republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. tweet, @cspanwj is our handle. you can also e-mail us journal@c-span.org. post story this morning, congress to pass $1.1 trillion spending bill. the first votes on the plan are expected today. 48 hours after negotiators introduced the 1582 page spending agreement. the house is scheduled to vote on the measure today. the senate plans to vote on it around noon today. live coverage on c-span of that vote for the house and tune into c-span 2 for the vote in the senate. here is what john boehner had to say about moving quickly to vote on the legislation. >> the bill was posted last night. to thehlights went out members offices last night. frankly, if we had time, i would've -- i would like to have more time. we are in a situation where the government is going to run out of money. we are going to have to move a short-term cr. i think, under the circumstances, what we're doing is appropriate. host: john boehner addressing concerns from many outside groups, and clipping -- including conservative groups. they say they have no time to read it and they are moving too quickly to approve it. as the speaker said, the current funding resolution expires today, wednesday. the house, by voice vote, voted on a continuing resolution for a few days to give them the time to take up this $1 trillion omnibus spending bill. it includes the appropriations for all 12 agencies. we want to get your thoughts. cookeville, tennessee. what do you think? caller: good morning. i wonder what is inside the bill. you wonder whether or not they're going to overspend and it will extend our national debt as well. i don't know what they are doing. they are always spending, all the time. [indiscernible] president is lying to us. they ought to impeach him for that. from page of usa today has the winners and losers. good news from wall street and the pentagon. more than half of all discretionary spending for the year and includes an additional 85 point $2 billion for overseas military operations. that includes afghanistan. financial regulatory agencies are underfunded. watch groups are voicing concerns about that. democrats are pleased because early childhood education gets a boost. including a $612 million increase for head start. that provides education services for children in need. it also funds a new 250 million dollar grant program for states to expand preschool programs. on light bulbs, the bill eliminates funding to enforce rules that will phase out incandescent light bulbs. republicans have rallied to save the bulbs. here are some losers. joe biden, he takes and toolkits in the package. a pay freeze for the vice president cost option -- office. no funding for high-speed rail. bill prohibits the use of federal funds for commissioning portraits of the president, vice president. irs -- 526 the million dollars below what president obama requested. it is the lowest level since 2009. usa today saying it is a draw on obamacare. the package includes no new funding for the president's health-care law. it doesn't cut any either. the shutdown was fueled by gop efforts to fund of the law. they call it a draw in the legislation. --.ara mikulski get your thoughts on this trillion dollar spending bill. 585-3880. (202) republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. many of the papers this morning having the winners and losers of what is in this legislation. restoringthat has, is -- that has come up is restoring issue -- benefits to military. they kept most of those cuts from military retirement benefits. susan, walbridge, ohio. what are your thoughts? caller: i think it is too much for the military. why don't we pay them? they should get paid by the hour. this spending bill, do you think it is something they should be voting on? caller: i don't think so. they should vote on unemployment right now. they might lose their homes, or all sorts of things might happen to them. i don't get it. the republicans are something else. i have never seen anything like it in my life. host: mike, independent color. caller, a fewst of us do get it. look at the obamacare. , whethervidual congressional or representative in the house has read the bill. look at the problem we are in now because of our two-party system. the only thing that will happen is that we need to hold these people accountable. if not, we are in trouble and we are going to get deeper into trouble. inky. -- thank you. host: david, independent caller. caller: i think if president obama has suspended the bush era tax cuts six years ago, which costingthat -- they are a trillion dollars a year. six years, one trillion plus, that is our trillion right there. rateswent back to the tax under clinton, it seems logical, but i don't see why they never propose that. the new york times editorial board saying congress does its job. approved going forward with the spending legislation. on those military benefits, the beacon reports that the bill exempts veterans who receive chapter 61 retirement. it applies to combat veterans who are disabled as a result of service. the spouses will be exempt according to section 10001. the bill keeps in place the 1% decrease in the cost-of-living living adjustments for all military retirees. the change affects retirees under the age of 62 and will result in thousands of dollars of lost retirement pay. enlisted service members could lose a minimum of 72,000 over the period of their retirement. scott, california, republican. caller: thank you for c-span. people can complain about this and that and where the money is being allocated, but do they know the entire time what is happening? we are the citizens. we make this country. i don't think the american people have a grasp on what is happening and where the spending .s happening they have put together this tool on their website where you can go to all 12 appropriations bills and see where they are spending the money. you can get a good idea of where they're spending the money and by how much. michael, new york, republican caller. theer: i am shocked republican party, and i am a republican, this whole situation with not having unemployment insurance, i know they are playing a game. it has gotten to a point where i am tired of it. republicans are unemployed. not everyone that is unemployed is a bomb. trying -- is a bum. we are the united states of america. we are not a corporation which as two balance the budget all time. this is not the time they should be doing it. they also need to get off of their butts and whirring about the minimum wage -- and worry about the minimum wage. minimum wage is only good for this country, not bad for this country. they are giving donations to my party and they are not listening to what needs to be done to get the country going. that is my only comment. host: resident obama is heading to north carolina. at the white house, before his first cabinet meeting of this he said he approved of the spending legislation. [video clip] >> the house and the senate agreed to a budget and afford a bill that will fund our government as well as allow us to take some important steps to provide the services and the help that americans need in order to get ahead in this economy. passld urge that congress the funding measure as quickly as possible so that all of these agencies have certainty around their budgets. host: that was the president yesterday, talking about the spending legislation. he heads to north carolina today. the headlines from that discussion with reporters is that i have a pen and a phone, he will use executive orders to move some of his priorities for the middle-class forward. it says in dave bauer's piece in the washington times that the president will demonstrate his executive authority during his trip to north carolina. new public,ote a private effort to boost manufacturing. the trip is proving to be a mild embarrassment to the white house due to the expected absence of of northc senator carolina who is facing a tough reelection campaign. she has been hurt by her support. support of -- her mr. obama's troubled health-care law. the new york times reporting that adds from conservative are spending on them and they have outspent democrats. 3005 hundred 35 ads in the state of north carolina against obamacare. if you likeld us your insurance plan and your doctors, you can keep this. it just wasn't true. 1420 four ads by conservative groups in her home state on obamacare legislation. on the president' north carolina, in usa today, the headlines, jobless benefits are a hot issue. obama will talk about it today. -- senate stalled on stalled, unable to come to an agreement about benefits. it could be revived when they return after their break next week. that is at the end of january. this is a big issue in kay hagan's reelection bid. in other news, if you are watching c-span before we came up here for washington journal, you saw chris christie give his state of the state address yesterday. here's the trentonian. people down. he began the state of a kulpa -- with a mia culpa. he went on to talk about his andda for this year education -- he wants a young -- a longer school day. he talked about bail reform. other issues to try to move away from the bridge a scandal that happened with the traffic jam legislation. a little bit from chris christie's state of the state address. here is how he began a yesterday. [video clip] >> i tested this administration. mistakes were clearly made. as a result, we let down the people we were interested to serve. i know our citizens deserve better, much better. i am the governor. i am ultimately responsible for all that happens on my watch, both good and bad. without a doubt, we will cooperate with all appropriate inquiries to ensure this breach of trust does not happen again. after a mistake, it is back to business for governor chris christie. inquirer, ithia says christie looks to move on education. they need to be -- the need to be better is acute in new jersey, saying he is going to pay attention to urban schools. on the sandy recovery, also getting headlines this morning, over the past couple of days, over and added that was approved by the christie administration with sandy relief money. chris christie said yesterday, i will not rest until every person hurt by sandy has their life back. that is my mission. back to your phone calls. we are getting your thoughts on this trillion dollar spending bill. it is slated for a vote in the house and then it will move forward in the senate as well. for housec-span1 coverage and c-span2 for senate coverage. michael, what are your thoughts? caller: i just want to comment on the christie situation. dead.not he is going to be a rockstar for all the wrong reasons. of the be the fraction republican party. republican. they are booing at the last campaign where they had the debates saying people were going for a gay service man or yelling out let them die if they don't have health insurance. he is going to be a rockstar for these kind of people. host: i don't want to train to get off the tracks. what do you think about the trillion dollar spending bill? and then he left. jared. caller: i just want to make a comment about what seems to be a myth about how congress works. i used to work on capitol hill. and admittedly, congress doesn't work by everyone legislator reading every piece of legislation they pass. it works by them specializing in one topic or another in the committee system. i don't think it is a reasonable expectation that all congressman will read all pieces of legislation covered cover. is the system that needs to change. you have to change the system. host: would it be impossible to get anything done if they were to change it so that you had enough time to read a 1500 page bill? caller: it would make the federal government less reactive. they would get things done, but at a slower pace. while i agree in many ways that the federal government should be smaller, there are several responsibilities that they have taken and you would disrupt that and find it being reflected in a lot of services. a couple of tweets for you. here is from the house appropriations committee. out is what they tweeted yesterday. the on the bus continues the downward trend of discretionary spending. year 2010.the fiscal house spending has gone down since 2010. heritage action tweeted this out. them.s a key vote for they want their conservative lawmakers to vote no on this trillion dollar on the bus spending bill -- omnibus spending bill. tweet, not enough time, the house will vote on the on the bus -- omnibus. could you read this that quickly? you can see a picture of all 1500 pages of this spending legislation. michael. theer: i am calling about extending the unemployment. that the senate and the house could get together. they just passed a trillion dollar spending bill, i don't see why they can't help the people that really need the help. not looking for a handout. i am a registered republican. i wish they could work with the democrats and come up with something, even if it is short term. i only collected 30 weeks, i know it sounds like a lot -- i can't find a part-time job anywhere. your thoughts. thank you. brian, st. paul. democratic caller. do you think this spending bill is large enough? the economy is -- we have barely even trudged forward. do think it is big enough to get it going? think it is large enough. i don't think it has been large enough for a while. our deficit is huge, but in comparison to deficits after the depression and things of that nature, we need to spend more on jobs and things to get the economy going forward. mike, hinesville, georgia. democratic caller. hi, mike. i'm not a republican, so i know you're going to go to the cut me off. republicans spend on parties, they go to sleep and wake up in the democratic administration says where does the spending come from? someone has to pay for all of this. -- credit card, medicare, tax when and they wonder president obama decided to put this war, which are expensive. someone has to pay for those wars. suddenly, he is the worst president in the world. they act like they are fortunetellers. they accuse the president of future crimes. he is going to wreck america. it is like he is going to do something, but i can speak -- republicans -- i can speak to what republicans have already done. fromone of these -- heritage foundation comes on, can you please ask them where the individual mandate came from. host: we have had that conversation before with heritage. --ical tweets in this spending bill, paid for by china. we are getting your thoughts on congress set to approve a trillion dollar spending bill. a to go over to the senate quickly for them to move on it as well. a noon vote is expected. tune into c-span1 for the house and c-span2 for the senate. together putting legislation like this. it is divvied up among 12 spending bills. , a congressman from texas, sits on the homeland security appropriations subcommittee had this to say about the legislation -- it is holding the president accountable while increasing -- borderurity, jobs, security and jobs. they will not allow his administration to build kingdoms with more government centralized dhs bureaucracy office. we are going to be fiscally responsible. touting the provisions in the spending bill for border security, increased funding and talking about how they are scaling back on some of the homeland security programs. that, from john carter, a republican