Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20140512 : comparem

republicans say the obama been moretion has not forthcoming and more questions need to be answered that it we will ask for your thoughts on this. send us a tweet or join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span. you can also e-mail us. just aa thoughts here in minute. this is the story inside the wall street journal this morning. power ofublicans flex the pro. it says that house republicans named a special panel. speaker john boehner celebrated on twitter, a graphic with smiling head shots of the committee seven gop lawmakers and was quickly posted. minority democrats meanwhile were fretting behind closed doors over how to respond. ended upf the caucus leaving for a weeklong recess without deciding whether to participate on the republicans terms or boycott all thing. here's a picture that was tweeted out that the chairman of the select committee, trey gow dy. seven republicans and five democrats is the makeup. democrats are not sure yet if they will participate. what are your thoughts on the select committee on benghazi? we want to hear from you. let washington know. send us a tweet. we can read some of her comments, or you can e-mail us. that is the "the wall street ." rnal inside the "washington times," it says -- host: pete in texas, independent collar. . caller tragic, the loss of those four in benghazi, but there has been more tragedy in iraq and afghanistan, especially iraq. the unneeded war. gamesmanship in advance of these november elections is all these investigations are about. i really wish that our elected leaders would get on with more important business so that our undertake for people. have you voted for both republicans and democrats in the past? isler: either party tweedledee or tweedledum. i don't have a real preference when it comes to tweedle's. host: will this investigation impact your vote in 2014? or will you just not vote at all? this meannessth of the outright denial plight of american citizens by , i would notns touch a republican candidate at all. i would have to lean democratic. host: name a republican that you have voted for in the past. an illinois governor way back when. may i have your thoughts from north carolina? caller: we are getting on with it. we would love to see this done and these people brought to justice who withheld information. that is all i have to say on the situation. justice? ought to it all leads back to the white house. if you look at everything that has been investigated, everything leads back to the white house and obama. we have a march on the white house come june 7 third we plan on a march to impeach obama. host: who is we? caller: me and some groups on facebook. host: are you part of a tea party group? whoops, that was sydney in oklahoma. here is a little bit of their exchange. >> congressman, do see this investigation is a trial and easily white house as the >> nse? >> trouser both criminal and civil. for 16 years i spoke in trial metaphors and rats any to get out of that habit. he simply meant is, when you ask for something is going to ask for my need to know how cooperative the other side is going to be, to the extent that i gave any indication to anyone that i've used someone as a defense, what a met by that is, if you can tell me how cooperative the other side is going to be, i can give you a better idea of how long something is going to last. congressman becerra, you're been talking about the committee as a kangaroo court. how do you know that before it even begins meeting. to really believe that all the questions about benghazi have been answered? >> what leads us to believe it could be a kangaroo court or smokescreen from having to deal with the real issues americans want us to deal with like job creation and so forth, is that we have done these investigations some seven times. five of the investigations come out of five of the republican house committees. we have done this for over 18 months. we have spent millions of dollars. we see what happens when you have a show trial. >> a master question. do you believe all the questions about benghazi have been answered? >> i have not seen a new things raised. >> where was the president and what did he do the night of the attack. >> he was in touch with other members of the administration in and around the time of the attacks. betweennversation democrat xavier becerra and trey gowdy. a thoughts is morning on the investigation. maxine, what do you think? it is all about hillary, and it is old, greta, it is old. democrats are way better than republicans because george bush and cheney should have been investigated for lying and all his lies and money spent over there. disabled people right now. the republicans have lost the latino/hispanic vote just like they have lost double act vote. the highest court we have is not going to save them. keep bringing up benghazi because you have nothing. maxine, before you go, you said this is all about hillary linton. what you mean? guest: if she is nominated, she has my vote. it is all about hillary. who ise will go to john a democrat in memphis, tennessee. john, what are your thoughts? caller: i watch c-span every morning, and i hear all this vitriol, especially coming from the south. i am from memphis. we are a blue county. in a red state. i hear nothing but racist vitriol. it is nothing basin any kind of clarity. no one reads in the papers. everyone gets all the information from fox news and talk radio and god knows what else. that previous caller who said they're going to march on washington and get rid of this guy says it all. it is so absurd. benghazi was a tragedy. 9/11 was a tragedy. george bush was fully aware of even bill and clinton. they were all aware of bin laden's danger, but yet we could not stop it. place.ld is a dangerous our economy is a dangerous place, but yet there is such a dialectic -- we are like sarah silverman said, we are like the yankees and the red sox. it is pure hatred in this cultural civil war. it is time to have some kind of peace in this country. host: we will go to a republican line. david is in st. joseph, missouri. listen, it is very obvious that these democrats, despite what they say, is a tragedy that happened benghazi, but in the same breath they turn around and say that these people don't matter, because their precious president and their precious god is in trouble for the way that for politicalhem reasons. the same thing goes for the whole party. it care about these people, they mean nothing to them. they think they're better than everyone else. and you take that. take irs scandal's. the whole party is involved in nothing but silence and others. they get people killed as long as they get their way in a march for one-party rule in this country so they can make their own little personal dictatorship . peoples lives mean nothing to them, all they care about is their power and their god, obama. jim says -- democrats have not decided if they're going to participate. out -- the house voted to approve the committee. a seven-five make up with republicans controlling the committee. hey, robert. good morning, you are on the air. i think it is a ridiculous waste of money. they want to improve employment benefits for people. they're losing their houses in their houses in the cars. no one can get a job, which by the way i believe was a president plot when obama got nominated. they said that a memo telling everybody to put a hiring freeze on until he got him out of office. i think they all should be and crimesh treason against humanity for what they have done and that congress. a tweet from speaker john boehner who was on fox news yesterday. he quotes, the american people deserve the truth. that interview aired on fox news. debbie wasserman schultz was on cnn's "state of the union. so here's what representative wasserman schultz had to say about this investigation into benghazi. minute.a thebottom line here is that republicans have clearly lost the ability, because we have had such a precipitous drop among republicans, even, in their fervor for repealing the affordable care act. they are clearly doing this to drive their turnout. michelle, i didn't interrupt you. excuse me. to the question, can you just not participate in this when there are so many things echo you know, a new document came out. the committee didn't know about it. it came out this week and it certainly made it look like the administration was shaping the message in a way that turned out not to be true. can you afford to just turn your back on this? does knit them look like we don't want to know what when on? >> the republicans are in them majority in the house of representatives. they can do whatever they want. committee,e select in order to make sure the process is credible, the way they have set it up is clearly not going to be, and has an outcome that has been predetermined. they have to treat the minority is not true. >> it is true and let me tell you. host: two members of congress debating this. we will go outside of washington to get your thoughts on it. here's a story that was on fox news's website. says that congress is multiple benghazi investigations have cost the military millions of dollars and thousands of hours of personal time. there have been numerous other investigations, 50 hearings on this and 25,000 pages of documents. the washington times of a closer look at the republicans are serving on the panel says the two women mr. brenner named our representative martha roby and a former lawyer who served on the armed services and progression committees mike pompeo of kansas brings credentials from the permanent -- that is atee on breakdown of the republicans that are serving. democrats did not name the members and are still deciding whether or not to participate. kevin, an independent college in idaho. caller: text for having me. i'm a confirmed nonpartisan, and i think both parties are conducting themselves in a most dishonorable way. a case of hyper partisanship. i've been seeing this for decades now. thiskes me sick that point, everybody is throwing their hands up in the air about benghazi. yes, it is a tragedy. , times were embassies and consulates attacked during bush and clinton and bush senior and reagan? americans died in knowing made a big deal about this. this is a talking point. so thursday lives -- civil surgeons -- civil -- to me, one side is using it because they have nothing else. without -- republicans who claim there is no racism anymore, but they are hyper rising that. i am seeing more and more the racism, quite literally. were trained to act like the grown-ups and let them talk and american people are too smart to fall for this, they don't call her. sometimes you. people are really suffering people in the middle, who are not infringe intellectual fringe and the right. there are american people are trying to do something. we're too busy working and trying to provide for our families to be able to stand up and do something about this. .o me, it is ludicrous we need a third party if not true independence going in. then we are calling out these party -- partisan -- are really turning our nation apart. host: "the wall street journal" says the chairman of the committee said on fox news that he hasn't personally tried to raise money off the panel, and, democrats did the same thing with probes into the response to hurricane katrina during the bush administration. are doing their thoughts on the select committee looking into what happened september 11, 2012 in benghazi, libya. some other news, and politics. this on the front page of the washington post instead of crafting an appropriately ambiguous response, rubio said, i do. i will be 43 this month. people don't realize i have served now in public office for the better part of 14 years. senator rubio was on abc's "this week," and was asked about the benghazi investigation. here's what he had to say. >> i'm sure she is going to go on bragging about her time in the state department. whether it is the failed reset with russia or the failure in benghazi that cost lives. her as arade to give secretary of state? >> at a different passing grade. if you look at the diplomacy that was pursued us -- at her time in the state department, it is failed everywhere in the world. if she's going to run on her record as secretary of state, she is also going to have to answer for its massive failings. rubio asked about the benghazi investigation and hillary's role and it. vote over thehat weekend. yesterday in the ukraine, the headline in the new york times is it says pro-moscow people turned out in droves and 90% of the vote was for separating. were against the separation did not show up at the polls. "hat in the "the new york times this morning. also on the front page of "the ," a topic weournal have covered here on the "washington journal." also in the paper this morning, as is full-page ad in the financial times for the situation in nigeria and those girls were kidnapped. signed by local, national, regional governments, has a full-page adgned a of today's "financial times." in maryland, a republican. caller: i think the outrage should be that when hillary said it doesn't matter the four young men are dead. while benghazi was going on, she was at a festival dancing the night away. obama was setting his teleprompter for campaign the but the democrats think he is the messiah and he can do nothing wrong. he spends more time on air force one costs in this money, campaigning and blaming bush than any other president in history. , from whitewater all ripped benghazi, we have fighting everywhere now that obama is in there. we have more unrest in other .ountries than we have ever had it is time for this to quit blaming bush. host: all right, bonnie. we got your point. you will move on to lc. hi, my thoughts with the new investigation committee, to our elected representatives they have other? seven already another going to have another one? why these men and women who we have elected to represent us, not talking to each other? it just tells me they don't believe each other. what are we going to do in this country when our elected officials don't trust each other and believe each other on such important issues? we need -- to they want to find out what happened other do what a find jeffhy it happened? host: in north carolina, what do you think? is ar: i think that this scam, what the republicans are doing. because just as the guy from idaho said, this is a shame. we have had these types of incidents that occurred in this country before. nothing has been said. now, we need to be working on republicans for with themix years voting no on everything. republican in virginia. what are your thoughts? caller: caller: i believe it will be brought to light about these secret and illegal cia facility that was less than one mile from the consulate was being used to ship libyan weapons to syrian rebels. i believe that is the big cover-up. that?where did you hear caller: white after the benghazi attack. that was in the washington times. there has been a news media blackout of that. that is why these reports are