efforts on the ukraine. we want to get your thoughts about providing aid to the ukraine. here is how you can way in this morning. the phone lines -- here's your chance to make your thoughts known on the phone line. @cspanwj.r address is you can send us email to journal@c-span.org. to set up the legislative efforts on what will take place in ukraine, i am on the phone with the editor-in-chief of "rollcall." we invite you to talk about the week ahead in congress. what does it look like as congress gets back this week? >> there are competing versions of this ukraine legislation. the is not the first time congress has addressed these issues. this is this -- this is the first strategical vote. offered 150 million dollars in direct assistance. you will remember the president's late last week imposed is pretty tough .anctions on vladimir putin that is where you heard lawmakers talking about. this legislation will have a test vote today in the senate as they return from their recess. the house doesn't really like this legislation because it includes money for the international monetary fund. host: what is the issue with that? has become political, of course. you're hearing john boehner and some other republicans say this doesn't have anything to do with ukraine and the senate is trying to just lump this in. it in thisng mustache legislation. on the imf money and a vote to give aid to ukraine. it is not is great republican-democratic issue. the senate legislation passed in a bipartisan vote before they left for recess. oft: you have two members the senate talking on the sunday shows about ukraine. we will hear them and a little bit. it suggests they are upping the game when it comes to this vote. lawmakersot of traveled to the region to be able to talk about it and be informed on the issue. it issomething that is -- just an interesting dynamic when it comes to the politics on capitol hill over the last few months. you are really seeing pete will -- seeing people not really challenged the president on foreign policy. besides the votes on ukraine, is there anything else significant as far as legislative action this week? the front page has a really good story looking ahead at what will happen with unemployment insurance extension. the senate will go ahead with this even though it has a very unlikely chance of passing in the house. we've noticed we are getting a lot of leadership online from people doing google searches. this is something that we are really closely following. people are concerned about this issue. it has almost been an afterthought in washington. some of this is politically involved. when it comes to the actual people, it is something that is very concerning to them. they are going to have this vote that will basically extend unemployment insurance benefits. it will likely not go anywhere in the house. we are starting to see a bit of a model political time and will -- it is starting to be a bit of a more political time. first primaries are ramping up and you are getting a sense that this is an election year. do from everything we be for thoseill midterm elections. host: when are they scheduled te off again? guest: they are gone for two weeks for an easter recess in april and then of course there will be a memorial day recess. it will be plenty of time when they are not here. they have got a lot done this year. you will see paul ryan present a budget in the house and senate democrats said they are not going to do a budget. that will get them busy in the next few weeks. i don't expect anything major. a don't have any must do items. a lot of them are calling the ukraine aid a must do item. bellantoni from roll call, thanks a lot. you heard her talk about the package the senate will consider in a test vote when it comes to aid in ukraine and bloomberg talked about it as well. just to reiterate, a $1 billion loan guarantee to the country is what bloomberg says will happen. for her first 45 minutes, your thoughts on congressional aide to ukraine, these tests votes, the money involved, and your message to congress. the numbers again -- twitter is @cspanwj, and our e-mail is journal@c-span.org. with anthony in washington dc on our independent line. good morning. caller: i think we should give some aid. we are the speaker one voice. -- we have to speak with one voice. everybody is criticizing with the president does before he even does it. putin is doing what he is doing. we have no solidarity whatsoever. what you think the biggest benefits of aid to the ukraine will provide? caller: the financial aid will their economy. their economy is not in a great shape right now. it would give the citizens of ukraine a little bit of hope. the house version of étude ukraine looks at such -- and this is courtesy of bloomberg -- your thoughts on congress giving aid to the cream. up next is john from texas on the republican line. caller: -- as think we need to stay out of it. --i just think we need to stay out of it. host: jim is up next from portland, oregon. caller: i don't know if i have a strong objection to that but i do think we need to keep in mind this whole crimea crisis was reallyby the u.s. encouraging the writers to foster a coup in the ukraine. when we foster a coup and then -- this whole thing is part of this neoconservative aggressive policy of the u.s. treated it is not helping the u.s.. when it comes to aid, is there a dollar figure you are tolerant with? where do you draw the line? maybe: i would say that half a billion dollars. i think what we want to do is have ukraine stable and then not provoke russia into anything more. and then also giving some support to the people on the street of ukraine. host: carol from twitter says this -- the phonelines will be on the screen as we go throughout the morning. in the new york times this morning, michael mccaul takes a look at the issue. he was under the obama administration. he was an assistant to president and and ambassador to the russian federation, adding this this morning -- darryl from defiance, missouri, good morning. i am against any foreign aid to the ukraine. why should we have to spend any more money? we put our puppet in there, it has not worked. it backfired. we don't need to send another dime. where are we going to get it from, china? we not have interest in ukraine? are we no, because what going to do? put missiles in there to threaten the russians? this is crazy. we need to take care of our own people in this country. georgia,renceville, edward. caller: good morning. to say we should have plenty of cut -- plenty of money to give to the ukraine. obama has spent all of our money. to of that money he wasted build these projects that turned out to all go bankrupt -- we are .oing to have to have the money we should not have to have wasted almost $2 trillion. when it comes to the aid itself, do you agree or disagree with it? caller: i do believe we should help. putin is nothing but a thought. he is the same as hitler. hitler went into poland. right now they are going into the ukraine. he doesn't belong in there. people that were calling and saying we should not do -- they won't help us. host: on twitter -- you heard our first phone call of the morning talking about that effort being made in congress. we are asking about your message to congress when it comes to eight on the ukraine. your message to congress on the idea of aid. the phonelines -- dick durbin recently returned from ukraine on the sunday shows yesterday. he was asked about the aid the about sanctions towards russia. [video clip] stanceeed a bipartisan by the senate and the house as quickly as this week in supporting ukraine and the sanctions against russia, in support of a loan to the ukraine so they can weather this storm as the economy gets back on its feet. politicalhave intrigue on capitol hill undermining our support and declaration that we stand behind ukraine. >> do you think there is going to have to be military aid sent to ukraine? military food now. shouldn't it be something more than that? >> it could be, and i think it should be. they are not asking for american troops nor are we offering them. kelly was right about that. senator i asked was right about that. this army in ukraine was devastated by you my code which. .- by yannick kovacic we have to strengthen them and help them with advice. it may come to small arms. keep them on the table. up for the time being let's have a ukrainian army get back on its feet. durbin on the shows yesterday. we will hear from senator ayotte in just a moment. ukraine orders its troops out of crimea as russia seizes a naval base. about yourng thoughts on an eight to ukraine. independent line from gaithersburg. first of all, very few people are mentioning [indiscernible] gave the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. russia made it into. it should not be an option. [indiscernible] lots of people are saying it's russia and ukraine's business. people who fought with blood, fox with lives for their democracy against a extremely corrupt government. don't want to be under russian influence. please do not talk about issues as if ukrainians don't exist. my family was participating in it and people were giving out their last money from food and supplies. coming at their own expense. it simply shameful. what should congress be doing at this time? i think they should give financial aid. the united states gives huge amount of money over the course of these 20 years. host: marcus from st. paul, minnesota on our democrats line. hello. caller: good morning. we should be definitely giving ukraine aid. i just don't like the fact that tieblican congress wants to the koch brothers -- keep them out of trouble. we have people on unemployment. things those two actual should be out of it. just get them funded. a million dollars in loans, direct assistance, what do you think? caller: i think it should be a lot more. putin is not stupid. he sees the united states government is in turmoil right now with republicans fighting against everything that obama wants to do. we don'twing the world ever act together. it is not an easy job to do. obama is in the netherlands as he attends the nuclear summit. she dressed the possibility of additional sanctions against russia. there has to be consequences -- that news provided today, on the fox news website. alabama, independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to say something. first of all, thank god, the president needs to wake up. we don't need to let him take over little countries. we ain't handling our business in america. what that means for a two ukraine -- fo two r aid to ukraine? caller: they are going to have to get aid. host: next call is from kentucky. caller: as far as financial aid for ukraine goes i think we should support our own infrastructure financial lives. as far as military support goes, i don't see any problem with posting a couple of thousand troops over there to try to keep the peace. they are overrunning military bases over crimea. there is no point for that. before russia annexed them they were part of ukraine. ukrainian government fought for this. they came from the ussr after the ussr collapsed and they fought for what they have to. did -- and they thought like we did. during the american revolutionary war we fought for our independence and that's what they are doing now. the really is no point. this op-ed section in "the washington times" -- ethan from kentucky, good morning, republican line. good morning. host: jack is up next from minnesota. independent line. i would say to congress i have already said -- congress, held no to $1 billion. it is not alone it is a gift because ukraine is a basket case. they already bought into the meal liberal bs -- into the neoliberal bs for the last 20 years. going to give a billion dollars to a bunch of max boot wasns -- on yesterday saying that is just propaganda -- no, there are six neo-nazis in the government. there are pictures of them with naziy salutes -- with salutes and swastikas. the whole thing is our doing. the lady, wherever the health she is from -- host: your reaction -- the reaction from your legislatures when you talk to them about this? caller: of course you don't get to talk to your actual senators. they said they would pass on my message when i asked them and insisted that they do so. there is no law against sending voluntary taxes to pay for foreign adventures like this. if you go to the valley news, they attached a new york times story. member when we talked about the ,wo legislatures in the ukraine dick durbin was one but the next one talks about kelly i got -- kelly ayotte. senator ayotte talking about aid to russia, 18 ukraine. here are some of her thoughts from the sunday shows yesterday. [video clip] >> i appreciate what the president did with sanctions. i think we need to do more with sanctions, including sanctioning the entire financial sectors of the russian economy, as well as looking at the energy sectors. the russian economy is a one trick pony. their total focus is on national -- on natural gas and oil. i think we could have a significant impact on putin and that he would get the message. in addition i think for the military assistance -- president yanukovych, essentially he gutted the ukrainian military. i think we can provide more assistance to them in that regard. >> do you think the united states would actually be willing to do that? we sent them military meals for their troops. should we do more? what kind of military aid do you think we ought to send? more innk we can do terms of communications equipment we can help them with, technical assistance. in addition they have put in a request to us and nato for small arms. i think there are things we can do that don't involve boots on the ground but also really helped him stand up and help their military. had theion to that, we trucks. i think that needs to be returned to the black sea. eight-week considering -- aght-week from politico -- tweet from politico concerning the situation -- you it comes to looking at -- looking at aid for the ukraine, the senate is taking up a test vote today. we want to get your thoughts on it for the remainder of our time this morning. ohio, independent line, good morning. caller: i believe we should up the sanctions on them, on russia and putin. a we are going to give them billion dollars i think it should be used for small arms. host: you don't mind the military aspect of aid? caller: we should put a borderline where they should move further into ukraine. we know we are not going to get them out of crimea. they are going to be there for a long time. and they already had bases there before. host: parry from pennsylvania, good morning. my comment is on the extension of the unemployment benefits. it seems like they are going