drugs. also, supplemental insurance, people might be paying more for that. and third, he raises a really big issue. older americans and advocates for them are concerned that this measure of inflation does not accurately reflect their costs. energy prices have a big impact on this. lower gas prices are a lot of why we do not have a cola. there was a huge spike in gas prices in 2008. that made for a very big cola in 2009. those gas prices plummeted by january and were back to normal, but people still got a nice big increase and were happy about it. though, happen here, too. gas prices could be right back up where they were and you will still not get a cola. , sociald the headline security increases likely --

unlike the next year, blame gas prices. next.s up go ahead, mary. hello. i am probably a little bit off-topic. i had questions about the windfall provision. it cut into my social security regular benefits, cut them in half due to a pension i received. and i'm still below the poverty level. you know, i just consider windfall for the rich people. i didn't know i was experiencing a windfall. do you know anything about this provision, how it came into place? it doesn't affect the upper class, the people who have money , as opposed -- does it affect the upper class, people have opposed to the folks who are just trying to get by? i do nothing to be in

next on the windfall provision, but i do know when you earn money outside of social security, there are thresholds. that can reduce the amount of benefit you get. and it does affect hiring come people, but as far as being revisited, i believe all of that would have to be done by law. and it really has not been any big tinkering with the social security law, the basic formula for benefits and taxation of benefits since 1983. host: our guest is stephen ohlemacher, and we are talking about social security not raising the benefit in 2016. we go to washington, the nation's capital, joel, go ahead. hi, how are you doing? i am 47 years old and i used to get social security statements from social security. i was wondering, how will this

affect me probably by the age of 65 in terms of social security benefits? go asso, where could we citizens to find out this information? that is it, thank you. sir, there are a couple of things here. this will not affect your benefit -- sure, there are couple of things here. this let federal benefits in the future. wages goingand earn forward, your benefits are based essentially on your average lifetime wages. what they do is take your wages when you were younger and inflate them up to current dollars and they use a wage index for that, which is generally higher than a price index. retire and you already have your benefits set, they use the price index to adjust and each year.

although wages have not been going up all that much, to be sure. this will not affect you much. there is a website you can go to .gov icialsecurity believe. you can google it. you can plan your retirement and when you should retire and when you should apply for benefits. securityial menstruation is not mailing out right?pdates anymore, guest: they're actually going to and stopng it again they stopped for a while and people were in korea about it. they are going to start doing it again, especially as you get closer to retirement. host: that color was 47, so she is at least 15 years away from tapping into social security. on the headline social security turns 80 and changes needed to

save the program, the top line, what is happening with that program? guest: back in 1983 when they first overhaul the social security system, they set it up taxes than in benefits. this was as baby boomers were entering their careers. now that baby boomers are retiring, and that has flipped and they are paying out more than income is coming in. combined areds about $2.7 trillion. despite the fact that they are paying out more than they are earning, it is still growing because of investment in things like treasury bonds. jacob both disability and retirement and put them together, they are -- take both disability and retirement and put them together, they are projected to run out of money in 2033. if congress let that happen, come -- social security will only have enough to be about 70%

of benefits. social security is self financing. it does not take outside government money. it is your money, you earned it. you paid social security benefits throughout your career. if you become disabled, or you become a parent, you have earned those benefits. to 2030it's closer three, changes will have to be made to maintain that self-thing -- self financing system. part of the beautiful -- beauty of social security is you either --se benefits are cut taxes raise taxes or cut benefits. they are still raising the retirement age, slowly phasing at him. there are also different ways to cut benefits and you can raise taxes. calvin on the to

under 30 line. go ahead. caller: it is very upsetting to me to know there are a lot of who are older and it's like they had everything handed to them. and now it's like they did not prepare for retirement and because they did not prepare for retirement i'm going to get stuck with that. it is all. , let's hear from our jersey.line in new frank, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a disabled combat veteran, so i get the v.a. pension and i is social security, so this like a devil when he on me. and the surprising part about the gasoline being -- this is on me.double whammy and the surprising part about the gasoline being that people over 67 10 to drive a lot less

