cuba and possible political changes in the country's future. and we will also take your calls on yesterday's supreme court campaign-finance decision. and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. good morning. welcome to the washington journal. an investigation has revealed that the u.s. government created a cuban twitter. a network designed to undermine the communist government in cuba. in fivesecond time years, an active-duty soldier is to have gone on a shooting spree in fort hood, texas. he killed three and injured 16 others. cost decisionurt to lift spending caps on political giving. we will begin their with your take on the 5-4 decision.

we will get your thoughts. republicans, (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. join us on social media. twitter, our handle is @cspanwj. facebook.com/cspan. you can also e-mail us, journal@c-span.org. joining us on the set is lisa rosenberg. give us a little bit more information about the supreme court cost decision. let's begin with the history of the finance laws. what did the court -- which lauded the court consider and what is its history? these laws have been in place since the watergate era. watergate was a campaign-finance scandal and congress thought

that three pullers were necessary to address corruption. those pillars were spending limits, contribution limits, and disclosure. spending limits have been chipped away at since the earliest days of the campaign finance reform laws since the 1970's and the final nail in the on spending limits happened when the supreme court decided a case a few years ago. that leaves us with contribution laws and disclosure. yesterday's decision undid the contribution limit part of the campaign finance reform scheme by saying that the overall tax individual can give to candidates is unconstitutional. they said you can give millions of dollars during an election cycle during the campaigns.

host: how did this come about? guest: the plaintiff had been giving to individual candidates and reached the cap. there are limits on what you can give to individual candidates. there are $2600 limits. those are in place. mccutchen had reached the cap of what he could give overall and he decided he wanted to give more and challenged the constitutionality of the case. millionsody can give of dollars if they choose to. host: who backed his case? guest: primarily right versus left division, as we saw on the decision. a number of folks on the right to have been opponents of campaign finance reform tcheon in hisu

efforts. the fcc is supposed to enforce the current laws. were supposed to enforce -- finance caps on which he on what he could give. they could find him or do other thegs if he had gone over limits. host: let's talk about the limits -- the plaintiff. the is with the chairman of rnc had to say. he quoted campaign-finance laws as putting campaign-finance laws -- putting committees in a place where we have the most restrictions, the most disclosure, and that we can raise the least. what has happened is that the groups that can raise the most disclose the least. he went on to say that this

allows campaign committees to raise more money and they will disclose who their donors are. guest: to a limited degree, that is true. the reason that the groups that can raise the most disclose the least is also due to the supreme decision saying that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in so-called independent campaign expenditures. that was the supreme court changing the law a few years ago. the supreme court started us on this path. that resulted in a lot of money (c4)g funneled to these 501 nonprofit organizations that can spend unlimited amounts without disclosing it. the problem is, that does not change. corporations can still spend secret money in unlimited amounts or individuals can

remain anonymous and spend unlimited amounts if they choose to and go through the nonprofit regime, or they can go through the parties and the candidates where there is disclosure. i would argue not enough disclosure. ge are are supportin legislation for more disclosure. we can talk about that later. nothing is fixed. nothing is changed. we will not see less money and we will not see much more disclosure unless the bill that we support is enacted. do you believe that the so-called super packs will be less likely to raise as much money as they did in past elections? guest: they can take corporate money. this decision applies to what an individual can give out of their own pocket. it does not apply or change the prohibition against corporate

moneys giving directly to candidates. if corporations want to influence elections, they will give through super pac or secret nonprofits. this is just about the individual donor. what did the loss restrict before and what this decision do to them? cap forhere is a $2600 canada. that remains in place. there were also over all caps that individuals could give to candidates. it was roughly $120,000 cap that an individual could give overall to the parties and the candidates. that cap is now gone. s whoave to think of it a can really give $120,000 or more. we are talking about individuals having the freedom to give millions of dollars.

they can give more than most people are in a year. tot is what is disturbing many of us about this decision. what do you think this means for the november 2014 election cycle? guest: we will see a lot more money by a handful of individuals. they are the 1% of the 1%. they the very few wealthy individuals that may take advantage of this decision and right million-dollar checks -- and pen million-dollar checks. hat in hand, write me a check for $3 million. they're going to know who is generous and who is going to give them those checks and they will know the interest of those individuals and what they want to have happen in congress. do these candidates benefit on both sides?

guest: they do. we have done some analysis that indicates slightly more of the people who have maxed out previously under the earlier limits that were struck down, they are slightly more republicans than democrats that max out. both parties will ask for these large contributions. we will see whether they receive them. the only thing that can happen is if you are a donor and you want to hedge your bets, you can give millions of debts to both -- millions of dollars to both parties. this is what the majority for the court had to say. in right to participate democracy through political contributions is protected by the first amendment, but that right is not absolute. congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption.

it may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics or to restrict the political partes in -- the local participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. what do you make of that? think it is naïve. if contributions can be limited or restricted, i am not sure what appears more corrupt than a member of congress or a candidate asking for a $3 million check from one person. to me, that is the the pygmy of the appearance of corruption. john roberts does not see it that way. i think he is missing the point. in other parts of the decision, he said that the only corruption is what is called quid pro quo corruption. i give you a million dollars in exchange for your vote. that does not happen.

that is not realistic. the accessruption as and influence. say,n to what i have to take up my cause on the floor of .he senate or don't take it up it is very hard to prove there's a direct link between the contribution and what is happening. is, at the very least, the appearance of corruption, but according to roberts, that is ok. rosenberg is here to take your questions and comments about the court's decision yesterday. we begin with stanley in westborough, massachusetts. independent color. -- caller. caller: i don't vote anymore because there is double voting. they do not check id. 35,000 came across on the news this morning. i am putting all of my effort making money so that the

irs does not get it. whatever they do does not affect me. this on twitter from one of our viewers. why congress is allowed to be bribed? bribed judges, police, teachers now too? we are getting your thoughts and comments morning. don, ohio. caller: it is terrible. it is leading to more corruption in this government than we already have and we have more than we can handle now. tohink we need a third party stop all of this. is are people of the united states and the supreme court .udges are wrong

obamacare tong on a certain extent. it is out of hand. that is why we need a third party called we the people of the united states. thank you very much. host: carol, ohio. democratic caller. caller: weekend vote against him. there are more than us than there are of them. we can vote against this because of the candidates doing this. against these candidates. especially the republicans. that is the only thing we have left is to go out and vote against them. take carol's points. caller: she is right. my concern is that voters -- we have low voter turnout in this ,ountry and that is in part

due to cynicism. this will make more people cynical and less likely to vote. i hope that is not the case, but i am concerned that is the case. donors that want to give support with a $25 contribution or $50 contribution are going to say, why bother? dwarfed by these million-dollar contributions, why should i contribute at all. i think it will depress participation by people who cannot afford to write the large checks. we should vote. the caller is right about that. corrupted bys been the money that will be flowing into these elections. host: what to make of these numbers? they report that in the 2012 election, an estimated 600 44

individuals donated the maximum amount allowed by law to candidates and political parties. about 60% of the money went to republican causes. the 93 point $4 million in contributions were a tiny fraction of the overall amount of money spent on elections. roughly 1.2 million americans made the nations of $200 or more in the 2012 election. fore donations accounted 2.8 billion dollars or 64% of the amount of money spent on the 2012 election. one of the key numbers in that story, 644 individuals who maxed out. those of the people we were talking about earlier. those of the folks that gave the $123,000 or so. they have every incentive to give more. they had the means to give more.

i am concerned about a democracy the year people have of my members of congress. 640 four people can go to john boehner and say, i will write a million dollar or $2 million check to your party and to your members, but i really do not whatever tax issue, obamacare, what is -- whatever it is come to the floor of the house. that is a dangerous way to run our democracy. the first amendment argument should cut both ways. out myhecks are drowning voice as a small donor if i wanted to give $25 or $200. that is nothing. no one will pay attention to that. no one will notice that because thesebasically dwarfed by massive contributions. that is what concerns me about

those numbers. scalia wrote that if the first amendment protects flagburning, funeral protest and not see parades, despite the offense, it protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition. political campaign speech was alive and well before the mccutcheon case. that is what is so naïve about the majority's decision. sean mccutcheon and everyone else is able to give 100 $23,000, more than most people earn in a year. no political speech before yesterday. if mccutcheon wanted to give money to every single candidate, he could have given money to every single candidate in the republican party, just not the maximum amount. that is the only difference. -- what isng about being ignored by the majority is the political speech of the rest

of us. 99.9% of us do not have the means or the ability to make these large contributions. what about our speech? that is what is ignored by the majority of the court. host: both parties know how to play the game, and play they do. obama has raised more money than anybody. there is always a way to get money. calvin, what do you think? caller: the subject is interesting. thank you for taking my call. i have two questions in a statement. can you translate in layman's terms? what does this mean for state, local elections? does it just impact congressional and senate races. my second question is, does this change in capping campaign -- removing the cap have to do with

an african-american man in the white house? is it race and gender specific? host: what you mean by that? caller: in the state of oregon, we have a number of women in wonderful leadership positions. there is a good old boy club that exist. they create these systematic race systems to create manufactured allegations and andst assault against women people of color in positions. worried that we are going to have a woman president after obama? i would just say that i think this supreme court would be hostile to any campaign finance restrictions, no matter who was in office. they truly believe more money in

politics is better and i don't think it has to do with race or gender. in my have to do more with wealth. mightre interested -- it have to do more with wealth. i do think this court would have been hostile to these reforms, no matter who was in office. question, it does impact state and local elections as well. any caps now are illegal. if a state wanted to cap campaign contributions, they cannot do that. host: republican caller. richardyou mentioned nixon, but you failed to mention obama using the irs to go after his political opponents. fair, yougoing to be

are going to have to mention both. obama has a way of getting around this because he can sick that donate aple lot of money. he did that before the last election. the irs was focusing on conservative as well as left-leaning donors in their investigation. way they went about their investigation, and this was into these nonprofit organizations that were engaging , and ition activities should investigate nonprofits that are engaging in election activities because nonprofits, tax-exempt organizations. they get a benefit from the government. they should not be engaging in electoral politics.