to turn their back on us again, according to the reporter you talk to earlier. has our government turned their backs on us once again? host: the supreme court hears the case concerning the hobby lobby. --takes a look at the case turning their attention to justices and their religious beliefs. here's the headline -- celtic village, illinois, randy, good morning. village, illinois, randy, good morning. caller: i heard on the radio the senate is going to get together and pass some long-term unemployment thing. i have heard the house is going to have a little bit of problems. i would like to see them get together and listen to the 2 million people that are looking for some kind of help from the house. pastld like to see them that first before they give any kind of aid ukraine. the people of the united states and needed to more than the ukrainian people now. that is my thing. host: what do you think about the idea of aid to the ukraine? rectally onthink the idea of the 18 ukraine should it happen or not? aid to theof ukraine? should it happen or not? caller: i think we should give sanctions. host: that is randy from south village. the phone lines -- you can tweet us and facebook us as well as well as send this -- send us e-mail. from twitter -- some other stories taking place, this is nick from "the wall street journal" talking about mortgage tax breaks -- richard is up next from lake placid, florida on the independent line. caller: good morning, thank you c-span. my message to congress would be not allow -- would be do not allow this president to start a nuclear war with russia. when we look to foreign policies, it is a disaster. mexico gave weapons to the drug cartel people, which ended up killing hundreds of people, and we still do not know what went on with that situation. are focusing on aid to the ukraine, what do you think about that the echo -- about that? caller: i think that would be a waste of money because rush is going to do anyway. most ukrainians are russians. if the ukrainian people want to separate than they have to be united behind that cause. you have probably heard some people mention loans and direct aid. you think one works better than the other? caller: possibly for food and medicine and something for the civilians, not for military aid. "the wall street journal" takes a look at privacy. this is something you will find in the special section of the wall street journal. some of that -- some of the statistics say -- saying they believe current laws are not good enough protecting people's privacy's. 64% say they clear their cookies and browser history, 41% says they deleted or something they cookies, andabled 36% said they had not used a website because of asked for their real name. some of the other steps taken are shown in the piece as well. from colorado, here is michael on our independent line. caller: i think giving a to you the ukraine that giving aid to ukraine is a mistake -- i think giving aid to ukraine is a mistake. russia offered them a $15 billion loan. i don't think it is smart. i don't think there are neo-nazis over there or anything. we just have to let it play out. host: why do you think our aid would escalate what is going on? caller: russia wants that military base in crimea. -- fermented by the cia and the first place. we did put a bunch of eight and their. we kind of got a backlash. host: bill from arkansas, democrats line. caller: it looks hit a critical to the rest of the world. we try to bring liberty to other countries. congress is doing their best to take away early voting. we are bankrupt. -- michigan is bankrupt, there is no aid to michigan. we have infrastructure falling apart. or -- there's no aid to our streets or pipes. it is hypocritical that we have american people here trying their best to survive. this is the ukrainian foreign minister. he was on abc's "this week." he spoke about the prospects of troops on the eastern border. here is his response. [video clip] >> we are very much concerned about the developments and deployment of russian troops on our eastern border. the ukrainian government is meang to find a peaceful and diplomatic means to stop russia. our people are also ready to defend their homeland. host: germane from new york, democrats line. caller: the question is what aid will we help ukraine? it is congress supporting ukraine that we are tried to get folks to comment on. caller: the person you played before a second ago was talking about the russian troops going on and talking about ukraine. -- 20,000 troops over there. he wants the whole entire ukraine. this will end up being a war, no matter how you look at it. we need to centro owns over there. drones over -- send there. sending them really for food is not going to do anything. he's gone for the whole entire country. host: do you think any type of aid is necessary? caller: it would be a waste of taxpayers money. a guy was talking about unemployment insurance. we are looking at a war. putin is thoughtful and around. -- putin is not fooling around. how quickly did he go into another country two days after the olympics? .bama can seize his assets that does not matter. the skies going to take ukraine. this is the hill, tweeting -- tina is up next from mississippi. caller: hi. i say no more eight unless we are being -- let's keep our -- no more aid unless we are being -- let's keep our money here. he is just going out to all these other countries -- it is depressing. can't take care of the whole world. this is ridiculous. it is never ending. it is depressing. it is absolutely depressing. we are borrowing the money. what is an ukraine borrow the money from china instead of c echo i am sick of this. thank you. the president is in the netherlands to attend a national -- a nuclear security summit. the front page of the new york times says that now that japan leading the united states assumed a cache control of weapons -- mike from massachusetts, good morning. caller: what you folks do is tremendous and it is a tribute to the united states. it would be nice if people did some research. the iraqi work class is $8 billion per week. intonited states has to go -- to deal with unemployment and deal with detroit needing to be brought out of bankruptcy and help ukrainians and other people around the world. thank you for the time. a look atoto taking that mudslide that killed eight in washington state from yesterday. some of the damage and the impact that took place, this was reported yesterday. jersey, democrats line, hello. i felt that we need to do some kind of sanctions and some form of aid we also need aid in this country as well. there are people who are constantly falling off of unemployment. government is even realize how many people are actually unemployed. if we as americans had oil coming out of our pores, then in fact we may get some aid in terms of unemployment. one more call, william from florida on the independent line. go ahead, please. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: i love c-span. you're going to have to keep talking to the phone and not listen to the television. i came from ukraine 34 years ago. i would like to say this -- is only way to help ukraine exporting the oil and energy. if we take the 30% supply from russia, we will make russia via week. give us another five years. -- ussia becomes a week send in money not today. billion --n or 50 one billion or 50 billion, it won't make any difference. the money will be gone and a second. at this point we have to concentrate eating our energy to the world -- we have to concentrate getting our energy to the world. then we will see what will happen. the bands in ukraine, can we expand on that? caller: have a ban on for years in this country in the united states, we cannot export any energy. the fracking revolution is going on today. we need to start exporting to the rest of the world. we will help ourselves. we will create a very strong economy. than 100,000ore jobs in the united states. plus we look at europe will get to-- we europe independent and free from energy. that is how they become strong. of as long -- as long as you keep russia strong militarily it will always be a problem. they have to keep them down. they will dodown whatever you say. way to point the only deal with russia, simply take them down economically. that is william from florida. he is part of many that have expressed their thoughts on eight to ukraine -- on aid to ukraine. folksard some of those talk about their hesitancy to send aid to ukraine because of our economic interest. is william golf to and from the brookings institution -- william galston from the brookings institution. later in the program we will hear on how states compare when it comes to insurance rice is being offered -- insurance prices being offered under the affordable care act. we'll be right back. ♪ >> this is the conference weighing 14 pages pounds. then this, a reconciliation bill . six months late. was 1001 hundred 86 pages long, weighing 15 pounds. 1001 hundred 86 pages long weighing 15 pounds. and the continuing resolution. [applause] this one was two months late and it is 1057 pages long, weighing 14 pounds. that was a total of 43 pounds of paper and ink. you had three hours to consider took 300 people, my office of management and budget, just to read the bill so the government would not shut down. congress should not send another one of these. [applause] and if you do i will not sign it. [applause] -- >> moreighlights highlights from 35 years of house coverage on our facebook page. c-span, brought to today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal close quote continues. bill galstog us is n, a senior fellow at the brookings institution. i want to show the audience to polls. if the first is from the pew research center. it takes a look specifically at what going on -- at what's going on in the ukraine. saying not to get too involved in the situation in ukraine. you take that poll, made it into another pole when it comes to recession in the united states. igor asked by the wall street journal about it. did he seven percent saying yes, the u.s. is still in a recession. poll, made it into another, why did you do that he echo -- that? it is really difficult to be strong abroad if people are fixated on domestic problems. when the issue involves overseas engagement that may be very costly, than people who are in trouble see that as diverting resources and political attention from their problem to somebody else's problem. they're much like lice -- much less likely to say yes to that proposition when they are in trouble. most americans feel they are in trouble. host: even though the situation takes place as intense as it is, people will receive -- guest: supersede is a little strong. if the entire political leadership unites around a proposition that is essential to the national security interests of the united states and allies, then they may be able to make that case. it will be a lot of resistance. if the political class is divided as it is right now, then the american people are going to hear an uncertain trumpet and they are unlikely to follow it. , "thethe piece is called american roots of the american retreat." go a little bit into looking at the economic snapshot. you look into why it affects peoples views to the ukraine. can you paint a picture of what you write about he echo -- about? i asked myself a question after reading the wall street journal survey, why is that? the standard economist measures of the recession ended almost five years ago. theaven't yet regained number of jobs we had when the great recession started in december 2007. a lot of people are underemployed. a can't find full-time lurk -- full-time work. the rate of unemployment is at levels we haven't seen since the 1930's. important,t households are looking at their incomes. todays are not only lower than they were at the beginning of the great recession in 2007, they are substantially lower today than they were at the end of that recession. that is household incomes have continued to fall since the end of the recession 2009. of thelook at the income average american household, it is barely higher than it was in 1989. people talk about a lost decade, that is a lost quarter-century. that is the reality they are experiencing. war, fromears of their standpoint it hasn't paid rich dividends. they are more reluctant to go abroad once again searching for monsters to destroy. host: do you think the cost will always affect our future policy decisions? caller: everyone knows the wars are crosley. --guest: everyone knows wars are costly. at some point in our history we decided that war is costly but there is no alternative. at other points we have said to ourselves, as we did in the , that we poured out our blood and treasure and what has it gotten us? now --e we are in right i am plenty old enough to remember the 1970's, what they felt like. this feels like the early 1970's to me with the following , between 1973 and 1979 we were weak in the world but there wasn't a triggering event that galvanized our interest and give us a choice. wasn't until the russian invasion of afghanistan in 1979 that the country really woke up. we have been given about six months. ofthe russian invasion ukraine is historically parallel to their invasion of afghanistan, then we have a choice about engagement versus disengagement, a week engagement, coming up a lot sooner on our radars keen -- radar screen. n is ourll galsto guest for this first segment. the numbers will be on the screen -- send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. a couple of viewers run up this discussion of the ukraine. it comes at the same time the senate is considering unemployment benefits. they both relate to what you are trying to address in your piece. is almost a classic example of what i was talking about. i was driving to your studio this morning and listening to a lot of these comments. those two issues arose in the same breath almost for a number of people calling in. and that is entirely understandable. that is the way people are seeing situations right now. borrowing a lot of money for a very long time. that has worried people. i heard more than one person say what are we supposed to do, borrow money from china and send it to ukraine? am't misunderstand me, i deeply troubled by what is happening overseas. like a wake-up call to democrats and republicans here in washington that if we really care about what is going on we are quite ad hectic at our house in order and do it fast. the small petty political issues -- consider senate consideration -- theykrainian bill are the sign of a country that knows no longer what is important. host: do you think that can be revisited as the house and senate consider bills on ukraine? guest: i heard