not -- that is with you guys hiding. it is also been written that cia personnel that were at that have been given polygraph tests once a month for the past two years to ensure that that facility remain secret. number two, i believe that is why the military was not called there,ght the personnel because of plausible deniability. i think the president was protected and shielded from that. number three, we will find out that there were top republicans like john mccain who were also involved in the knowledge of that facility. that is the reason why top republicans were not sounding off on the benghazi attack. when people go down, it is not just going to be obama and the democrats, is currently top republicans like mccain, two. couple of stories for you. also, a new book out today yeleased the former treasur secretary tim geithner. fedformer new york -- ident said today's" money section -- they see wages climbing this year. the marketplace section of the wall street journal, u.s. firms packing it up for tax benefits overseas. he "the wall street journal" today. dr. thoughts on the select committee on benghazi. jersey,in new democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i think the democrats should be involved in this , but also dog think that this is a smoking screen for republicans, because they an election year really do not have a strong since the bridge scandal with governor christie. he would have been their best bet for the presidency, for the republicans. i really think this is just to keep everybody's attention distracted for a while. host: why do you think democrats should participate? if they have told everything -- if they're told the truth in everything, and it is still the truth, it will stay the same. they still need to be working on this unemployment very there still a lot of people out of work, including myself, that our long term. the new graduates coming out, there are no jobs for them. trade gaudissman from south carolina who is heading up the select committee on benghazi was on fox news sunday. he was asked if it is unreasonable for democrats to demand some say in how this committee is run. >> no cert. you, i don't run my committees the way that the democrats are fearful of. i want a process that at the end of it, you're welcome to draw different conclusions from the fact. i want everyone to say it was fair, it was exhaustive and we know more than we did when it started. on two of those three points, i think reasonable minds can agree. starting anand i investigation and the first thing i asked for was the ability to deny orvieto subpoenas owing to witnesses. how can it be a pursuit of the >> the commentary section of the "washington times" this morning -- , an independent caller. calling from arizona. caller: good morning, america. thank you for allowing me this opportunity. eight twittered feeds that's is why lead when you can manage. we have elections coming up all the time. dcaa campaign slogan saying elect me as a manager. it says elect me as a leader. ave been in the military as leader and as a civil servant. if you spend time questioning everything a leader does, then you are just a manager. they want to run again, put on the campaign ad, elect me, i am a manager third i can manage what happens. host: if you haven't been following the story closely of volunteer touch of all the hearings on capitol hill, go to politicize.com. they have a fact check for all the different claims have been made, whether it is democrat or republican side. if you go through that into the research of their done. they give pinocchio's, either one knows her to knows. this one did they do false or true submeter. pants on fire summons line. there are fact checkers out there that are looked into. go to rose in germantown, tennessee. i keep hearing about republicans and democrats. we are all americans. that is what is important. -- but go withet what is right over what is wrong. we have not gotten information from benghazi or the truth and information on the i arrest. we do not have the truth on health care. we have to find out over and over again. lies, distortions and just out and out lies. if you're a democrat, be an american. find out what was done and what was wrong and what was right. -- it stinks to high heavens. i don't care what party or what all that other stuff is nonsense. what is important is that you -- is that we are americans and we want to find out the right thing s and do the right things. .e have lied we should build to create jobs and have our country be great by not pulling them down and lying and distorting. i wonder where in the hell is they oughtl media? to start being american. no one in the world is going on. i could care less about party is much as a care about what is best for america right now, we are not doing that. the national media is a part of that, they have lost their balance. host: the new york times is an investigation into what happened. the washington times has done a lot. we will go to bill in athens, texas. caller: they should call this the talking points scandal. his is a scandal about talking .oints i've heard a lot on c-span this morning that i would like to respond to. i doubt i will get time to it. about the cost of this investigation. i heard back when they the 9/11 thing, they spent about $11 million investigating it. it probably spent $15 million investigating this. if they could investigate that they might have figured out what happened to building seven. you get harassed frequently about that building. ,even, following down on 9/11 they might have found out why you me are being harassed by that anymore. they are talking about people that don't care about for people that died over there on that day. what about the 4500 soldiers that died in iraq? bush told us the smoking gun, which lindsey graham called in his last memo, a smoking gun. the receipt is gravely as i can. it, wepresident said don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud third we want to go over there and boost our military-industrial complex and fight the war in iraq and kill thousands of people. thousands of black people got killed, all over a lie. correct republicans are definitely not americans. money.ld america out for they sold the power of the vote hear the giver to the oligarchs, the koch brothers. for going to have an investigation on benghazi, we usually like committees seven to five. they are holding american people hostage. of government shutdown, loss $24 billion in taxpayer dollars. those are evil people is what those folks are. caller: i just wanted to say that four people died in libya. to be honest with you, the night of that debacle, it was lindsey graham, mitt romney, john mccain and joe lieberman, all were in cairo that night area that is the same night that he tries to politicize. the me just say this. america needs to wake up. dollarstrillions of going for an investigation that is not even necessary. they're not investigating what really happened and what caused the death. jacobd or did not do what how are you going to stop a war in libya. these people said they have a degree. they are intelligent. bidding -- beginning to wonder what kind of people americans are in the midwest and the south. these people do not seem to be american. every anti-american. in my case, they don't even see the same. if foreigners are looking at how we deal with emergencies, this shows that we are all stupid idiots. i've not seen anybody siding against their own houses. fire out and stop letting the fire burn and a longer. i am sorry to have said it so loud and so strong. it is important to me. heree grown adults creating a situation that virtually does not exist. we're sorry, we are overwhelmed. what we need to find out is how did they die, who killed them. joe lieberman and lindsey graham need to answer us what they were doing there on that particular night. we will go on to ron who is an independent color in pennsylvania. caller: first we have had eric holder with the fast and furious. up in arms by one of the guns he sent over there. happens, a little bigger bang is benghazi. some people started thinking about what happened over here. happens.ghazi is the big deal with general petraeus, with his e-mail to his girlfriend heard that was a big deal. nobody's talking about unemployment varied nobody's talking about the poor in this country. i am a disabled combat veteran from vietnam era. i don't get any help. ron, if november rolls the house andd senate have not done anything on unemployment benefits or other issues that you're talking about, and this because investigation continues through, does it impact your vote? caller: i am not going to vote. figure is a billionaires and millionaires game. all i am doing is putting somebody in office to pick my pocket. ron, as an independent, if vote,n't show up for the the others will. does that concern you? i've got medical issues now. basically, i throw my hands up. unless they can change government and quit taking all our money, sending it to other countries to help everybody after we went in and destroyed the place. if people look up ryan endicott on the internet, see wiki us to say. he has been there. host: ryan is calling. hearings, byose the way, some of us who are being called on american are not americans, spend a lot of time watching c-span so we hear both sides of the story, both democrat and republican. .e can find out the truth one of the things i keep hearing from everybody that is on the democrat side is that the republicans did not want to finance this thing. i heard the deputy secretary of state, the female deputy secretary of state under hillary .linton the asked the question she was asked if there was a money problem. she said no. let's and that one right now. you said, people can go to c-span.org to watch more. we will keep the conversation going here but we would take a look at the history of select committees in congress with david hawkins of roll call. later, the latest on the affordable care act with wall street journal reporter louise redknapp ski. radnofsky. repairs could be made to over 150 cracks. joining us there on the mall this morning is robert fogel who is a national mall's memorial park superintendent. fogel, what has been happening to the monument for almost the past three years? >> we spent quite a a lot of time analyzing over 20,000 stones and figuring out our course of action the careful repair and restoration of the money and. then we immediately began the challenging job of restoring the monument. we are very excited to have it opened today to the public. host: how does it look? >> we are expecting a good crowd and a lot of excitement from around the world to experience this great symbol of freedom reopening, and having some of the best views in the world. host: what does the monument mean to the national mall. peopleeans a lot to around the world. it is truly a symbol of the united states and hill of freedom and democracy. it is very important that the in good shape and open to the public. what role did you play in the repairs? ofler: pretty much oversight the entire project from being there after the earthquake hit .o helping with the assessment forks to our friends overseeing the contract. host: what is the trust for the national mall? what role did you guys play? are raising funds to restore the entire national mall , about 350 million dollars. our role and the washington monument reopening was receiving a gift from david rubenstein, a great philanthropist who contributed $7.5 million to federal matching funds to restore the monument. how important was a public /private partnership for that project. across the national mall, individual contributors, both , like coca-cola for our event, are making sure that this event is covered. be the washington monument, what is happening? congress deserves much credit for putting funds into the restoration of the turf, the restoration of the front of the memorial, the replacement of the lincoln reflecting pool, the trust for the national mall is turning its attention now that the washington monument is , to constitution garden. it is a beautiful 30 acre area between the world war ii memorial and the vietnam veterans memorial, neglected site, but it is important that we are raising private funds so that it is repaired and restored. what has taken on three years to repair. what is the process been like? >> is been a pretty fast process. i know it seems like it hasn't come about we started working literally moments after the earthquake. in national park service is the long business, so we have to make sure that not only are the repairs quickly made, but we are making repairs that will sustain or a generation to come. we have had great people helping us out throughout the process. it is a very exciting day for us. have you been into the monument since it has been restored? >> i've been in a number of times. we got the construction resulted on friday. we have been working up to the .ast minute have you had a chance to go to the top of the washington monument? >> i did get to go up into the scaffolding and to the top of the washington monument on the outside, which was one of the most memorable moments of my life. truly breathtaking views, but also an important piece of observing.still be it is a stunning piece of work. it has an important hundred 20 euros history. we hope will be there for another hundred 28 years. carolyn, i understand you get to touch the tip of it, as well. >> is really the most amazing thing for me, being able to see the inscription on the top of he monument thank you very much. we will be back on the washington mall throughout today's "washington journal." joining us on the set here this morning, i want to welcome back david hawkins of roll call. senior editor there. to keep our conversation about in benghazi. we want to do it from a historical perspective. what has been the history of elect committees in congress? guest: i would say there been some great highs and lows politically and also some in terms of what they're found. some reputations have been cemented by the select committees, harry truman at the start of world war ii was just a freshman senator from missouri. he is put in charge of a select senate committee to investigate american military posture. it is what propelled him to national prominence which is what got him on the 1944 democratic ticket, which of course led to him becoming president next year when fdr died. i was followed by the army mccarthy hearings. , you have a labels john mccarthy as one of the great non-success stories of .nvestigatory power and senate sometimes it helps you select committees make someone's committee and a different way. this was actually about for five years ago, it was a select committee that was created to study global warming. it was created at a time when the person who would normally be in charge of that was dean of the house. a democrat from michigan. a big fan of the art industry and seen as not somebody was going to take the global warming issue that seriously. instead, they gave it to a bunch of green lawmakers headed by ed markey who is now in the