than people under 50, so the gasoline doesn't really -- over 67 tend to drive a lot less than people under 50, so the gasoline .oesn't really affect them the paying of the premiums for medicare and stuff, that sets you back close to $4000 a year. these people that are getting $1200 a month are being the medicare and arpa system. i feel like there should have been some kind of cola this year. guest: you raise a good point about gasoline and gas prices influencing this index. in fact, a lot of advocates for older americans complain that the index that is used to determine the cola is reflective of the prices paid by urban wage urban wage earners and clerical workers, not older americans. they have been advocating adopting a new experimental

theumer price index, called american consumer price index for the elderly and it is based on the goods purchased by those 62 and older. it is less influenced by the gasoline factor, because it still permeates the economy, but it is less of a factor. and medical costs are a higher factor. social security estimates that on average that would result in a .2% higher cola each year than -- a 1.2% higher cola each year than under the current system. enough to get be an increase this year. host: how often does the federal government review and revise the items they used to monitor inflation? u, which iscpi

used for workers, is a much broader index. they have these different things, but they would have to change it to adopt a new one and that would probably take an act of congress. host: let's go to fort lauderdale, melvin, go ahead. caller: the last color asked what i was going to ask in respect to the gas prices with the older people. most older people if they have a car, of course, dry very little. and most of them don't have one. -- drive very little. and most of them don't have one. i know it affects different parts of the economy, but it should be to last factor taken into account. especially when dealing with the cola over 65. system notthe

reliable based on those factors alone. host: several calls about the gas prices. a tweet from jane. is that money untouchable in the trust fund? guest: no, no, you might recall that one al gore ran for president, he talked about putting social security in a lockbox. well, he didn't win and it is not in a lockbox. social security has never been in a lockbox. as ukrainian, that money goes out. workers who are paying into -- as you pay in, that money goes out. workers who are paying into social security today are paying benefits for those who are retiring today. in 1973 there was a crisis in social security and that is when they did the last overhaul. they created a system in which

for about 30 years social security paid in more money than it paid out. it built up a trust of about $2 trillion. what did social security do with that money? safestvested it in the lace in the world, u.s. treasury bonds. there are actually special u.s. treasury bonds. these are laser printed bonds and congress did them that way to show that they are real. they keep them in a three ring binder in a filing cabinet in a very nondescript office building in parkersburg, west virginia. i visited it and actually held a bond in my hand that was like worth $20 billion, but unfortunately was nonnegotiable, so i could not take it. the issue of social security still coming up on the campaign trail. with the recent democratic debate in las vegas, i wanted to hear some of the comments from hillary clinton and from the senator from vermont -- i'm

sorry, bernie sanders. go ahead. [video clip] to enhance: i want the benefits for the poorest recipients of social security. we have a lot of people, particularly women and widows who did not make a lot in their careers and they are impoverished. we need more money into the social security system and i will focus on those who need it the most. of course i will defend social security's and look for a way to make sure it is solvent in the future. senator sanders: you don't cut social security will stop you expand it. and you lift the cap on taxable income so you do away with the absurdity of a millionaire paying the same amount as someone making $118,000. you do that and security is solvent until 2061. mentionedtor sanders

lived the cap. what is the current cap? guest: social security is financed by 12% on wages and you pay it up to $118,500. if you make more than that, you don't pay anymore. is split evenly between employers and employees. and by the way, because there is no cola, every year that threshold generally rises with inflation. but because there was no cola, that will say the same for next year. -- will stay the same for next year. host: let's go to charles. caller: i agree with senator bernie sanders about removing the cap and i think it is sad not to give a raise. after a couple of years they didn't give one and two basis on the gas tax, the thing about it, we all remember that every time

gas increases, food prices increase. foodent down and the prices continued to increase. thing, forher example, they are not giving a raise to social security, but i guarantee they will not cut the farm subsidies that are going to rich farmers, and the people that are not farmers, the congressmen and senators, are they going to cut that? they will not cut it. they will continue to get that money and they are all rich. it doesn't surprise me what is happening because this is what always happens, the poor and the middle class always phases out and everything goes to the 1% or 2%. and they always say social security is going to run out. then i hear this statement about people who get social security and disability, that their funds will run out next year.