that is written in the law. to investigateht it. they went after certain groups in a clumsy and inappropriate way. there is no question. there has been no evidence of conspiracies or proof that the obama administration directed this. i support efforts that would rein in these nonprofits. impact.a dangerous money can go secretly through nonprofits to affect our elections. i disagree with the caller and i think that we need to address that issue as well. there are two issues that we need to focus on, the direct .ontributions from individuals host: what about this point.

it is not bribery if you are fully disclosing your backers. one should focus on being an informed voter. a billwe are championing that was introduced by senator kaine from maine. it should be introduced later this week. a bill thationing would require disclosure of these donations. if they're $1000 or more, within 48 hours. we do not have that system. right now, we have a system where we have to wait as much as three months after a contribution is given to find out who is donating to a candidate. with these million-dollar contributions potentially coming in, we want to know right away. i agree with the comment that you need to be an informed voter. there is no question about that. we do not have the laws to inshore that voters

-- insure that voters are informed. the media has failed to report that those justices that allow big-money donors to ruin democratic voters practice as are all republican appointments. is there any wonder why the country is living in ignorance? we are getting your thoughts. your take on the supreme court 5-4 vote in lifting caps on campaign donations. caller: thank you for taking my call. it was a terrible decision. i am tired of them buying their way in. you have guys like sheldon adelson who wants to put up

billions of dollars because he has an agenda of taking online betting away. the second, i want to make, i am sick and tired of turning my tv on and hearing republicans come out and all they talk about is repealing obamacare. it is here to stay. instead of coming up with a solution to fix problems, their whole goal is to reveal obamacare. put intothe democrats the senate, they all want to go against it. hats -- anything the democrats want, the republicans want to go against it. host: here is a reaction from capitol hill yesterday from a couple of lawmakers. the senate majority leader tweeted this -- citizens united was one of the first -- worst decisions. today's ruling further drowns the voices of working americans.

the minority leader for republicans in the house say that the first amendment rights for americans is being protected by the court's decision. pelosi -- they have chosen to pour even more money into our process and politics. we must restore fairness and pass the by the people act. senator cruz said our democracy works better when the free speech rights of the citizenry are unfettered. those are some reactions from capitol hill. mary, alabama, independent caller. what is your take? oregon, i was a lifelong democrat until 2008 when i supported hillary clinton. i was called a racist and so were the clintons. now, all of a sudden, the

democrats love mrs. clinton. . am and independent thank you for removing me from my party of long-standing. mrs. pelosi, i appreciate being on before her. , they love their union money. our president in the midst of the shooting at fort hood, fundraising in chicago at a 30,000 dollar a plate dinner. the night of benghazi, he was in las vegas with harry reid raising money after an ambassador was shot. money means as much to the democrats as it does to the republicans. host: we got your point. carol on twitter says the same thing.

it is a myth that republicans have more. the role of them, are they impacted by this decision? much. not as it comes down to how much you can give. , theverage union worker average member of the union is not going to be able to give $1 million. this decision does not impact workers, except to the is extent -- except to the extent that they will be drowned out by the million dollars. this is a problem because both parties will do whatever they can to take advantage of this decision. they will raise as much money as they can in the largest chunks that they can. it is a bipartisan problem. the difference is that the democrats understand that this is a problem and hopefully will try to keep finding ways to address it.

the republicans are embracing it wholeheartedly and will pose legislative efforts to try to remedy the problem. host: democrats still take the money? guest: no question. some of these other people stole my thunder. the unions -- tom stiers is going to give a million -- $100 million to campaigns and i wish someone would look into his background. i think he has invested in the caroline corporation, which will build the hype line to the west coast of canada. -- the pipe line to the west coast of canada. dollars.millions of our president sells access to the white house for $500,000 a pop.

shine some some light on the stuff. guest: we want to shine some light on all of these contributions. that is why we have advocated in favor of the disclosed act. that would shine light on the dark money that is paying for campaign ads. lastw $300 million in the election cycle coming in that we could name. there were probably a lot more than that. andant to shine a light know every contribution over a thousand dollars that comes into democrats or republicans. we want to know about it within 48 hours. there is no question that we want disclosure of all that information. we do not care which direction it is coming from. "usa today" -- their view

justices open spigots even wider for big-money donors. the opposing view, a victory for liberty and democracy. mccutcheon empowers political parties vital to the stability of our democracy. influence hasies declined recently compared with super pacs. what to make of the argument? we may end up seeing more polarized parties because the donors who are motivated to give these massive amounts of money, on either side, left or right, may be more partisan than the average donor. beliefs that are

more polarizing than the average donor. will the party's response that in exchange for multimillion dollar checks? i think they might. we may see the polarization becoming more entrenched in the party process. we will see. does not happen, i think we need to be concerned about the corruption to our democratic process. for theit is dangerous -- tos in power to have rely on and need these large contributions. they're going to be listening to the donors' interest. "the washington post it is the need for full disclosure that is missing in our election. dark money should be outlawed. the vice chairman of the

federal election commission rights -- wrtites how not to enforce campaign laws. at my confirmation hearing, i promised to uphold those laws. i have been on the commission for six months and have learned how paralyzed the fec has become and how the courts have turned a blind eye to the paralysis. the problem stems from three members who vote against investigations into potentially significant fundraising and spending violations. it is being swept under the rug by the agency charged with investigating them. what is happening over at the fec? guest: they were designed to be ineffective. congress defined it to enforce the campaign-finance laws, but it has three republican members and three democratic members. deadlock,idlock, or

on the most important cases. three members will decide they do not need to take an enforcement action and nothing will happen. that is by design. that is congress saying we do not want our campaign-finance laws enforced. the sec will have less to enforce because there are fewer rules after yesterday's decision. the fec is charged with disclosing the money that is flowing into the political system. that is where we hope to see more real-time disclosure of these large contributions. do a bad jobnot with disclosing contributions. they do a terrible job enforcing the laws, but they are a pretty competent disclosure agencies. we need new laws to be updated so the disclosure can happen in a more comprehensive and faster way.

the court follows the money. the supreme court continued its crusade to knock down all barriers to the distorting power of money on american elections. political speech wins again. fromer step back taken limits on campaign donations. gwen, what do you think? caller: the republican party has always found a way to cheat and lie and go around the back or. the commercials are full of lies. they emulate and flood people people's tv and calling them on the phone. people need to get out and vote and do not stop donating. if we do not donate, we will not be able to have any commercials or campaign commercials to

counteract what they're saying. msnbc because for that sets the spotlight on a lot of these things. we cannot give up. we still have to donate. host: rich, pennsylvania, independent color. if chief justice roberts wants to put his money where his mouth is, i say this -- past the transparency law and make these caveats in the law. anything under $2000, any candidate can vote for anything. if you take the $2 million contribution, the primary interest in the person contributing to that campaign, he has to recuse himself from that issue. if a candidate takes a million dollars, he is no longer allowed to vote on anything that has to do with anything about internet gambling or anything. oil, hekes it for exxon

cannot vote for or against the oil industry. that would eliminate the quid pro quo and buying influence. you are not buying influence. am intruding because i like the leanings of these candidates. give him $2 million and he is not allowed to vote on your issue. a long way to eliminating these contributions. host: lisa. guest: we agree on the full disclosure parts. what we would suggest is leave it to the voters. information, the voters can determine whether there is a conflict of interest or not. hopefully that will help them make their decisions when they go to the polls. it is an interesting proposal to prevent some member of congress

from voting on interest when they took money on it. it has a certain appeal. what we find is there would be a lot of oil and gas and financial others that would not give votes because so many of these donations are concentrated in a few industries. it is an interesting proposal. host: a lot of attention has been paid to the koch brothers. harry reid tweets a lot about the influence of the koch brothers. today, in the wall street fighting tom restore a free society. rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or report the facts about coke industries,- koch

they would have you believe we are trying to rig the system, that we are against environmental detection. employee a lot of americans. -- in theees in the 143,000 additional jobs they support generating nearly 11 $.7 million in compensation and benefits. about one third of our employees are union members. far from trying to rig the system, i have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors. i believe that cronyism is nothing more than well for for the rich and powerful and should be abolished. industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry that was arguing for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. harold, illinois, democratic

caller. usler: thank you for giving a say-so in the matter. it seems like ordinary people get to:. they do not always agree with their beliefs, but we appreciate the chance to speak out. this is one of the most outrageous things we have in politics right now. put too much we money in this and the money is controlling all this. i asked myself why the congressman that makes $175,000 that onlying a job makes $175,000 a year, but all of them are millionaires. why would you take a cut in pay? ,here are plenty of people people that would like to make $175,000 a year and would show up every day and vote on the things that we need to vote on.

have a bigbyists part in this. the lobbyists themselves is a bribe. you used to get so many signatures of your constituents and that is how you brought it to your congressmen and that is how he was supposed to vote according to his constituents. at because oil has sent him big check so he will vote that way no matter. the gun law is a good way to -- everybody wants to pass some kind of gun law. we can't even get the vote on the floor because those people are paid off. another wealthy donor has made headlines in the papers. george soros turns cash into legalized pot. fundonations help organizations that promote movements to legalize marijuana. theard trumka, the head of union weighed in on the scotus

decision yesterday. we need fundamental reform. average, ordinary americans should have as strong a voice as the koch brothers do in politics. lynn, independent color. -- caller. caller: i am upset over the comment that there was no conspiracy with the irs. e-mails prove that there is. for you to allow her to make that comment and get away with it is absolutely wrong. judge roberts made a big mistake whenng obamacare attacks it was not even argued for that. what is happening with our country is a shame. i am so scared for the future of our country.