senate. host: this was after republicans house.ntrol of the guest: instead, she created this committee. the committee held some four dozen hearings, to allow testimony, and in fact wrote the testimony that the houston last in 2009. the actually did pass the comrades a bill. the senate never took it up, but it was a select committee that actually did as planned and produced important legislation at a time and registry -- when the regular legislation would not have generated what she wanted. let's take a step back, ? at is a select committee ech guest: there are several committees. standing committee. they don't have to be reinvented at the start of the congress. some of them go back to the early -- to the late 18th late 1700s. as a been around really almost since the dawn of congress. other committees have been added as it goes along. select committees are created specific, narrow purposes. the vote ofated by the entire house. obviously, at the urging of the majority.f the they can generally exist only through the end of the congress. they often have a deadline. when we're talking about this morning does not have a deadline. generally, they're giving a specific task, a specific agenda and told to report back of a specific time and then they disappear. host: how are they created and funded? guest: different ways at different times. the benghazi committee was created last week by a vote of the house almost entirely along party lines. republicans voting in favor of it with the assistance of a handful of democrats. the resolution in this case does not have a particular funding source or a funding budget. it says only that to the extent practical, the committee should use staff from existing committees and should use the resources of existing committees. other committees have been given specific budgets. not in this case. host: how much authority to select committees have? guest: they have the authority just to do what they are told to do. and then different resolutions will give them different levels of power. in this case, the power is pretty broad. the chairman has been given subpoena power. the chairman has been given a broad scope on a narrow topic. in other words, the attack of september 11 on the diplomatic outpost in benghazi -- everything to do with that. what led up to what, what happened that day, how the administration has acted with regards to describing what happened afterward. so a broad scope around a narrow task. democrats are still deciding whether or not to participate in the select committee looking into benghazi. what if one side does not participate? has it happened before? extensive reading over the weekend to try to find a case in which it happened. the only thing that has come close is actually during the joe mccarthy hearings in the house un-american activities committee. the three democrats at sign to his committee, joe mccarthy a republican from wisconsin, they staged a brief protest and he ended up coming back after mccarthy agreed to change some of the procedures to win them back because he knew active participation from both -- without participation from both sides it will be considered a sham so he made accommodations to the democrats and their return. but i could not find any case where one party simply not participating from the start. generally both parties decide it is in their best interest to participate. probably the most famous select committee, i would say, of my time in washington was right when i got to washington and the late 1980's, the iran contra committees. the house and senate intelligence committees were both investigating allegations that the reagan administration had traded arms for hostages. they ended up appointing select committees. reagan, ronald republican president, going into the final two years of his term. the republicans decided it was in their best interest politically to cooperate with this to try to make it go away as fast as possible, to try to get to the bottom of it and try to defend the president as much as they thought they could or should be -- he's good or should should ornt -- he could be defended. both decided it was in the best interest. to me, if the democrats absent themselves altogether it would be essentially unprecedented and would mark to me sort of a new turning point and the polarization of congress that we have all seen happening for so many years now. >> what -- host: what about who controls the power of the committee? house leader nancy pelosi says the makeup of 7-5 is not fair. guest: the only way to get more balance would be 6-6. the only committees in congress that are evenly split between the two parties are the ethics committees. the reason why is because these are viewed as obviously self police thing. it is an institutional matter, that either house members policing the behavior of themselves. behavior oficing themselves. those, by custom, have been evenly divided by parties. that has never been, to my knowledge, and the reading i've done, there has never been any kind of select committee, policymaking committees, conference committee -- the committees that resolve legislative differences -- in which the majority has not had control. so a 7-5 ratio would be as close as you can get to evenly split while still having a majority in control. host: is there some concessions of that congressman doughty, the chairman of the select committee, could make to democrats if they continue to hold out -- congressman gowdy. history of some concessions. it seems the main route is over the subpoena power that i mentioned a second ago. subpoenay was given power. democrats, what they are asking issue is that mr. gowdy no subpoenas without the democrats signing off. mr. gowdy said it is a nonstarter. there does seem to be a pretty definitive rub there. i think some other concessions could be on the roster of witnesses that would be called, on the timing of the hearings. maybe narrowing the scope somewhat. giving the republicans, going beyond what may be the rules require, and giving the democrats more witnesses. generally the rolling committees is the minority is entitled to call a witness. saysimes the majority side you can call a witness but we get to veto who that witnesses. the minority side says that is not fair, they should have some latitude to mount their own side of the case in this regard. host: let's go to john from glen , illinois.nview democratic caller. caller: i have one comment and then one question. i don't know if you saw the segment that was just ended, but someone made a comment that assistant secretary of state, ande is video on c-span -- assistant secretary of state was asked was there a money problem. meaning, as far as providing all the security necessary, etc., and that person said, no, and the caller said we should put that canard to bed. i also want to point out how ridiculously oversimplified that is. because if you do that, you could look at the video on c-span of general petraeus, very respected by republicans, when asked about the reasons for the attack, answered, that the best of our knowledge, the reason was that video, that that was our best knowledge at the time. which, to use that other person passing logic, then this canard -- the person passing logic, then using this canard about the talking points about why the administration came up with the story, you should be able to put that to bed. it is not that simple. my question is, in your opinion, based on everything you have seen about this in light of the testimony so far, do you think that the future is going to look at this as an extremely compared investigation to whether or not it is investigation really to find out the truth. guest: i think that is definitely the risk that the republicans are keenly aware of. said several times, including yesterday on the fox network when he was on that if the public comes to view this as entirely political then he would be out of luck. and that he would have messed up his chance. he says, i want the democrats to participate, he says, because i won't look good if the democrats don't participate. says the republicans will only be able to make this a if thee inquiry democrats participate and if they are treated in such a way that they feel like they are going to be treated fairly. it is a higher risk. the republican base and the democratic base have both dug in on this. that therecans think are absolutely racks to be uncovered here and smoking guns, and there is going to be some sort of breakthrough that will reveal that the administration lied, flat out lied. they sort of think they are most of the way there now. and the democratic base feels like it is a totally canard, as you say, totally cooked up story. host: on twitter -- two witnesses appear voluntarily before select committees or by subpoena question much you go either way. they can either come voluntarily -- subpoena? host: another question from twitter -- guest: if i knew what they could possibly uncover that is not already known -- i would probably have a really good story and maybe i would get subpoenaed. i guess i think from the republicans i talked to, even if they don't uncover something new , they feel as though they can outthese hearings to lay their theory of what happened in a way that the public will come to understand and will be angered by. it is a complicated story. , to the best of my ears, been reduced to a sentence. iran-contra ultimately started out as pretty complicated in the late 1980's but ultimately reduced to one sentence, that the administration was accused of illegally trading arms with an enemy of the united states in order to get the return of hostages. 10 or 15 words that the public could understand. i am not sure if that 10 or 15 word explanation has yet sunk in in the public consciousness, and the less republicans could figure out a way to do that, they run the risk of not hitting the political gain out of this but they are hoping for. viewer wants to know -- when will they get details about gop denying funding for enhanced embassy security prior to attack? chris has been waiting on the line. go ahead. , cut a comment about the ad the fridayt out thursday or about benghazi watchdog. it says right at the top of the picture of hillary clinton and president obama, it says ghazi was a cover up. in other words, they have already decided that it is a cover up but they don't have any evidence. after all the other investigations, there was no evidence but yet they come out and say it was a cover up. the republicans are always touting how will the constitution should be followed word for word, and i thought we were innocent until proven guilty. host: david hawkings? guest: you point to the fundraising missives that have gone out. me, one of the riskier things for the republicans to do and mr. gowdy himself, i won't to raise money off of benghazi. now it is also the case that in the days leading up to his appointment as chairman there is some evidence he did mention the benghazi matter in his own fund-raising appeals. he now has urged the national republican congressional committee to back off on that because, again, he is a trial lawyer -- he is a prosecutor by training. and an experienced prosecutor. he spent 16 years as a prosecutor, not only for the state but also for the federal government. he knows as being a member of congress that one of the ways you win a trial is not only persuading the jury of your case but persuading the public of your case. and i think he is pretty keenly aware and political we -- politically savvy if he overplays his hand and if it is seen as politics, his side want to win. host: farmington, new mexico. independent caller. mary. 24 years.rst time in my husband at 83 was still working, sharp mind, and he was home sick that day. we did watching, because not believe what was going on. the ambassador's diary -- of course, they could not read from a. of kept telling us we could not go in. -- they kept telling us we cannot go in. if you have been watching anything, you would have known what was going on. even weeks later the president on talk shows said we are still not sure. i just want to see the truth with all the other things. thank you. it is worth think another investigation? the pentagon said already it has cost millions and thousands of hours of personnel time. there has been seven or eight other investigations. guest: five by congress and another independently. different hearings. mary, do you think it should continue? caller: yes. guest: i think if it continues, what i wonder about is if it continues and still becomes a then where ise, the public left? and i also wonder at this point if there is even a chance that they can get this done before the election, which presumably, as you know, the house is in recess this week. the two leaders could be talking by phone. ms. pelosi wants a meeting with john boehner, the speaker, to narrow the scope and get the democrats and little but more of what they say they need to make this fair. boehner's office has resisted that did this point. this thing seems to be on hold for a little while or at least being dragged out for a little while longer. then the house comes back next week. they are in for three of four weeks, out for july 4, in for three or four weeks and out for all of august and in for about two or three weeks in september, after labor day, and before they go away to campaign. those numbers of weeks do not add up to a whole lot of time to ramp up an investigation, come up with a list of witnesses, come up with all of discovery -- to use a legal term -- they need and get it done before the election. it seems like an extremely tall order for me. i just wonder how frustrated both sides will be if we come to committeeon and this has not drawn its bottom line. host: a viewer says -- committee costct extra money? these people are already employed, or do we outsource? guest: a great question. the answer is, sometimes select committees to ramp up and higher a special staff. in this case, the house resolution that created the committee was vague but says to the extent practical, the committee should use existing staff. partly that is in the interest of speed, because to go out and hire lawyers and bring out -- bring in new investigators or lawyers would take more time and as i try to describe, they are kind of pressed for time. is, a criticism of this committee from the republican side, from the sort of tea party small government side is this is spending more money that we don't have that the government does not have, as you just illustrated. tons of moneyas spent on this. some republican conservatives are saying and spend more money on this. the want to do this 1 -- on cheap sounds pejorative -- but they wanted with tight as but it is possible. other select committees required a certain amount of expertise and a higher additional people. additional lawyers, investigators, policy experts -- in the case of the global warming committee, they hired scientists, people with a level of expertise. remembering the size of the house staff, the size of congressional staff, has gone down pretty steadily in the last four years and some would argue