a series of senator say confidently it would be taken up and dealt with as soon as they got back, which i think is today. the events of recent years have not given me a love of confidence that the world's greatest deliberative body, as it says so itself, is up to its name. here is melinda from woodstock, new york. the morning. good morning. i want to ask why reporters such as yourself don't write about another reason why the why the mac people won't follow the government into another war when our credit was -- the third tower in 9/11 was brought down by controlled demolition. guest: i am unaware of the evidence you talked about. i am very skeptical that anything of the sort happened. i should also say for the record that i am not a reporter, i am a political scientist and a scholar. if there is a story there than a reporter should follow it. at this point i doubt there is a story. host: paul from tennessee, democrat line. some of you got to take a look at these left-wing idiots that don't have a clue of what is going on in this world. i don't think how -- i don't know how people can call in and say the 9/11 towers were brought down by some demolition. host: go ahead with your comment or question. , weer: here's my question go all around this world policing everybody, policing everything. we have kids here at home who are going hungry at night. they don't get the opportunity to talk about a raise for the god -- for the doggone military. this president would spend a million dollars in just a minute to help a muslim country around the world. you take $1 million and split amongst these 345 million people, you want to see a country come alive, that is how we do it. take care of these poor people. your comment is a perfect illustration, i have to say, of the point i was trying to make in my article. americans such as yourselves are deeply concerned about problems at home. the government has been very slow to adjust and its response is inadequate. you are in the majority right now. that is why it is a tough sell for the aid to ukraine or anyone else. i will be honest with you, i allk the interests of americans have been served since the day i was born in 1946 by a united states, it united between the political parties that was able and willing to defend a peaceful and international order within which we could export our goods and import goods with other people and enjoyed all the fruits of peace and liberty, which we have tried to expand around the world. we would be poorer and a greater danger if we did not do that, but it is a heavy burden and the american people are weary of carrying that burden. allies? that is a good question. it is the case, i believe historically, that when we are feeling prosperous at home, we are more likely to be generous and forward-looking with regard to our own people and the needs of the people around the world. the problem with economic weakness and political division at home is that it undercuts everything we care about at home and abroad. reap theginning to consequences of our failure to put our economic house in order. we missed our opportunity. it is not too late. but it is going to be a very difficult time. >> the causes of the economic disaster we have, which i do not see any hope for, started with nasa under bill clinton, where you gutted jobs and went overseas. another bipartisan fiasco around 2000 and 2001, then the illegal aliens in the country, big corporations want them to work u.s.ess money than citizens, and finally, supreme court rulings. citizens united will guarantee the fiasco continues as the rich er and the middle-class is gutted as a result. >> many americans agree what you just said but let me put some facts on the table. i know something about the 1990's. i was part of the clinton administration for the first 2.5 .ears the economy during the clinton years was at a strength and vigor that people now look back to with nostalgia. it was a time during which 22 million jobs were created, when bill clinton left office, unemployment was below four percent. it was one of the few times in recent american history where the wages of all americans from the bottom of the income scale to the top rose at about the same rate. people gained not only income, but wealth. it was a time in which we delivered four balanced budgets in a row. it is a little hard for me to except the proposition that nafta undermines the economy when its passage appears to me to have coincided with economic acceleration and prosperity that we would be happy to regain. host: democrats line, naples, florida. class everything he said, i was so impressed and so happy to hear people state the way american people actually feel. a longbeen around for time and voted for many presidents. i used the seat the congress put together but the latest fellow just called up to talk about nasa, i am worrying now about the trade situation that we have. i have a refrigerator made in the other country" put together and sold. they say we like the prices. they are terrible. everything we produce now is made overseas. it is also hurting our economy. even though clinton, who i think so much of, and hillary, i in this was wonderful what he said about what had happened. i agree totally with all of it, but this is really hurting us, plus the unemployment, and not doing anything about it. marriage is marriage. if they want a civil union, call it a civil union. to us, it is something precious. with immigration, they should make us wonder why we have this important thing about immigration. there is a lot to that. there are reasons they are trying to protect out of the country. they have the talent for some of these technical things we are doing. before, i totally agree with, but listening to the last thing about nafta, we are being affected by this and a lot of our products are made and we never used to have warrantees out of refrigerators and all of these things. we had them and they worked. >> well, the caller raised a number of issues. it is hard to know where to begin. let me just make a point. the caller is right that the itted states is not where was 25 years ago, let alone 40 years ago. war, wee second world were really the only surviving and functioning economy in the world. europe and asia had been devastated by the world or. states was a colossus. we could reap all of the benefits of what amounted to an economic monopoly. we enjoy the economic monopoly for decades. then, countries we had defeated off theirar ii got knees and stood up and began to produce and compete. other countries entered the global markets, a process that accelerated after the fall of the berlin wall and the collapse of the soviet union. for better or worse, we are living in a world where billions aspire to the standard of living we enjoy it and are willing to work very hard for it and are in a position to compete with americans as never before. i agree with the caller that we have to take this very seriously. to beclearly unacceptable in a situation in which we produce nothing and import everything. americans need jobs. we need to figure out a way of creating those jobs in a new global economy, making things tougher than it used to be. >> i might part company with some of the remarks of a couple of callers, the idea that we can somehow detach ourselves from the new reality and go about our business as though the rest of the world did not exist and as though the changes in the rest of the world do not affect us. we cannot do that. the changes will affect us. the problem is, we have been very slow to adapt. >> part of what you write, 1967, the for top five of the u.s. population received seven percent of the national income. two decades later, the top five percent of americans received 17% of income and the middle 16% -- bring up in modern-day what is happening. i think almost everybody knows, the people at the top have done very well over the past 30 years. people in the middle have experienced much slower progress. so slow, they could barely feel throughout our history, the middle class has never grudge the very successful. their success, as long as the middle class could participate in the success, and as long as people some -- the people striving to get into the middle class, fought they had a fair chance. we have now is a lot of people feel stuck. they are working harder than ever but not getting anywhere. that is not their conception of the way america is supposed to work. more log on the 60% of people, who lost jobs during the great recession and then found new employment subsequently and had to accept jobs at lower wages from the jobs they lost, they are not experiencing the class third -- classic american dream of upward mobility. it is the reverse for them. it is affecting their outlook and why should it not? about taking a look at foreign interest in the ukraine. class yes. it is entirely understandable americans of both political parties respond so affirmatively right now to the proposition that it is time for nationbuilding here at home. i really sympathize with that proposition. need nationbuilding here at home and we need to do it at the same time that we defend our vital interests abroad. pray that the two political parties will figure out a way of uniting around that opposition before we suffer very serious reverses. i think we need to recapture some of the spirit of the weeks and months immediately after 9/11. we have to get together as a country and understand there are forces around the world not the status quo we have done so much to create and sustain. these forces will push against it. it down orknock weaken it very seriously if we take our eye off the ball and draw -- with draw our attention from what is going on abroad, especially if we focus on our prop -- problems here at home but make no effort to adjust them. >> here is warren, new hampshire. republican line. >> yes. policy, andoreign the government, especially administration, are they going to listen to the or are theyple going to listen to israeli loft to force us to go into further low dutch wars in the middle east? the caller has raised a familiar issue. i do not think it was any lobby or israeli or otherwise that led us to respond as strongly as we did to an act of terrorism that emanated from afghanistan. we should not have taken our eye off the ball in afghanistan and we should not be there 12.5 years later and there is a long story as to why we are, and it certainly was not any external lobby that led us to war in iraq . that was, in my opinion, a folly committed by people who should've known better. i think we have only ourselves to blame for the situation in which we now find ourselves. i wish i could point to an led us toorce that make mistake after mistake, but i think we ought to look inward for that. >> west virginia, sam, independent line. are you there? one more time before we move on. north carolina, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to point out, i was listening to your guests and i did not get a good impression of what he was trying to say, other than it sounds like he is saying that what has happened now is the democrats fault. i think republicans are the ones who crashed the economy in 2008. it was their policies that caused the economy to default. in spite of that, the u.s. has done better than any other country in recovering from the economy, other than germany. britain, especially britain, has been back in two recessions since 2008. portman --ery important point for people to understand. i do not think even if we had that a lotloyment, of people, or the majority of people, would be interested in going to war again. mostly by talk with are not interested in going to war to matter what. i think the guest is trying to relate that to income. guest: first of all, it was certainly not my intention to suggest that what is going on right now is the democrats fault. discussion aslong to why we are where we are, but not a piece of it would lead to the conclusion that it is the democrats fault. say itink it is fair to is not completely the republicans fault either. found a way as a country to get together. i have my own views as to why that is another people have toir own, but as for going war, that is not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about deterring war and not entering it. is, whenof the matter we were seen as strong and united in europe, there were no european wars. we kept the peace in europe. it was not easy or cheap. but we did it. regrettably, vladimir putin theseen fit to disrupt post-cold war world based on respect for the territorial integrity and national independence of all of the nations, including the ones that time emerged during the after 1991. the question before us now is how we are going to deter any future acts. i know of no one talking about sending troops to ukraine or entering a war with russia. that is not the point. the point is to create or re-create a situation in which russians and others will be borders,from crossing violating the national sovereignty of other countries, and calling into question the entire international order, which is where we are now, regrettably. >> what is america's role and response to that? i am glad the president is in europe right now as we speak. clear thatakes it this is a moment for nato to stand together and to take the nato principles of seriously, which involves a mutual security guarantee, among others. charter, to the basic an attack on one member nation is to be construed as an attack on all. nato now includes the baltic states. substantialcontain russian minorities. if you take president putin's speech to the russian parliament last week, justifying the takeover of crimea seriously, and i do take that seat -- that speech seriously, in effect claiming the right to defend the entire, what he calls russian nation, and his view of the collapse of the soviet union, divided the russian nation. he is claiming at least in principle the right to defend the russian nation, on which other side of the russian border, it may happen to live. he has exercised that principle in crimea and there is no reason in principle why he could not , tond it to the baltics eastern ukraine, and to many other areas as well. it is a risky time. on twitter, cnn tweeted out earlier that the ukraine was sending out troops and the naval base was being seized by russian forces there. is happening in crimea now is a foregone conclusion. the russian president has created new facts on the ground and i know of nothing in the near term that will reverse that . we will not recognize the legality of the seizure of crimea and neither will anyone else, with the exception of a few autocracies around the world that may see something in it for themselves. is not how to get crimea back for ukraine. we