from texas. let me, before i go to the next phone call, tell you about a retirement in the house. bill owens, new york, he announced yesterday that he will manyeek another term and political observers handicapping that seat to go to republicans. that is the 21st district of new york. he announced his retirement yesterday. randy, louisiana, independent caller. the thing is, they need to read all of this before they sign off on it. that is the whole problem with this country. as far as louisiana goes, they need to get rid of mary landrieu. she voted for all of this stuff. they need to get rid of her, real quick. and theseabitual liar people need to read this stuff. if i sign anything, i am going to read it first. these people are bought and paid for. they're going to do what they are told. it is just a bunch of communists up there. thank you. host: here is the front page of the houston chronicle. the bill will delay flood rate hikes. owners with property threatened by coastal flooding can -- may when a nine-month reprieve. that is expected for house approval today and then it moves to the senate. taxpayers for common sense, who have been following the flood program take issue in their analysis blog. they write about the flood insurance. of 2012.ks section 207 it directs fema to increase flood premiums to full risk rates at a pace of 20% a year. the provision only lasts through the end of the fiscal year, before fema indicates any of the rate changes would occur. this is not affect provisions dealing with home sales or second homes, business, or severe, repetitive lost properties. a little more about the flood insurance premium rates that was delayed, included in this trillion dollar spending bill. mike, maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i do agree with the budget agreement. it sounds like a decent compromise. the extension of the unemployment benefits, if it is a crisis, i don't think it should be this difficult to find a way to pay for. i agree with the republicans. i am all for extending them. it's not be that hard to pay for. republican caller, high, bella. i just realized this morning that they allocated funds for syria. they can't find or allocate funds for the unemployment extension? this is one point we million americans that are in need right now. there households depend upon it. i don't understand why the americans cannot come first. that is my statement. also money in this for aid to egypt. many people are weighing in on that as well. , who heads up the state and foreign operations subcommittee for the senate appropriations, he had the statement -- he wants to commend chairwoman the kolsky -- andrwoman barbara mikulski there will be not another disastrous government shutdown and at that for the state department and foreign operations, the bill provides 49 billion to protect a wide way of -- a wide array of security. 6.5 billion is for overseas contingency operations in afghanistan, pakistan, and other areas and political transition, including the middle east and north africa. if you are interested in foreign aid and the money, many callers are, you can go to patrick leahy's website and get a little more detail about what is in the legislation. news, breaking a couple stories this morning, related to the nsa, the first one by peter baker. he reports that the president, on friday, when he gives his speech about nsa reforms, will restrain some surveillance when it comes to accessing telephone data. he will keep many programs in place and he will ask congress to weigh in on some of these issues. the new york times, next to that, a piece about nsa using computer software to hack into nearly 100,000 computers around the world. it says that the technology, which the agency has used at least from 2008, relies on radio waves. in some cases, they are sent to the briefcase sized relay station that intelligent -- intelligence agencies can set up miles away from the target. in most cases, the hardware must be physically inserted by a spy or an unwitting user. more on the nsa today in the new york times this morning. on the front page of the wall street journal, a court has tossed out the rules of the road for the internet. a blow to the obama ministrations -- administration. federal rulest requiring broadband providers to treat all internet access equally. big companies, the big telecommunications companies are likely winners is what the papers are saying. on iran sanctions, senators that are clamoring for more sanctions, along with republicans, should defer to the obamaacy and give the administration a chance to work out some sort of deal with iran. the washington times says that the sanctions are needed to stiffen obama's backbone. that issue is being debated off the floor in the senate. iraq, the washington post -- weapons alone will not do the job. the prime minister called on the united states to remain in gauge in his country. [video clip] do you want to feel that you have to participate or just say that you want us there, we are out, we are not responsible anymore. i think you have a legal and moral responsibility towards iraq. we were a united country. remove saddam and push us towards democracy. in doing that, you destroy the country. the deputy prime minister. there is more than one. if you are interested, go to our website and go to our video library to check out the event. we are getting your thoughts on congress set to approve this trillion dollar spending bill. george, what do you think? our -- i think the politicians enjoy using the word servants of their country. that is a good term. when they come home from forseas, they say thank you your service to our military. i would like to see a discussion about politicians who call themselves servants should pay themselves the same rate that the military pays. for 24 hours al day for as long as they are in the military. the so-called the servants of , shouldtry, politicians pay themselves the same amount of money that servicemen and servicewomen receive. i would like to see that as part of the discussion when it comes to our budget. how would that change the face of washington? have a good day. host: ray, mississippi, democratic caller. hi.er: --ould just like to say that host: you are breaking up. mike, springfield, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. understandwe don't why they are not going to pay the unemployment insurance. inple are killing themselves and [indiscernible] host: got your point. we're talking about the trillion dollar spending bill. the house, if you tune into c-span1, will be voting on it today. the senate will take it up around noon and you can tune into c-span2 for our coverage there. the new york times quotes one center -- one senator. how rogers, a republican from it prohibits the bank and overseas --. we told you at the top, official portraits, there is no money in this spending bill for official portraits. that is on the front page. for the first time, official portraits paintings of the presidents, cabinet secretaries, and high ratings -- high-ranking members of congress, bans the paintings. tweak obamaigned to administration policy items such as coal and the old-fashioned lightbulbs. in 2013, the federal government signed contracts were least 200,000 worth of portraits. portrait of the marine corps commandant. that was eliminated. it also did not include money for the imf. that is the headline in the financial times this morning. congress fails to approve money for imf reform. david, columbia, missouri. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. money theyll the want to send out to all of these other countries. if they would cut that money in half and take care of the people that are on extended unemployment that have been cut off, it would be better. bill, wethe food stamp are starving our children. what sense is there in that? host: rick, jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning. i wanted to say on the budget ,aying -- the budget thing these guys don't have time to read the budget because there's so much going on up there. the folks in power, corporations are running them. people don't see that. they have to do what the corporations and lobbyists tell them to. unemployment is not important because they know there is other social organizations that will feed the unemployment and homelessness corporations run america. they keep saying they and this and that. they never has no name. they who? people, republicans, democrats, independents like me, we're going to see that corporations, the people who run this -- the people who run america [indiscernible] spending legislation lessons money for financial regulators. commodity futures trading commission, tasked with overseeing derivatives at the center of the financial crisis, the bipartisan bill provides and 93llion to the ftc million dollars less than the 2013 budget. that the nation will regulate is mustering from -- mushrooming. that is in usa today. also, on foreign affairs issues, this is the wall street journal this morning. minister, hisnse remark on john kerry, he called him obsessed with a peace deal. that triggered a rebuke from the u.s. state department. it's spokeswoman said his comments are offensive. especially given all that the united states is doing to support israeli security needs. andry's motives the store has proposals is not something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally. a portion of this hits me hard with respect to the extended benefits. is withation for myself the economy and the way things are, companies are streamlining and downsizing. i was put into the system for almost 45 years. i was faced with a situation where i was let go due to downsizing. you can translate that into any way you want. i think i might have -- and aget have to do with my being 63. i have been on unemployment since march. my normal unemployment expired. i had to go into the e you see -- the euc. the 28th was the final day in december. we are faced with a situation when i have -- where i have no other income coming in. you would think someone such as myself, and an army veteran, that something could be done. spend the money and our backyards. help the people that have helped this country. if it wasn't for the people in the country, we would not be the country that we are. host: we will ask chuck grassley about the debate on extending unemployment benefits and the trillion dollar spending bill and reform to the nsa surveillance programs. later, we will talk with adam schiff. he is a democrat from california. we will be right back. ♪ >> i think i had antennas that went up and told me when someone had their own agenda. then i would tell him. he would not always agree with me, but i would tell him. it usually worked out. >> watch our program on first lady nancy reagan. see it saturday on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. our series continues as we look at first lady, barbara bush. >> by 1895 or so, nine different railroads terminated in chattanooga and that created an economic base. every railroad had a switching yard. a great terminal in the southeast. all of that employment and it providedng over, an economic stimulus to the growing city of chattanooga. movetoday, railroads still an amazing amount of time and through chattanooga. coal trains, train after train, loaded with grain, going to the coastards on the atlantic or to power plants in georgia, etc. there are a lot of commodities that moved by rail. they have to come through chattanooga. weekend, a look at the history and literary life of chattanooga, tennessee. saturday at noon on c-span2. washington journal continues. you are the ranking republican on the senate judiciary committee. you heard from the president task for sky he put together on reforms to the nsa surveillance programs. i want to share the front page of the new york times. peter baker and charlie savage have details about the president's speech that he will give on friday. he plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, and proposed the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. accessfirst of all, more is legitimate. transparency and more oversight by congress is important. if there had been more of that, i don't think we would have the arper war now -- the upro now when snowden made his comments. public advocacy under certain circumstances would be appropriate. if it is in every instance, i think there might be some concerns about that. i don't understand when the constitution doesn't protect foreigners, what the concern is about limitations on foreigners. we want to assume that everybody in the united states is not going to be a terrorist against our country. a lot of people outside of the united states want to hurt us. there is something left out of their that i have a strong feeling, based upon meetings that several of us had with the president last week at the white house, but the president is going to be very strong in support of what we call the 215 program, but not necessarily the way it is right now. the president did make clear , but he was very usong in his statements to about the importance of metadata. host: about collecting it. muchhey collect it, how they collect, does that same place? caller: i believe that would be unchanged. the question is where is it going to be stored and what access would we have to it? when you have concerns about privacy and government, they are legitimate because the government has abuse on privacy. you see it through the irs and conservative organizations. that is not even intelligence. the other -- when you have targ et and the other one -- host: the security breach at target. there's another one. i forgot the name of the. organizations know more about what we do them what the government knows about us. peter baker and charlie savage report that president obama will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunications form -- firms. can you explain this a little bit? the national security letters were not something that was given to the review committee to make recommendations on. i am surprised they made those recommendations. we have had the fbi before our committee and we have had a about what, if we follow the directions of the review committee, and evidently, the president agrees with the fbi director, it would inhibit our opportunity to go after terrorist. it may put more requirements on going after terrorists then you would before a grand jury for a common criminal in the united states. what was the other point? will not require core permission for security letters. he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunication firms. guest: i don't know why he is making that recommendation. we all want to wait until the president makes his statement before we react to it. that gets back to some of the concerns that i said that i have. that would target being breached and everything and 70 million people in america having some of divulgedancial stuff to other people and be used for fraudulent purposes. more privacyhat is concerns they are then the government controls the. host: more from the new york times. instead of taking bold data out of government hands, mr. obama will leave it in place for now and ask lawmakers to weigh in. what will you say? we should of started off the conversation with what i am going to say. a are in the process in doing bipartisan way, this will have to be done in a bipartisan way. find a balance between the