they are operating actually as lian li as they have in quite some time. think progress.org has a quote from adam schiff -- citing this select committee could cost that -- tens of millions of dollars. they write in this -- to investigate the assassination of john f. kennedy. over a three-year investigation of the special committee on assassinations we sported -- reported spending a little over $4 million in salaries alone among by far the largest expenditure, and more and other costs such as travel, witnesses and leases. more recently, the democratic-controlled house in two as dallas a select committee on energy independence and global warming which was dismantled once the republicans took the gavel. in a bill to set up a committee the house appropriated the -- about $3.7 million. that gives you some idea how much these select committees can cost. let's go to dave in indiana. independent caller. caller: good morning, mr. hawkings. my question is, if nancy pelosi was really serious about this committee and getting people on it who wanted to find the truth, she would just nominate the five people have voted for it. put them on it. let the highest-ranking person be the ranking member of the committee. she could even negotiate even numbers because there was, like, six democrats who voted for the committee. it seems to me if she was really serious about getting to the end of this and finding -- and ending the investigation and getting to the facts, put people on there who are looking for the facts. don't let a lighter coming -- elijah cummings, funneling information to the white house, don't put van hollen in there. he just wants to get democrats elected. if you want to do it, do it with honest people who are looking for the same goal. it seems to me that would solve the problem. guest: that is a really interesting idea. is one pretty strong argument against it from ms. pelosi's view and also probably from the view of most of the members who voted for the committee. not to be too cynical to early in the morning, but most of the democrats who voted with the republicans for this committee are members who represent swing districts, where there are plenty of republicans. that relatively small group of people and politically vulnerable situations and they are fighting for their own reelection. and really, given their druthers, don't really want to spend the time of the committee. they need to be back in the districts shaking hands and being in parades and raising money and really shouldn't be spending too much time in washington at these hearings. especially because if these hearings are relatively predictably going to be along partisan lines, the ones who voted for these hearings are centrists who don't want to be caught up in the partisan tussle. host: the numbers into the investigation into benghazi, 13 hearings, 25,000 pages of documents and 50 briefings -- i think i said 50 hearings before -- 50 briefings and 13 different hearings. democrat caller. hi, james. i just -- this is a sham. i watched every investigation and everything on c-span about benghazi. i know. this is the thing. the president came out the next following day and told the american people this was a terrorist attack. that's all i have to say. host: we'll move on to tina. independent caller. caller: a couple of questions. in july of 2012 before the election president obama obama recommended to the petraeus as a rented me -- running mate for mitt romney. i wonder if that time president obama had information of general petraeus's infidelity and was planning to use that, looking for it. under there was duress general petraeus's statement tom a understanding someone had knowledge of something he will be uncomfortable with. host: you are saying the general their talkingased points off the video because he was under political duress? caller: no, under personal duress. understanding the democrat party may have shown evidence that there was some incidentally -- infidelity on his part and that he could help them out or lose his position. host: david hawkings -- i am not sure about the timeline. guest: i am not sure about that, either. that is an interesting theory. host: tennessee. republican caller. one of the hawkings, call and folks of said there was no smoking gun on this benghazi report, but there was. there was an e-mail that was recently gotten through the freedom of information act. it definitely said that there was a terrorist attack and the white house covered it up. and i think this investigation should go far because to me, it sounds like a conspiracy where everybody was talking about taking this talking point and putting it out to everyone about this film. that is what is being investigated. guest: yes, sir. you are correct, which is, under the freedom of information act, some additional e-mail has been released that the administration did not release initially. i am not precisely familiar with the when you are talking about. most of the press attention has been about a new e-mail that details -- i think the title of the e-mail was "getting susan rice ready for tv" or words to that effect. it was a briefing memo about how to put susan rice, then national -- then u.n. ambassador rice, how to put her on tv the weekend after the attacks and what she was going to say. -- toistence of that memo me, the challenge for the administration is why did they get that memo -- why didn't they get the memo out initially? that is more of a challenge i think politically in the context of the hearings and the context of republicans trying to describe the cover-up -- then the content of the memo which was, to be honest, what the administration what every congressional office does every day is get the boss ready to go on tv, giving the boss ready to be in the public eye. mark,we will go to michigan. independent caller. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning america. it is called a select committee. you know, it is kind of hard to find out the truth when you have people investigating a crime that committed the crime. do you actually think it will get the truth when you have people that committed this crime and benghazi? host: let's take your point and put it in proper perspective. have these select committee's been successful in the past? guest: i would say some have, some have not. select committee -- the so-called watergate committee in the 1970's. sam ervin, the avuncular senator from north carolina, they found he and seven of nine other senators -- majority of democrats -- and to investigate the nixon administration. they were pretty successful in unearthing aspects of the watergate scandal that have become sort of essential to the story. the existence of the taping system in the white house, for example. john dean talking about cancer on the presidency. they certainly laid the predicate for the public to come to understand and suspect that there was a cover-up that would later learn to be the case. in iran-contra, i would say, yes, they got pretty deep into the bottom of what went on with all of that. -- aney put out a report indictment handed out on some of the participants. i would say those two were pretty successful. host: democratic caller. perspective,my this benghazi select committee is totally unfair. first of all, john boehner had select the eight republicans for the committee -- sorry,epublicans, i am and offered five seats to the have not come -- inclined whether they will join the committee or not. people are not being honest. committee is really formed to tear down hillary clinton. they know she is going to run for office. you know nothing great is going to happen out of this. so what the committee is trying to do is discredit hillary clinton from running for presidency. i say, baltimore, let's do this right now instead of at the election -- although more, let's do this right now ahead of the election and let smooth out the not continue. guest: there is no deadline. theuld think you are making point that some democrats are making to nancy pelosi which is, we've got some good trial lawyers on our side, we've got some people who know how to frame things in hearings, how to conduct hearings pretty well -- let's jump on this and try to and it on its head and try sort of when the argument in the public eye and make it happen quickly and clear the decks so that, in their view, they will win the public argument and they will make life easier for hillary clinton. excellent point and one that should be made here, which is, it is minimally thinly veiled on the republican side that what they are hoping happens from these hearings is that hillary clinton is discredit it is some disk positive way and she is essentially forced to not run for president by these hearings. di there is really no one who wouldsk -- there is really no and peopleies this willing to say this only slightly off the record. caller.publican hi, howard. guest: good morning, mr. hawkings. --t i want to say today establishtried to --people solving problems economical issues and those suffering from economical problems. thanks to president obama ceesidential election, a chan for people suffering from the problem, economical or political issues -- [indiscernible] host: how is this tied to what we are talking about right here? going tohe thing i am talk about exactly is congress must solve the problems of the poor people and economical issues. we have callers during the first 45 minutes saying, why are they focusing on jobs and the economy. concern think that is a that some republicans have. as i said a minute ago, many the basics see political rationale for these hearings as seen as -- how they can make -- make life difficult for secretary clinton. there are other republicans who think this is over doing it and it is a basic argument within the house republican conference over how they should be positioning themselves for the fall. wee say emphatically all need to do is tear down the president and make life difficult for the president, say no to everything the president is for. and others are saying the voters don't want just to vote against people, they want to vote for people, and the republicans should be standing for something, should be promoting something, should be advocating things. john boehner, the speaker, does try -- when you see him go before the cameras -- which he does a couple of times a week generally after house republicans have the caucus meetings, he almost always talk about job creation and a progrowth agenda. but plenty of republicans think it should be more than just the speaker saying that but they should be out on the floor moving legislation and trying to at least lay out an agenda. it would not go anywhere, i hasten to add. that whatever ideas the republicans have for job creation in the current environment, the democrats almost always certainly spurn. so the argument goes, why should we be wasting our time on this agenda when it is going nowhere? our publicse relations time to do the kind of investigating we're doing. it's got a couple of tweets here -- host: a couple of tweets here -- host: david hawkings, what is next? what are you watching for? guest: as i said a minute ago, the way things were left when the house went away for the weekend and the current week was that ms. furloughs he was asking for a face-to-face meeting with john boehner to discuss ways to structure the committee in a way to get the democrats to participate fully. it is not likely to happen this week because ms. pelosi is out of town and so was mr. boehner. the bowler of several different minds on how they're going to participate. the three options are to dissipate fully, participate not at all or the middle ground which is to name a single person to the committee as a sign of protest but one that nonetheless allow was a human being who can receive all of the documents in question witnesses. i think that was an interesting idea that gained a lot of credibility at the end of last week. it seems to be fading in terms of democratic support right now. it seems like it is all in or all out are the two options democrats are weighing. i've got to believe that in the end they are going to go all in, that they will not be able to resist the notion that they can go in there, and with the people they do have in the committee, when the argument. host: david hawkings, senior editor at "roll call" thank you. haven up next, we will wall street journal louise radnofsky and later, looking at military pay and the benefits. go down towe want to the national mall here in washington. just a little bit away from the our studios are located to the washington monument where after 33 months, it is reopening to the public today. caused major damage to a nearly three years ago, and it has been restored and opening -- reopening up today. the director of the national park service joins us. mr. jarvis, how is the monument looking? inst: it is a beautiful day washington and there are people in line waiting to get inside, and the monument is what he is ready to receive them and all of its glory. host: how serious was the damage to the monument that day when the earthquake struck here in washington? it was very serious. you know, the washington monument is a dry stack stone structure. there is no mortar in between the joints. when the earthquake hit, the stones show, not together, and created a great deal of cracks, knocking pieces of stones off. the cracks allowed water to infiltrate the monument. really it was not available for the public. it also banned the elevator shaft inside as well. to take the time to repair every little piece in the washington monument so it could be not only restored as a historic structure but also available to the public. it remains the world's tallest freestanding stone structure, weighing 81,000 tons and made of rock. could it withstand another earthquake? guest: this time we added elements to make a more sustainable should another earthquake occur. it has had earthquake in the past. so actually the fact that the stones are not mortared together makes the washington monument a little bit flexible, which absorbs the energy from an earthquake. and then at the very tip top where it is sloped in, we actually added some joists, some metal structures that hold it together just in case. get to go inople today and the following days, will they notice where the damage to lays? guest: probably not. maybe those who have come many times or maybe if they ask a major -- ranger specifically. inside the very top, you can see where they epoque seed cracks -- d cracks. but a lot of the damage was on the outside of the monument rather than inside. guest: people are wondering if it is safe. can you guarantee that? host: i can guarantee that it is quite safe. -- host: people are wondering if it is safe. can you guarantee that? guest: i can guarantee it is very safe. you guarantee that -- taken an elevator to the top? guest: we have had inspectors from top to bottom, every aspect. we do regular inspections of the monument. the monument has stood for well over a century. an incredible structure. a very well designed. and i see no reason to think that there is