our politics have become so corrupt. people have walked away from it. our country is doomed if it continues this way. needs to beg chastised publicly. thank you. host: let's give her a chance to respond. there were multiple investigations, multiple hearings into the irs scandal. as i said before, i believe the irs went about investigating these nonprofit groups in an improper manner. they used shorthand, the names of the groups to decide whether or not they were going to investigate the groups. that, what we need are new rules that apply to the irs, rules that apply to nonprofit organizations that try to engage in election activities. all of these hearings and all these investigations do not

point any higher to who was directing the investigations. no question about it. call it a conspiracy, that is a little bit of an exaggeration, to say the least. we do need new rules to apply to the irs. there is no question that we need rules. host: james says why do liberals so dislike political speech? incumbents of long-standing are more likely to be corrupt, dependent on staying in office. mike, richmond, virginia. a lot of things have been said. when you're talking about freedom of speech, it is important to realize that freedom of speech is absolute. ordoes not depend on whether

not one is exercising in on behalf of a corporation. it does not depend on how much exercise has to freedom of speech. it is about the rights of an individual to express himself, especially when it comes to political speech. the people arguing against thanoney having more say people that do not have money, what can you say? life is not fair. it will never be fair. the right of freedom of speech is always exercised by individuals and if you can crack down and restrict the right of freedom of speech for some, just because they have more money to express it, then what you're saying is that the federal government has the power to restrict all political speech by all people. you cannot have it both ways. freedom of speech is an absolute fundamental natural right of

individuals, regardless of how it is expressed. guest: freedom of speech is not an absolute right. it can be curtailed under the constitution in certain cases. be curtailed to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. the supreme court has not changed that. my position is that the corruption or appearance of likelyion is much more when we are talking about million-dollar contributions than when we are talking about $25 contributions. you are not free to yell fire in a movie theater if there is no fire. freedom of speech can be curtailed. very carefully, very cautiously. i think the loss before mccutcheon, which limited the amount of money that could go into the system by an individual were appropriate, necessary, preventways to

corruption or the appearance of corruption while still allowing people to give whatever they wanted to. are reportingrs that the chief justice but in in justiceion -- the chief d door open in his opinion for congress to act down the line, to curtail corruption or the perception of it. guest: asking this congress to act on anything is a safe bet that nothing will change. we have a very hard time getting this congress to move on any of these issues. certainly, as a starting acts toow congress ensure there is more disclosure of these contributions, that would be a first step. we hope to see at least that. that will be an uphill battle.

disclosure is an uphill battle with this congress. whatever the chief justice might have suggested, he probably felt comfortable nothing would happen. he defined corruption so -- i think it will be problematic if anyone tries to .egislate he basically says unless you can prove you are buying a boat, there is no corruption. that is not the way that congress works. that is a naïve view of washington. host: we will leave it there for now. lisa and rosenberg -- lisa rosenberg. will talk to jim mcdermott of washington. he joins us to talk about the gop budget and the health care law. later, tim murphy of pennsylvania on the gm recall controversy and his new bill, which aims to increase mental

health care services. we will be right back. ♪ >> without objection. peoplespeaker, let our go. the speaker in this house has been over backwards. we passed to balance budget plans, appropriation bills. firstesident vetoed the balanced budget plan and a generation. he vetoed the interior bill and the bills that would get funding for veterans affairs, for hud, the empire mental protection agency. this is the do-nothing president.

his people are telling him do-nothing. stand in the road, block ght a balanced budget at all costs. that is what you need to do. be firm. will go up.ints maybe they will. i do not care if his poll points go up or not. we have put on the table the first balanced budget in a generation and if the president wants to continue standing in the way of that, fine. we are going to balance this budget with or without him. >> find more highlights of house floor coverage on our facebook page. by america'sed cable company 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service to your local cable or satellite provider. if the reader knows what your policies -- politics are and they can predict how you're

going to describe a politician ahead of time, then you have not done your job. you should be a little bit obscure to the reader. you definitely should not be partisan. that eliminates the ability of people to be interested in what you have to say. you cannot be predictable. if you're going to give it to one side, you have to give it to the other side. you have to use the same tech needs that she would use for democrats that you would use for republicans. moderateomething that audiences respond to, especially the news landscape being fractured more overtly into pro republican and pro-democratic camps. bi.matt taib sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a.

washington journal continues. host: jim mcdermott back at our tables this morning. he helped republicans unveil their budget yesterday. plan ton laid out a save 5 trillion over the next decade. what do you like about this proposal? [laughter] that is an interesting place to start. the fact that he put his philosophy out there so people could see who he is -- he is somebody that has himself on track to become a presidential candidate and he wants people to like him and support him. it is good for him to put something like that out there. we have a fix on where he starts from. i think most of the things in there, you would have to concede, are not going to get

through the senate. it is good for him to put it out there and say this is what i believe. host: you did not answer the question. anything you like about it? guest: frankly, no. that you cannot find additional revenue to deal with some of the problems we face, that is the end of this country's continuance in leadership in the world. we leave and health care research, we are cutting the national institutes of health. our transportation situation is awful because we cannot get money in the gas tax. you have to talk about additional revenue. you cannot continue to cut. the national institutes of health used to fund 90% of their grants. now they are down to five percent of their grants. worldn not leave the without health research if

you're not willing to spend the money. to -- we haveught the ability, but we need government infusion of money to start a. -- to start it. host: here's what chairman ryan had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> we owe the american people a responsible, balanced budget. expandced budget will opportunity by creating jobs and by supporting our military, it will help keep our country safe. , it neverent's budget balances, ever. our budget, on the other hand, balances in 10 years. it puts us on the path to paying off our debts so that our children and grandchildren inherit a debt-free future. we stop spending money we do not have. we cut waste and make much-needed reforms to save $5.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

this steep,may call but look at it this way -- on the current path, the federal government will spend 42 in dollars of the next 10 years. this budget will spend $43 trillion. on the current path, spending will grow 5.2%. under our budget, 3.5% a year. nearly $43 trillion is enough. increasing spending by 3.5% instead of 5.2% is hardly draconian. host: congressman? anything, the words can be wonderful, but ultimately, you have to get down to the details. what he is proposing is getting rid of medicare. let's use one example. a premium support system -- that is what they have, for the last walk-through

four years have attacked. if you pay your share, we will support you with a subset -- a subsidy. what he is saying is we will give that to the senior citizens. we will take away medicare and let them spend their own money on buying health insurance and we will support them with premium support. he is throwing the senior citizens into the same problems or situation that we have in obamacare across the country. i do not think that is in the seniors' best interests. when you get to be that old, you do not want choice. you want certainty. you want to know that when you get sick, you want to know if you will be covered. figuring out which insurance , that is not what seniors want. host: isn't he putting forth an idea that would help with what you were talking about?

that is our spending situation, trying to tackle the big problems. where weere is an area do agree. cost is something we're going to have to control and health care. gdp every year. the french spend 11% and they get better results. it is clear that we're spending a lot of money that is not useful. is -- who should take the cut? the beneficiaries or the providers? we have created a system in this -- mrs.where medicare sebelius cannot negotiate prices on pharmaceuticals. you have created a system where you have a lot of waste. pharmaceutical companies are setting the cost.

we could change things like that and get some reductions. 40% to 60%s get a cut on their cost of pharmaceuticals, whereas seniors pay the full fee. host: here's a headline -- i theer if this will help. obama administration will release data about health care services provided by doctors who participate in medicare in what officials hail as a major step to making the health care system more transparent and accountable. patients will be able to see how much doctors are charging for which services. a major step forward. if we start putting that out there and there starts to be a public discussion about it, you will have a change in the way that you pay for health care. we want people to have good health care. we want to pay for quality.

not for how much can i do. right now, you are paid for how many things you can do. you get paid more. what we really want is maybe we should do less for you, but do it more carefully, you would get a better result. we are trying to shift from quality to quantity. host: how would this data help americans? guest: you have to get a consensus of people understanding the problem. they know it is going up and they do not know anything about it. the whole concept of a democracy, the reasons we have public schools is because they need the beginning that they had to have an educated electorate. people have to be educated about their health care. the only way you can do that is put information out there and let them begin to discuss it. it is not going to happen overnight. changes like this do not happen

overnight. they will happen because people now know. the new york in times -- what is next for health care after this first enrollment period has closed? he says 15% of the 7.1 million people fail to pay premiums, that would reduce the number to 6 million. the government said they will need a couple of weeks to tabulate data. why is that important? guest: you can go on amazon and decide you're going to write a book. if you don't put in your credit card number, you haven't bought the book. you can count the book taught when you put the order in. if you don't pay for it, it is not bought. host: what does that due to the

delivery of health care insurance or health care if you have signed up for healthcare.gov? guest: if you signed up but haven't paid, when you get to the hospital, you have nothing to give them from the insurance company that says i paid for this health care and these are the people you should bill. you are not paying for your health care. you have to pay out of your pocket. those bills are hard to collect. host: will premiums shoot up next year? guest: that remains to be seen. there are lots of questions to which we don't have an immediate answer. the only people signing up our people who are sick. they don't have any way to get taken care of. say,nes who are healthy what do i need this for? the costs goes up in the health

care system. insurance company have to find some way to recoup the cost. we are seeing with the mix is. what is the mix of people coming through the door, sick or healthy? host: any initial readouts? washingtonstate of had a state exchange, one of the best in the country. we know a lot about who has paid their bills. 80% of people have paid their first premium. some say it is as high as 90%. we know we have gotten a significant number of young people. lots of people. rush as there is a april 1 came for people who put it off.