now have at the heart of europe -- it will be running for i suspect decades. the question is how to deter further steps of this sort. the russians in eastern and southeastern ukraine in particular, and the russian form a very formidable block inside the ukraine. if you look at president putin's speech to the russian parliament, he refers not only to the sequence of events during the soviet union that led to the movement, the awarding of crimea to the ukraine in 1954, he also he regards asat the error of the communists in transferring a lot of historic russia to southeast ukraine. it is clear he has a history on his mind. the more seriously he takes that history, the more trouble we are in. the sanctions them united states, is that the strongest course of action we could provide? most people recognize president obama is gradually ratcheting up the pressure. he announced a first round of sanctions widely regarded as weak and limited. there are many more far-reaching sanctions he has in their pockets. thatu want to see what looks like, take a look at the .anctions regime a very comprehensive and effective regime. i am not saying the president will go that far with russia anytime soon, but it is a can movethat sanctions up a notch by notch and heard a little bit more. >> up next, mississippi, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say, how can we take all of this help over to ukraine and all? our government keeps cutting their own military budgets and all. our country is in so much need right now and everything. the government a hail -- ain't helping me and i am begging for help. the government can send all this money overseas. why can't we just work our way down and start a whole new government. they got us all upside down. >> once again, you're making the very point i was trying to make in my piece. millions of americans such as yourself are hurting. as long as the problems you are experiencing and millions of others like you are experiencing you quiteere, understandably believe those problems should come first and we should take care of our business here at home before we even start thinking about expanding what we do abroad. is a sign of the fix we are in. we have important interests abroad. in the long term, they help to secure not only peace but also .rosperity do not think the logic has fundamentally changed. changed is our ability to their to seize burdens at the same time we try to deal with domestic problems. unless we try to figure out a thatolitical agreement takes those two responsibilities seriously, we will have a seriously hard time -- a very hard time and this is a difficult time to be considering a major military budget cut, but that is what we are considering doing. democrats line, high. . caller: i have a, and a question. yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the announcement at the university of utah. studiesso many replicated largely because they all improperly designed, around the world, ever since then, there have been anonymous amounts of research that have proven over unity and excess morey and input energy is than possible. today, nasa is working on a rocket resign based on the principle low energy nuclear reactions can produce more energy input. do you think the american public is ready for immediate steps in the ukraine, perhaps releasing a base in the black sea around the or, to deploy, the antimissile shield we once contemplated in poland? >> an interesting question. the honest answer is i am not sure. think our military leaders beforeobably think twice putting an american asset of the american navy at risk or in jeopardy. number of leading experts, including former ambassadors to ukraine, whom i know, who believe what you suggested would be the right thing to do, all things considered. as you also know, there is renewed discussion about the possibility of replacing antimissile batteries in poland and the czech republic. andere on course to do that then president obama near the beginning of the administration decided it would be preferable to shelve those agreements and proceed in a different direction. i do not know enough to know whether those agreements can be revived at this point, whether they would be welcomed in poland and the czech republic, which they would have to be, and whether the congress would be willing to authorize them at this point. there is a good argument to be made that they could be part of an effective deterrent to future steps by president putin, southeastern ukraine or moldova where the baltics, then we ought to give it careful consideration. more call, derek, minnesota, independent line. >> good morning. what was your position at the clinton administration? deputy assistant for domestic policy. caller: you have been talking about a lost decade, and you are talking about a lost decade. his desk this is very important because when mistakes are made, it takes a lot of guts to admit mistakes. i am looking at the u.s. trade deficit since you are basically working for the clinton administration, in 1992-2014. we have had an average, if you just look at the graph of the u.s. trade deficit since then and since nasa and since our , since thement migration of mexicans to come into america, you're talking about policies that happened under the clinton administration have ruined the country in the and strictly on the trade deficit and the national debt, you understand you should probably be apologizing to the american people. thank you. >> well, you may think so. let me review. i know the economic history of the clinton years in some detail. let me repeat what i said earlier. it was a time during which 22 million jobs were created. bill clinton left -- left office with unemployment under four percent. which a time during household incomes and wages rose across all of the income brackets. sincee of the few times the 1970's. and it was a time, speaking of the debt, when we moved from a large deficit bill clinton had inherited into four straight years of surpluses, so much so that in 2001, the then federal reserve board chair gave testimony to congress in which he worried out loud about the negative consequences of paying off u.s. debt, which he thought we would do within a decade if we continued on the course then. of americansumber would be glad to have the clinton economy back, which is why bill clinton is a phenomenally popular ex-president. if the clinton ruined the economy, a lot of people would like to have the ruined economy back and therefore, with all due respect, i decline to apologize for my service in the clinton ministration. >> the peace our guest wrote, if you want to read it for yourself on the wall street, american roots -- the roots of american retreat. thank you. >> my pleasure. class coming up on our program, taking a look at the affordable care act, we will look at how states differ when it comes to pricing received from the exchanges. our guest will be from the fiscal times. later on, your money segment will focus on starting another round of closings. we will discuss process and potential cost savings after this. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ towe have a dual mission, protect american consumers and promote competition. we do that in several different main ways. a civil law we are enforcement agency. we bring lawsuits against companies that engage in unfair or deceptive acts and practices or engage in unfair methods of competition. we also engage in policy and research work to study industries and promote best practices and advocate for laws we think are needed. to your specific question, i can tell you we are really interested in protecting consumers when it comes to the entirety of the ecosystem. by that i mean, we are what developers are engaging in, operating stores, mobile app device manufacturers. we ensure that american consumers are protected and that there is a competitive landscape. >> the role of the federal trade commission tonight on the communicators, 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> have you ever heard of fracking? hydraulic fracking? class what? ordered the environmental protection agency [indiscernible] drinking water sources used in hydraulic fracturing. announced it was delaying studies until 2016. can we really wait that long? we have announced the winners of this year'c-span student cam competition on what is the most important issue congress should address this year. watch the top 21 winning videos starting next tuesday, april 1, and every weekend throughout the month on c-span. see all of the winning documentaries online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining me, thank you for .oining us, brianna ehley doesn't matter where you live in terms of the price you pay for the affordable care act? it does. more than one reason. the cost of premiums and as well as how well your state exchanges working, is it easier and harder to -- to enroll? it definitely matters where you are. simple econ 101 thing. where your market is depends on your health providers and hospitals in the area. that drives competition down. if you only have one hospital or provider in the area, you will pay a lot more than other states. ,> when it comes to expensive the most expensive places to get kaiser health news put together a thing provided by your publication. if you live in colorado springs, colorado, you will pay a monthly -- $483. southwest georgia, 461 dollars. those little bit about prices and what factors into them? especially in those areas of the country. class a couple of factors play into it. the biggest one is the market. you have talent like aspen. there are just four providers in the area. you are paying more. there is less competition. when you go to denver, they have double the amount of providers and double the amount of plants. for premiums less on average. the kaiser study, they are looking at silver plans for a 40-year-old male. that is how they broke it down. silver is the standard plan under obamacare, so metal and silver is kind of the medium one most people are going with right now. that is how they did the study. in georgia, it is interesting. the southern region of georgia. oneonly do they have provider, one house system dominating the area, like 83% of the market is run by the house also, thet population, whether they tend to be smart and unhealthy population, that drives prices as well. of threeegion, one out people are obese. the health of the population really drives the cost as well. it is mostly the market. >> it does not pay specter as to what parts of the country. the south, the east, the west, those factor in but not as much. >> yes, it really depends. have the minneapolis area, which has four major providers and a lot of health care systems, a lot of providers and drives theand that prices down. the population tends to be a healthier population. not one of the healthiest populations in the country. so they are paying significantly less. $154, $104erence, and if you live in montana, $166. >> right. going back to minneapolis, it is interesting. theoes not really matter proximity across the border in wisconsin. they are paying almost twice as much. it really depends on what they have to offer as far as the health care system. class i could -- i should've said minnesota instead of montana. >> the prices on the exchanges tend to be lower. the premium prices tend to be lower than pay are based plants. when you look at deductibles, they are a lot higher. you're out of pocket costs tend to be higher. there was an out-of-pocket study that shows deductibles on some plants tend to be 40% higher. >> does it matter if it is federally run or state run or a combination? does it matter as far as who runs it and what cost you will pay? is there a connection? >> no, it is across the board. class have people experienced this as far as what they are paying, what is important to know as we approach the deadline? >> if you do not have coverage after march 31, you will be subject to a penalty of $95 or one percent of your income, whatever is greater. are wrestlingolks with right now. is it worth it and can i squeeze in my budget. the majority of people want health coverage and it comes down to whether they can afford it or not hear people are looking at their budgets and thinking, should i go for the penalty right now, whatever is best for the bottom line. >> we should have talked about the prices you saw. guest: it depends on what your household income is. the kaczor foundation has a good calculator so you can go in if you are 100 to 400% of the poverty line, then you will qualify for subsidies. 