any concern about the safety of the visitors that are coming to the washington monument. the: the construction of washington monument began in 1848 and it was completed in 1888, and today, after nearly three years, it is reopening for visitors. about your role in restoring the washington monument, the park service's role, and how did you go about finding the right people to make the repairs? guest: first of all, we did a cost estimate based on sending engineers, climbers down the outside. they inspected every stone all the way around. feat, a technological frankly, to be with to repel the outside of the margin -- monument. estimate and then request forwith a proposal to a variety of engineering firms. you know, not everybody can take something like this on. first of all, they would have to construct a superstructure skeleton onto the outside. were able to secure federal appropriation. the total cost was $15 million but with a federal appropriation for half, 7.5, and then it was matched by a generous if rifle lamp with this -- generous gift davidlanthropist rubenstein. it allowed us not only to do an excellent job on time and on budget but also to make the monument beautiful during the construction period. scrim arounddid a the scaffolding and we let the monument from the inside. s that really made a beautiful during the construction period as well. host: we will be talking with mr. rubenstein later on here on on hisgton journal" contribution to restoring the washington monument after that earthquake. jarvis, -- mr. jarvis, what is the daily roll of the national park service overseeing the washington monument and what role do you think the washington monument plays in the coming days and years as people continue to visit the national mall? guest: the national park service is the steward of the most iconic laces in the country -- whether the statue of liberty, the gateway to the west, the lincoln memorial, the washington monument, yellowstone, yosemite. these are vested in us by the american people to care for them, repair them when they fall into disrepair, and also to present them to the american public so they can enjoy them. that is our job, and we have been doing it for almost 100 years and plan on doing it for another hundred years. the washington monument is the symbol of washington, if not the symbol of the nation. and the national mall is our front yard, the nation's front yard. we host about 25 million visitors per year from all around the world. they come to washington. highe need to set a very standard on how we present ourselves, our nation, our capital, to not only the american people but to the world. and the national park service is that organization that present it for everyone to enjoy. host: john jarvis is director of the national park service, and we thank you for your time this morning as the washington monument reopens today after nearly three years of repair. thank you, sir. guest: thank you. take care. host: back in our media, louise radnofsky, health and reported for "the wall street journal" is here to talk about the affordable care act, enrollment and implementation. one of the headlines we have seen recently is about the uninsured and the rates. what is happening with the uninsured in this country? guest: we have a snapshot but we don't know for sure. we think the rate is dropping pendant that has turned up in surveys taken by organizations such as gallup. -- and someptics supporters -- a bigger sign to quantify in millions how many have gained insurance after previously being uncovered and how many people were in the individual market before and switched over to maybe buy there a plan on the exchange now but did not gain insurance for the first time. host: where will the numbers come from and when? guest: they probably will not come from the census bureau any way easily accepted by everybody because the census bureau is contemplating changing methodology. of the centers for disease control and prevention also carries out a study, and that might turn up as early as the temper, giving some sort of peak as to what happened in the first quarter of this year -- giving some sort of peak as early as september. host: another discussion point has been what happens to premiums and what do the insurance companies do, as well as those that have signed up, have they paid their premiums? we heard from insurance companies up on capitol hill last year. what did they tell congress? guest: this issue of whether someone has paid is interesting but also tricky. his is why he had the scene on capitol hill last week where you have insurance executives in front of committees. republicans in the middle of april put out a report saying as of april 15, only 67% of people paid their premiums. what insurance executives on the hill said 80% to 90% of a people whose premiums i do have paid them. you still have an a certain moment of time a high proportion insuranceillion -- executives reminding people saying that that does not mean they will not, they tend to pay for the debt -- wait until the deadline. it matters because paying the premium is the last step in effectively enrolling. the difference between making all through the steps of healthcare.gov and having coverage is whether a person receives an invoice from an insurance company that is aware of their existence in response to it. the insurance companies testifying this has not hit the bottom line, that they have seen their stock prices rise. why does it matter? guest: insurance companies certainly say for the most part the health law as a big business opportunity. after all, there is a nationwide mandate for people to buy their product starting this year. people also get financial subsidies to do so. so it really has been in some ways a big win, but that said, a number of big-name players are not participating in many of the exchanges around the country, at least on the first couple of years, taking more of a wait and see, we will see what the impact of these new changes to insurance that we are also subject to -- we now have to cover everybody, we now have to charge the same price regardless of risk, which is really a shift in the way they understand insurance and how the united states understands insurance. host: so just because they're doing well business was does not mean they will be turning around and charging more. guest: they are currently setting premiums for those in the individual market to do not get coverage through their employer or government, which are susceptible to big shifts. they are looking at the premiums right now for 2015. they are publicly available as of this morning in virginia. what we are seeing in the early phase is there is an increase going on that people will feel. it is not necessarily going to be of the magnitude of some of the critics of the lot predicted would be. they were looking at high double digits. this is really not what we're seeing in virginia at any rate, which is just one state but it is a fairly large state and fairly representative of the national experience as well. host: these numbers -- 8 million have enrolled since may 1. 2.2 million, 28% are between 18-34. i want to stop there. on those younger folks that have entered. does it help question mark what is it mean for the price of health care? guest: it helps a little but not as much as some people hoped it would those folks are highly coveted because insurance companies cannot charge people more based on their health but the 18-34-year-olds are likely as a group at any rate considerably healthier then the others. they are governments of people they want to see enrolled to balance out the risk posed by the higher consumers. 28% is not certainly the highest number that could of been expected. some studies of the number of people out there that could of been using the exchanges as high as 40%. the 20% obviously falls considerably short of that. it did not pick up significantly, either. it started during the enrollment period around 25% and as you saw a surge of young people toward the end it moved up a percentage point but not a huge amount. in mind isng to bear whether insurers were expected to sign up. if they thought it was going to be bad then their rights, which may have been high last year on that assumption, would not necessarily increase significantly. host: 4.8 million medicaid and chip enrollees. host: it has been a tricky number to assess because there is a lot of movement in and out of the medicaid program for low-income americans in general, -- hasgibility for it been expanded. at least on paper, in 25 states come of the best some of them already had pretty high eligibility so it is not clear how many of these people, the four point 8 million people, would have been able to sign up for medicaid before would have signed up for medicaid before but certainly in this period that has been an increase presumably in some numbers but it is unclear how many of them did game precisely because of the expansion of eligibility. host: nominee for hhs secretary up on capitol hill before the senate health committee there is a. here's what she had to say about her approach to the states that have not yet expanded medicaid. [video clip] i think as people see what happens if a form of implementation -- and i understand the point senator alexander said about cost about medicaid -- i think what people are also going to see other changes in terms of health benefits in the states that have implemented both from a health perspective and i actually think we are going to start see some of the cost benefits in terms of cost of indigent care. laces wes from rural know the pressure it puts on small institutions and hospitals. the result of a willingness for conversation of the two ways one can make progress on that front. >> what did you hear from the nominee to become the next hhs secretary. >> one of the really interesting answers was about medicaid. she was asked by north carolina democrat kay hagan who presumably as a moderate going into the hearing had a choice of going one way or the other -- she could join other moderate democrats tacking the law as being a sharp critic -- host: and up for reelection. guest: or she could go the way of resizing republican opposition to the law. people don't like the muppet don't like the idea of appealing it, either. she went the latter. she criticized republican from the salina for not expanding medicaid and the state. noting some hundreds of thousands of people who would have done coverage had they taken government dollars would not have get it -- republicans are saying nor the federal nor state government can the cost of medicaid expansion over time in teams in north carolina in that race in particular there will be a huge fight about medicaid over the next few months. host: other headlines related to the affordable care act but let's go to phone calls first. very from florida. republican. caller: by the way, i have been a democrat all my life and i changed. i am a republican. now. and one of the reasons is the affordable care act. today on another channel i hear that 74% of those who have enrolled in the affordable care act previously have health insurance -- this has been a date and switch from the very beginning. and switch on the very beginning. insurance companies love this. they are getting hundreds of billions of dollars to play along with their buddies in traington and it is a that nobody has even wanted to evaluate and it is time to evaluate. and let's talk about repealing it, that is not what we're talking about. we are talking about making some changes so that people have choices. right now they don't. guest: let's take his first accusation because that is what you're quite a bit. i think he is referring to report on the mckinsey study. adapted questions back and forth about ways they can be interpreted. the issue certainly is that there are a number of people who signed up for coverage who were already in the market. partare for the most benefiting from a robust coverage that often does not have surprised us is like benefits excluded some away some of those people said quite their is that they like skinnier insurance because it was also cheaper. certainly we have seen premiums go up because the products have become more robust and also because some people have been on the receiving end of an adjustment in the way that insurance is price. if you were previously getting insurance and you were healthy, then your rate may well have gone up for this a perfect view are not given credit for being a good risk anymore. ocean shores, washington. independent color. hi, steve. caller: i was calling in response to the gentleman who quit voting. he was disheartened and was basically given up. here's what i did. my personal experience. i discovered this thing, srm, solar radiation management where theydim our sun. getting fearful and angry, i turned it into activism. now i am going to go to the council meeting -- host: what does this have to do with the affordable care act? caller: basically voting. republicans are in the same boat. they have been playing each other against the american people forever. i will not vote for anyone with a d or r in front of their name. my point is, don't give up voting, young people. we can take this country back if we do it from the bottom up. host: we will go to sarah from stone, new york. republican caller. you are on the air. caller: good morning. host: all right, sarah, go-ahead for your question or comment from louise radnofsky from "the wall street journal." we are talking about the affordable care act. caller: even president obama -- should blame obama plans economic policies. afford my house because he can't find john -- find job. e has been affected [woman crying] sarah, i have to let you go. i am sorry for your situation. are talking about the affordable care act. the latest headline -- "wall street reporter" louise radnofsky. talking about last wii's hearing up to capitol hill with the hhs nominee sylvia burwell. what challenges does she face for the affordable care act if she is confirmed, which looks likely? guest: first of all she has to joke -- she has to juggle it with everything else. everything from scientific research. of course, the fda as well. dump lamenting the loss certainly has a lot of challenges -- certainly implementing the law has challenges. success of the law will to some of them depend exactly on whether rates are kept in check. that they still have a number of website,th the including finishing the construction on the back end. they have to deal with a number of lay changes that were made to the law. terms ofdepartments in whether the employer requirement is going to stay in effect. that is a requirement for companies with more than 50 workers to provide coverage or pay income of the. open question about what it will be implement it. she also have that has to negotiate with a 25 states trying to persuade them to expand medicaid which is something a predecessor ash or the current occupant of this position had some experience with doing. she is a former governor herself. generally considered as someone with first name terms with