i think you'll have to see at the end of next year, after people have had a year of this and paid their fine on their income tax next year. than they will say, i would be better off to have protection. host: let's get to phone calls. john from silver spring, maryland. the building came down after 9/11 in 6.5 seconds, which is impossible, unless some type of explosives were used. how long do members of congress pretend the government's story of what happened to building seven on 911 is credible? host: congressman? guest: i was expecting a health care question. there are questions i think

would merit further investigation. i have seen some of the videos that have been done of that. i think there are some legitimate questions. right now nobody is willing to look at that kind of stuff. they are worried about future terrorism. i think one day we will have further examination of that issue. i think sooner the better. host: steve in north carolina. i want to talk to the congressman. we spent several weeks in washington and fell in love with your state. it is unbelievable. i am a democrat but i am calling as an american. the situation i see is our country has been taken over by career politicians.

the only way anything will change in this country is term limits. i would like the congressman -- limit the congress and senate terms. host: ok, steve. you are in your 13th term. guest: i disagree with the gentleman, not because i don't think -- he has a point. there is a trade-off when you have a churning of people. 35th in seniority in the house. there are 400 people he high me. 400 new people coming into the house of representatives. it is not a career politician. people stay 8, 10, 12 years and they leave. i was here to do something about

health care. two more years. you lose the attention of the member who thinks about, what are we going to do next? let me see what i can find. if you are looking here about issues, and user experience. you lose the experience and you lose the attention of the member. california has gone through this. they will tell you that people --the whole time they are figure out,? host: how many more terms for you? guest: i think you should do this if you are enjoying it. john mccormick said when you look at the dome, if you don't get excited, you never should have been in congress or you have been here too long.

i get excited about the possibilities of what can be done. host: philip on twitter asking about the sticker on your lapel this morning. what does that mean? guest: those are the people in the state of washington that need unemployment insurance. these are the people who lost their insurance in washington. we are trying to raise the consciousness. the senate broke the filibuster on this issue. the house hasn't figured it out yet. the senate will send a bill over. people have to go home to their state and look at these 50,000 people in the eye. "we octave extend those benefits to those people." host: a headline from "the washington times." all amendments to the bill were

blocked ahead of the vote. do you see this as a sign the house could take it up? guest: elections tend to focus congresspeople's minds. the old saying by benjamin franklin --it focuses men's minds. elections focuses people's minds. as people start thinking about who those voters are, these are middle-class people a few years ago. they had a job and they were doing just fine. suddenly they are in big trouble. it is a tough sell. they are going to change in the house. host: ron in pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: good morning. i had a question of health fair as it affects veterans. how is that going to work?

people that can be on their parents insurance on pole 26 years old. that seems ridiculous to me. i am looking at the veterans between 18 and 26. they go out to war and come back in the v.a. doesn't want to take care of them. what happens. will they be referred to their primary insurance? guest: it is hard to talk generally about that. each case may be different. you are -- you can buy insurance in this country and you can get some help from the government to pay your premium. whether you are a soldier or a marine, you are no different from any other citizen in that regard. you can buy into the system.

how much health care the the a is delivering. perhaps some changes should be made for people to get veterans benefits. the backstop is the affordable care act. it was put in place for all americans to have access to buying health insurance. that is where we are with everybody. host: donalds in california, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few quick points to make. these republicans, which i am for 40 years of voting. people want to, use an issue like unemployment insurance or health care or something as a political weapon. areave all the people that

on health care -- i am getting so excited i am talking over myself. the health care law three days ago was a turkey turd. now you have a suppose it rush of young people voting and it will be a thanksgiving day dinner. a turkey thanksgiving feast. young people are being asked to pay more people to support people like me, a shaky old man. they have no future and no jobs. you have schwarzenegger's daughter coming out with a new book. may be is that the future? how can young people listen to mr. mcdermott? we are cutting spending. ryan mentioned fortier trillion dollars being cut in 10 years --

$43 trillion. that is money that could go to us. a corporation, general electric in indonesia or wherever. it is crazy. this malaysian flight. how anybody would be trusting or ag on a foreign product chinese company, you have to be nuts. host: a lot there. guest: he raised a lot of issues. i am not sure -- what i would say is this. a country operates as a civic society. whether isn here is it all your responsibility and my responsibility for how we get on, or do we have to look out for each other? i have a that

responsibility for everybody else in the society. just taking care of jim mcdermott and his family is not enough. if we do that, it doesn't work. we require everybody to have a fire insurance policy. we cannot allow a situation where your house catches on fire and you run down to the insurance company and buy a policy. that doesn't work. you don't have to get a policy until you get sick. we want to get everybody into the system taken care of so that nobody will ever be and crept. more than half the bankruptcy are because of unpaid medical bills. peoplean 80% of those have an insurance policy they thought cover them. they had not provided. a big thing happen to them.

we don't know who will be affected. nobody knows who will be affected next. that is what insurance is about. out abobby jindal put health care plan yesterday. he wants to replace obamacare. in his proposal, he would create a global grant program to redesign medicaid a giving states a fixed amount of money and freeing them to provide certain benefits. he proposes to eliminate the long-standing tax preference for employer-based insurance and foster greater use of savings accounts. what do you make of his plan? guest: there is nothing new in it. let's talk about medicaid. that is one example. medicaid was put in the package with medicare in 1965.

medicaid was put in -- the states with design the program and the government would match the money. we would each put in 50% of the money. in somelem has been states like washington state and california, you get a high level of benefits. i can name 10 other states where you get a low standard of benefits. you have to at least cover this much. tried to bring the states up from the bottom. he was say get rid of all of the government regulations. let 50 governors decide what kind of health care we will have. you will have chaos. if you have -- the guy from texas who doesn't want to take medicaid -- host: governor perry. guest: 800,000 people from

coverage. we got everybody including, everybody that we could get into the system. if you want a system that is unfair across the country, then you give it to the states. just give me the money. i will do what is best for the louisiana. that is not my problem. it is our country. medicaid, ang with question posed in this piece from "the new york times." some states may try to follow arkansas. host: how does that work? guest: they are trying to hold to their philosophy. they are taking federal money.

that is fine. maybe that is what other states will do. sally in california and now has health-care coverage is going to e-mail her sister who lives in alabama and says, "we have health care coverage in california.' she will say to her husband, "why don't we have will they have in california?" "the governor doesn't think it is a good idea." why do we have it over there? i think you will see this spread across the country. host: will more states create their own exchanges? gentle --ple like the bobby jindal. they want to have control at the state level.

the president gave them control if they would take it. if you are not going to do it, don't complain about what the government does. i think a lot of states will rethink that. we could make it like louisiana's or arkansas' plan. saying no doesn't solve anything. we had a conversation about a year ago. i keep telling my republican friends. fix it. that is where we are going. host: dennis in upper marlboro, maryland. caller: hi. good morning. you are one of my favorites. glad to see you. thank you, sir, for your services to this country. this country is lucky to have a man like you and women like gret

a to keep us focused. you,t want to ask congressman. -charlie seen the lucy brown cartoon? every time he tries to kick the football, lucy moves the ball? that reminds me of the democrats trying to kick the ball down the field and lucy is moving the football on us every time. and, s ir, answer one question for me and the nation. how is it the republicans can get people to vote against their own interests? $100: you are asking million question. if you run a propaganda campaign

and tell people that something is good or bad -- let's say it is coca-cola. if you say coca-cola is good for you, people are going to buy coca-cola. you walk in the grocery store and see the jar, the cans. if you running $100 million campaign to say coca-cola is bad for you, it has too much sugar, people walk into the store and say, i am not taking those. that is what we have been subjected to in this country. people have been subjected to a $100 million campaign for the last three years. "obamacare is bad for you." if they don't have any other information, they respond that way. you will find out when other people are benefiting from it. when the guy down the street doesn't lose his house when he gets sick.

"you know something? we ought to have that." everybody has to figure out whether he makes sense to them. lots of people are in that process right now. host: ron in syracuse, new york. caller: hi. i have a couple of questions. i appreciate a little time. i am quite ill. this might be my last time to talk to your network. i don't believe people need health insurance. what people need is health care. that's how it works in all other western countries. we spend enormous amounts of money, more than twice as much as anywhere else. we are told that health care costs are spiraling out of control. that is simply not the case.

2000-2010, insurance cost went up 120%. now we are spending $750 net to come up with $1900. the profits of the five top insurance companies went up 450%. that is what is spiraling out of control. we have a system that is simply immoral and should not be allowed to stand. host: did you have a second point? caller: i have heart surgery next week. afford co-pay on x-rays that my doctor told me i needed to have regularly. to get one x ray it would've cost me the cloven of two week'' worth of food. i find this unconscionable. i go to the salvation army and

by a couple of sweaters. i keep my heat at 58 degrees. i pay 8.5% tax. warren buffett pays $100 million of stock and pays nothing. financialtax on transactions would eliminate the deficit. why aren't people addressing this? is there one member of congress that is willing to get up on the floor and ask what happened to the $5 billion we have already sent to ukraine? which of the ultra-right parties has come into power as a result of the money that was spent? host: ok, ron. guest: let me talk about ron. i had heart surgery 16 years ago. surgery can be very helpful to

someone. we wish you the best as you go into surgery. the question of whether we should call it insurance or health coverage or whatever. insurancetten private involved in this whole business for the last 70 years. we keep calling it insurance. i would rather call it health security. a remind some people of social security. that is the awful stuff the government does for people to give them security. people ought to have health security. my weight would be to have a single-payer system where we put the money on the table at helping don't have to use any of it. if we got sick, we take some money off the table and pay for our bills. that would be the security for everybody in the country. we don't need insurance

companies taking 20% out to give to their stockholders. i think that is wasted money out of the system. that is not the system we came to in the congress. we tried to limit how much the insurance companies could take off the top. they have to spend $.86 from every dollar on the patient. themselves.14 for that was our way of trying to control the insurance to make them utilities. the electric company just cannot raise their rates out of sight. they have to explain why they are raising. everybody needs electricity. you have to have some way to control it. that is what we tried to do. put in the controls to control