83% of total enrollees right now have qualified for subsidies. you can go in either on the website or on kaiser's calculator and checked out what if anything you would qualify for. policy andrs health talking about cost when it comes to who pays what and living in the -- in the united states, if you have questions for her, -- if you have questions for her via twitter, -- first call for you is from oklahoma. it will be our republican line, good morning. you're on. please go ahead. >> i was trying to get in on the last segment. do you have any questions about the affordable care act? >> no. my insurance went up. my deductible went up. my medication went up. everything went up. , last time,to say newt gingrich got to democrats and republicans all of their subsidies. questions that was the last segment, we will move on. this is john, new jersey, independent line. class good morning. wonder if she can comment on the extent of federal subsidies to people paying these various premiums? i am seeing young people reporting that they are paying $75 a month for the policy. to what extent the federal subsidies reducing these costs? theirdepends on what income is. subsidies could be as little as $20, to hire. it depends on how much they are earning. they could go to the kaiser family subsidy health calculator wouldgure out what they actually receive. >> if you look at some information, when it comes to not only exchanges, but when it comes to the next caller from individuals are dissipated in the marketplace plan out of the potential 657,000 people who could apply for the plan. .t is 11% participation rate what does that tell you as far as participation rates go? >> it could just be it is not where it should be. some say in more democratic states, you are seeing stronger outreach for political reasons. it could just be outraged. >> here is beverly from columbia, missouri, on the democrats line. >> if your state don't extend medicaid, that makes premiums for the people in the state of missouri higher? no, it should not have an effect on it. about're talking premiums, the individual plans, that does not really affect medicaid. it should not have any effect. host: virginia, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. of thebeen a proponent affordable health care act, but i also cannot afford to sign up on it. with subsidies for my family. i have an individual fantasy -- family policy with a local provider in virginia. because of ongoing health care costs over the last 10 years, the plans offered to me through it in virginia would ultimately cost me more money out of pocket with higher deductibles and higher co-pays. while i want to promote everyone to sign on, especially young people without health crisis, and we need to do a better part and a better job educating the population who are not already involved in the medical community as i am currently, i cannot afford to take the risk and go from a tpo plan to an age while facinglan all these medical issues. there is a gap here for people who already are in the process of being heavy users of the medical facilities and communities but who cannot really afford to roll the dice and take advantage of the potential savings. host: what kind of money are we talking? caller: i am currently playing -- paying close to $4000 for a family individual policy. a ppo with about a $1500 deductible. i would be able to receive about $400 subsidy to lower my premiums, but i would be at minimum doubling my deductible and then my co-pay. more importantly, because my wife is diagnosed with cancer on top of 10 years of other medical crises, i need access to the doctors able to see me -- or see her. hmo plan, quite simply, particularly in rural areas like parts of virginia, not that world but rural enough, limit my ability to be able to access the doctors we need to see. essentially, i could take advantage of $400 off the top, which is essential, but realistically, for me, since i the services already and am already in the process, i will be increasing my out-of-pocket expenses tremendously. they call me an e-mail me every day to sign up, almost completed my application, but i am afraid to sign the dotted line. i know currently as it stands, at least in virginia and in my case, they will end up costing me more money. that is definitely probably a common theme people are seeing. look, premiums tend to be cheaper on the exchange-based plans, but deductibles are higher. folks are discovering this. another good point you brought the narrowing of provider networks. people are finding out on the exchanges that their doctor might not be in their network. that is a big deal, especially , whoeople like your wife is probably used to seeing the same specialists and would prefer it to see the same specialists over and over. that is where people are running into issues with the new plans. the rural nature is again driving up costs depending on what providers and health care systems are out there. if one dominates the market, they will drive prices up. >> where in the u.s. can one receive the best care? you're looking at premiums as low as 150 compared to the high of 45 in colorado, the national average for a 40-year-old individual, non-smoker, about his stay dollars. -- about $260. republican line, high. . you do not have to buy obamacare. all you have to do is get one of their hardship deals from obama and you do not have to buy it. you are referring to exemption. that is an option. you have to prove you have some sort of financial hardship that would prevent you from getting coverage. you're not required to buy insurance through the federal state exchange. you are required to have health insurance by march 31. >> a story in the washed in times this morning, if you would seek the exemption, do you agree with that? i would have to see if that plays out. it is hard to know. experts are saying it is not as big a deal as critics and conservatives have pointed out. right away, they were saying this is another way the willistration was kind of -- walking around the individual mandate. again, most people in do want coverage. many peoplenk as will take advantage of a hardship exemption as something. >> about 300,000 signing up for plans onto the marketplace out of a potential 3.1 million. >> texas, another example about rich, but texas is important, very important to enrollment numbers because they have a large population of uninsured. california is doing quite well and rolling. they just enrolled one million last week. florida, very important, pennsylvania and new york. these states are really what counts, driving the enrollment numbers. tennessee, you are up next. caller: good morning. across states, and my passes. , blue cross and lou shield and other companies compete across states. care help thebama nation as far as lower premiums? if you can move from state to state and get a lower premium, i mean, it does not make sense to me. risk is what they base it on. if you get all the people who have earned income in the country, paid into the system, then we may be able to control it. i had a hundred thousand dollar operation. without insurance, i would be on the street at 58 years old. guest: blue cross lou shield is represented in every state. it really does not change anything from before the aca. what we are talking about with competition is in oral areas georgiarural areas like dominating 80% of the market. that is really the big issue with driving premiums. you are being asked on twitter about the chances the administration will extend the march 31 deadline for sign-up. guest: i would not count on it. i have been -- they have said over and over they would not. are expecting is they might make an exception for people who have already gone through the enrollment process and maybe they had problems with the website and were not able to actually complete the application process. that is not for sure yet. some states like maryland and nevada have said they would give who day leeway for people started the process. we are expecting an announcement this week from the administration saying, if you are already starting the application process, you can finish it up, but if not, you need to have insurance or you will pay a penalty. is the likelihood they will reach 6 million at the deadline? on course.ould be we are not sure how many people are actually gaining coverage through the new exchanges yet because we do not know how many people have paid yet. that will be a big driver. last year, 7 million they are talking about 7 million people getting coverage through the exchanges, not just signing up. about 20% of total and roman, about 5 million have not paid. the would not count in final enrollment numbers. that will also depend and premiumte to what prices are next year. they're hoping to make this goal. cbo has revised it down to 6 million by march 31. host: any indication of the administration to release figures? guest: they said they are not tracking that yet. we could see that next year but it is not likely we will see anything like that in the coming months. the: it was preached about percentiles people have signed up and the age bracket. in the 18-25 bracket, 10%. -- what do those numbers tell you? the ministration stressed it is not just about the numbers but what is behind the numbers. to be young people, 18-34. these people help offset the costs of premiums for older and sicker individuals. we are at 25% now. not there yet. contribute to premium prices next year. it will go up if they do not increase. joining us from fiscal times. brianna ehley. edward, pennsylvania, independent line. road construction and get laid off in the winter. now that this obamacare took effect, i don't have no insurance. since obama took your unemployment from you, i cannot afford insurance. what should i do? go out and get on welfare and let obama take care of it? guest: depending on your income, you could see if you qualify through medicaid depending on where you live. there are deftly options for you. i would also suggest going on and looking at if you have options for subsidies to make health insurance more affordable. states, about 159,000 people signed up out of 1.2 million plus. the ratio of sign-up, 12.5%. guest: right. that is one of the state the administration want to target if they want their numbers up to 6 million by next week. week, it was pretty clear who the administration is targeting. you have president obama doing an interview with zach of outrages, a lot with march madness. they are looking for young people to sign up here you can expect that to be the case again this week. get ready for a final push. host: from texas, republican line. excuse you will have to me a little bit. i was trying to keep up with obamacare antifur but health care act, but the main goal is specifically to help everyone get coverage. is that correct? guest: yes, it is. interesting. that is clearly their main goal. the administration has not been tracking how many of the 5 million enrolled already who were previously uninsured. expand the main goal, to access to health coverage. to assess the success of the law so far, we need to know how many people are actually getting coverage for the first time or for the first time in years. this will be something we will look for if they start msuring this in the coming year. steve, good morning from carolina, democrats line. caller: i have a couple of comments i would like to share on health care. year, i taughty school in north carolina for 30 years. every year, we got a raise. blue cross and blue shield raised their premiums. the idea obama care is causing the premiums to go up is simply not true. people also talk about the fact that we do not have any tort reform. if i am not mistaken, that was originally in the affordable care act. out.they got it also, there was push for interstate insurance sales and insurance companies got together and block that. there is an awful lot going on here that people do not want to take into account when it comes to the cost of health care. i also carried my son until he was 26 years old at $350 a month . he is now signed up at 27 for the affordable care act and he does get subsidized because he does not have a well-paying job at this point. i think people need to back up a look at this thing objectively. host: what are your son's costs? guest caller: $80 a month. if you get in a car wreck, either i will have to sell my house or your going to die. that is not right in america. host: what is the deductible, by the way? caller: you know what come i'm not sure, to be honest with you. a veryyou brought up good point. obamacare residential doing a lot of the blame these past couple of months. -- obamacare has been shouldering a love of the blame these past couple months. you hear about skyrocketing premiums. premiums and deductible's have been on the rise for years for this lot has taken effect -- before this law has taken affected that is a good thing to know. isis addressed obamacare -- is in just obamacare that is causing them to rise. host: our guest last weekend was healthgnani of america's insurance plans. one of the things she was asked, if she had the chance to make changes now as far as what is being offered, here is her response and we will get you to respond. [video clip] would create a lower tiers of the people could gradually get into the program, so they could be part of the risk pool, so that we don't hold healthier people outside so that the process could be working the way it was designed. we get the healthy and the sick. i think they doing things gradually just from the human nature perspective makes more sense. >> wouldn't all the healthy people congregate in that lowest tier? >> not necessarily. by that hypothesis you would have expected an extraordinary amount of people to buy bronze and they have chosen more silver, which is not as higher deductible, so they wanted to lower their deductible, they're willing to pay little bit more per month. the point is, people are choosing. what i would do is give people more choices. human nature suggests that people like that. they are in control of they have more choices. brandy healy, any take away from that -- on ailey, any take away from that? guest: that is in line with what i for from experts, like a copper land that would be lower just give people more options. people do like options, so i'm not sure we can expect that to be a reality in coming years, but we will see what happens. host: could it become a reality -- how would that affect everybody involved? guest: there are a lot of things to take into consideration, politics aside. i wouldn't expect it to happen in coming years. host: from "the fiscal times," we are joined by breanna ehley. the publication -- she covers health policy with them. john in select city, utah -- salt lake city, utah. caller: i am wondering about the qualification of people for the affordable care act. in the state you live in, it does not expand the medicaid. they are stuck in a loop it has been they are stuck with the full payment -- because then they are stuck with the full payment. how about that? guest: yeah, that is right, that is what we are seeing. it is referred to as the medicaid coverage gap, when -- 25 states decided not to expand the medicaid program, so you have these people that are and they between would've received medicaid under the health-care law, and when the law was written they weren't really accounted for when people were deciding to asher would qualify for subsidies. they wouldn't be able to qualify for subsidies under the health exchanges, but they also don't qualify for medicaid in their state. a lot of people -- a fair amount of people falling into this cap. and next with on both sides are trying to figure out how to address this -- experts on both sides are trying to figure out how to address this. host: daniel in michigan. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is like the first time in 15 years for my wife and i that are premiums do not go up or our co-pay did not go up. first year in 10 years that there was zero chance to it as far as cost. so i am thankful for that. secondly, i think it is a very unjustice in this country for millions of people in states that the republicans refused to expand, those people are being denied free health care. i am in michigan and i listen to commercial some the gop, people coming on and saying, "i have cancer, i lost my doctor, you just ruined everything." very selfish is because maybe this person will have to change doctors. how about the millions of people that have no health care that come down with cancer, or any major medical problem? the number one leading cause of bankruptcy was people's medical bills. something has got to be done. the gop is just saying that won't work, that won't work, with no alternatives. people better wake up at the ballot box because they don't care about you. thanks for taking my call. right, well, definitely come that will be an interesting point to figure out how people are feeling about the midterm elections. of course, you make a good point, that the whole purpose of the law is to expand access to health coverage to millions of americans, 47 million americans that didn't have insurance. we will see how people feel about that at the ballot box in november. the gop has talked about presenting some sort of obamacare alternative. we have yet to really see a serious proposal. eric cantor said in the coming months that they will be revealing something. we will see what happens with that. who decidedo people not to take insurance have to pay fines? guest: i will come out of your tax credit the following year -- that will come out of your tax credit the following you. the irs is and follow -- enforcing it that way -- your tax return, sorry. in "theere is a story wall street journal," people starting to prepare people as far as what they will pay. -- h&r block hanover people "america but with two children filing jointly and making $58,500 year would be hit with a thenty of $250 in 2014, $975 in 2015." guest: it will go up to 2% then it 3% the next year. host: the irs forms have actual specific spaces for you asking if you have culture or not? -- if you have health care or not? guest: yes, there is a notification into taxes to prove if you have coverage or not. host: raleigh, north carolina. this is margaret. hi. caller: i just wanted to know if she knew how many people saved about $2500 on their insurance. guest: i don't have the exact figure on that. that is a good question but i can try to find out. host: why is that important to know, margaret? caller: ok, thanks -- what? host: why is that important to note? caller: because from what i understand, people are supposed to state -- save money on the premiums from this health care. medicareedicare and is being cut because of obamacare. now i have to pay more money for my secondary coverage. it went up $40 more a month for me. .nd i am on a fixed income this affordable health care is not helping me anything at all. guest: some people might be finding that out could others, again -- it is important to check your options and see if you qualify for subsidies and look at what your options are. host: mike from houston, texas. republican line. caller: there's no such thing as a free lunch. there really isn't. that is hard to believe, but the gentleman from michigan said free health care. there is no such thing as free. the costs are borne by somebody. we are the president tell us in the campaign -- he said at least eight times in 2008 that average families will save up to $2500 a year in annual premiums. it isn't happening, and you are not hearing it from the press because they don't -- they completely nor his promises. moneys done giving a speech, they completely nor -- when he has done giving a speech, they completely ignore the facts using it. the lie at the year end 2013, you can keep your doctor if you like them. that was lie of the year in "the washington post." the press -- they don't care because they are on his side on every topic. health care, republicans do care about it. they don't have class as a factor in their health care decisions. -- don't have health care as a factor in -- don't have cost as a factor in no health care decisions. the highest cost in health care is where the consumers have the least amount of information. the sad thing is we're talking about people with care -- what about the doctors? how are they responding to these higher cost in their office? guest: so you are seeing -- there is kind of a problem with dr. shortages because, obviously can we having more people enter the system. the concern with doctors is a real thing, of course. another thing is narrowing the network some people are finding out to their -- so people are fighting after their plans that the doctor might not be in the network. as far as the cost of doctors, i'm not sure if they are seeing a reduction in their salaries or anything like that. but the concerned with the doctor shortage is the biggest thing. host: tell us what happens on march 31 for those who have not signed up. guest: if you're one of the millions of americans who have a deep into the application process but you have not finalized it, you have a little little leeway -- you have a little leeway. if the obama administration decides that everyone will have a chance to finish the application -- otherwise, if you haven't signed up for coverage or haven't tried to sign up for coverage on the exchanges, you will be subject to a penalty of either one percent of your for $95, whatever is greater. texa --chard for richard from texas. caller: why hasn't anyone ever mentioned at the 27 other countries around the world but developed countries, that have universal medical care and half the cost and better results? on the internet it is easy to find out the longevity of these countries. we ranked 28th in the longevity. those countries that are looking for affordable care art universal care, they look at us and say that this is one country -- we don't want to copy them. guest: i think that is a good point. i was sort of -- that was sort of the big goal of the obama administration, was to get health reform passed. the u.s. does lag behind in health care as far as costs go. we pay the most for health coverage but we don't necessarily have the best care. that is one of the goals start out with, to have health reform. host: michael on twitter asks guest: we don't know that, actually, and that is a huge, very important thing we need to know to assess the success of this law. the administration says they haven't been tracking that. there are independent studies that have shown it is about 27% of people that in role -- that enrolled, so that 27% of 5 million rupees we were uninsured. that is a pretty minimum amount of people that didn't have coverage before. if that is true, the administration needs to do more with the outreach efforts to reach out to the uninsured population. host: dana from alabama, independent line. caller: i have 3 questions for the lady. one, would it alabama do? -- what it alabama do? did they extend medicaid or were they one of the ones that didn't? my other question, i have a friend whose which jobs and paid $120 a month for blue cross blue himld and now they have put on cobra at $324 $.50. -- threat of $24.50. they say they have open enrollment and up until my he has got to pay this cobra. is there anything he could do online to get back -- to get something until may so that he would not have to pay this high thing for cobra? guest: that is something he would have to check with his previous insurer could i'm not positive on that one. as far as alabama, they did not extend medicaid. ehley, what are you most interested in following this last week and after the deadline? guest: i will be watching to see the mix of enrollees and if they can get more young people signed up. that is very important to the price of premiums next year. we will be paying attention to the mix of enrollees. ehley with "the fiscal times," follows health policy. fiscaltimes.com is the website if you want to follow her writing on the topic. thank you for your time. guest: thanks a lot. host: another round of military base closings. brian lepore of the government accountability office will discuss the process and the potential cost savings as "washington journal" continues. nice job. >> we have to remember 2 things, i think. first, we are there because we were attacked in new york city at 3000 americans were murdered. that is why we went to afghanistan, to get those people who are killing us. second, president obama has said there is a limit to this. within 2 years, we are not doing it anymore. i agree with you, julie. at some point you have to let them do it. goal, if we get away from the afghans, etc., look at what our first goal was, if i had told you or any of the in 2001 that we would not be attacked again in the united states of america for the next decade, none of us would've believed that. point al qaeda had more of the advantage. now we really have al qaeda and the terrorists definitely on the defensive. we can at this point get out most of our forces from afghanistan. i agree with you, but we have been successful in what we really wanted to do as a country , and that is to protect ourselves. >> vietnam vet, assistant defense secretary during the reagan administration, analyst and author bing west will take your questions live for three hours at noon eastern on sunday, april 6, on c-span2's book tv. >> c-span, for 35 years bringing public events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room for white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite divider. -- provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is time for our weekly "your money" segment. you may remember back in february, defense secretary chuck hagel went before cameras to talk about a variety of issues but also talking about the funny 15 dod budget. he talked about finding ways to reduce costs, and part of that involves base closures. [video clip] achieve our fully goals for overhead reductions for not cutting unnecessary and costly infrastructure. for that reason, dod will ask congress for another round of base realignment closures in 2017. i am mindful that congress has to the requests of the past 2 years. but if congress continues to block these requests, even as they slice the overall budget, we will have to consider every tool in our disposal to further reduce infrastructure. host: and helping us walk through the process of what are commissionac closings, brian lepore from the government accountability office, defense capabilities and management director. pleasure to be here. thank you for having me. host: these commissions, what are they? guest: the commission is an independent body that sits right in the middle of the process. you have a process where dod decides what basis it wants to close following some procedures. i in the middle you have this independent commission that will review the closure proposals, the realignment proposals, decide whether to approve them or reject them. the commission can add additional bases if it so chooses. then it presents it to the president, and at that point it goes back to the executive branch. but the independence of the commission is one of the key factors in the way it actually works. ultimately in making these decisions it is about saving money? although 2005 was a little different, the rent we just finished. the secretary made clear -- promoting transformation, enhancing joint operation, matching infrastructure to the fore structure, a little bit of a euphemism -- a way to close races to save him -- close basis to save money. saving money was not necessarily the key point. host: how much did the process cost in 2005? guest: the commission estimated it would cost $21 billion to do the full set of recommendations that they approved. the actual cost exceeds $35 million, i merrily duty military construction on a number of the basis. -- a number of the bases. brac 2005, dod spent the majority of its recognitions on moving forces around as opposed to just closing bases. dod proposed over 200 recommendations to the commission. the commission approved 182 of those. of those 182, only 23 major bases about 150 or so of the recognitions were something other than closing bases, and many of those were known not to be likely to save money at the time they were evaluated by the commission. host: so the dod comes up with a recommend to to the president or the commission recommends to the president? guest: the process has basically 7 steps and i think i can explain it relatively quickly. the way it works is that dod is -- assuming congress keeps the brac statue the way it has been and i suspect it will -- dod is required to do a for structure plan first. they are supposed to figure out what the threat environment looks like and what we will need for forces to respond to that. number two, they develop an infrastructure inventory. we are to know what we have before they decide what they want to close. host: bases, etc. guest: number three, they are required to develop the selection criteria to decide which bases to close in which to realign. the gets published in federal register. they are required to do that, report -- required to take comments on it. anybody can comment on that. they use those 3 things -- for structure, infrastructure, and at selection criteria, and that point they present a recognitions to the commission. the commission reviews those three sets of criteria and will determine whether the secretary complied with the criteria or not and can make changes. that is the last step in the process where you can pick and choose. this is another key point of the independence of the commission. the commission will present its report to the president at that point -- and the president at that point has to accept or reject the list in its entirety. assuming he accepts it, it is presented to congress, and similarly, congress has to accept or reject the entire list in its entirety. they cannot pick and choose. one more key point -- congress has a 45 days from the presidents amidst the report to congress to pass what is called a joint resolution of this appraisal -- joint resolution of disapproval. if they don't do that, it becomes binding. host: you can't take this often we can approve the rest -- he can take this off and we can approve the rest? guest: it is interesting to see how a member of congress u.s. military ace in his state or district, that is a lot of jobs. there could be 5000 jobs or more. a lot of jobs, a lot of economic activity. it is easy to see how a member of congress is going to want to be very protective of installation. that is why it went congress developed the process, to their credit, they did it in a way that attempted to take politics out of it. in theory. in fact, when the process starts, every base in the united states is on the table. commissions, as they are known, that is the topic for our "your money" segment. if you have questions, he was her chance to ask brian lepore of the gal -- here is your chance to ask brian lepore of the gao. this point --t at well, first and foremost, this congress, are they likely to give the defense secretary his desire for these commissions?