the governors and that with something she would bring to the table. that is not where sylvia burwell's experience lies but she has a number of ties with the federal government and a lot of supporters on capitol hill and a lot of people, including republicans, i counting her experience as manager. host: what do republicans like about her experience? you heard them talk about it last week, calling her capable. the focused on the management work at the office of management and budget although at a hearing, one republican did want ask whether she personally had and in overseeing the construction of healthcare.gov and she responded she had not really at only be because that was left to the agencies but it would be a high priority for her as soon as she took the job at hhs. --t: a couple of tweets here full-fare no subsidy sign up? guest: the federal government and state governments split cost to provide coverage, which is thereially free, although are various responsible the provisions and they may vary state-by-state as well. what is interesting about the medicaid expansion under the health law is that the traditional balance in which the federal government pays about 50% and the state government pays about 50% -- although in most -- states federal government paying greater -- under expansion -- expansion the federal government pays 100% of the medical costs, about 90% or more in perpetuity. what states are saying is 10% of a big number is fully big number for them and they are also concerned about the impact on washington. host: a tweet -- myn can i expect to keep health plan which obama promise i could keep if i like to ever, never? guest: the answer to this one is even less satisfying is -- it may be depends on where you live and we are not entirely sure. insurance commissioners around allowuntry were asked to canceled policies to continue through this year. many of them did agree with that. about seven or eight states absolutely had a firm no and others have qualifiers in the president then came and asked insurance commissioners to consider extending that reprieve before another two years, 2016, and in many cases the insurance commissioners have not decided yet if the insurance commissioners to decide and the insurance company has to be willing to continue to offer the product even though there will be a bundling number of people on its books and added certain point insurance companies itself may decide it does not want to continue offering a policy anymore, either, so there's a lot of unknowns of there and it certainly makes people feel strongly about. host: illinois. republican caller. caller: how are you? something about this that the democrats worker passed it does not let's talk about too much, in 2016,e remind you, a lot of teamsters and union members who have their health care plan, the call them catholic lands -- cadillac plans, they will have to pay a little more and would have to be grandfathered out. thing, a of -- another lot of the health lands you talk about, a lot of them, people had, they could pick and choose what they want but under this it is one-size-fits-all. don't needpeople who birth control are going to be paying for birth control, even though they don't need it. host: we have heard that discussion as well. guest: that is propped -- part of this overall shift in the way insurance is being seen. people essentially will be buying a product in which they are going to be guaranteed with a knee but they are also essentially guaranteeing what other people might need, too, so somebody who does not need birth control in this argument might need something up that another person is never going to use, such as heart surgery, so the idea is everybody is in this together in a way that is intended to share out the burden more equally. tax is of extreme concern -- actually to businesses, too, that offer theirgenerous to employees. what a number of businesses are doing is they look at the impact of this tax in 2018 and get on a glide path to it so the people they cover do not see a sharp drop-off in 2017. what they are doing is already pairing that costs year after year and a number of people have noticed this. union members have a separate gripe about the law, there is a separate fee that applies to a type of plan a number of them have and it prompted a number of high-profile union leaders to actually criticize that aspect of the law, in a way that has been quite pointed and certainly has not escaped the attention of republicans. host: under the affordable care act, though, there are different types of coverage. hhs put out a press release that noted that of the 8 million that signed up, 60 five percent selected silver plan, 20% selected bronfman to talk about the difference between the two and the breakdown, 65% selected silver. guest: silver plan covers about 70% of costs on average. the middle tier of insurance. the subsidies are paid to to as well and the value. the bronze plan covers far fewer costs, generally for people who want a low monthly premium but might be willing to take the risk that if they do actually need care, they can pay out of pocket. himself, the president has a bronze plan he bought in -- district of columbia interestingly, the president suffers a bronze plan. tobought a bronze plate supplement the coverage he has as president of the united states and of of course the benefits that went with that. purchase butthe when you're the president, it is different than when you're a regular consumer. cost is 65% ifre you choose a silver plan. they may not have taken into account the higher cost of that they could face in the event of a somewhat serious illness. they also cap the amount of out-of-pocket cost that you have to pay. might not be able to pay those bills when they get them. there are some cost-sharing subsidies for people at the but itnd of the scale, has been a concern with this. 85% selected a plan with financial assistance. digging down a little bit more into that 8 million people. and 28% uper age 35 to the ages of 18 and 34. doesn't matter the make up between female and male? the insurance market reforms do include a restriction charging women more than men, if they believe women incur higher costs. an understanding in the way in which women use medical care. they are unconcerned about the gender break down. many womenthat so signed up for coverage, they specifically targeted women because they felt the --ision-makers for others it is something that people are pointed, and noteworthy. host: a democratic caller. when i retired i had no health care. with the affordable care act, this has been incredibly great. i am thankful for it. i know florida is one of the larger states that are subject to a lot of people not having health care. for someople call reason or another, and they do not like the plan. for someone who is taking advantage of it, it has been a blessing. with whennderstand, you go to the emergency room, when you're sick, i do not understand if the republicans have an alternative, i would listen, but they do not seem to have it. i just think that president obama.- thank president host: another caller, democrat line. caller: good morning. my question is, i understand that in our country of the medical cost were so high because so many were uninsured and hospitals were having to absorb the cost. there were some projections that our medical costs would be coming down once we got everyone online. i am just wondering when should we be able to see those cost declining across the board? and what are you doing to enforce the hospitals and yours that charge for his procedures, that they are indeed bringing the cost down and not banking that extra money? guest: a number of interesting issues there. the uninsured rate is certainly one of the driving factors that medical care providers say bring higher bills to everyone else. that is part of the national medical cost -- the care still delivered, so it is more about who is paying forward. -- for it. the rate of growth has slowed, which is not the same thing as going down. the way in that which that may , even for happen , it is as of the law big question. no timeframe for it. host: there's a piece in the washington times this morning citing a recent study. repealing the band-aid will not -- the mandatere will not cripple obamacare. the an guest: this is a really interesting study because it comes from someone whose very -- who is very supportive of the law. time thate first folks coming from that direction on the law have said that they do not like the employer mandate, but they have usually said that in defense of the administration's enforcement of it. a lot of people paid attention to this. what they are arguing is that the bullet not just gain -- people would not just gain coverage, but i do not believe it would be essential for people to keep covered in their workplaces. there's a lot of studies on this. out ofs another study the reek before that precluded the exact opposite -- the week before that concluded the exact opposite. the employer mandate, where does that stand right now? been: enforcement has delayed for employers for this year. for many employers, next year who would've been subject to -- a lot of company is voluntarily offered coverage to their workers. a lot of companies who are smaller, and with a hard number of low-wage workers have not offered coverage or only offered it to some of them. those who are on the sharp end of these changes, griped the loudest about the changes, said that it will lead to cutting workers or cutting hours, and seeing some of that happened. it happens in the public sector where the budgets are fixed. we are watching to see what happens next. will the mandate be delayed prominently? host: the big companies are saying that this is hurting us, the affordable care act, hurting their bottom line. guest: one of the things that these companies have said is that they cannot absorb the cost of their insurance into the company plan, and that it is not -- they'reople concerned that they will have larger numbers of employees signing up for the company provided insurance who did not previously, because they are trying to do the individual requirements coverage. that is in effect through 2014. those companies are also very interested in seeing states extend medicaid in a way that fits the issues about this. if you do you will cover a large number of my lower wage workers, which means that i do not pay penalty for them, or i do not have to cover them on the company plan and bear the cost. that is essentially the message. host: a tweet >-- businesses tend to deal with insurance in different ways. large companies typically insure themselves, and the use an insurance company to provide the administrative services of a is why people identify that insurance companies being there insurer. for those companies the key issues where they see medical cost going and where they are -- what they are willing to do and not willing to do for the company plan. they see rate impact much more acutely. host: your piece today in the paper, a first look at health rates for 2015, what are you writing about? guest: those are the folks who are buying insurance on their own, the ones at whom the law is directly aimed. what we are seeing in virginia is that one of the big carriers selling, predicting and 8.5% rate increase for next year, which is noticeable. some people may feel it a little but more because that is the average increase. it is not double digits, so we will see in the next few states if this trend is borne out. a higher percentage of young people signing up, that was distributed differently through the different carriers. .ne carrier is imposing 14 9% increase, because the average age has gone up by at least two years and maybe as much as nine years. host: independent caller. caller: thank you for c-span. my wife's cousin was in graduate school. temporarily for a big-box retailer, had no desire to work for them, but he had a child, and the child had a lot of medical problems. serious, major medical problems. he has been an indentured years working for this big-box retailer because he could not move. and now he is free. --st: that is a tec exactly the type of story that has people supportive of the law. it spends on where they fall in the spectrum of winners and losers. one of the butte benefits of the law is the ability to buy coverage on the individual market and not have your medical condition taken into account when you do so. the department of labor and the department of treasury pointed out a few weeks ago that against people the opportunity who wanted to leave their corporate premiums,pay cobra those people now have the opportunity to switch and buy coverage on the individual market. host: we will go to our republican caller. caller: i would like to point talked about the individual mandate part of this plan. bama got the kentucky people to brag on how great this plan was, and they extended until 2016. -- cancan of for cap afford this. they're getting subsidies. people who already had insurance have it of and the younger people, everybody is talking about pre-existing conditions, but a 26-year-old can buy insurance for $90 a month before this. now my sons insurance went up until he is 26. and when he turns 26 it will cost $400 because of birth control for women in all of this stuff. -- cost is guy high because sky high because of obamacare. the individual mandate people $1000 afford to pay month for insurance. there was a good point right there at the end. law will over time significantly get the number of , though it varies from year to year. one of the callers earlier asked about the impact of the decline in the rate of uninsured on medical costs. million people who are still uninsured, it has not gone away an entirely. -- away entirely. stricty did not have regulations before, and the impact of much topper regulations on what insurance has to cover and how it as been price has had an impact on many people who are buying individual coverage there, and young people in particular. they have seen their premiums go up because it has become more robust and they are not judged on their age. those in their 50's and 60's are able to get more affordable coverage because the amount that mium is is being offset by somebody in florida. host: you can follow our guest on twitter from the washington journal. next, your money series continues with a look at military pay and benefits. first we want to go down to the national mall and the washington monument or the first time in the iconic years washington monument reopens today. of 2011losed in august after an earthquake that went 150 cracks in it. is theg there representative from the are lile group that contributed half the money for the restoration. >> i thought the washington monument should be repaired as quickly and efficiently as possible. if i put the money of it would as quickly as possible. we did it as a public-private partnership, and it worked out quite well. hopefully that can serve as a model for other kinds of arrangements with the federal government does not have all of have.ney it used to the washington monument