insurance companies. we have a few problems left. that is why some of us are still working on it. i want everybody to feel as comfortable as i do. if i get sick, i will have the care that i need. everybody should have that feeling. host: if the numbers that ron gave are true, why with the affordable care act allow the insurance companies to raise premiums this year or the years to come? guest: it is a very comp cadiz system. commissioners at state levels love something to say about how much their insurance can go up. in washington, the commission will have to look. if they want to raise it 10%, 20%, 30%, they have to justify that. public officials will be the

regulators for that kind of thing. it is absolutely right. i don't think the insurance company should be making money off of people's illness. neede paying $100 and you $75 to be taken care of. they should not take $30 in profit and leave you with not enough money to get your health care. insurance companies in every tote, that is their job, make sure the money goes to the patient. add are just-- they can't it all. caller: good morning. i was wondering -- the affordable care act. you say it is going to help everybody. i did the math. my health care costs last year. the affordable care act allowed

blue cross and blue shield of pennsylvania to write into their policy above and beyond the deductible. network a $6,500 in financial responsibility. that puts my deductible at $8,000. how i supposed to pay that? is $4.50 a gallon. you are saying this is affordable? guest: well, you're putting your finger on some of the problems that are still unresolved. i think that the programs that people are buying with high deductibles. you have insurance. if something happens to you, you just pay the $8,000 upfront and they will take care of you. for a lot of people, a thousand

dollars will break them --$8,000 will break them. host: is just a plan you can buy on the insurance? guest: it sounds like a bronze plan. i don't know the specifics. it sounds like a bronze plan. you pay $3000. at the gold you pay $1000. deductible. if you have an $8,000 deductible, that kills you. before you get a penny back from your insurance. that is why i like a single-payer system. you pay in. when you need it, they pay out for you. this deductible when not want you to waste your money and your doctors time.

people don't go to the doctor just for fun. they go because they are sick or because something is bothering them. that is not a good system that charges people to try and keep them to not use the system. host: what about states where you have only one insurance company available? these peopleve all talking about competition is baloney. there is no competition. you buy whatever you can afford and that is it. another thing that is happening thing whole health-care is the consolidation of hospitals and delivery systems and that is coming into one great big monopoly in some places. it is going to be very hard to have competition.

there is no competition. host: in the states where there is only one insurance company, does the affordable care act address that and allow for another company to come into the state to set up shop to offer at a lower cost? guest: it is the free enterprise system. any company can go into any state. 90% of thepany has state of whatever, somebody from says why should we go to that state when we won't make any money there? why bother? let's ignore them. it is part of the system that we build and that in some ways kills competition, because people just don't go places where they can't make money. host: jim mcdermott, we will have to leave it there. thank you, sir, for your time. guest: thank you.

host: coming up, we will talk to republican congress and timothy on his bill that aims to increase mental health services and the gm recall controversy. wer of theiel ser johns hopkins school of international studies will talk about cuba all that after this news update from c-span radio. >> the senate intelligence committee is expected to vote this afternoon to declassified h-eraport on bush interrogations of terror suspects. the cia will scan the material for any information it feels good compromise national security. one panel member, independent it isking, says significantly overestimated. the value of waterboarding and other techniques that can be

defined as torture. department is set to release international trade data for february. other reports due out today -- the weekly mortgage rates report from freddie mac and the institute for supply management service sector index for march. finally, a new report says african-americans and latinos are using -- losing economic ground compared with whites in the areas of employment and income. the state of black america report from the national urban entgue says the underemploym rate for african-american workers is 25%, compared with 18.4% for hispanic workers and 11.8% for whites. the report also says african-americans are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed. some of the latest headlines from c-span radio.

it is a nonprofit organization, and our mission is to advance print making and book arts. it can be books that are unbound or bound. all sorts of structures from accordions to flags to traditional bound books that lay flat when you open. it is the book and art and altogether and it is all handmade. it is more than just the words that are in the book. it is also the structure of the book that is also part of the art. use, text or no text. it is all of that. tois an unending world discover and create incomes of it is pretty amazing. >> one of the places we will visit this weekend at booktv in

american history tv looking at the history and literary life of n.nd, orego saturday at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman tim murphy back at our table this morning. front page of all the papers this morning with this headline -- here is "usa today." "fort hood staggered by second mass shooting." what do you know about what happened at fort hood, and the issue of mental health? guest: well, this is another case of a mass shooting that may -- we will find out th have a -- have a link to mental health. it was reported by the general at the base that this is a person who is in treatment for

anxiety and was being evaluated for post dramatic stress disorder. first, i want to acknowledge that soldiers on a dangerous and those with ptsd do not usually behave this way. but it does highlight the concern we have to face in this nation that this is another one in a line of both suicides related to the military, 22 per day, and that we have got to address this issue of treating mental illness. the department of defense has set a huge initiative over the last several years to be more aggressive in identifying and preventing and treating mental illness. the institute of medicine study just said it was working very well. that is not because there weren't program -- there were programs that were designed well. it is because it was not working well with evidence-based treatment. that is critically important. there is a lot of money that the government says -- v.a., health and human services, department of justice. we have got to come to the standard saying that we have to model. evidence-based

if it works, keep it. if it doesn't work, get rid of it. that is why we have so many suicides 40-plus thousand suicides a year, over one million suicide attempts a year, 3000 times a year where a mother is involved with killing her own children. there's just too much of this going on. what is even a larger group, those with mental illness are the victims of assault, robbery, child with mental illness is three times more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse. it has got to and. host: what about the role of the gun in the situation in fort hood? somebody with a mental illness is allowed to have a gun. guest: from what i understand so far -- if you just purchase a gun, a, u.s. post have a weapon on the military base trade restriction is you are not

supposed to have the weapon on the military ace -- you are not supposed to have open on the military base. i served in the navy. i'm not here to speak on behalf of the navy, i was in navy psychologist and one of the things you have to look at -- do they need to get into a hospital, should it remain in uniform? and you have to do a risk assessment. this includes not only guns, but nice and other weapons that can be used. we have to keep in mind that wey times these suicides -- just had a case in pittsburgh this week, tragic case where a mother took 2 of her children to the bathtub, sat on both of them, a six-year-old and a three-year-old, and drowned them both. these cases go on. it is mental list not being treated, the system failing them. and: you have legislation

the hearing today taking a look at this bill. what would it do? guest: it does several things. this is the result of a year-long study i did. it started as the outcome of the sandy hook massacre, the tragedy of those children. we identified several problems. spent one, a lot of money in the federal government and we have to make sure it is spent right. i believe we need an assistant secretary of mental health. this can't be another study, it can't be another commission. it has to be a much higher level. we have got to get serious about a problem that affects 60 million americans, about tom million with serious mental illness and those were not getting treatment. we have to go through federal agencies and see what is working and what is not there -- and what is not. we need to get laws with regard to confidentiality of how parents can share and obtain

information. this is not a major overhaul but it is a very important tweak. we're taking the law and what is in regulation -- this is a clarifying amendment. it is misinterpreted that we are changing it. it is not. and we are authorizing programs that work could authorizing a has withhat the nih the brain research initiative. the going to have training --ding for police to higher to hire people to treat for mental illness. -- wel look at programs want states to have evidence-based programs that work. some states are not doing a good job across the board. some states are doing a really good job. this is lengthy, and it requires a major overhaul that has not happened in half a century. host: we have some major poli -- bullet points to

show what you are talking. the families most in need of services -- how do you do that? guest: there are not a child psychologist and there are very few that you look severe mental illness -- that deal with severe mental illness. we consult with pediatricians and other folks. it is an issue that works well in massachusetts. so the psychiatrists don't have to go back and forth to their offices all the time. they can be consulted. that is extremely important. what an absurd concept, that a pediatrician, a family physician or pediatrician that first identifies the problem -- if yourperson says, "ma'am, son has a serious problem, he is hallucinating, he has insomnia ," they have to wait the next day. that is absurd. why should someone who is poor not have access to the right psychiatric care?

we change that. i want to be clear, i do not want to reopen a silent -- reopen asylums, or for those with acute stress, they are given heavy doses of medications, they are tied to a bed, and they may be left there for days or weeks at a time because there's no room for them in a psychiatric setting. the person with acute psychiatric crisis, deep psychosis or depression, they need that help, they need that respite. we don't have places for it. they say youo is are not about to kill somebody, we will let you go. that is inhumane. that is third world. i am not going to tolerate that anymore. there can be more beds. what they have now is a limit of 16 beds in a hospital.

you are kidding me. who came up with that number? now with a population of over 300 million, 3000 hospital beds -- 40,000 hospital beds. it is a critical bed shortage and that is why you have tragedies like the man who stepped his father when they were trying to get hospital bed and that he tragically went home and killed himself. that should never have happened. you have a system that does not have enough in place to take care of it. host: virginia state senator creigh deeds spoke about this at the national press club recently -- tuesday. what do you think happens next on this? guest: congress needs to be serious about a bill. every time you have some tragic shooting, crisis, we wring our hands and say that throw money at programs -- let's throw money

at programs. what we identified in our hearings is that the money is there but it is being misspent. the bulk of what we spend every year is on disability payments, and i get it, some people are mentally disabled and they need that assistance. but there should also be a push to get them help. some groups say that people should have the right to refuse treatment. i get it. but if someone doesn't know who they are, doesn't know what planet they are on, doesn't even know they have a problem, and half of those with severe schizophrenia do not even organize they have something -- i believesymptoms, they have the right to get better and get help. we need to break down the barriers to get them help. host: are you saying that we need more money or we need to -- it.t: we need to redirect we need to allow states and agencies flex ability and how they use it. much of that money is spent on trails. as we close mental hospitals, we create prisons.