/ guest: that is the $64,000 question, as secretary hagel indicated. they asked for it in 2013 and 2015, congress declined to approve it. they will ask for it in 2017. we will see. if you think about it, for the reasons i stated earlier, that is a difficult vote for a member of congress to take could went to authorize the background, if or have a base in your state district, that is on the table. it would be included in the defense authorization act comes of both armed services committees would have to agree to it -- so both armed services committees would have to agree to it. both houses of progress would have to approve it without stripping out the brac provisions. host: when the list is decided upon, is there -- i suppose at this point everybody would say -- is there a short list, so to speak, when you start these processes, with a bases that come up every time that serve as kind of a hotlist or target list, whatever you call it? guest: it is a great guessing game. everybody who is interested in this and pays attention to the brac process tries to guess them is my days or something else's base going to be on the list -- is my base or somebody else possibly swing to be on the list? the weight it is written is very specific. bases to consider all the in the united states. at the beginning of the process, if it is in the united states, it is in theory available to be closed or realigned. host: are these just military, or are there civilian operations involved? guest: there can be civilian operations as tenets -- tenants of the isolation. -- of the installation. when i happens, the federal agency can make a decision whether it wishes to acquire a portion of the base and stay there, it may have to move. it depends on what position will be made with respect to the reuse. host: brian lepore joining us. questions for you -- scott from arizona, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. host: you are on. i wanted to pedro, call on the italian line for that showed up later so i want to apologize for that. officer.ired literary i have worked civil service. anytime these brac decisions are delayed, what we are really doing is affecting the community regardless, because every military installation is a community within itself. it has its own infrastructure and law-enforcement. these are great economic power centers are brac made. universities can take over them, companies can create great ,owers of development technology. where we don't make the decision and we delay it, over time the services make decisions. at fort bragg they move aircraft runway -- the aircraft wing away from the 18th airborne corps. that affects everybody. things that should be done get s because theervice senators unelected officials won't go ahead and make a decision. you have a large family and you are downsized and they move out, guess what? you have a smaller home. host: thank you. guest: the color eggs and important point -- the caller nixon important point. when the base closes, that is a significant economic hit to the community. the one in new jersey that just ended,h brac five thousand jobs moved to the aberdeen proving ground's. you have a net drain of 5000 positions in northern new jersey. on the other hand, it is a pretty extensive process embedded within the brac statue for her using installations. -- for reusing the installations. the community comes together in a sense this is what we are going to give it if you think about it,, those bases are like little towns. their housing and a school, a supermarket, commissary, department store. there may be laboratories, depending on what installation is. very valuable real property assets. to the extent that the local redevelopment authority and the community can come together and decide what it wants to do with that asset, it doesn't have to be the end of the world when the community loses its days. but it does require some forethought on the part of the community. host: any success stories other than that? guest: fort monmouth is under redevelopment, but there already are. we have looked at this question a number of times, what happened to communities that lost their base. what we found even with respect 2005, the economic indicators and the communities surrounding the major bases that close, it is a mixed story. about half had an unemployment rate in 2011 lower than the national average. about half of them had annual per capita income higher than the natural average -- national average, despite the fact that the bases closed. the closing of the base in and of itself is not because of death. not -- not necessarily the kiss of death. host: retired military, florida. caller: i went through 2 rounds of base closure could i won't say which one it was. i have something very interesting, the local commanders there, they get involved very heavily in -- with bases, they at our do a lot of service stuff for ere.people tha and they are heavily supportive of the people there, of course. but the congressman in the area, he put us in a real hard ,osition because, for example we needed a corrosion control anger for our aircraft -- corrosion control hangar for the aircraft we got the calls from the congressman -- hey, you still need that corrosion control hangar? any million-dollar project. of course we would like to have -- any million-dollar project. of course we would like to have it. but guess what, that was approved at the next day, attached to some bill that .ongress was passing and now we have the a million-dollar project going on on the -- the 8 million-dollar project going on on the base which is probably due to close, although the brac process, it was announced, but it is probably 8, 10, 12 months away. host: with that story in mind, what would you like a guest to address? the power of the sky was meant to get things stuck into the base -- power of these congressman to get things stuck into the bases, and using the local base commanders instead of using the admiral or up the chain of command to get the thing approved. host: ok, caller, thanks. guest: the caller makes an interesting point. 2 points i would make about it. the first is that one of the things we find when we do our report last year on the impact of base closure on the local communities is that we talked to the communities that surrounded 23 bases in the united states and one of the points the community leaders made is that sometimes as they got the installation back from dod, the commission -- condition of the facilities wasn't always couldoint where they reuse it without significant investment on their own. that would be state and local dollars and private dollars and in some cases it can be federal s, depending on the nature of the project. one of the things that the communities asked us to consider -- we made a recommendation on this -- is that once the decision is made to close the process, thee brac particular military department may wish to try and do some level of maintenance on the facility to maintain them in good working order. in truth, the caller makes an important point -- we want to be careful how much we invest because we may close the base, but if you also think about it, the base will get turned over to . local community to the extent those facilities are in good working order, that has facilitated the reason the installation. -- the reuse of installation. indeed, it does exactly that. you are taking what was nontaxable, for local property tax purposes, you are taking it off the federal ownership and putting it into the local community. yes, to the extent you have private sector interest to take it, you get the interest from that. host: greg in north carolina. hi. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: i could easily ditto the prior callers but nobody is talking about the 900-pound gorilla in the room. putin is proving that he is expansionist. syria is not resolved. bush in days gone by -- we just had a war in iraq, and he fought a war on 2 fronts, going for afghanistan, fighting a war on a 2 fronts. nobody read "the art of war." 160e is probably about skirmishes going on in the world constantly. even if the united states decides to be isolationist, we would still need more military but what are we doing looking at a budget, the military budget? security,t homeland the patriot act, the national state registry. there is a lot of other things we can look at besides the military budget. host: to capitalize on greg's point, how would base closures affect the military readiness? guest: both good questions. becomes a policy question, how much do we want to spend on the military. let me address the readiness question first. one of the things that the secretary of defense has been clear about is that to the extent that we continue to spend money to maintain and operate facilities that are accessed and needs, it can actually drain those resources -- that are excess to needs, it can actually drain those resources -- proper training, maintaining weapons systems to ensure that they are in good working order. it can even have an impact on routine deployment. the argument dod is making is that to the extent that we continue to maintain facilities we don't need, that can be a detriment to readiness on its own. caller's point, ultimately the question is going to come between the administration and the congress, how it should dod be? the army has made the decision that they will activate 10, teams. the process is underway right now. overall the arm is reducing the force structure by 80000 and the marines are coming down by 20000 and that is a policy question that has been made. with thoserough force structure reductions, it is not inconceivable that we will start to create some excess capacity. that is a policy question that progress and the president would ultimately have to address. host: brian lepore from gao, talking about base closings. jack from indiana, republican line. caller: good morning could i have a question for the desperate given the current state of affairs between tigris and the administration and the reluctance of congress to pass brac legislation and the current administrations fondness for executive orders, how much good -- could the executive branch do with just executive orders and the authority vested within the department of defense and the executive in administration? that's all. guest: that is a great question. het of the brac statue, what does is it gives the secretary of defense the authority to essentially on his signature make kosher and realignment decisions. however, it -- closure and realignment decisions. however, it was constrained in 1988 -- what they did prior to that time, in the 1970's, was change the statute to say that if the secondary chooses to do this him he has to notify congress -- if the secretary chooses to do this, yes to notify congress and he has to wait 60 days before he actually doesn't. afterctually happened is that version -- after that provision was put into the federal law, we didn't have anymore closures and that is hat led to the brac process. prior officials have said that in testimony -- one that i testified at -- they made the point that they will use the authority state currently have .o the extent that they can what the secretary could do in the army and the navy could do is move forces from one base to another to essentially reduce the population of that base, but because the base wouldn't necessarily be closing under the be rac process, you would have a situation where you could lose their jobs without the local community gaining the asset. that actually happened in brac 2005. the navy proposed to close the brunswick naval air station in maine, and one at -- what the proposal was was to move the forces to the jacksonville station in florida but keep the base open. .he commission adjusted that the view of the commission was that it would be the worst of all worlds. the community would lose their jobs, but they won't gain the assets. the commission adjusted the recommendation, fully within their authority, and brunswick naval station did close and there is a redevelopment project under way up there. --t: what is realignment may what does realignment mean? guest: it basically means change to the base itself. you may move one force off base but another force on base. example be aberdeen proving ground in maryland. when fort monmouth close, most of the positions moved to the aberdeen proving ground's. it was significant military construction, new jobs moved there. fort monmouth itself closed. does the process only affect the bases for military structures domestically? guest: the processes only for the domestic bases. it is an entirely different process. it isn't covered by the be ra -- by the brac statute. the dod gets in about an bilateral agreements with whatever country we are talking to. there are provisions in the treaty that gave installation to the local -- the host government to the specific example that goes way back in history, when a naval station closed in the philippines, there was a provision in the treaty that the base reverts to the philippine government. then there was part of a treaty that also specified who gets all of the equipment on the installation, and the way it worked was that anything that was removable, the navy could remove if it so chose. at its discretion, anything nonremovable had to stay on the installation. for those on the line who are active or retired military. he is in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. listen, i live in warrington, and we had here in naval air station. back in world war ii, it was a milligram naval air station. it became a giant reserve training base could what i want to say is that i spent a lot of time on that base could i am an educator so i gave thousands of hours to helping dependent children with the reading, what not. iat i watched what -- when was there was the building of a new naval lodge, building of additions to the commissary. this is after they got pulled in the brac. what kind of stupidity is that? what kind of waste of my money is that? i will listen to you when i get off the phone because i want to hear this. [laughs] guest: the caller makes an interesting point, and it is somewhat analogous to one of the previous callers as well. one of the things that the local communities want to do is they want to obtain access to the installation. it is real property, there is significant assets there. as we reported last year, one of the things communities reported to us often the facilities were not in good working order. making -- that the impact of making it harder to reason the facilities. that's how -- harder to reuse the facilities. they felt that to the extent that the facilities could be reused -- and expanded supermarket, for example -- it does at the impact, particularly supermarkets, of increasing local tax revenue, since the supermarket is typically going to be privately owned, assuming it gets reused. host: how long does it take to wind down a base? guest: 6 years. dod must finish the process 6 years from the date on which the president committed the report to congress. closing a major military base is a really big deal. there are potentially hundreds of facilities, thousands of jobs . many of the units that are there will get relocated to other locations. it does take time to actually do that. conyers has specified that it will be a 6 your timeframe. -- congress has specified that it will be a 6-your timeframe. host: active military, britney. caller: actually, it is sydney. i am at fort hood in our base is pretty crowded. you start closing bases, you will start overcrowding bases that are already crowded. and with russia, what if war happens again and you need soldiers? you are degrading a losing force . how is it beneficial to reduce the force and the war happens and all of a sudden you need these mass bonuses to get people to sign back in? it doesn't make sense to continue to close even more bases and we are unsure of what we're doing with russia and stuff. fort hood is one of the great growth bases in the united states. the caller diminishing point. -- the caller makes an interesting point could one of the key differences with brac we5 versus the other brac, were closing bases at the same time we were doing major contingency operations overseas. beginning in 2007, we increase the army and the marine corps with the grow the army and grow the marines initiative. finally, the dod budget was going up to it reached about $700 billion by 2011. at the same time, we closed 23 major bases. the caller's point was right on the market took a larger force structure and squeezed it into a smaller number of -- the caller 's point was right on the market. we took a larger force structure and squeezed into a smaller number of bases. and 1995, when we did the first 4 rounds of brac, the cold war had just ended, the soviet union had collapsed. we were reaping the p7 and reducing the force structure -- we were reaping the piece dividend and reducing the force structure and we were not engaged in major overseas contingency operations. it was a lot easier to go ahead and close bases. betweenferent scenarios the first four rounds of the rac and 2005. host: as far as the commission itself, is it independent, and how does it maintain its independence? guest: the commission is independent. the president, in consultation with congress, appoints the commissioners. 