constitutional protection of , the number one responsibility of the federal government for national security -- you have to find the balance. there is a general agreement on more transparency and more oversight. beyond that, i don't know whether anyone knows exactly where you want to come out, except there are a few that think you ought to do away with the whole program and if you think there should never be any changes. host: are you on board with the legislation drafted by your chairman, patrick leahy and jim sensenbrenner? i am not on any piece of legislation at this point, -- ise i have not found want to find the middle ground. even the middle ground can be controversial when you have extreme views over here and well thought out views over here. host: we cover the hearing yesterday with president obama. -- members of his task force that he put together. before we get to phone calls, let me move to the trillion dollar spending legislation. how do you plan to vote? tost: i am probably going vote for it. i have not gone through the 1500 pages yet. host: will you? final bill comes out three days before you're going to vote. thisve been working on over a long period of time. not everything is new. are noto make sure there earmarks in it. if there are earmarks in, both political parties decided no more earmarks. not be any earmarks in it. that might be a reason to vote against it. if it stays within the budget adopted before christmas, that is voting for it. i better reserve judgment until you get through all parts of it. it is pretty much a fairly conservative budget. people in the house of representatives would say it 35 or 40 it spends billion more than what was in sequestration. let's get to phone calls. democratic caller, hi jeff. overwhelming is an evidence about the third tower on 9/11, it was brought down by a controlled demolition. since the rights of americans are being affected by the nsa program, we want to make sure we know everything about the event. would you be willing to review the building seven controlled demolition evidence with representatives of the building experts that are demanding a new investigation of its destruction? a group of folks that don't believe the investigation was adequate. guest: the answer is no. it is conclusive it was done by terrorists. i have had people come to my town meeting as early as 2003 and 2004 and discusses with me. they brought big pictures in of andtowers going down someone who believes this and pointed to it and said, this is a fake. this is not aviation gas that is blowing up -- that is steaming up here. been pretty well investigated. host: cell, independent caller. my question is, i have seen you on the show a couple of times. one time you mentioned you were receiving 100% of your retirement pay. i would like to know, you mentioned that you and a partner were receiving farm subsidies. are these things true? guest: not retirement pay. over 65 years of age and i pay into social security and i am drawing social security. not retirement. you cannot get retirement pay until i retire for congress -- from congress. i crop share with my son and i do receive farm payments as a result of that. the reason i crop share his ice or -- i share some of the risk and i am a farmer and i represent farmers in iowa. i could avoid the farm payments this way -- i could cash lent my farm, take the money, and not take before payment. i think it is better to farm 50-50 and sharon the operation and know what farming is -- share in the operation so i know what farming is. most of the payment you are talking about would be what we call direct payments. there are three or four kinds of payments. the only one you get for sure is direct payments. you get that, regardless of price. the farm bill we are working on now will do away with direct payments and save $15 billion. there will be no direct payments to chuck or any other former. host: what is the likelihood of that getting past? orst: there is only three things that separate them. i think we will get a farm bill, i was hoping by the end of this week but i think it will be by the end of january. we are not in session next week. host: vancouver, washington, republican caller. caller: good morning to both of you. grassley, i have been a longtime supporter of you. i was wondering if you could tell me what the prospects are of restoring the cost of living to the retired military people? all that was cut. i am glad that i was not on the conference that put that in the budget before christmas. it is very controversial. i would vote to restore that. up to do itwas put for new people going into the military, i would vote to change the retirement system but for people who joined under the idea that their compensation plan would include a certain retirement, i don't think it should be changed within the retirement plan. another thing that could affect , thei'm telling you percentage of adjustment for military people should be the same as it is for social security, etc for other civil service retirement. with what weoblem call the consumer price index, overcompensating for inflation, that tends to give all of those categories, cost-of-living, a what thet more than actual cost of living would be according to consumer rights index. -- price index. if we would adjust that to follow what economists say is a more true designation of what inflation is, then it would affect all of those. from that standpoint, i would vote for changes like that. winston-will go to salem, north carolina, independent caller. morning to both of you. as usual, thank you for the great job you and the rest of the c-span team do in keeping us informed. my question has to do with the so-called, i think it's called the black budget. it is the budget that is not available for public review. we hear a lot these days about the constitution and the founding fathers. is there something in the constitution that allows for this so-called black budget? when did it become part of the budgeting process? opinion on personal such a thing as a black budget that never gets discussed or presented on c-span and committee meetings, etc? guest: i think there should be a black budget. the black budget would only account for the part that is used for intelligence, cia, some defense intelligence organizations. it is not a case that every member of congress does not know about it. people on the appropriations committee that deal with intelligence, people on the intelligence committee which is a standing committee authorizing committee, they know what is in it. i can be briefed on what is in it. sometimes we get that calledtion but it's black or secret or whatever you want to call it because you don't want your enemies to know what you are spending on intelligence because, from that figure, they might determine what you are doing in their particular country or what you are doing generally. you don't want your enemies to know what you know about them or how you go about getting information. it is directly connected to the federal government's responsibility, number one responsibility of national security and protecting the american people and gathering intelligence on your potential enemies is one way of doing that. that is why it is relatively secret but not totally secret. it is not on c-span. that's about all i can say. host: is that so-called black budget including in this on the is spending bill? guest: don't know whether it asked this question or not but the total figure is pretty well public. not how it is divided up within that figure. it would be part of the money that is appropriated by congress. int: we will go to ray clinton, iowa, democratic caller. morning, i have two questions for the senator. one has to do with the postal service. there is this ominous $5.5 billion they keep taxing the american people by taking it out of the post office. the post office has been operating at a surplus but because of this ridiculous offset pre-funding retiree, 75 oughtin advance that they to put on general motors, alcoa, john deer and every other takery in this country -- it off and let the post office operate. the other part is, host: i will leave it there and have the senator respond. guest: b until we get a postalill through both houses of congress, this issue will not be dealt with. it will be dealt with within that bill. two years ago, the senate passed a bill. chairmancarper of the committee is willing to pass a bill again. i don't know when it will come up in the senate but i hope it does come up. i had a chance to vote for that bill two years ago. it is much more comprehensive than the thing you brought up but it includes what you brought up. it did not ever get through the house of representatives. i would have to ask senator reed when he will let it come up in the united states senate but i think the committee is willing to move forward on it. host: the trillion dollar spending bill includes provisions on the postal service . it says that postal delivery must continue on saturdays. the postal service would like to discontinue saturday service in order to save some money. guest: i believe it's a good thing to put that in the appropriation bill. should not beery decided by itself or it it should be decided in a comprehensive postal reform bill. that is something that senator carper's bill deals with. this is just a delay until september 30 that the postal service will not go ahead until we get a bill passed. host: here is an e-mail -- guest: the reason it is not in the appropriations bill is because it is a separate item on the floor of the united states senate. host: it sounds like the two sides cannot agree on extension of on employment benefits. guest: they can agree on the extension but they cannot agree had to pay for it. -- how to pay for it. i think there needs to be 60 votes to pass a three-month extension but how do you pay for it? there is also a procedural problem. senator reid has been running the united states senate so in the last year, he only allowed for republican amendments to come up. there is 45 of us and only four amendments can come up. we are also trying to get an agreement that we can offer some republican amendments. the senate is supposed to be a deliberative a-day, not run by one person. the house of representatives is run by the rule committee but we have a one-person rules committee in the united states senate and it is senator reid and it is not supposed to be that way. if you read james madison and the federalist papers, the senate is supposed to be a deliberative body not supposed to be run by one person and big run by the majority -- and the run by the majority. host: when the congress returns at the end of january, do you think this issue gets resolved? guest: i think it could be resolved this week ar if there pay forreement how to it. not every republican is offering amendments. we are asking for something like three or four amendments. we won't necessarily get them adopted but we want to discuss important things. they won't let us discuss. host: are they related to employment benefits? guest: under the rules of the eenate, you can have non-german amendments as long as you don't accept post-cloture then everything has to be germane. the senate was meant to be able to discuss anything at any time. that's what you call a deliberative body. host: we will hear from paul in tennessee next, republican caller. caller: good morning, i want to thank you for taking my call. call.ed 30 days to mr. grassley, it is a pleasure to speak with you. a poor district in tennessee. i see children that i know are hungry at night. shame the way the country treats era vets and these children. about thoseologize callers about 9/11. it seems there is a certain portion of our country that would -- that forgets we were attacked and there are families that went through a lot of pain and are still going through it today over that incident. i want to apologize to you. my question is, sir, this administration is the most corrupt, violent administration that i have ever seen in my life. i am republican to the core but i don't have any confidence in the congress at all. they let him run a side show up there. they make a mockery of our constitution and the people who fought and died for it. why don't we just bring our troops to the house because they don't have any rights here. how does the congress just let this man get by with going around congress so many times? we send billions of dollars to countries that hate us. here in america, we have starving kids and it's not right. it was about checks and balances in the government, that question. we can pass laws to overrule him but they are not going to go through a democrat-controlled united states senate. the house of representatives has passed several bills over rolling some of things the president did or even trying to help the president in the case where he didn't eat legal thing -- and i legal thing like delay in the employer mandate in obamacare. the republicans in the house of representatives passed something to legalize that. it will not be brought up in the senate. example ofas a good where i think the president is going to be checked on his abuse of authority when he made recess appointments to the national labor relations board. there was a case -- there is a case before the supreme court that i think they will say that the president acted in an unconstitutional manner about one year ago. there is a case in district court now -- you mentioned fast and furious -- the house of representatives has tried to overrule the president on that by a citation against holder but when you have a contempt citation and he does not honor it, you have to go to court so when the district court in d.c. but there is a case trying to loosen those papers up that the president has stonewalled us from getting to find out all the truth about fast and furious. there are ways of doing it but they don't happen overnight. host: we solicited comments on our facebook page last night for you for your appearance this morning. i think it refers to the extension of on employment benefits. 