but then you just said it will be in effect in 2030 something. which is correct? guest: you raise a very good point. there are socialist -- there are two social security trust funds, the civility trust fund and retirement. the disability trust fund is projected to run out next year, at which time he would only bring in enough to be about 79% of benefits. the retirement fund is projected to run out in 2034. democrats in congress have advocated simply just we calculating -- recalculating or adjusting tax revenue from your social security taxes and putting more of that toward disability. if you simply combines the funds, it would only take one year off the life of the retirement fund. host: are the number of people going on ssdi growing? guest: since the last recession it really skyrocketed and is up

to about 11 million people. it has actually plateaued in the last couple of years. host: what prompted the numbers and ssdi? guest: a couple of things, the long-term factors -- look at baby boomers. the incidence of's visibility, that goes up the older you get. -- of disability, that goes up the older you get. as people get older and closer to 62, the incidence of disability gets higher. a couple of interesting things, you know, women in the workforce. we think women have been in the workforce for a long time and now they are starting to get older. that is another larger increase in people in this 50-62 range. plus, the recession itself. anytime there is a recession, applications for social security disability go up. this is for a number of reasons. a lot of people who are disabled can work and have jobs, but they get laid off and they have a difficult time finding someone willing to accommodate them. and they apply for disability.

law, disability is very hard to get by law. you have to be disabled for at either you cand work no job in the economy anywhere, and your disability has to last for at least a year or result in death. look for work, but cannot find it and out of desperation apply for benefits. host: you mentioned a couple of ways to change social security to protect it. heard other we have senators talking about that. jeb bush has suggested changing the respin age -- the recipient age. let's take a look. [video clip] mr. bush: how do you fix it? the same way we did in the 1980's, getting people together from both parties will some of the simple way is to raise the cap for higher income people and to moderately over an extended time frame raise the retirement

age. that is the path that most people agree is the way to solve this. preserveotect it and it for those who already have it. this would be going forward, for every month, you take it up a month for every year. and over time, you would face it in. and that would bring about solvency for social security, just as it did in the 1980's. host: he calls for raising a cap, but also in terms of the age, you mentioned that it started in 1983 that the age will increase at some point. where is that headed? right now, to get full benefits for retirement, you have to be 66. it was 65 back in 1983. it is gradually increasing to 67. for folks born in 1961 or later, the full retirement age is 67. yes, there have been proposals to raise it even more. a lot of the democrats will at aain, look, you work

desk. it is a lot easier for you to work when you were older. what about people who have manual jobs and work outside? it would be much harder for them to work later in life. and they also point out that wealthier people, people who work at desks, 10 to live longer and will get -- tended to longer and will get more benefits than those who do not. you are forcing these people to work longer and that might be physically demanding and they will not live long enough to get as much of the benefit. that is the argument against it. however as jeb bush said, americans are living longer, and that is a fact. beenis an issue that has draining -- i won't pay draining, but it has been a strain on the social security system as life expectancy goes up and people live longer and they collect benefits for longer. politicians are struggling to try to find a balance to deal with these issues. to michigan,o

alvin, on the 65 or older line. caller: good morning, stephen. i started working when i was 18 years old and i worked until 65 years old and retired. we have been getting a little bit of an increase in our social security. our light bill is going up and our car insurance is going up and our food is going up. i worked 46.5 years in the gasoline industry. i know what they are trying to do in the gasoline industry. just as quick as they fix this stuff, that stuff -- your gas bill and heating bill will go higher. we have people from other countries and stuff like that and they will get all of this tough free -- this stuff free and never paid anything in. here we are at 65 years old and we will be paying for them, the taxpayers of the united states? i go to these barbershops around and i talked to the people there