is an incredible symbol of our country. it has become more than that, it has become a beacon for and a symbol of the country. so talk astory buff, little bit more about george washington, and the washington monument. what is it about that for you? >> it is an interesting monument. george washington died in 1799. the idea of building a monument did not occur for a while, not until the hundredth anniversary of his birth did they did get around to doing this. they really began to work on it around 1844. they stopped in 1854 when they ran out of money, and in the civil war came along. it was not completed until 1884, and open to the public around 1888. it took a while to get it done. now it has become an iconic building for the city and the country. there are very few buildings have as much a stark residents as the building does for americans. i have received thousands of letters and calls and e-mails from people around the country thanking me for doing something. i tried to respond that i really am only doing what other citizens would do if they had the means. i hope other americans will find other ways to do patriotic philanthropy, giving back to your country as a way of thanking the country for the great things and has made possible for us to achieve here. >> what is it about the structure of the washington monument and how it is built that reflects our countries values and george washington? madeorge washington really it possible for us to win the revolutionary war. notere understaffed, we did have supplies and equipment, but through cunning we won the war. george washington became an incredible person by giving up our on going back to mount vernon. many people who did not think that a general who won the war would go back to mount vernon. and then after he was present he gave up our again and went back to mount vernon. many people thought that he would stay president for life. george washington is considered by many people our greatest president. certainly a person made it possible for our country to get established. i think a monument to him is certainly appropriate. it is a monument to the country, not just to george washington. he symbolized so much of what are country comes to stand for. >> have you done this type of philanthropy before? ofi have done a number things like this, but i would say that this one has gotten more attention than some other things i have done. i am committed to giving back most of my money to other good causes. this is a very good cause. adriatic --the patriotic philanthropy is something i want to give my money to greater things in washington dc or other parts of the country that you can give back in a visible way, providing money where they do not have it. >> will you do it again, and are there any projects that are on your radar? >> i have some that might be announced in the not-too-distant future, but today's the day for the washington monument. i do not want to focus on anything else. i would not say that i'm the greatest athlete in the west the western world, but i did get to the very top, 555 feet up, and there's no better view in washington to look at the whole city. about one week or so ago i out from the inside steps. wear sneakersould and jeans, no one has ever climbed to the top in a suit and tie before. i think i set a record. rec should get an enormous amount of credit. they worked with contractors, got this done exactly on time, and exactly on budget. my hats are off to the park service and the contractors. i hope that they can give that expertise to other parts of washington to get other things done on time and on budget. >> did you have a say in the process and how it was rebuilt, restored i should say? my job was simply to write a check. i was very privileged and pleased to do it. they do not rely on me for anything related to engineering or the restoration, and that is good for everybody. >> what did you make of the whole process to restore? it took million three years, and that is actually pretty quick and on time. thet is quick, considering magnitude of the work that had to be done to repair the earthquake damage. what i found significant is how important it is to most americans, it is a beacon to them and a symbol of our country. i believe now with the attention we are getting today for the monument, more americans are going to come here, just to pay homage to the country and to george washington. >> it draws about 700,000 visitors a year, and the national park service will offer extended hours to visit the monument beginning tomorrow. 9:00 a.m. to 10 a clock p.m. -- 10:00 p.m. each day. thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. your moneyur weekly series continues, our topic is military pay and benefits. top military chiefs appear before the senate armed services committee to discuss the proposals to change how compensation is granted. here's what they had to say. >> we support the three runcible'side guiding our efforts to rebalance the pay. this package slows the growth of the sick pay and housing allowances, by reducing commissary subsidies and monetizing our health care system. we will ensure that our compensation package allows us to continue to attract and retain the quality people we need. path, and off on this we will watch how the force reacts, and if it reacts we will be back to you with recommendations on how to adjust. we have to take that data. -- step. the savings have to be reintroduced into readiness and modernization. let's talk about that hearing. what rob did senators to have the top military chiefs in front of them on a matter of pay and compensation? guest: this is a really momentous event. the most prominent causes that we are in the fourth year of the defense drawdown. we are spending less than we were four years ago, and every year the department of defense has tried to proposed cuts to pay and benefits. progress has not been terribly receptive, although they have done some. when all of the cheese stand up together and say seriously we need to do something here, it is a big event. in his first -- it is the first time we have seen this. host: they want to cap the pay raise at one percent starting in 2015. they want to cut the allowan ce for housing by 15%, and groceryhe benefits of stores and commissaries. guest: none of these are actual cut in the they are slowing the growth rate over time. right now the military pay is most to increase the eci. they're proposing if you only held one percent of it is still growth, but not as much as 1.8%. that is true for all of the other proposals out well. right now these are really just changes at the margins. it leaves a lot of money when you multiply by 1.4 million people, but not a fundamental reform of the pain cultivation system. look at that cap, who are we looking at? who will get their pay raise capoped? everyone including those generals? guest: it is not actually the generals. the house armed services committee agreed, although the they rejected most proposals, they kept no pay raises at all for the general and flag officers. for the first time we are seeing if we are being asked to sacrifice, should not the people in charge sacrifice more? so they are not getting any pay raise at all. host: how many four-star generals and officers do we have versus the rank and file enrolled officers? only a fewre are thesand, about 300,000 are vasters, which the personnel.listed olso >> we're putting the numbers up on our screen for our viewers. four-star generals, how much do they make? makingthey are approximately $200,000 a year. host: their benefits on top of that, do we know? guest: it is still right around that. it is not the most lucrative, it is not a conversation about ceos who have millions. there's also a difference between being 60 and 20 as well. 1000 ofere are about the listed officers. a big stepe's not difference between any of the ranks because it is a gradual increase. it is just that the guys at three stars make a little less than the four stars, and the two stars make a little less than the three stars. they go down to about $94,000 a year. it goes all the way down to about $50,000, and opt to $200,000. that is where the officers start. the enlisted start significantly below them. about $20,000 a year for the regular soldier. host: we are starting to talk about the issue of lee terry pay. the congress is asking -- being changes.make some keep in mind, it is a little bit easy for him to say. the president argued that allows him to propose an alternative raposo. congress won't say no, but hold. when they say i regret early -- categorically reject combined knowledge that the president can do this on his own. it is likely to move forward. host: hi did we get to this point? how did this get put in place in the military? we have to rein it in. structure is now hundreds of years old. dt is certainly 100 years ol that we locked into this idea that if your private for class you make a certain amount of money, if you are a certain amount of money. -- a lieutenant colonel, you make a certain amount of money. there's a little the changes on --but thatd there is about and for enlistment bonuses. this means that is not very flexible. you cannot have one year that was really great and they said here is a big bonus, but the guy who did badly and who did well both get paid the same. years we relied on a draft force. you have a note in the mail that said you are joining the military o whether you want to or not. you do not have to pay them well because they did not have a choice. surprisingly, not a lot of incentive to pay those people well. over to anchanged all volunteer force. a key moment in u.s. military history. used toile nobody got the idea that we need to treat these people differently. immediately in the 70's, pay started lagging. when ronald reagan came into office, we had double-digit pay raises to try to get set up. that up. catch 90's and wed of the started to see the entire defense budget increase. everyone the people to stay in, we are asking them to volunteer to sue for the country, we need to pay them better, and that is when we had a move to really improve pay and compensation. tie it least of which to to the cost index. they also included a half percent on top to increase that index, and it narrowed the gap of some of the figures from the quadrennial review. in 2001 service members were making about 50% compared to their civilian peers. now they may 90% -- make about 90%. up, but weat catch continue to balances, or scale back to what we should be paying today? are fromse numbers the pentagon in 2012. what does the commissaries of the the include -- thomas commisary subsidy include? guest: it was important when you are out in the middle of nowhere townre there was no nearby, the military would build a grocery store and allow you to shop as a service member, and then subsidize it. the cost to the actual servicemember is only a percentage of whatever the actual wholesale cost is. is a great end of it, but over time -- it is a great benefit, but over time, we have got under the age of walmart, all but six and commissaries are within 20 miles of a walmart. time has changed, and maybe does not necessarily provide the subsidy. host: we have a republican caller. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that my husband has been in the military for 25 years. a lot of what we have seen and discouraged about as we see how and ho we have sacrificed, i do not think you can compare what us and our friends who came , wender a certain promise have been apart because of deployment, we have served with honor, and i send my kids to bed without their dad. and now we are trying to tell us that we are not worth it. people are given their lives, more than we have given, their arms, their legs, ability to think. waste, abuse and government on every level, and yet we are the ones asked to sacrifice. i think for a lot of us we just feel like there's just a lot of ingratitude, and if everyone else was make -- willing to make the same sacrifice, one half of of americans over the military -- serve in the military. we are very discouraged in all of this. 73%enlisted folks make up of our fighting force. i have seen these people, seem that they have been asked to unless youand qualify for food stamps, it is not us who should be on the chopping block. set ofould take the same cuts in pay that they are asking us to take. i do not see others making that sacrifice. host: under the pentagon proposal, if they weren't to cap the pay raise, what does that mean for your family? thatr: it just means already we have had to move 14 times. we have expenses that are not accounted for. it is extra money, we have to sell a car because we cannot take our car overseas, and then went to buy another one somewhere else. we always lose money and all of those transactions. all of the work we have put into it, all of the sacrifices, we have four kids to send to college and we have people who have kept our promises and do what we are asked and more. worked with honor and without complaining. we are so proud of him, but we have to do less. we have to have less for our kids, and that is not right when we have been doing what we do for our country. i feel like we have some it up it up in personal ways that others have not. guest: thank you for your husband and your service. you made a great point. nobody denies that military service is fundamentally different, you are not under contract, you cannot just say i want to go. you have to have a level of sacrifice. they aree reasons that so reticent to act on the proposal this year is that last year or two years ago when it became obvious that maybe this time we really need to change some of these structures, the pentagon proposed a military retirement commission. can we do this better, take better care of the servicemember, and at the same time save some money and be more equitable? greatss said that was a idea, and that was not big enough. let's have a commission not look at the time it, but all compensation. get ushere is a way to on better fiscal footing, while at the same time taking better care of the service members. one of the great ways to do that, one of the reasons it seems possible is that of all of the benefits we have listed off, how much do you know? you talked about your moving expenses, the moves are paid for, but as you pointed out there are a lot of little incidentals that happened and it teams like a big drag on you. that becomes more true the more we look at it. your four kids are eligible for department of defense schools, but when you have an unmarried ember, they are not eligible. are we able to provide more in -- so you can decide what is best for your family? or would someone rather put that money away and save for a rainy day? host: the senate armed services questionedfisher, general dempsey about is there not somewhere else that you can find some savings? i know that research and procurement funds have been cut, but you believe there are any additional savings in those areas or other areas that can offset these compensation changes? how do you weigh that? other only are there areas that could be cut, we