we also treated with a mattress on a flophouse for the homeless under a bridge or on a subway grate. just walk around and washington, d.c. and you see what we do with the mentally ill. it is wrong and immoral. ask someone who has gotten better and say, how do you like your life now? would you rather walk the streets again, rather be in a jail cell, or be assaulted by inmates and then we put you in solitary confinement? it's wrong. host: you mentioned the privacy laws. that is one of the issues that virginia state senator creigh deeds addressed the other day could i want to show our viewers what he had to say and then we will talk about it. [video clip] >> it is difficult for me to talk about that at the state level because we are guided by the federal law and there is little we can do at the state level to undercut it. if i were king, changing things on a big scale, i might reform

it and young people with certain mental illnesses have a kind of curve between the ages of 18 and 35, and perhaps parents need to be more involved in those years with young people. sometimes the only thing you know about it is the bill that comes in that has to be paid. you are welcome to pay the bill, not to know what is going on with your kid. your kid might be 25 or 30 years old but they are still your kid. that is very difficult. i would probably make major changes if i were at the federal level but i am not at the federal level and i have no desire to be. host: congressman? guest: that is the tragedy and that is what we have heard repeatedly from parents who cannot get information and couldn't give information treating people in an emergency room. sometimes they were told by the er doctors or nurses, we cannot talk to you because your child is over 18. in pennsylvania, over 14 they

can refuse consent, refuse treatment. we would not let them take responsibility for anything else and yet we do that. that is wrong. senator deeds is absolutely right. we should have a way that looks out for the safety and best interest of the patient. this also means that professionals have to have their own ethics. psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses have their own ethical standards. df i am treating a patient an a parent comes to me was not that she was not at involvement in years or is a major distress in the child's life, that is different. i don't give them information. but if a parent brings a child to the emergency room and they can be an adult child, too, the hospital all to be able to talk to the parent and get

history. our bill says they can do that under limited standards. but what happens is when they are not able to obtain history, you can't make a diagnosis. this is the same as if you told an orthopedic surgeon, you're not allowed to look at an x-ray but you have got to diagnose this broken bone. you cannot do it. you cannot diagnose roughly -- properly a psychiatric illness without history and background and you cannot take that from a patient who is incoherent. this is really essential. some people misunderstand -- oh , we are trying to force people into treatment. this is a very real medical phenomenon, unawareness of your own illness. a person who may be schizophrenic and is delusional and hallucinating, show a videotape on that and they say, what is wrong with that? they may not be aware of her own symptoms at times.

if you have a stroke on the right side of your brain and your left arm can't work, a characteristic of that is to say your left arm, can you move it -- "no, but it's no big deal." oh, my gosh.arm -- it is a different emotional response. a key diagnostic feature -- you don't say to a person with a stroke, would you like me to take you to the hospital? we need to take you now. you need to get that help. similar with a person with mental illness -- you have to have the ability under very defined circumstances for family members and loved ones. we do it for a person in an auto accident. why don't we do it for someone who is mentally ill? host: hi, peggy, you are on the air. caller: i have a son with schizophrenia and i know exactly what he's saying is true. he first got it when he was young, 19. he has been to mental hospitals and he has been helped.

he did get a job and he worked for 22 years. because,he got fired you know, different people on the company and they did not want to put up with his talking and threatening people and stuff. well, so then i got him back on social security, but the problem is, when he was fired, he couldn't get another job because he just couldn't handle it, you know what i mean? keep hishe could interest but that had to be cobra. that was costing them $600 a month. we were trying to pay for that. i have always held him. and then he did get on social security, but then he couldn't get medicare for 2 years because they told me it is not a life-threatening disease. well, lots of schizophrenics do

commit suicide, or they do harm others. guest: exactly. caller: and i guess that is not life-threatening enough. diabetic,don't tell a well, your blood sugar is high but you don't have kidney failure yet. heart't tell someone with disease, we are not going to treat you until you have a hard attack. why in heavens name do we have standardrd and immoral that we do not give you mental health treatment until you have a knife to your throat or someone else's? when i watched the news coverage of what just happened in fort hood, and you listen to the countless statements made by people in the media and military calling this guy crazy, deranged, why didn't someone do anything -- it is, as the comic said, we have met

the enemy and it is us. this idea that we do not give treatment until there is a standard of danger has got to change. to 14 and peaks around age 25 and it takes an average of nine to 12 weeks to get there first appointment for -- an average of 112 weeks to get their first appointment for this. many of these folks going to have a great life. independent living, working, etc. sometimes in a situation like this i have seen agencies that work with workers and they provide wraparound services. they can be great employees. have their life to the point where they give up -- host: does the republican leadership agree with you? guest: eric cantor has been very supportive of this bill and has encouraged me. look, i know that this is a massive problem.

i'm looking for input from lots of members on the but you know what, we're not going to be able to do everything good but we have had to do something substantive. host: what about your senate counterparts? guest: i've been talking to blunt, others.w, great work they are doing there. we are looking to get initial funding to assist with outpatient treatment. in new york, reduced reasons and homelessness and admissions to emergency rooms. there is great work being done in the senate and we will continue to work together. host: can the administration do this on its own? guest: no, this is not something that can be done with the stroke of a pen or the phone. this is something we want the industry to work with us on. host: dave, democratic caller. caller: you are conflating 2 issues. one is the need for greater access to mental health treatment. the second, as we heard in the last call, is the vast

misperception, particularly on the right, of the dangerousness of the mentally ill. those with schizophrenia and psychosis -- i am a doctor, i've been one for 25 years -- with reactiveisorder, psychosis, are less dangerous than the general population, and are more likely to be a victim of violence than the general publishing -- guest: well -- caller: tim, hang on. this is my time. study after study -- host: hold on -- caller: you know that this is true -- guest: no, it's not -- caller: again and again and again, there is less interestn -- dangerousness in this population, and use these very dramatic, tragic situations, individual situations, to whip up a general concern that is

mixincally false, and is g need with politics. host: dave, can i jump in? what kind of doctor are you? caller: i will take your answer off the air. host: what kind of doctor are you? guest: as the senator famously said, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. a person, first of all, who is mentally ill, compared to the general population, in general is not more likely to be violent than anybody else. when you take a person with a severe mental illness, a psychosis, if they are in treatment, they are 15 times less likely to be involved in crime. our prisons are packed between 35 and 50% of jails with people who are mentally ill. that is the wrong place for them. they need to be in treatment. once they commit a crime, that is a problem. when the police picked him up

they become combative and the police need more training than that. but i did say before -- apparently you missed it -- people who are mentally ill or three to four times more likely to be the victim. politicizing this is what he just did. to say that somehow we are only using these situations of tragedy to say that the mentally ill are like that -- i am a very clear that they are more likely to be victims. that alone should motivate us to do some thing. tragically, what happens here on capitol hill and around the nation, people don't want to do a darn thing until somebody loses their life. what about the families who are broken up come in progress they're spending money trying to take care of someone because they cannot deal with the issues involved? we need to come to terms with it. part of that is that there are cases where people are combative and assaultive. this is really important to understand -- if they're mishandled, if they are not given the wraparound services, they are not given compassionate

care, this escalates. where the episode happened with adam lanza, there was a famous blog posted by woman from idaho who said "i am adam lanza." she talked about the battles with her son at home, having to take all the knives out of the house. i am not making this up i'm describing the facts. for those who say we need to stop talking about this, i'm just discussing the facts. what about the 40,000 suicides? i'm not making this up. we have to address this and we will not get involved -- we will not address it by getting involved with the idea of left versus right. heaven help us if all we do is throw money at another program and wipe our hands and walk away and say we are done. host: we are talking to congressman tim murphy, republican from pennsylvania. oversight investigations chairman on the energy and

commerce subcommittee. talking about improving care for families facing mental health issues. we want to get your questions and comments in here this morning. host: we are also taking heyour tweets. @boringfileclerk has this tweet. guest: the aca is supposed to provide more coverage for mental health care. prime sponsor, patrick kennedy, said there needs to be mental health parity. when you see -- what is covered for medical illness needs to be there for mental health as well. the galatians are fairly new and it will take a while to get out there. what we really treatment will andess -- we ignore it

think, well, we come up with these ways of saying it is not really there, all in the eye of the beholder. we it is a brain problem and need to comprehend it and be compassionate in our approach to providing assistance. host: on twitter situationn you have a of suicide, it may be a number of things. a person is giving signals -- they start to say "i can't take this anymore, i can't live anymore." they may give away objects of theirs of value -- a pet, other things as well. they will send a number of signals to family members. nesstimes a certain calm over them as they make the final decision on that. some people who commit suicide or have tragic responses to the event -- is important to say to someone, let's get you some help.

don't just walk away and say that this person is unstable. get them some help. host: by the way, also, congressman tim murphy mentioned this, was a psychologist for 30 years, lieutenant commander in the u.s. navy, work with wounded warriors and dramatic brain injury and ptsd. robert in new york, independent caller. thank you for providing over this important form. you are familiar with the issue of cognitive dissonance -- dissonance. despite all of the evidence that building was brought down on 9/11, members of congress ignore

this. would you be willing to meet with representatives for demanding an investigation for building sevens destruction and review the evidence that brought it down? guest: that is not a mental-health issue, but think you for calling. host: next caller, you're on the air. i have been: depressed many times. i have mental-health issues. i'm here to tell the world that there is recovery, and there is hope and there is life after mental illness. but i tell you, the united states and as a team, our citizens, and this nice gentleman your who is leaking needed.orcefully, it is we need to break the stigma of mental illness. .t is a real disease

and the medical facts and the experts of this world who have brought in and said he does have , that if you said have diabetes, you are not rejected for treatment and if we can get our minds around the fact that these diseases are just as much above the adam's apple with dna as it is below the adam's apple. murphy and let's go get them with this disease. we can offer help, like pro athletes do when they look out for coaches and reach out for help as a sign of strength, not weakness. host: he brings up a great point, two, and that is recovery. a lot of people have faced mental illness and they recover from it was up and they continue to work at it. we don't want people to be on heavy doses of medication all their lives. but in many cases we put it off so long that it requires that.