8 otherman plus commissioners. they have the professional staff. our agency, the government accountability office, contributes staff to assist the commission in their work. they will be a stable review that's what they will do is they will review the proposals and mother -- what they will do is they will review the proposals that dod submits and they can approve those as written or modified them, they can reject them, and they can actually add bases that dod do not propose for closure to it they are independent. once they bundle up the recommendations in a single report and submitted to the president. the commission can pick and choose among the recommendations which ones were proof or modify -- which ones to approve or modified. the president cannot do that. he must accept or reject in its entirety and congress must similarly accept or reject in entirety. host: georgia, retired military. caller: good morning. how are you doing, mr. lepore? guest: very well. thank you for calling today. caller: i have a challenge towards your bras, the president of the united states and other people in washington, d.c. boss, a chr the president of the united states and other people in washington, d.c. instead of all this money going towards so-called obamacare am aware poor people and the uninsured and go there and get good health care -- being in the military, we are pretty doggone good, we have a lot of people out of work. why not in that situation around -- why not turn that situation around? guest: ultimately, the reason the installation will be up to the community and the local redevelopment authority. if the community and redevelopment authority wanted to do health care facilities, they could do that. that is probably a reasonable outcome, since many of the installations will have at least health clinics and they would have a base hospital. you have the medical facilities already there. it is just a matter of if that is needed in the local community. does the community need another hospital or health care facilities? the concept of using some parts of the installation for health care is very possible. west joe in virginia, democrats' line. caller: i am a retired coal miner. not really into the military decision-making, but i think we spent too much on the military. my question, on the charleston, west virginia airlift wing, they were looked at during the 2000 closing, and they had a lot of force power in the u.s. senate by the name of senator robert bringing anded up lot more planes to this area, increasing the lift capacity and the importance of this. , the dod has signed some type of contract with the state of west virginia where coal companies and land companies build 2 military airbases in the region of the blair mountain battlefield. i don't know if you are aware of miners921, 15,000 coal rose up to try to break the bondage of slavery and fought for the right to organize unions. they lost the battle until franklin roosevelt recognized the right for unions to exist. this was a major uprising, the second-largest civil uprising since the civil war -- host: so, caller, what would you like our guest to address, please? why are theywell, building 2 military airstrips on the second most important historical place in the united states? host: thanks, caller. guest: ultimately, the way dod will make decisions will come back to mission capability. what do they think they need and where do they need it? one of the things that dod is required to do is to comply with environmental statutes and historical preservation statutes and that sort of thing could they will not put a base in the middle of a national park, for example, since they have to comply with the same environmental statutes that everybody else complies with. the decision on where to place the military base comes down to mission capability -- what is the mission of the unit and what do we think we need to be able to do and what is the best location for that. host: once decisions are made, is there a comment period from the public? guest: there is, although right now we are in what one these calling -- what omb is calling a freeze. the government is not a spending infrastructure began what has already been approved. but yes, the a look has an opportunity to participate in that. really, the way they would do that would be through the the national environmental policy act process. it would potentially have a significant impact on the economy -- pardon me, on the environment. as a consequence, the dod would have to comply with the requirement to do the environmental impact statement or assessment. there's the public comment period that goes with that. host: if they decide they are on , can people in the community make the case to keep it open? guest: yes, they certainly can. when the commission does its work and evaluates the recommendations dod puts forward, there is a process by which the local community can petition the commission and explain why they think the dod decision should be overturned or not be approved. if you read the commission report, the commission actually publishes the objections of the community in the report. the user can even see that here is where the community setting here is the decision of the is someon and there transparency over how that played out. host: brian lepore from the government accountability office to talk about base closings. david, south carolina, retired line. whatr: my question is does the government accountability office actually have to do with brac closings, considering the fact that secretary hagel wants to cut 10 brigades from the army? guest: we plate 2 roles -- great question -- we plate 2 roles in the brac process. first, we are an independent observer of the process itself, and we will monitor in near-real-time out dod develops the plan and the selection criteria and then the recommendations themselves. we report to the commission and congress. are in the legislative branch, not the executive branch, so we report on how dod develop that. -- did all of that. the second thing we do, we monitor and limitation of the recommendations after they become binding in the last round , we reported annually on the costs and savings and a number of reviews of the individual recommendations as well. we monitor the development of the regulations and implementation of them. host: what kind of cost savings are we seeing? guest: cost savings of 2005 are $3.8 billion net annual recurring savings. it is the amount of money we save by having closed military base. for bracion overall two thousand five. because across about $35.1 billion -- because it cost about 35.1 billion dollars, we will not recoup the full investment until fiscal year 2018. we do believe that dod is achieving net annual recurring savings overall. the recommendations produced no savings -- some are discredited. -- some used quite a bit. -- some produced quite a bit. host: were there any efforts in circumstances with the 2005 unforeseen any circumstances with the 2005 closings? guest: quite a bit. there were multiple recommendations tied together, and a series of steps that had worker at different installations along the way. the fort monmouth example is the best one we have, where they were closing fort monmouth, most of the job were moved to the aberdeen proving grounds in maryland could and there were ones that moved to fort lee, virginia. there was requirements to do new military construction, those got delayed, so the units could not leave maryland in a timely manner and that delayed the move from fort monmouth. there was a ripple effect that occurred. this was an unusual circumstance in brac 2005 and it comes about because many of the recommendations were bundled and many of them were about something other than closing bases. in one sense it is easier to close the base, either it is closed or it is an come if you these forced transformation -- if you do these forced transformation kinds of things. host: bob is from aberdeen, maryland, on the republican line. myler: thank you for taking call. i have a comment -- you just brought it up about fort monmouth and aberdeen proving ground. this whole brac thing has just been a failure. i'm looking out my window here at rit 22. -- on route 22. they're planning on rewiding the road. my neighbors got ousted by eminent domain. the tax base -- their money is gone. a road for widening ar commuters who are not coming to aberdeen to take them to aberdeen proving ground, which is not hiring. i had my friends moved to fort monmouth under brac. they are all laid off. we have 2000 houses in aberdeen under foreclosure. you were talking about the success story. where is the success? guest: the caller makes an important point. aberdeen is one of the growth -- there are 25 of them -- significant growth baseds during th -- basis to ring the pe -- bases during the period brac was underway. transportation, does the road network -- if there was public transportation, it is public transit commission to support the growth? -- sufficient to support the growth? are there enough schools? water and sewer -- do we have enough capacity? there is a significant impact on those communities that grew under brac 2005. in addition, we were doing grow the army and were the marines and that had an impact. at the same time, overseas rebasing. that did generate a lot of pressure on the local installation, but also on the community that surrounds the installation. lepore, what should we watch for now that the secretary has called for these closings? what has been the response from the president and what should we be watching for, whether we see another round of closings are not? guest: whether we see another round is a decision for congress. they have not been inclined to authorize additional ones. will be interesting to watch is to see whether or not the secretary exercises that authority that is constrained. in other words, it would be interesting to see whether they attempt to realign some of these installations using the secretary's authority, which would be done outside the brac process. if so, how much do they do that? it will be telling if they are successful in doing that to a great extent. it may put some pressure to do and do a brac -- host: if congress approves, we will see it done by 2017 completed, or does it have to start in 2017? in whateverll start your congress designates and will take 6 years from that point to complete it. theming dod completes round in 2017, 6 years from that date the reclamation's would have to be amended -- recognitions would have to be in the minute. host: sheila, we're running short on time. caller: ok, brian, no one has ever questioned this, but they are always sending so many troops -- these thousands of numbers, and howthese fit in thy are sending them? i do not buy it. i do not buy the numbers they are calling out. i am glad to see the military base closings. we are fine here. let's bring in the scientists. let's focus on climate change. that is our worst problem. guest: we do know who they are and where they are. what we also know is that many of the bases did grow during the period of 2005 through 2011. we are on a different glidepath at this point.

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Vietnam , Republic Of , Montana , Nevada , Alabama , Blair Mountain , West Virginia , Moldova , Syria , Mexico , Arizona , Netherlands , Odessa , Odes Ka Oblast , Ukraine , Fort Lee , Virginia , Massachusetts , Poland , Lawrenceville , New York , Japan , Portland , Oregon , Germany , Missouri , Afghanistan , Indiana , Georgia , Michigan , Iraq , New Jersey , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia , Southern Region , Hadarom , Israel , Maryland , South Village , France , China , Minnesota , California , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , South Carolina , Czech Republic , Philippines , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Texas , Fort Bragg , Raleigh , Kentucky , Florida , Illinois , Wisconsin , Capitol Hill , Tennessee , Mississippi , Denver , Colorado , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Colorado Springs , Pennsylvania , Houston , Ohio , Italy , Utah , Berlin , Italian , Americans , Mexicans , America , Ukrainians , Iraqi , Russian Federation , Israeli , Russians , American , Russian , Afghans , Britain , Ukrainian , Soviet , Dutch , Dick Durbin , Robert Byrd , Cross Lou , Eric Cantor , Zach Galifianakis , Vladimir Putin , Michael Mccaul , Chuck Hagel , Baltic States , Al Qaeda , John Boehner , Brian Lepore , Newt Gingrich , Paul Ryan , Franklin Roosevelt , Kelly Ayotte ,