2008, 2009, and went 11, they were paid for. previous toen times that that they have not been paid for and one time since then they have not been paid for. i think the only answer i can give surely is the difference between the $17 trillion national debt and a $12 trillion national debt. host: jared in michigan, independent caller. caller: good morning, senator grassley, thank you for your service. my question is on unemployment. if you give on employment for six months or something like that, could you taper that to where the first payment they get will be as much money as they are going to debt and start tapering off after that? all they are doing is waiting for the last week before going looking for a job. syria, we are giving them $380 million for humanitarian efforts. those people are trying to get back to the camps, to the refugee camps and are being fired upon and there is no way we can guarantee that our money and the rest of the world's gety will be able to provisions to those people. guest: you have to remember that a lot of the humanitarian aid to syrians does not necessarily go to the geographical area we call syria. there is a lot of syrians in .urkey and jordan mostly those countries where humanitarian aid is going. it does not have any trouble getting their. the portion that goes to people within syria vs the others, i cannot give you figure but not all humanitarian aid would be in jeopardy. asked,first question you i think you get more to a point of tapering off. i don't take disagreement with your suggestion but i think it is more of a case of having unemployment for another three months or not or it will it be paid for or not? that is the issue. if i were going to make any reform of unemployment compensation, we have had too many people -- i'm giving this to you ad hoc - i don't have statistics but people who are employers in my state of iowa have said i offered a job to so and so and they said i just. my unemployment renewed so i'm not going to take a job right now. the you are offered a job, law implies that you take that job but you don't have to. there is no enforcement of it. greater enforcement would be a better reform than what you suggested. james inwill go to mobile, alabama, democratic caller. hey, senator, i appreciate the fire you have in your gut and i hope you don't stop. it is nice to your straightforward talk from our leaders. regard to unemployment -- a lot of people, myself included, need job of one sort or another and would be glad to pay somebody at least minimum wage if there was a way that there was a database that we could contact these people and if they maybe that isit, what you are insinuating. maybe there should be some reform on that. i had withomments regard to the affordable care by, little sisters of the poor and contraceptives -- i don't think any of us know where this whole mess is going to crumble. i am an independent. i don't think we know where any of this will end up. what if a jehovah's witness owned a hobby lobby? should they be able to demand that none of the people who work for them receive blood? they don't receive blood. i worked in health care 20 years. for the largest health care institution in the country. what a faith healer or someone who prays over a person -- they are entitled to their religious idea ---- i think the by the way, at ascension health, we all have luke ross/blue shield and i don't know any of the women i work with who ever had a problem not getting contraceptives or whatever. you mentioned various segments of religious belief. i don't think i want to comment on the separate ones but i think you have to take a fairly purist view on the first amendment, freedom of religion. i have some sympathy for what the sisters of the poor or whatever it is out there in colorado for what they are trying to accomplish. that would be settled by the courts, i think. theuld make more clear religious exemptions within the obama care if i got a chance to vote on that. host: back to the unemployment benefits -- here is a tweet -- how low do you have to go with unemployment that you don't do it? maybe the people on facebook and e-mailing you think we are talking about no unemployment. we are talking about every state since the 19 ernie's have had to have 26 weeks of unemployment. -- since the 1930s. we are talking about maybe once every 10 years, things get so bad that the federal government extends it for a. of time. we used only extended for 13 weeks which brought up from 26 up to 39 weeks. maybe once it got up to 50 weeks or something. years last three or four since the recession was so long and unemployment states ohio, -- stage so high, it came to 99 weeks. high that itso came to 99 weeks. sometimes unemployment extension maintains unemployment at a high level, so say some analysts. people tend to not go to work until employment is running out. they don't make an effort to do it. that's not saying that people are lazy but it does say that government has an impact. public policy has an impact on people's behavior. how long do you carry that on? also, there is a feeling we should be spending more time on retraining and helping people get jobs. if you really want to improve the unemployment, you've got to get people jobs and get this economy turned around. this is the longest period. we call this a recession but the unemployment has been as much as in the great depression. host: on a lighter note, can i ask you about social media? you are a prolific tweeter. people have made a lot of the fact that you send them out themselves -- you send them out yourself. guest: i also have many misspellings. host: how do you think it has changed your ability to communicate? with folks outside of washington. guest: in a general way, there is not a political view that cannot be expressed by anybody in this country as opposed to 20 years ago when all the major networks controlled 80% of the political views, or a few newspapers. now anybody can express views. in a democracy, a purchase authority -- a participatory democracy, that is very good. the more interaction you get between government and our people is going to strengthen our system. it has givenhand, people with extreme views an opportunity to say things that maybe are not accurate. there is a lot of misinformation that gets out there. people will have to be very discriminating, more so than they were 20 years of go reading a newspaper and things like that. , i believe, to make the grassroots of america more divided between conservatives and progressives. that has shown up in the congress of the united states. you may wonder why congress's ideologically divided. you used to have conservative and moderate democrats and conservative and moderate republicans and now you have republicans and democrats and that is a reflection of the grassroots that comes from not only from social media but from all the talk shows and all of the cable television shows you have better ideologically divided. y in whitehall, montana, independent color. caller: thank you both. i have a question concerning the social security income cap. would the senator please explain it? i understand he is getting social security now. thank you very much. guest: you are asking why i have to turn in 85% of by social security for income tax which probably gets my social security down to about 40% of what i would normally get if i had an income of $132,000 per year. compromise, to save social security, it was overlished that people $32,000 per year income, relatively higher income people and today, 32,000 is not high income but in 1984, it was more so -- you would report 40% of income. and clinton tax increases of 1993, that was raised from 40- 85,000. that income that comes in from the tax on the social security that you report goes into the social security trust fund. it is the only non-payroll tax money that goes into the social security fund. it does supplement and make more stable social security. it is a tax and it's a tax on people that are successful like everything else. it tends to make social security more progressive than it originally was. int: we will go to helena pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: with all due respect, i am upset with your party. what are you going to do for the poor? i am sick and tired of hearing about what happened years ago with the founding fathers in the constitution. you all have not done anything. you only criticize our president who wants to help us. what is your party going to do about the unemployment that the people need? what about health care, that is the law? why don't you help fix it? you talk about voter suppression and keeping certain people from voting. why don't you fix that? raise the tax on the rich. i am sick of you talking about this man and what he is not doing. you all have not done anything. guest: i don't think i have mentioned anything critical about president obama. even one time, i complemented him for help he is approaching the nsa problem. host: she was referring to the republican party. guest: i thought she said she is upset with me. host: she is upset with the republican party. what: i would not propose she should do to the democrat party. that is something to work at within the party. we will have to work out our differences within the republican party. without a doubt, we have the ability of representing the middle class better than the democrats do. the democrats get their success by dividing america. between rich and lower income. americans are americans. americans are americans first. they are not rich first. they are not poor first. they are not middle class first. they are americans. what we have to do that i don't think this lady recognizes is pull together, not divide as her questions tend to imply division in america. we should not from of class warfare. we should pull together in america. we've got plenty of problems that we have to solve together. host: ralph in north carolina, democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning. to say to mr. grassley -- why is it that it seems like rich republicans are treating this president -- [inaudible] host: you are breaking up. you are treating him different than the previous administration. you did not have a problem with fast and furious under the last administration but now it is a problem. it angered me deeply as an thatcan to look up and see the confederate flag in front of the white house. you keep talking about what he is not doing. i don't see you offering anything in place of obamacare or the affordable care act. you keep talking and you are sending a lot of money overseas that could be spent here. hear about to yourself, you have not done nothing. guest: everything that this caller has found fault with is nothing more than an expression of freedom of speech under the constitution. everything he has found fault with his individuals and he named three or four examples. person, through resources or through their own personal activity or their own demonstrations are exercising the right to freedom of speech like he did. he mentioned fast and furious. guest: do you understand he was wrong on that? that was under the obama administration. he is referring to a previous one in the bush administration not called fast and very us. it was called something else. compared to 2000 guns that this administration wanted sold to the drug dealers in mexico and not following them, there was a small number of guns that were actually followed and there was not any murder committed by the guns that went under the previous program. we had american border patrol agent killed by the guns that went out under this. fast and furious is an obama administration program. host: from "the washington post," the spending bill includes a provision that would restrict the justice and homeland security departments -- guest: those are all things that congress has asked for information from the administration on. they have refused to give it to us. congress does not only pass laws and appropriate money. have a constitutional responsibility under the principle of checks and balances to make sure that the executive wrench of government faithfully execute the laws. when somebody is under fast imperious and is going to gun dealers in arizona and saying we want you to violate the law and that is notlegally, faithfully executing the law. we are entitled to that information. the president stonewalled us on that and the president, on january 21, 2009 said that he was going to be the most transparent organization -- transparent administration in the history of the country. he is probably not any worse than bush was or reagan was as far as oversight but based upon his own ends mark of being the most transparent and the history of the country, he is the most stonewalling president we have had. said that, i could not say that but he said he was going to be the most transparent. host: by not getting that information, then the appropriators have put leg and they're saying you cannot use the funding for certain programs? guest: it is something we have learned from fast and furious and benghazi. host: guest: in other words, they are saying -- they are using that language so the executive branch cannot do something? that is in the principle of checks and balances. we pass laws and we think the administration, under those laws, issue regulations or maybe take some action that is not according to the law. then you put a rider in an appropriation bill saying that none of the money in this appropriation bill can be used. that when a farming operation of under 10 employees, osha cannot go to that farm and regulate it. he recently said farmers plant their crops, bring their crops in from the field, we cannot do anything about that. where you store your grain or dry your grain and bring it out of the field, that is not part of the farming operation. they say we can regulate that. they issued regulations. that farmersto say that drive their grain that that is not part of the farming operation. if you only have two employees, they will regulate it. they found people in the breast and a fine people in iowa. they realized how ridiculous that was on the backed up. it is a perfect example of eurocrats not knowing anything about farming trying to regulate it and at the same time, it's an expression of how washington is an island surrounded by reality. is the response that republicans are making to the obama ad ministration, issuing executive orders, legislating -- here is a quotation from the president. he says he will continue down this road. guest: that's what he did at the supreme court yesterday when he violated the constitution and appointed people. thatupreme court will rule it is unconstitutional. he overstepped his bounds. he can do whatever he wants to? he will do some things that are not constitutional and will do some things that we disagree with. a lot of the stuff in this appropriations bill to something some low level bureaucrat did. it may be just a little worse under this president but whether you have a republican president or democratic president, they are always violating the constitution. maybe i should not say violating but they often violate laws that congress passes and doing things the law does not allow. it is not just an obama problem. it is just more of a problem under him. host: thank you very much for talking to our viewers, we appreciate your time. coming up next, we'll talk with a democrat from california sits on the house intelligence committee and talk about nsa surveillance programs and later, our spotlight on magazines series continues with the budget compromise in congress and what other mini deals might be reached. time.s 8:37 a.m. eastern there is more violence in iraq today. the associated press reports that the death toll is now at least 44 following a wave of bombings across the country. the explosions struck busy markets and a funeral north of baghdad. says one ofan, nato its service members has been shot and killed by insurgents. the statement says the shooting took place today but provided no other details on the attack or the nationality of the service member. the death brings to five the number of coalition deaths so far this month in afghanistan. breaking news on twitter -- virginia democratic hundred and jim moran will announce today that he will retire this year. tosident obama is set nominate a new nominee for the small business administration. the nominee is a former cabinet secretary. the president will make the announcement today. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. as the president first stated in march and reemphasize tuesday night, the goal of the united states in afghanistan and pakistan is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies. and to prevent its return to both countries. the international military effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal. >> robert gates surtout presents as defense secretary. director in the early 90s, friday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two, alive book tv event. secretary gates will talk about his management of the worse in iraq and afghanistan and his relationship with the white house in congress. for for women's history beginners in a few weeks. that is february 2 at noon eastern. online for the rest of january, join our book tv book club discussion. tv.org to enter the chat. journal"ngton continues. hiff is with us. the front page of "the new york times," there is the story about what the president is expected to say on friday when he talks about reforms to the nsa. they write -- guest: i hope he goes beyond that expectation when it comes to the bulk metadata program where the government obtains these vast quantities of domestic call records. i hope you will embrace a reform that will have the telecommunications carriers keep their own records. it does not go that far, i'm not sure what it will do. some of the proposals in congress which favor the status quo merely prohibit that program for doing things it does not do anyway. i hope that is not where the president is heading. i would like to see a reform along the lines of his own task force. it would either have the providers hold onto the records or third-party. i think the third-party option is not good so i think he will embrace that particular recommendation from the panel so the government, when there's reason to believe that number is connected with a plot, then we'll go to the provider and say let us know who this number has been in contact with. i think that is more protective of privacy and i think it's a gets us the information we need in a timely way to prevent any attacks on the homeland. host: it is reported that the president is expected to leave the bulk data in the government's hands. he wants lawmakers to wait in. what would your legislation do on that? guest: the president last week indicated he would like to have the congress be an active partner in this print i think the congress should be. we have not demonstrated lately much ability to get things done. the omnibus spending bill is a nice exception. my bill would effectuate the recommendation of that task force and leave the records to the providers and say before going to the providers seeking the connections with a number, that if we go through the fisa court, we would get approval unless there was an emergency. there would be exceptions where you could go straight to the provider and get the information. if the court decides that was not a proper request, it would be expunged. that's what my bill would do it think it's consistent with what the task force recommended. host: what about the public advocate and the role they would play? a former judge of this secret court has weighed in and said if you put a public advocate person on this court, it will slow everything down. guest: with all due respect to the judge, i think that was a bit of a red herring argument. the judge was saying that if we had an advocate in every case before the fisa court, i don't think anybody is suggesting that. we are suggesting that in these cases where the fisa court is not asked to act like the criminal court but gets a request for a search warrant but rather asked to bless the entire program like the bulk metadata program. in the circumstances, programmatic request or request that raises novel constitutional issues, in those circumstances, yes, we should have an advocate their to say the government is urging that we have this phone metadata program, why can't it be done this way? why can't those records stay with the providers to test the government assumptions and give the judge of the benefit of hearing other views? host: what else do you want to hear from the president on friday? guest: a lot of the large american companies that do business overseas have a threat to their business model. google and yahoo! and facebook and others, i would like to hear how the president deals we can address that to restore confidence that foreign countries and people living in those countries can do business with american companies and know their privacy will be respected. i don't think he will announce enforceable right to privacy like if we were doing the kind of surveillance we need to do to protect the country, surveilling what al qaeda is doing, that we create a right of privacy. somethink he will announce policy objectives and how we will test our intelligence community and what we do to protect privacy of people at home and around the world. host: coming up next, we are talking to a reporter for cq weekly. dealsare potential many that could happen and on that list is nsa reform. fort: it certainly is right that right for resolution. i think the president is right that the american people should help make the decision of where to draw the line between privacy and security. there are cases where we can do both completely and cases where there is a trade-off. the metadata example is a good example where we can better protect privacy but there is a cost. we will not get the information quite as readily as we would if the government had that data itself. there is a bit of a trade-off and i think the president wants the american people to weigh in on that in the way to do that is through the congress. at the same time, i think the administration should do as much as it can without putting all its eggs in a fairly discussion will -- in a fairly dysfunctional legislative basket. host: from the front page of "the new york times" -- what can you tell us about this software? guest: i cannot really tell you anything about it. it sounds like yet another snowden disclosure and until the intelligence community decides what can declassify, my answer -- my hands are tied. speaking generically, would we want the u.s. government to place software devices and foreign computers? we have a major chinese cyber problem where the chinese government and these hackers are hacking into american companies and stealing trade secrets for it if we can keep an eye on what the hackers do, that would be worthwhile. if we can keep an eye on what our efforts harry's -- our es are doing, that would be worthwhile. is this technology use within the united states un- american computers? guest: unless there is a connection between a particular american terror cell, the answer has to be no. that would have to be approved by a court. there may be very special circumstances where there is probable cause to believe that someone is working in new york to on times square, for example. if we have enough information to go into their computer and do searches, under court supervision, that might happen. in terms of abroad program or unsupervised program where the nsa is freelancing by putting a device or software into computers domestically, i cannot see that happening. host: has it been successful? guest: i cannot comment on those allegations. i cannot say the intelligence community -- they are pretty good at what that is and how the enemies are trying to attack us. we have blind spots but we should want the intelligence committee to do that kind of work. we have to make sure that we are gathering the right data to protect us and we are protecting the privacy of the american people and not violating any provision of our constitution. we should not want the intelligence community to be sitting on their heels and not doing what they need to do to protect the country. host: the american government was upset that the chinese had an entire unit dedicated to cyber attacks. what is the difference between what the chinese art doing and what the united states is doing with the computer software program? i can say this -- the chinese have engaged in wholesale economic that. not only do they spy to find out what we are doing militarily and what we are doing in the taiwan straits, they spy to still secrets from boeing orton or through or raytheon and still technologies and manufacturing processes. we don't do that. that is wholesale economic espionage. that is a very are found distinction. he fully expected chinese to do what they can to learn about our military intentions and do what they think is necessary to protect themselves. we draw the line when it comes to simply theft. they still billions of dollars worth of american intellectual property. that puts us at an economic to his advantage. host: let's get to calls, kingsport, tennessee, democratic color. a letter was sent to the department of congress pointing out that the report on the destruction of building seven about the bombing of 9/11. why building seven fell is crucial to understanding 9/11. would you be willing to review that letter and assist in getting the doc to address this issue? guest: i would be happy to review the letter but i am not familiar with that correspondence. or what. that corresponds to. risk -- thaty that corresponds to. if something else brought down the building, i cannot imagine what that might have been. it's possible there were construction defects in the building that you are referring to and i would be more than willing to look at the letter but i would be quite astounded if the collapse of that building was not related to the plane crash. host: dallas, texas, independent caller. caller: on the metadata, that scares me the most. there is all this comp violation of -- there is this compilation of who americans call. drug dealers talk in code. the tracking from phone to phone, from one subpoena, you can tap millions of people. hoover, under j edgar what if another j edgar hoover got a hold of this metadata -- megadata in the future. ? >> the metadata we are talking about is not include content. the oral conversations you're talking about are not actuated by the government. nonetheless, that metadata contains a lot of information. it is numbers and who those numbers have been in contact with. faceight say that on the of it, if it does not include subscriber information, we don't know who was associated with the numbers and it does not include the content of the calls, what is it tell us. ? as was testified yesterday, it can tell us quite a lot. once you make the connection between a number and the person, then it tells you who they have been calling and when and what numbers they have been calling. you can begin to paint a portrait with that metadata. therein is the specter of attentional abuse. you mentioned jager hoover. heart of what we have to do now is make sure it but not only the current administration does not use the information and is no evidence that it has been future administrations will not. the questions we have to ask ourselves on the rogue ram, like is itograms are - constitutional, is it effective, and is it structured in a way that minimizes unnecessary risk to our privacy? i don't think we can meet that third criteria with the program structure the way it is which is why i remain -- i recommend a restructuring. host: i seen that report. i think the program has had a modest impact. i don't think the new america foundation would quarrel with that. some people have conflated this program orh the 702 other nsa efforts. it is only one tool. do we need that to level? i don't think we need the tool in its current form. we get most of the value out of it even if the companies hold onto their own data. it provides useful information in some cases. of balances that we don't know what is coming down the pike. if this were the one tool that happens to work in one case that could stop something significant, we would say it is worth it but we don't know that will be the case. we do know that the risk to privacy is pretty considerable by gathering millions and billions of domestic call records. if we don't need to do that and if we can still get most of the utility out of that tool another way, i think we should do it. host: we should note that you mentioned mike morales, longtime career in intelligence gathering for this government. he was part of president obama's task force that was put together to look at the and as a data collection program. he testified yesterday before the senate judiciary. we covered it so go to www.c- span.org if you want to watch it there. here is a tweet -- guest: i don't think so. it's hard for me to imagine that happening. there was a lot of information taken by snowden, only a fraction of which has been made public. some of my colleagues on the intelligence committee talked about this recently and the defense department did an analysis of all the things we think they have and others may have obtained. many have nothing to do with the privacy of the american people and a lot has to do with similar military secrets. it is hard to find any justification for that except to do damage the country. that is a pretty tough case for any kind of clemency. i have a hard time imagining that happening. host: has he released that information? guest: we don't know. the newspapers have not published it. who has it or has access to it. why he would have taken it is a pretty important question. that whatever his motives, we simply cannot have a system where anyone in the intelligence community can make unilateral decisions. --isagree with his policy with this policy and i will release that information -- it cannot work that way. host: in any legislation on and as a reform, will it address people like edward snowden and contractors that work in the government? andt: it will in the sense is ongoing, an effort to dramatically improve security within the agency so that you don't have people without a need to know having access to vast amounts of information. analysts like edward snowden will not be able to access different systems on their own where they can download information they should not have access to. there must be a mechanism for a red flag to go up when that happens. host: grantville, pennsylvania, republican caller -- caller: can you hear me? i feel like edward snowden did something where he brought forth this surveillance that was going on and the people in power that were embarrassed by it want to see him punished but in reality, the guy did what he thought was right and i think he is bringing the root cause of all this. perhaps he should be given a pass. he is better in our hands than in the russians hands. guest: i appreciate that and i know a great many people feel that way. i'm not sure what mr. snowden's motivations were. it may have been a mixer of motivations. in addition to having serious problems with privacy issues, he may have had problems with his employer or felt a lot of -- a lack of advancement. , itever his motivations are simply do not think we can have a system where each individual in the intelligence community can make a decision on their own. you joinan oath when the intelligence community and that is not for everyone. he took an oath which he has violated. i don't think we can have a system, notwithstanding the importance of the debate, where you can have individuals making those decisions. by a lot very troubled of the military information he has taken that has no privacy implication at home but can do us harm around the world. host: guest: i don't know there is anything i can comment on. this is one of the challenges being on the intelligence committee. even are broad subjects when there are published reports about them that i