getting it early is helpful. and then what happens sometimes is people who recover or partly recover, become the best advocates and become the best to help other people. where they can say to other people, i've been through this amount to. i've been homeless. andpatient is frightened inc. nobody cares and thinks they are most likely to be treated as someone who does not have mental illness. marry,et's go to democratic collar. i have a question for mr. murphy. to -- to invite you to go online -- can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: go online and google prescription drugs and suicide.

then look at the number of drugs that are prescription that the fda knows about and has issued the known harmful consequences, including suicide. and these are coming from drugs that are gastrointestinal, diabetes, and what have you. that combined with the outrageous in these -- increase in autism in this country, what i'm talking about is western medicine. there are two sides here. one is, sure, there are bipolar diseases and other things that come out naturally. but there is another side of diseases now being precipitated by drugs. looked not under our fda at where they're coming from, what country they are coming from, and looked at the outrageous incidences of diseases. your review.e

build a constituency to start looking at this. i know you come from pennsylvania, which is heavy , and you know, drug lobbies there. but we need to do something. host: you bring up some great points. first, there are many medications that have behavioral and brain side effects. i was talking to somebody last night and they were taking a blood pressure medication and it increases anxiety and sweating and sleeplessness. always discuss these things with your doctor. does this have any behavioral or psychological impacts? that is important. secondly, psychotropic drugs, 70% are prescribed by non-psychiatrist, almost in a dismissive way. oh, you have heart disease? you may be depressed. here is some prozac. these things need to be managed carefully. when someone is starting or tapering off from vacation, you

can have a higher risk for severe depression or suicide, particularly among younger patients. that is why it is extremely important to start them off a low levels slowly and work closely with the doctor. takeever, never make -- medications that you order from some online pharmacy without a prescription. it is almost 100% sure that it is fraudulent. they can have poisoned, anything from starch -- anything. look up any psychotropic drug and they say, we will give you six months for free. that is fraudulent. don't do it. people who think they can self medicate, you are playing with danger. host: here is a tweet. guest: they are treated by the military if they are diagnosed with ptsd. they are assigned some level of disability rating, which means

they will continue to receive some financial assistance for that through the veterans administration as well. are they getting enough treatment, though? i think the answer to that is, no. some 20% of ptsd cases when the initially contact the v.a. get evidence-based treatments. they say, we will put you in group therapy. can you come back in a few weeks? these are people in acute crisis and they need help. twice a one case where man went to the v.a. with problems and pricey was this given sleep medication, and that is it. given sleepwice was medication, and that is it. and he should have been referred to as specialist. i know the military is committed to dealing with the psychological issues. there is a lot of money behind it. this is an ongoing issue.

we have to recognize that we will have to help out a lot more. host: what about the family members of those with ptsd echo guest: -- with ptsd? guest: these are treatable diseases. you may have a wife or husband who say, his body has come on, but his mind has not. they keep wicking up with -- waking up with sweats or nightmares or wandering around the neighborhood. in some cases, it is someone still focused on being on guard, and they still have weapons and they walk the neighborhood as if they are still in the country. that is a problem situation. it is a cry for help. you need to make sure -- guards and reservists are sometimes at the highest risk, because they are no longer really with the unit they are -- were deployed with. they are scattered far and wide. we saw the way to go. oceanside, california,

independent color. hi, bill. 1982 i became a correctional officer in the city california. i have seen tons and tons of inmates with psychological disorders, mental disorders, all of that. -- used to help them a lot. in 1986, we exploded with illegal aliens in our prison systems. we cannot help them anymore. if you keep adding people to this problem in this country, you will never fix any of them. you cannot keep adding people into this country. 1980'salifornia in the began the move to close the psychiatric hospitals. the leaks into prisons has continued. i had an interview with the sheriff of the cook county jail, which is the second largest psychiatric facility in america. the biggest is in los angeles. >> -- host: cook county, where? guest: in illinois.

what he is describing is unfortunately very true. and for lots of reasons. you may have someone involved in a shoplifting case. what do they do? they go to jail and wait for their case. they may be schizophrenic and hallucinating and not even know where they are. that person should have been taken into care and help them understand where they are. not that you committed a crime and we put you in jail. put act outy get again with no continuity of care. it is a serious problem. the: in the head lines in "new york times" yesterday, it says, police confront rising number of mentally ill suspects. that is right. you don't grab that person of that person is ranting and raving. host: how do they know if they are artistic? -- autistic? cant: maybe a family member inform them.

if police are using nonconfrontational language. they have to protect life, and i understand there are times when they have to do that to a person. but in many cases, using calling language -- calling and wedge -- language helps avoid taking a person to jail. host: kelly from georgia. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. murphy, i appreciate your conversation today. i agree with most everything you have said. a little bit that i disagree with. i have been bipolar and severe panic anxiety disorder for 15 years. it took them five years to get the bipolar right. they actually diagnosed me with depression for five years.

they had me on the wrong medication. most of what i have peopleost mentally ill tend to not be violent. especially when they are given the proper diagnosis, the proper medication, and the proper therapy. when you haveer certain tragedies, incidents such as what occurred last night , which may possibly be due to mental illness. they are not quite sure. ptsd could be the cause of it. or when you have certain things like sandy hook. you have these incidents and suddenly, mental illness comes to the forefront in what is being done. i think there is a huge disconnect between the mental illness community, the psychiatric, and law

enforcement. i think that needs to be addressed wholeheartedly. believe most -- i havell people done very well under the right medication. we don't have a problem. problem with my like, for people to always know that i am properly medicated all the time. does own a gun. i would have no problem if it for mycked safely away family's protection. i would have no problem with thene knowing, like government knowing that my family had a gun. host: can i interrupt what you're saying for a second? thank you for helping us to

understand. what she is saying is so important. i polar, look, i have and i'm on medication and i'm ok. but she's also bringing up the point that for a while she is this -- misdiagnosed. we have this detached system. you see a psychologist or a doctor and then come back in a week. some groups will actually do what is called wraparound. they will help guide that person. havestates will caseworkers or social workers work with them. believe me, it's a lot cheaper than jail. but the states will say, we can't do it. it's too expensive. but it is cheaper than jail. pennsylvania went from 20 institutions -- went to institutions rather than jail. i'm glad she brought this up. this has to be emphasized. most people with mental illness are not violent, but some hit that high risk group and we have to make sure that for them,

there is special assistant for them. treatment acute care and long-term follow-up treatment, so it does not become a tragedy. more thing i want to ask you about before you leave. that is, the recall of gmb goals. you're the subcommittee chairman that held the hearing -- of the gm vehicles. you are the subcommittee chairman that held the hearing. the "usa today" after the ceo was on the senate i've. gm's culture of cover-up --. was there a cover-up? that was in my opening statement to the ceo as well. is there a culture at gm that says don't pass bad news up and down the chain of command sideways? there was clearly a decision made, which she acknowledged as wrong, where someone said this artist which does not meet specs. -- starter switch does not meet

specs. it is not appropriate. but she also said there was a problem piece. case, it is difficult. why was this not address? why was his continued to be put in card -- why did they continue to put this in cars? why did they not retrofit the old cars? that is another problem that gm had. he also have to point out that the national highway safety transportation administration also blew it to my two. gm apologize. to apologize also. this is a federal agency tasked with protecting public safety. twice they looked at this issue and twice they said no. jason chaffetz of the judiciary committee a few years ago even asked of then secretary of transportation ray lahood, secretary, there is a lot of problems with this car -- there

are a lot of problems with this car. what are you doing? he said they were looking into it. they knew about it and they also let it go. >> all --host: all over a $.50 part. guest: exactly and they will end up spending hundreds of millions in legal fees and settlements come etc. it raises the question of it doesn't make the best business case. he never got a clear and sure of what best business case was, because the ceo did not answer the question. host: you will bring her back echo guest: either her, or we will talk to those who signed off on documents. i want to talk to those who said they will not make a recommendation to fix his part. something tragic happened. someone on some level made a decision not to pass the information on. host: what about the tax dollars that were used to bail out? does that go toward the lawsuit? gmst: the issue becomes, is

protected because they were in bankruptcy, from old cases? yes, but if there is malfeasance, are they protected? we don't think so. i will have to remain open-minded on this. we will see where the evidence takes us. moneyso, gm got a lot of in there. if they set aside a fund -- the public money a few years ago, but they have paid back the government now. but that brings up another point, too. the board of directors at gm, they were in charge. why didn't they do a meeting about a ghetto who was not asking safety questions? -- why can they do anything about it? who was not asking safety questions? host: thank you very much for being with us this morning. coming up next, we will turn our attention to u.s. policy toward cuba. we will be joined by daniel

serwer right after this newsbreak. seekingumber of people unemployment benefits rose by 16,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 326,000. the labor department says despite that increase, the number remains close to prerecession levels and it does point to more stable hiring. tomorrow, the department leases its march and limit report. -- releases its march employment report. meanwhile, main interest rates are unchanged, even as a drop in inflation has fueled worries thet economic weaknesses in 18 country euro zone. in frankfurt, germany today, the use governing council cut the tanks financing rate at 2.5%, already at a record low. a movement that was in line with expectations. nationally, today the capital planning commission is considering building plans for a honoring president

dwight eisenhower. after months of review, though, the commission staff is objecting to the scale and configuration of a stainless steel tapestry that would frame the memorial park. it would be at the base of capitol hill across independence avenue from the national air and space museum. a rejection by the commission could force design changes. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think most people don't member because it is not the most dramatic aspect of the constitution. we talk about slavery, the balance of states rights, minority rights. we don't usually talk about the senses is embedded in the constitution and every 10 years there be a count of the population. to haveif you're going her presentation will democracy, you have to know how many people you are representing and you have to decide how many represented as will be in the house of representatives. how many representatives will

be in the house of representatives. but it moves from just how many people are there and where to the human curiosity to map and measure. what are these people doing? what is their employment? how many hours do they spend working? what is their nature -- the nature of their home life in terms of output? you get this creeping growth of information about people's lives economically, even though it starts with just who is living where and how many. >> zachary caravelle on the numbers that make the world go round. saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday night at 9:00 on afterwards. also this weekend on book tv, live this -- sunday morning at 11 a.m. eastern, best selling author michael lewis will take your questions on his latest book. and sunday, discussion of the middle east with former defense secretary being west. with your calls and comments in depth, starting at noon eastern,

book tv every week and on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by daniel serwer, who is a professor at johns hopkins school for international studies. you wrote this please -- this piece for a political magazine. the dangers of a cuban collapse. you travel to cuba. what juicy that makes you think they are on the verge of collapse? -- what did you see that makes you think they are on the verge of a collapse? guest: i wouldn't say they are on the verge of a collapse, but they are more at risk than they have been in some time. there is a shrinking government. $35 avernment is paying month and the same people are earning $200 entry in her dollars in the open market, which is being allowed to --