have actually cut nearly every area. i have actually preferred to allow some of the services to talk about how they have tried to balance the reductions against pay compensation, health care modernization, training, infrastructure. there are five or six places you can find money, but there's nothing left under the mattress. host: that is a great quote. something,e's always but to the general point, the high point of the budget was in 2010. five years into this downward cycle, he is not wrong. they have gone to all of the cap and squeezed out the money. it is still $500 billion a year, because it is the defense budget. at the same time, we have seen all of the accounts go down. we've seen the procurement accounts be cut most sharply to try to cover these new bills. this is not different from past drawdowns. the military personal category that provides the funding for pay and salaries always gets cut in downturns. it takes a while to do that. for somebody out of the service, we would use voluntary methods, we take time and allow national -- natural attrition. it is not the best force resizing tool, because it is hopefully it eases the transition for those people who have sacrificed for their country. when we have seen is that it is time for us to get some savings and military personnel. host: independent caller. go ahead. know,: i would like to you're going to cut this, where you get your numbers from. cost $34 billion to provide medical care for military. military.cal in the who wasmilitary person already on the payroll. where'd you get your $34 billion that it cost or military knowledge group -- medical for the military? hostguest: great question. we talked about transparency. your personnel cost. of do you account for all the people in uniform were being paid out of a different pocket? how do you make sure you're really associating and figuring this out? the military has a very large medical establishment. that is probably because they have unique deeds, at the end of on day you need a surgeon the battlefield, you need a medic who will pull the young man or woman out of the firefight and get them to that trauma surgeon. that is not the only kind of medical service that the department of services provides. you off-center shenzhen peter dear christians -- you have obstetricians and pediatricians, because you have family members who need to be cared for. is it the right thing to have that done be military members -- by military members. we would love to have as many skills as we want, but there is a level of redundancy, and the question is what needs to be unique to the military, and what can they rely on the rest of the united states for? host: here is art of our your our yours -- part of miniseries, and we have a republican caller. caller: a couple of observations. i and retired from the united states air force for 20 years. i spent 28 years as a pilot, and it put in a career with delta airlines after that. i have in the abb should business -- aviation business. one of the things that come to my mind whenever we start cutting, the cost of retirees, unlike if i'm not mistaken, any -- federal agency comes out of the budget. we are in the end of the pecking order, we referred her ourselves as collateral damage great i know we need to maintain readiness. i did it for 28 years. medicalmajority of my benefits are medicare because i am over 65. the remainder is tri-care for life which is on the chopping block, and has been for many years. we have a couple of good it.esentatives who stand by it is an interesting dilemma. if you compare military to civilian, you used the enlisted force, that are is nothing wrong with that, the comparison is a comparison. but i was a pilot in the air force and then i want to become a pilot for delta airlines. there is a huge difference. my skills were the same. of life wasty certainly not different when i was in the military. -- a lot different when i was in the military. ands honored to choose serve my country. but everybody looks at the deity dod they're bad and evil -- like they are bad and evil. they are not, they are no better or worse than anybody else. but it is always like cut the military. guest: i think you highlighted some really important points. maybe the most important one is the different types of military. you have the active-duty cover the server military right now. then you have the working aid retirees. because the military retirement system allows you to retire with 50% benefits, you will get 50% benefits after you retire after 20 years. you could be 42 years old when you retire if you join at 22. many people serve longer, and then your benefit goes up. those are called working aid retirees. when you're working for delta, you still draw your military pension. the vast all of military retirees over the age of 65, their benefits come from medicare. it wasn't until less than 15 years ago that congress and we we need to take care of our retirees, and we should not leave them on just medicare. firstre for life covers dollar coverage. you should have almost no out of pocket because whatever medicare does not cover, tri-care for life does. it is a great benefit. the great benefits have significant cost. it is more than $10 billion a year. that is just a cost, does not mean what it is worth. we value soigh how the service, how we reward them for serving their country is not something we can do just with a spreadsheet. nevertheless, that is every -- a fairly significant cost. charge a premium, say you're going to be on tri-care for life, what that means is that your delta pension might be a better deal for you because it provides better care, and we can save the government money that way. if it is not a better benefit, you are certainly entitled to a high quality health care. that is for. -- what tri-care for life is for. cost areh care relatively recent. the entire federal government of the 1980's to the retirement cost and said we need to budget and a more transparent way. we are not going to pay for the right out-of-pocket. we're going to take advantage of what is called actuaries, look into the future and say given your current workforce we think this is how much is will cost you, and we will give you a credit for investing your money wisely in the meantime. we will tell you what your bill is this year. that is what goes into the budget every year. the bill that the department tends towards workforce, not the money they get today, but when they retire. the department of defense is the retiremento has a system that was formed in the 80's . caller: a couple of points. generals andny flag officers now as we did at the end of world war ii. but the military is 1/10 the size. i think that ratio is something that could be worked on. another point is when you look at the general or a flag officer you're not looking at just one officer eating $200,000. he has staff, he has housing, he cooks and things. spendot think we need to the lanes of dollars on f 35 fighters. billions of dollars on f 35 fighters. right,you're actually that a general is not just a enteral -- general. do notmilitary we compensate our generals like we do ceos. they are only making a couple hundred thousand dollars which is good pay, but not millions a year. that changes when you start to be in charge of lots of people. they start to be in charge of tens of thousands of people, and you're responsible for ordering them to give up their life for the country. that is a weighty responsibility, and it is a moment of power. when you get power, you get make a schedule that runs better, a driver to get you there, create all of these things to get the general through their day smoother and better. that is great, but it adds up. of not top billing -- of how big the military is to the officers, it is not actually using the defense department budget. to put that in perspective, the military personnel cost which is just the pay and salaries and bonuses, is about 27% today. 26%.03 was about war,90, before the gulf still only 27%. it is not until you get back to before the all volunteer force that you start to see personnel increasing. how can that be true? increasing the price per service member, and at the same time we are not spending more of the share of the defense department? the simple answer is that we're cutting people. we're going to have the smallest armies and before world war ii. that is a big deal. it points out how we are trying to handle these personnel costs. host: on twitter -- the military thinks that process might be speeded up the little bud, but frankly if you're worried about equity and a downtrend, that can have a negative effect because you have other tools to get people out. if you have a problem soldier or a problem air menu take advantage of these new voluntary incentives and say i will take this and it will stop being my problem. not the best solution for society at large, but it does solve the immediate problem. host: another tweet -- guest: because of the respect for the sacrifices our service e, they had a provision that said that none of --s can come out of most military personnel cost. no salaries were cut because of sequester. it put greater pressure on other parts of the budget. part, on theion preterm part, the research and development part. what promptedis all of those cheeks to stand up in front of congress and say we need to figure out how to build the right peaceful for the future -- people for the future. i wanted to mention to you that my husband was in the service for 22 years, and when he got out he got a heart problem. but i cannot get it done for the he has to goause from new york to texas to get it done, and he was too sick to do that. so we went to westchester, and i when ip writing a letter got a bill that was over $20,000, and i wrote to each one of the doctors and told them i would pay them so much he month with what our retirement pay was. thater got reimbursed for amount because he could not go to the military committee was to stick to terrible -- he was too sick to travel. host: you pay the entire bill? caller: yes. i put the money aside. i used to write to the tv stations. the servicee in they paid them so little that every time we moved it was poor. guest: that point out something we talked about earlier, a really tragic downside to having a totally parallel system in the military. to be running its own parallel theth system compared to local civilian hospitals. is there a way to make sure there is a minimum rendered -- standard, and allow servicemembers and their families to go there? rather than sending everyone the uniform school of public health in san antonio texas, and then having to shop as a military doctor, rather relying on civilian doctors for everything except for the battlefield. phonea couple of more calls. caller: hello. several months ago you had someone speaking on one of your stations about the lavish way the upperals and echelons of the military are taken care of. they have the lower levels of servicemen, i cannot remember what their rank was, but they were essentially servants for them when they had dinner parties. your point?s the $200,000 a year salary is not too bad when you have all of these perks. is not some of the money taken out of the state department budget? to spread itseems funding around in many other areas. guest: a great question. as we talked earlier, as you get to see important people, and you start to build networks for support, it is for someone who helps them with the event. an individualily decision, when each officer knows what is available to them and they figure out what they need to do, and how to do their job best. it is coming from the state department, and in today's day budget ise way of the divided up the state department .s in a different part host: democratic caller. caller: is there actually someone to talk to about tri-care for life law and policy? i think people in the government are not aware about how much is being thrown at companies like omnicare because of the way their co-pay policies work. for example, for beneficiaries that are in a nursing facility, you used to be able to do a three-month order with a very small co-pay. once you're a nursing facility, things that you used to order three months they will order five days worth. you have a very large system, how do you get the most effective way -- how you sufficiently spend that money? there are people who care about this, and if you feel you're seeing something that is incorrect there are ways to find somebody who is managing that, or if you do not trust them to go to the inspector general's and say there is a problem here. largebt anytime have a system there's waste, fraud, and abuse. we have a large system that is good driver of cost, but we lookto provide care, and at both sides of the debate. see a starting to trade-off. if you're expected to go into combat and you are using a 30-year-old system that you do not trust, that is a true trade-off. if you have the same money that is trying to pay for both of them, and has become very hotly debated, and we need to come up with the best solution. host: where does this issue go next? what you watching for? guest: we're watching for this commission that will report in 2015. that is still a long way away, and in the coming months we're going to watch congress and how much will he give the pen again -- will they give the pentagon. if the president says to do it in the they will do it -- do it, they will do it. budgetedready if they don't get that, they have to find it somewhere else. ultimately, we are going to see a actual reform, a way of to get that change. at the same time, help balance the budget and get it in there. >> thank you very much for your time. afford today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy the rest of your d

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Memorial Park , Pennsylvania , United States , Shenzhen , Guangdong , China , Germantown , Tennessee , Syria , New Mexico , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , Washington Mall , Arizona , Nigeria , South Carolina , Libya , Jersey , New York , Mount Vernon , North Carolina , Missouri , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , Kentucky , Florida , Illinois , Indiana , Virginia , Wisconsin , Ocean Shores , Michigan , Athens , Attikír , Greece , Cairo , Al Qahirah , Egypt , Oklahoma , Washington Monument , Farmington , Iraq , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia , Idaho , Westchester , Houston , Maryland , Lincoln Memorial , Kansas , Capitol Hill , Dallas , Americans , America , Libyan , Syrian , American , Wasserman Schultz , Sylvia Burwell , Nancy Pelosi , Obama , Ronald Reagan , David Rubenstein , George Bush , Adam Schiff , Mike Pompeo , Robert Fogel , Lee Terry , Trey Gowdy , John Boehner , David Hawkins , Sarah Silverman , John Mccain , Hillary Linton , Ryan Endicott , Sam Ervin , Martha Roby , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Xavier Becerra , Joe Lieberman , Tim Geithner , Joe Mccarthy , Trey Gow , Lindsey Graham , Louise Redknapp , John F Kennedy , Kay Hagan , Hillary Clinton , John Jarvis , Elijah Cummings ,