cannot confirm or deny. sayt sure i am able to anything on that subject so i will have to respectively decline. host: let me move on to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi back in 2011. your colleague in the senate, the chairwoman of the senate intelligence committee, diane feinstein, had a headline yesterday that she rejects "the new york times" report on benghazi that said there were no ties to al qaeda. you have been saying that for quite a while now. can you talk to us and explain how you know that al qaeda would we involved? guest: what have seen since the story came out and that was the story that said there was no link whatsoever in the attack -- whate are different in they are referring to when they say an al qaeda attack. if you're talking about an attack plan and plotted by corelle qaeda -- by core al qaeda, then they are probably correct. peopleare talking about who have ties to al qaeda, or are affiliated in some way, i think some of those players were involved in what happened in benghazi. it may depend onit may depend oe ties are. i think it oversimplifies there was noy involvement. does it matter? guest: it does, in the sense that we want to know who was responsible and whether there was any al qaeda instruction. the point of view if they were not affiliated with al qaeda, do we need to worry about them so much? i don't think that is the case. one of the things we are all in the shariaith is organization. it is almost worth -- worst if the people we were counting on to help us turn around and attack us. itm that point of view doesn't matter if they were linked to al qaeda or not. they are still deadly and very much a threat. had: the washington post this to say, that -- can you tell us about who this is? need to designate his group as a new terrorist organization? this is someone who had a connection with bin laden and has been in one of the militia organizations within libya. i think there are still questions about what his role, if any, personally in the attack in benghazi. we can use different financial instruments to go after their financing. it may have implications in terms of the status that we focus on them from a security point of view in terms of travel restrictions. it will basically put heightened restrictions and allow us to use certain tools that we cannot use without that designation. it is significant. i don't know that it tells me -- tells us in and of itself much about the role of that group in benghazi on that day, but it does mean we consider that group very much a threat. james in wisconsin, independent color. you are on the air with adam schiff. a question about the kennedy assassination. if oswalt was the lone -- also walled was the lone gunmen, why there are one -- why are there 111 document still classify? host: i'm not an expert on the kennedy assassination by any means. i can only comment on why generally some of this information may still be classified today. part of it is that we have rules overclassification that generally apply -- over classification that generally apply saying that certain documents will be declassified in 50 years, 60 years, whatever that timeframe may be for that group of documents. the other thing is that we significantly over classify things that should not be classified. the documents you are talking about may very well fit in that category. it is hard for me to understand why documents related to that investigation today would still be classified. it could not reveal any sources or methods that we would be concerned about at this point. if they contradict in some ways the findings of the war and commission, then that should be part of the public discussion. i'm not sure why they would still be classified. it may be a lack of attention to the matter and following the rules under which they were originally classified more than any particular conspiracy about why those records are still not accessible to the public. host: on the line for michelle.ts, caller: why is it that you still have [indiscernible] ?hich is on steroids now it used to be the cia in the 1950s, the fifth -- the 60s, and the 70s, they are doing what they were are still doing. it is not just the nsa. it is the other abc agencies as well. host: i'm sorry, what were they i had a hard time understanding her. i'm sorry, i hung up. as to the question with why some of the intelligence agencies, not just the nsa, but some of theolved in activities that they were involved in within the 50s and 60s. i'm not sure what activities you are referring to. if you are talking about abuses like the fbi surveilling civil rights leaders, or some of the watergate problems in terms of misusing law enforcement to investigate the opposing party, i don't see any evidence that those abuses are going on today. and much of what we are talking about with the intelligence community, like with the metadata program, is not instances of deliberate abuse, or in some cases any abuse. but rather the it -- the potential for abuse. it still means we should reform those programs to reduce the risk of abuse, but it is important for the american people to know that when we talk about this metadata program and the fact that you can learn a lot about americans just by looking at who they call in when they call mom -- call them, that does not mean that is what is going on. most indications are that it has not been abused in that way. there have been some deliberate abuses. we had a situation with some of the overseas programs where employees within the intelligence community wanted to use them to spy on their ex spouse or their lover or whatever. that cannot -- that has happened in a handful of cases. but we have not seen any systemic abuses at all. host: let's go to neil, boston, independent color. caller: good morning, everybody. i don't know where to begin. i'm calling from boston. about nsa,ing metadata, blah, blah, blah. the fact of the matter is the boston globe tweeted two different times, two different tweets before the bombings at the finish line of the marathon at the 600 block of boylston street. they tweeted that the boston police department was going to an explosion from the bomb department and nobody's touching it. it drives me nuts. i tell my friends. i facebook them. i facebook the picture. i took a picture of it and i facebook it to everybody. wasow i'm like, look, there foreknowledge of this. not even the conspiracy theorists, you know -- all right. guest: as a boston native myself, i was horrified about what happened during the marathon. i have not seen any indication that anyone had foreknowledge that this was going to happen. that was not actively involved in the plot. i am not aware of the boston globe tweets that you mentioned. i suppose if it is possible that was tweeted, they were referring to something the police department was going to do not at the marathon, but as a percussion a test and they wanted people not to be alarmed by it and it was -- a precautionary test and they wanted people not to be alarmed by it and it was an unfortunate coincidence. from the intelligence communities point of view, we certainly have no indication that american media outlets or other institutions in the united states were aware of the bombings before they took place. and we have certainly been chasing down every lead and information we got from the russians, and what we did not get from the russians, and any associates of these two brothers to try to find out the information still out there. host: we are talking with cumbersome and adam schiff, on the intelligence committee. -- congressman on the intelligence committee. heare talking about what would like to see be done on surveillance. here is a tweet. what do you think, congressman? host: i think the reality is that there will be plenty for people to like and dislike in what the president proposes on friday. just as there was a group of us that sat down with him last week and just within that group there was strong disagreement. i think the president is doing exactly the kind of analysis that our country should want the president doing. he has gone through each of these 46 recommendations. he has been sitting down with his team to find out which of these are technologically feasible and what the technological problems are and which will have a positive impact on privacy and what the trade-offs are. he is doing exactly the cost and benefit analysis we would want him to do. a strong default to not wanting to do anything that would jeopardize the country. that is sacrosanct. but it is exactly the kind of analysis that we should want our president to be doing. he is doing it in a very thoughtful way. he may not do everything i would like him to do. i'm sure he won't. giving this he is the time and attention it deserves and giving it his best judgment and that is really all we can ask of the president. host: the washington post six days ago had a story by david mcnamara with the headline that the white house is preoccupied by the nsa surveillance controversy. guest: i would say this consuming a lot of their time and attention. whether it is preoccupation that their focus from other things, probably not. there are too many crises to become fixated on one. but i am in -- impressed at how in the weeds they are and they are still giving these augmentations their full attention. part of it goes to the core of who the president is. he was a constitutional scholar before he was president of the united states. he understands the constitutional dimension of these issues. he also campaigned on wanting to reform some of these practices. legacy. it is it is core competence. more ofsee this taking the present personal time than many other issues. host: who was in that group that met with the president last week? of senatewas a mix and house members, along with the president, vice president, national security advisor, .errorism advisor basically, he was seeking our input, what will we -- what we would like to see, the pros and cons. one of the points i was trying to emphasize on this metadata program is that a review panel establishing a private entity that could gather all the data instead of the nsa holding it. if the president made the change to restructure the program, and i -- i advised that he would not be given -- that it would not be given to a third party. it becomes a surrogate. you do not gain anything from that point of view. it was a dialogue and he kept his cards close to his vest. we will not find out for sure until friday and a lot of us are getting right now. host: all right. bobby in lake charles, indiana. caller: good morning. with any legal johnson that is repeating history from 1970 [indiscernible] john adams. host: what are you referring to? caller: i'm referring to the current events that are happening now. following.ot let's move on to sam in central kentucky. caller: good morning. my question and my comment is basically about trust issues. there was a clatter it a sickly in front of congress -- basically in front of congress. he has since apologized. and the general came out yesterday and said the military command command, and even the cia director leon panetta very quickly understood his was an attack on the consulate in benghazi. attack, following the and the death of four americans , now ambassador susan rice was on all of the talk shows talking about the videos. as far as i could tell, during that time, dylan person who has been arrested was the filmmaker for that -- the only person who has been arrested for the obscure video was the filmmaker. no one else has been arrested from what we know. i understand there are some things that are classified. i understand that perfectly. but what we are having here is trust issues between the administration, the security community, and the american people. that is not a very healthy situation. we should be able to trust what we are told and the information we are given should be, as much as possible, truthful to a fault. that is what we depend on. as the american people. to understand what is going on around us and why these programs are necessary and what is appropriate. host: got it, sam. cumbersome and? -- congressman? you areertainly, correct that there are trust issues. the public does not have much confidence in the elected leadership. look at this whole brouhaha in new jersey with governor christie right now raising trust issues there. but it is not confined to new jersey or even to elected officials. there is also not a lot of trust in the press or financial systems. there is just not a lot of trust going on right now, but i think we have to do exactly what you said. which is to make a determined effort to be as candid and straightforward as we possibly can. part of it from my own point of not leadhat we should to the conclusion of malicious motives in people. in the case of susan rice's appearance the sunday after the attack in benghazi, what she was saying was the same thing i was getting in my intelligence reports. that is what the intelligence community got to lace in the -- tookd days after place in the hours and days after the attack and benghazi. the intelligence community got it wrong. i think she had no choice to -- but to rely on the best assessments the intelligence community could give. has explaineder that when he was asking the question -- when he was asked the question about whether we were gathering data on americans , it had followed an extended conversation on the content of communications. he thought the question more referred to content than this bulk metadata. he did apologize. i take him for his word. i think he is a pretty straight shooter. even though we have had policy believements, i do not to malign his motivations. these folks are public servants and they are dedicated to the betterment of the country. i think we ought to give people the benefit of the doubt. but in the case of congress, i think we have been our own worst enemy. we have attacked each other within the congress. with the respect that we have shown each other -- if we are not respecting each other, why should the public respect us at all? we have certainly been part of the problem. host: let me get one last call in for you, congressman. raphael in the bronx. democratic caller. you have taken an oath to defend the constitution against foreign and domestic foes. the director lies to us, but he's only getting a slap on the risk -- on the rest. i think that is more terrible. are you referring to general clapper? caller: yes. guest: we talked just a little bit about this already, but again, i think the vast majority of people working in the intelligence community are very dedicated, patriotic people. they could be making a lot more money in the private sector doing other things. i don't think we should malign those people, even if there are some policy changes that we think should take lace come as i've been advocating -- take lace, as i've been advocating. because some of these programs can be restructured in a way that will be more protective of privacy and less amenable to abuse in the future. in theid earlier broadcast, with some of these programs, like the metadata program, there has been no evidence of abuse. i don't want to give the impression that even those of us who are the strongest advocates for reform that we are advocating it because we are saying there have been flagrant abuses of these programs. much of it is because we think they could be more respectful of privacy if done in a different way. and because we do not foreclose the possibility of abuse in the future, even though we have not seen it at present. that is my point of view. host: congressman adam schiff, democrat of california. thank you. coming up next, we will take a look at a recent cq weekly story about congress reaching the so- called mini deals on the budget, but what else did they compromise on? that is up next after this news update from c-span radio. the labor department says wholesale prices increased in december, pushed up by rising gasoline prices and energy costs. but overall inflation remained mild. whichoducer price index, measures cost before they reach the consumer, rose 0.4% last month. that ends three straight months of falling wholesale prices. and nevada's unique none of the above voting option for statewide races will be a spoiler for the foreseeable future, according to this the -- the associated press. the none option has been on the ballot in nevada since 1976. it applies only to statewide races. two years ago, a republican senator, dean heller, defeated democratic challenger shelley oakley by about 12,000 votes. more than 45,000 votes were cast for "none." and no repose -- reports of damage or injuries after a 4.1 magnitude earthquake in the los angeles area. the tremor struck shortly after 1:30 a.m. local time. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. publican, we bring affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house event, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all at the public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago, and funded by your local cable satellite provider. us onus on hd, like facebook, and follow us on twitter. littleink i just had antennas that went up and told me when somebody had their own agenda and not ronnie's. him.hen i would tell he did not always agree with me, but i would tell him. >> watch our program on first lady, nancy reagan. it is at www.c-span.org /firstladies. or on monday as eric series continues live. -- as our series continues live. last hour of "washington journal" on wednesdays, we take a look at our spotlight series. here is cq weekly, the latest addition profiles in caution. adriel bettelheim wrote the piece. you call this a two-year budget frame that paul ryan and patty murray came up with "a carefully calibrated compromise." now it has turned into a $1 trillion spending bill. how is it being viewed now? this is a big deal and we have to put things in perspective. it did set topline spending for two years and it broke a cycle of fiscal standoffs. theas triggered trouble of first really true bipartisan collaboration on the budget since the 1990s. however he did not address taxes, which is a big concern to republicans, it did not address entitlement, some thing democrats insisted on. and it did not really do anything for long term debt reduction. this is a new kind of template for cutting a deal in a divided congress, especially heading into election year. you try to come up with something that offends the fewest people and can attract the most votes. host: when patty murray and paul ryan first came out when they were tasked with this, the first thing they both said is, we are going to find common ground. they never talked about compromise. what is the difference? guest: it is semantic in some ways. i think it was a deliberate attempt to ignore the things they knew they could not sell to the broader caucuses. they knew they were going to have to come back and first, sell it to a budget conference and then to the broader chambers, the senate democrats, the house republicans. what is interesting is this was kind of old school. they didn't even loop the conference for budget in. they went privately and were consulting with leadership. they couldooking how cobble together a narrow deal that gets through. and there was this general agreement that we've got to get out from sequestration. it was focusing on the achievable with a minimum amount of bluster and with the fewest bodies in the room. host: is that how than the appropriators acted? the appropriators were eagerly waiting for the topline numbers. they could not do these spending bills, which they have since combined and the house will be voting on today and the senate presumably later this week. they were waiting impatiently -- politely, but impatiently. waiting for this budget deal to be done, waiting for it to be sold, so they could go about the task of putting together an omnibus. and let's not forget, that has been kind of rare around here. we have not seen an omnibus spending bill since 2009. we have been operating on a bunch of temporary extension cr's for a few months, for a year. deal, while carefully crafted, did beget this $1 trillion spending package that they are voting on this week full stop host: -- this week. , and you have barbara mikulski and others come together with staff working. were there other people involved? guest: another old-school approach. they were working very much in secret. for those who do not follow this hasmately, appropriations 12 separate spending bills, and there are subcommittees that deal with each bill -- military, labor, and health issues. some of the others did not even know what they were getting. overwas all done in secret the holidays. and the poor staffers, i don't and they got much time with their stat -- there with their families. but they crafted this by monday night at 9:00 for all of us to look at. suddenly there's this almost 1600 page deal that is dropped and you have to go through and what see whether -- and see whether they included this or that. it has been quite an impressive week of cramming. host: and the labor groups are not happy with some of the environmental legislation. the consumer groups are not happy with the amount of spending going on. yet from the report you are reading in the papers, this is going to get through both chambers this week. guest: that is the old joke. if everybody is unhappy, maybe you have split something down the middle that works. the people involved with this feel that the big fight was over with the budget deal. once that was passed, these budget deals that are conforming with the numbers, and the budget an extension of that. these will probably clear as late as saturday and then they move on to the next fight, probably the debt limit in early february. host: the house is picking up this $1 trillion spending bill today. those expected. ofe into c-span for that -- votes expected. and our coverage of the senate continues on c-span2. you can watch both chambers on the floor. your piece was "aim low, fire with care." talking about the budget deal. where can they find common ground? guest: taxes is always something that they are under great pressure to do something about in the house and senate. it is a very divisive issue. it is not something you will see a big sweeping agreement in an election year. but every year, one of the great traditions in this town is about 60 narrow provisions, sometimes derided as tax fork, expire. they probably have to retroactively renew them. some of them deal with depreciation on race horses. they help real estate developers. things thate a few the business lobbies here in washington really care about, investment in research and innovation, different depreciation schedules. when you talk to these lobbyists, they say the ceos of big and small operations really want the certainty of having when things still in law they start budgeting. we expect the tax-writing committees, house ways and means and senate finance, to probably rector actively extend these next month. retroactively extend these next month. beyond that, probably a lot of talk. but i don't think we will see anything sweeping until after the elections. host: who are the players involved in these negotiations? is a: interestingly, it shifting cast. the chairman of the finance committee, max baucus, is going to be leaving. he has been nominated to be ambassador of china. dave camp, his counterpart in the house will be leaving the helm of ways and means. you'll probably have ron wyden of oregon, a democrat heading senate finance. and probably paul ryan, the co- author of the budget deal, at the helm of ways and means. and those two have a history of collaborating. we are looking for then to maybe rekindle that spirit, but probably not until after the election. host: will there be a, my son? guest: medicare. -- will there be a compromise with health care? guest: medicare. host: adriel bettelheim we are talking with adriel bettelheim -- we are talking with adriel bettelheim. maggie, you're up first in california, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on the fact that i believe a budget is . moral document and when i see that so many corporations are getting these tax breaks and they are calling things that i believe are earned likeits and entitlements they are some kind of -- i don't know, something people don't deserve or are getting away with. and they want to cut medicare or social security and things like and give these great tax deals to these huge corporations , but you can't put a roof on the school or pay teachers. like mostwe have, other civilized countries, national healthcare that is paid for by the government? it ought to be the -- it ought to be a right. i pay taxes, and i would like to see them used in a way that is more responsible to the people. the caller speaks to a reality of lawmaking these days where everything has to be paid for the minute it is enacted. you can use the tax code to influence social policy, but these folks are cautious about overhauling. they need a big coalition to do this, and it extends beyond the tax-writing committees to the chambers of the house and senate. it is a mind deal for them. think that what they are aiming for right now is going to be anything radical. down the road, they would like corporate taxes and bring the u.s. level more in tune with other nations. but to pay for that, they will be doing things like maybe making it harder for multinational corporations to tuck away profits in overseas subsidiaries. mathill see this kind of exercise that may be does not yield a big obvious policy outcome. but that is just kind of the parameters they are working within now? -- within now. another pending deal that could come up with in the next few weeks of this congress? guest: we are watching immigration not necessarily because we are expecting any breakthroughs, but it is a good example of this finely calibrated legislating. in the senate last year, we saw a big hill that among other things would confer legal status to folks illegally in the country. it deals with border security and many other things. that will not fly in a house. in the house, they have broken up the issues into a set of maybe half a dozen bills into the senate judiciary committee, none of which have really advanced to the floors yet -- to the floor yet. we are trying to see if any of them make it out. this is a very controversial issue, an issue that factors into the campaigns. and the way they are dealing with it is with very narrow things, like high-tech visas, agricultural workers, and border security. there may be a border security bill that comes out of both the judiciary committee and homeland security committee that comes up for a vote. but this is a rhetorical issue and it gets narrowed down into a sliver. host: elena from indiana, republican caller. like to talkld about the 1.7 billion 1.7 billion dollars in foreign aid that we send off to other the bill tond yet extend the unemployment benefits for several thousand americans by ourt down yesterday representatives. , that isiel bettelheim a common that we have heard several times today already. people tying those things together. they will approve this trillion dollar spending bill that improves ash includes money for foreign aid, but not extending -- that includes money for foreign aid, but not extending unemployment benefits. guest: very understandable that they would link the two, but they aren't two separate -- they are two separate packages. with regard to unemployment benefits, it is procedural as much as an accounting problem. i think they're going to go and take a little time out and come back next month and maybe see if the democrats and the six republican senators who supported it can find some common ground. this has happened repeatedly in the senate where they gridlock a bill that gets subsumed by bigger tensions, questions about process, how many amendments will be allowed, etc. we have seen it over and over. but with respect to the foreign aid, that is one of the 12 constituent bills in the on this bus -- in the omnibus. and yes, there is contention. aid to egypt after the coup, there was an open question about whether that should be continued. a lot of that goes to buy u.s. military equipment. it made it into the package. but they are two separate issues and on two separate time frames right now. >> we are talking about potential many deals -- mini- that could be happening in congress. of an extension potentially long-term unemployment as well. adriel bettelheim is with us. if you have a priority that you want congress to get to and you are wondering if they will be able to strike a deal, we want to hear from you. the numbers are on the screen. let's go to kill than in pennsylvania, democratic caller. calvin, in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: i'm calling about the unemployment extension. to they have any idea how long it will take for them to extend this? will it stay on the floor for months or weeks? satisfy starting to that they are turning the poor into almost a third world country? the bill will actually be taken off the floor right now. that is what i was kind of jokingly referred to as taking a timeout. they have gridlocked on this for two weeks. if i were to guess, they would take it back up again. obviously, as we see from the calls, it is a subject that resonates with the voters. it often resonates lawmakers to come up with a solution. the problem is, we've got to for extra to pay benefits. they usually do that by looking at a 10 year window where they can take something else out to pay for this extra aid. the republicans want to pin other things on this extending jobless aid. this comes on top of the state aid that is offered. if i were to guess, i would say it is probably revived may be in february. they are out next week with the martin luther king day junior recess. jr.he martin luther king day recess. the caller mentioned foreign aid. you can delve into the spending beels and how agencies will spending it. for the state appropriations, part of this omnibus, here is where that money goes. is $49otal appropriation billion. you can see it breaks down. usaid operating expenses about 1.2 billion total. international securities assistance, $7 billion. if you google or search cq -- "cq all things omnibus" you can see that. here is a tweet. we talked about that and immigration reform. what else could happen this year? health care has got to be one of the most polarizing issues in the country right now and there is very little incentive for the parties to collaborate to my very little common ground. but there is one area where i think there will be a finely calibrated deal, possibly, in the next couple of months. that is in the way of medicare, the big federal health -- help system for the