and these people, 70 years old or so, they are very upset. it will come right down to this election coming next year. something will have to be done about these prices. my part d is going up. medical supplies will be going up. and we don't get a raise after we work 46.5 years? host: all right, alvin in ithaca, michigan. he would go to douglas -- i'm sorry, go ahead. guest: he raises an important question for immigrants. first, you cannot get social security benefits unless you pay in. secondly, it was mentioned at the top of the show, there are about three workers right now for every worker projected to get benefits and that will go down to two workers for every person getting benefits. back in the 60's it was something like five. immigrants, if they were to come in and be legal and get into the

system, actually they would be the ones paying for your retirement. host: here is mountain city, tennessee, douglas on the independent line. i have a couple of comments. who votes on these increases are no increases for social security? guest: no one actually votes on it. this is a system that was put in place the 1970's when congress adopted the automatic adjustments. it's not like anyone votes. caller: ok, they use the gasoline index, right? guest: they use a consumer price index and dazzling as part of it. but everyone knows that the older you get, the less you drive. why don't they use an index that the older people use more than gasoline, like maybe prescription drugs, you know? host: that is one of the things we talked about earlier, this other index they are considering. guest: yes, they would like them to adopt this experimental consumer price index for the

elderly. host: here is jean. good morning. as a young public school teacher in the 1970's, i used to work a part-time job all the time because my pay was so low. so i would get a statement from social security telling you how much i could look forward to getting as social security benefits. i was told that number was the 10 highest paid years of my employment. that the time i got ready to retire and he would fall protection act when into effect thanks to ronald reagan, it was now based on the last three years of my employment -- last 30 years of my employment, which means they were including all of those low-paying years and that pulled my social security benefits down. on top of that, ronald reagan passed a windfall protection act

in 1983 that said i was not entitled to two thirds of my social security benefits. because of that, i have a making too much money now, even i was forced to pay into social security and all those part-time jobs, and now i cannot draw the benefits. host: stephen ola marker ohlemacher -- -- stephen ohlemacher, reaction. the 30she is right, is highest years of your wages that it is based on. that could include a lot of lower years were you did not make as much money. they inflate those wages from early in your career to today's dollars, but yes, it does take into account early in your career where you might not have made as much money. host: a couple of comments on twitter.

social security, we like to refer to it as a retirement program and i often do. really, what it is is a social insurance policy. if you think about when social instituted, first president roosevelt signed the social security act in 1935 and started paying benefits in 1939. there were a lot of families in which the wife did not work. i should nothing to do not work. they did not have a job, but they worked at home and raised a family and took care of the house and that has value. that was big part of to recognize the fact that just because you were not outside the were earning wages, you

still doing something very important and necessary for the survival of the family. one more call from camden, missouri, on the 65 or older line. john, good morning. toler: yes, i would like address the gentleman who called on the under 30 line earlier and he complained about having to pay social security to support all of these old people. was a study that came out that showed that a cost $270,000 to raise a child from birth to the age of 18. $270,000. $270,000 andl take pay it to his parents, they might not need a social security check. i get so tired of these people people drawinghe social security did nothing. it is crazy. i'm sorry, i'm just upset this morning. michael is not going to increase

and i have less than 1000 dollars per month in social security. i am a vietnam veteran. and i -- it just irritates me. guest: this is what people feel so passionately about social security. paying into career it. these are the benefits your promise to paying into it. it is one of the reasons why it desk important to create keep social security as a self finance program. not only is it popular among the public, it has from political support mainly because it is in our benefit, not welfare. it is something that you earn. host: you mentioned possible action in congress on the medicare issue. where is the story headed and what are you following? guest: the disability program. that trust fund is scheduled to run out of money late next year during the middle of the presidential campaign they will have to do