elderly and disabled -- health system for the elderly and disabled. there is a much critical part that seems to happen every year with the scheduling of payment cuts. house andtee in the in the senate are working on a formula that would essentially scrapped the way those cuts are calculated. and presumably,, but with a more withnal system -- come up a more rational system so that congress doesn't have this annual headache and have a bunch of angry doctors in their district yelling at them about scheduled reimbursement cuts for medicare. it is an aging population and more and more doctors are seeing medicare patients. they see this as ruinous. you will see a big document fix deal that eliminates that problem and changes the medicare formula. and again, in context, kind of a big deal, but they are tweaking formulas. they are not doing anything on the scale of what obama did in 2010 with the oh -- with the health care overhaul, or what george w. bush did when he created the prescription drug benefits early in the decade. this is the new normal. year budgete two- deal that the negotiators were able to secure that has now turned into a trillion dollar spending bill am a one file -- why do we spend so much on other countries that hate us? we are talking to adriel bettelheim. ron is on the line from pennsylvania. the republican party is pretty good at making the unemployment look like it is a wood -- a handout. we pay into that fund. it is not a handout. it is an emergency fund for the unemployed. that is my comment. host: ok, ron. we are going to john in texas -- sorry, johnny new jersey, go ahead. my comment is really just on the 301 filibusters in our senate. these guys are fighting each other and we cannot get anything through and it is not helping the american people. you have 1.5 million people who are looking forward to this unemployment extension and they just throw it out. i'm to the point now where ready to switch to the other side. how come they cannot just work together? and john is a republican from new jersey talking about that. onst: a couple of points these two calls. number one, a big change last year was a change in the filibuster rules when it comes to the executive branch and judicial nominations where they removed -- they moved to the benchmark to a simple majority. all it takes is 51 votes to advance a nominee. level is still 60 to cut off debate and limit debate and force a vote in the senate. that refers to the filibuster. it is a pretty high benchmark. when people are dug in and the president gets involved in issues and there is a brittle are notn where there many mavericks and not many defectors on votes. we have been keeping track since the eisenhower era and we have been crunching numbers and there are record numbers of party unity. what the caller is talking about. unemployment benefits, these things have not actually been around for very long. they were first created in 2008 in response to the financial crisis as a buffer to give extra weeks, especially to people in hard-hit states. they have been extended a few times already. this is not something that has been around for decades. like social security. and it is not psychologically viewed by some people here as they come in and in the way the entitlement program is. in fact, many of the republicans that oppose it say that it might create his incentive for people who are looking for work. for peopleentive looking for work. it is not that it is a pro-con on the issue full stop it is just the way it -- on the issue. it is just the way they view it. differing on whether to renew it, whether to let it die. comment.e is a doherty in arlington, texas, a republican. thank you for taking my call. i was just listening to this other man on the other line. i was listening to him talking about unemployment. i'm in the middle of that, too. i know there are a lot of people out there hurting. but i don't believe that every single person out there is desperate. if there are that many people desperate, they probably should go to another state where there are some jobs. just a suggestion. spend money we don't have. that is the problem. host: you think there should be offset to it. caller: i think they should have to work, do something to get this money. like clinton used to have them do. i am on social security at $1300 a month, and most of the people that all of my taxes are going to that i paid before, they are getting three or four times as much as i have. there was a lady on tv the other day that says she gets $80,000 in government benefits a year. host: ok, dorothy. we've gotten a lot of calls and tweet about the extension of long-term unemployment benefits. obviously, this is something, even more so than the trillion dollar spending bill, that people want to talk about and are interested in. do you think that pushes them on capitol hill to maybe address it before they leave even? will be an issue that comes back up and these so- called mini-deals. .> i think both to the latter, it is resonating out there. times are tough and the politicians have a way of ignoring that, but when it comes to actually voting on something like this, it becomes very complicated. proposalout what the costs, how you are going to pay for it. oh, i've got a better way to pay for it. and through an amendment i will also add this. pretty soon, it gets pretty complicated. this is democracy. it is not always pretty, and it is seldom really efficient. you're dealing with human beings, too. when they get gridlocked afterto or three weeks of throwing bricks at each other, afterill take a break -- two or three weeks of throwing bricks at each other, they will take a break. it might inform the discussion about who doesn't get help. it is for people who are employed for a finite. timeme, but there are -- a -- a finite timeframe. but there are some who are unemployed for an even longer- term. this is for medium, six months or so. host: we are talking with adriel bettelheim. he wrote the cover story for -- for cq weekly "profiles and caution." this is part of our spotlight on magazines series. we have talked about taxes, immigration reform. nsa. yes, intelligence, as your previous guest spoke about, is something that is a huge concern to lawmakers. andecent years, the house senate has been pretty good about passing an intelligence authorization bill that kind of sets the rules and parameters for the spy agencies. this year, it is getting a little harder because of this rolling series of revelations about the national security agency. of there is a certain amount differing views within the congress between the judiciary and intelligence communities over what to do. some people think the nsa has and that may be of the laws that have given them the authority to do eavesdropping need to be dramatically changed, or even not renewed. within theticularly intelligence community, think they should be tweaked, more transparency, more disclosure. the legal rationale for doing ies do shouldagenc be retained. you will probably not see a lot of progress on that this year. what you may see is a sort of image a deal that addresses leaking, the edward snowden situation. that obviously showed how much information and nsa contractor could access. i would not be surprised if later on this year they pass a narrow bill that deliberately ignores the nsa issue and addresses may be intelligence leaks and security. the trending at not -- the trillion dollar spending bill, in defense for that appropriation, there is one line and therefore related agencies. i don't know what that is for, but it is $1 billion. and under that, the central intelligence agency retirement disability system, $514 million, management account, 528 million dollars, and revolving funds, $2.2 billion. do we assume that is the intelligence spending? host: guest: some of it --guest: some of it. the defense bill was the most difficult of the 12 to assemble within this package. that is because the house and the senate when they originally went through the exercise of authorizing some munch money -- so much money, and we're talking about military weapon systems, military pay, military wereement benefits -- they marking of the bills and putting in very different numbers. and then this ryan-murray budget came in and they down the line said, this is the marker. one of the things they were doing in the last few weeks as they were having to cut pretty sharply operations and maintenance budgets, finding places to cut without, let's say, appending the new weapons procurement program that is -- up ending the new weapons procurement program that is eight or 10 years in the works. counterings by funding for overseas wards. -- wars. cutting hundreds of line items without having to cut anything really big. that defense bill was especially difficult this year to figure out. host: under the defense legislation, the spending bill for that, overseas contingency operations -- what you were billiong to -- $85.2 for operations in afghanistan. you've got another occ account within the state department spending bill as well. and reporters this morning the occ funds are under less scrutiny by this congress. cap,: right, they are not unlike buying new combat ships or fighter aircraft. it is not quite the same thing. it is more open-ended. it supports counterterrorism. this was originally for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it is not quite the same rules. mark, you're up next in california, republican caller. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. my question is about the debt. we are six years into a recovery since the financial collapse and i'm wondering what the short term debt limit might be and how far it is going to go in the longer-term. guest: the debt limit is going to be a big fight coming up in february. feelings some sort of that they were going to raise it, but the question is with what add-ons and what conditions. i don't know yet what -- how they are going to frame this debate. it is not a copout, but i think once this budget and the spending bills are dispensed with, we will see how this plays out. it is going to be a huge -- whether it is going to be a huge fight or not. but it is looming, because the agreement in october -- the first week of february is the time for the adjustment. the timeframe for actually having to raise it may slide because of the economic recovery and the extraordinary measures that the treasury can do. but there is a statutory deadline. outill see if it plays later in spring or in february and how the parties choose to frame it. need toare right, the frame it will probably conflate into a broader debate on the economy. is whatriel bettelheim with us from cq magazine. we have a few minutes left. bernie, independent color. ander: thank you for c-span also for the german from roll call. -- gentleman from roll call. they are taxing the reelection campaign money and using some of that to pay off the debt and social security and medicare and etc. what do you think of something like that? i will hang up and listen to your answer. thank you. guest: there have been some ideas about, for instance, taxng off -- cutting off funding for political conventions. i can tell the color --caller this is a fly speck compared to annual funding that is spent on medicare, medicaid, and the fact accelerating. as a mathematical exercise and as a rhetorical talking point, it might resonate. in terms of making a life -- the numbers line up and really do something to address the problem , it is really out of proportion. that sort of speaks to this issue, again, the budget deal. it is a game changer, but really did not do long-term addressing of some of the issues we are always talking about, and some of the biggest fiscal challenges they seen the country -- entitlement reform, and rising costs of mandatory spending. how do you address that? it is a good idea, though, and he gets people talking, certainly. host: we will go to sue in ohio. independent color. caller: good morning. two parts. give us a brief history of how this has been paid for and how recently the has become such a thing. and with this new normal of this jobless recovery, maybe our current safety net is what -- is not what is going to be needed in the future. who is looking at a different kind of safety net so we don't have so many americans pleading for the attention of the government like they are doing this morning on c-span? answer offen to your the air. i appreciate the time that reporters and c-span give to america and to educating us. thank you. guest: thank you. since the big-budget deals in the 1990s kicked in, this notion of paying for anything new, of having to reconcile the books has become standard operating procedure. guess, more it, i than just a political talking in theas accelerated past decade or so as this budget debate, deficit debate has taken greater prominence. it is an unusual time we are in right now where budgets and deficits informs so much of what goes on. we are not talking about expanding social safety nets. we are not talking about great global conflicts, or new additions overseas. we -- a lot of these debates, as you point out, come back to budget and how you are going to pay for this and that. it is a unique time when you look over the continuum of the history of this country, even just since the eisenhower or world war roman to -- or world war two. era. the world war ii nobody wants to be the drunken sailor. nobody wants to have that earmark, even though there are no more earmarks. there is still stuff in these bills that is egregious spending , some bridge to nowhere, whatever. it has become a big priority. host: adriel bettelheim, a call, editor with cq roll a story about these carefully calibrated, misys. think you very much. -- compromises. thank you very much. the house is about to gavel in for the morning session on c- span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 15, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable blake farenthold to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the us

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Louisiana , Capitol Hill , New Jersey , Alabama , Nevada , Arlington , Texas , Vancouver , British Columbia , Canada , Turkey , Springfield , Virginia , China , Hinesville , Georgia , California , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Winston Salem , North Carolina , Mexico , Arizona , Egypt , Iowa , Libya , New York , Germany , Missouri , Iran , Afghanistan , Lake Charles , Indiana , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Kentucky , Florida , Boston , Massachusetts , Wisconsin , Oregon , Taiwan , Michigan , Pakistan , Jordan , Mississippi , Cookeville , Tennessee , Iraq , Kingsport , Baghdad , Israel , Colorado , Whitehall , Houston , Maryland , Ohio , Dallas , Americans , America , Chinese , Syrians , German , Israeli , Russians , American , David Mcnamara , Joe Biden , Mary Landrieu , Adam Schiff , Patty Murray , John Kerry , Chris Christie , Mike Morales , Chuck Grassley , John A Boehner , Al Qaeda , John Boehner , James Madison , John Adams , Nancy Reagan , Paul Ryan , Jim Moran , Barbara Bush , Ron Wyden , Dave Bauer , Martin Luther King , Barbara Mikulski , John Carter , Shelley Oakley , Los Angeles , Max Baucus , Patrick Leahy , Martin Luther King Jr , Edgar Hoover , Edward Snowden , Peter Baker , George W Bush , Jager Hoover , Luke Ross , Diane Feinstein , Kay Hagan , Jim Sensenbrenner ,