$200 and $300 in the open market, which is being allowed to scale. why would that lead to some sort of collapse? the whole system is based on a dictatorship and it requires that the state-controlled things. if the state is unable to control things, either because of the passing of the castro brothers, or because of the world economic crisis, or some other foreseen event, it seems to me the system is quite fragile. we could see the kind of chaos that we saw in the marriott boatlift, for example. -- what weeaceful need to see his cube as a peaceful democratic transition that is controlled by cubans. host: what do you mean by collapse? guest: well, it could come in

many different forms, but the really problematic forms are when government authority no and youas any validity ,et people just doing anything a kind of law of the jungle kind of situation. that is certainly not the case in cuba today. but there is this growing entrepreneurial sector, which i think is a very positive development. what is lacking is the institutional framework for that capitalist development that is growing rapidly. just this week they have passed new legislation that will invite foreign investment on a scale never before seen since the revolution. but of course, to sustain the regime. it is not intended to undermine the regime. but i see in a lot of countries,

these chaotic situations where transitions becomes extraordinarily difficult because there is no agreement on the rules of the game. host: you write in this piece about the castro brothers that there political -- their political control is still a challenge, but they don't need to demonstrate it often. cubans who complained about the system rarely organize against it, or even have -- or even to have clear ideas about how they wanted to change. the picture in the piece showed a massive demonstration strata by high walls and the demonstrators held signs with nothing on them. guest: i think that is the actual situation. the cubans are not happy with the socialist system. the socialist system is decaying and fragmenting. but they don't know what they want. they don't know what could replace it. they don't know what would improve the situation. and they're all kind of holding their breath for the castro brothers to decide. right now, the most important

thesion is on unifying country. rq l castro has promised -- castro has promised to unification, but there is no visible campaigning for a new set of rules. and they really do need a new set of rules. byt: no active campaigning the cubans themselves. there is an associated rest story this morning that broke, an investigation that they did. the u.s. secretly built a cuban twitter to stir unrest in the country. this being done by usaid, a foreign aid injured -- agency, to stir unrest in cuba. guest: let me be clear, i am in favor of peaceful, nonviolent

change in a place like cuba, but it has to be indigenously organized. i don't know the details of this usaid activity, which seems to be clandestine. it's not clear that it was linked to any indigenous movement inside cuba. the newspaper article suggests it was not really linked. i'm very skeptical of clandestine activity. i'm skeptical of activity that does not have strong roots in the society. thatf you say to me organizing against the system that is now failing in cuba is -- and is organizing against it easily and putting forward our positions for how the country should move forward them a is that a good idea? i would say, yes, as long as it is led by cubans. the associated press writes this.

its users were neither aware it was created by and -- a u.s. agency and its ties to the state department, nor that contractors were gathering personal data about them in the hope that the information might be you sunday for political purposes. it is unclear whether the scheme usedgal under -- might be sunday for political purposes. it is unclear whether the scheme is legal under u.s. law. would notat usaid it say who approve the program or whether the white house was aware of it. the cuban government declined a request for comment. at minimum, the details uncovered by the ap appear to that long-standing claims it does not conduct covert actions. do you think it worked? it has been in place for two years. guest: the newspaper article suggests it did not work. it was shut down. but whether it was really clandestine, whether there wasn't some cuban counterpart asking for it, what the details of the approvals were, none of

that is really unveiled in the article. i think we have to wait for further information. i don't want to render summary ongment on a neck to the -- an activity we know nothing more about than a newspaper article. i think there are indications that this is not the way to go about this. host: we are talking about u.s. policy toward cuba. we want to hear from you this morning. is in jacksonville, florida, a cuban-american, independent. go ahead. caller: i have a lot of questions about what is going on in cuba. i came as a child. one of the questions that i have, because i think for too long, -- this country should have been involved in cuba many, many years ago. and i believe because of the pressures of the miami cubans, we have not been involved in

cuba. if we had done this 20 years ago, 30 years ago, cuba probably would have had a transition into capitalism many years ago. i'm not opposed to that. by the same token, because of the policies that we have two give special treatment to cubans, we are having many cubans come to this country who get special benefits that other immigrants don't necessarily get. they get to come and stay. i don't know if the american people know that. , youubans get, basically know, for six months, they get everything paid for. all they have to do is step foot in this country and they get everything paid for. i don't want to speak up against cuban immigration to the

united states. i think cubans have contributed an enormous amount to the united states. on the grandson of immigrant myself. grandson of immigrant myself. it is up to congress to decide the conditions under which people are welcomed to the united states or not. but i am in favor of stronger u.s. engagement inside cuba with cubans. i think it is important for us to lower the barriers to travel there. those barriers are not very high right now, but to tell the truth , it took me weeks to understand that getting there was actually fairly simple. i think i'm a citizen to citizen discussions and exchange are terribly important. think, citizen to citizen discussions and exchange are terribly important. i understand that the interest -- the internet is arriving in cuba fairly soon. i don't know how censored it

will be, but if that is the case it is an enormous opportunity for americans to reach out to cubans and start the discussion of what political change will look like in cuba. it's clear that they are changing economically already. but the castro's are definitely holding onto political power. and you can expect them to continue doing that. but they will not be there forever. they will disappear fairly soon. and what is important is that ordinary cubans, cubans who want a freer society, that they have a clearer idea then i found when -- then i found when i visited cuba and have an idea of how to construction. -- construct it. host: in your piece you wrote that you wonder whether president obama is ready. why should the united states be ready? guest: first of all, the headline is always written by

the editors, not the authors. i probably would not of chosen that one, but the editors did. but i do think any american administration has to be ready for a chaotic collapse of cuba. and the marriott boatlift, as i said, is the best sort of sample of that we have had. that only brought about 2500 cubans to the united states, or something like that number. it could be many more in the future. and there is risk also of spreading problems throughout the caribbean, throughout latin america. been inn state has place for a long time. it will not be there forever. i think you have to be ready for what happened. that may include giving humanitarian assistance, or maybe not. or maybe it will include lifting the embargo, or maybe not. maybe it will include helping

cubans to think through their political future. there are a lot of propositions that are involved in preparing for cuba to make its transition. and this is one that the united states cannot avoid. we can stay out of syria. we could stay at libya. we could even statically -- out of egypt. -- we could even stay out of egypt. but cuba is not one we can avoid. host: because of proximity? guest: two things. one is a committee, but another proximity.-- one is but another is history. the united states sent troops there in an event that we still member today. and another is family ties. there is a large number of

cuban-americans in this country and they rightly expect to play , or to have role future ties to a non-communist cuba. an unavoidable responsibility for the united states to worry about transition in cuba. here is a tweet from one of our viewers. guest: it doesn't have to. i have a personal preference in that direction, because that is the preference i would have for virtually anybody on earth. and frankly, i find that most people on earth want that future. but it doesn't have to. it is possible that the dictatorship will survive on the political level as well. i find that hard to believe, because once you get the development of an

entrepreneurial economic situation you get business in truth rising. those business interests ask for more freedom. we have seen a one-party system surviving vietnam, and china, even though there have been clear capitalist transitions in those countries. but i'm not sure they will survive forever. ,n cuba, it's an odd system because it does at the neighborhood level have a -- neighborhoods choose their own representatives to the city government. talking to government didn't -- talking to cubans, there is a sense that they deal with complaints at the neighborhood level. but everyone else has chosen to cascade into indirect elections. that is a system that is obviously not democratic. host: what about the role of social media? you have seen it in other countries where there has been

unrest. what is it like in cuba? guest: there is very little. right now, to have internet access in cuba, you have to be someone who is making some hard currency. you have to go into the international -- one of the international hotels and pay eight dollars or nine dollars and hour for internet access. i am told that it is coming to cuban cell phones soon. i hope that is true. if it is true,- that is a major development politically as well as economically. it will advance the increased potential for citizen to citizen communication, both within cuba and outside. host: mike murphy on twitter. this is one of the scenarios for collapse. it is not only oil, but payment for cuban doctors. it is other subsidies as well.

cubanunts, according to a professor who published recently, to $9.4 billion a year. i have heard numbers of bit lower than that, eight billion dollars. but we are talking a lot of money for cuba. and that money will not continue to flow forever. clearly in a kind of economic condition that will not payment -- permit it. and that economic condition is having political ramifications as well. thinking that the subsidies from venezuela will not continue and they are trying to prepare for that. that is some of the background to this announcement that they will welcome foreign investment in many areas. they need to replace that money from venezuela. if this happens, collapse, and the united states is not fill the void, who does? guest: i don't think there are

many candidates here. the mexicans have had a good relationship with cuba for a long time. castro has gone to cuba from with their revolution. that is where it was launched from. their ownns have problems. the brazilians, too, are friendly, but they have their own problems. they have invested in a big way in the port to marry all. othersans very much want to use that port because it is better than anything on the gulf, but that would require lifting the embargo. putin may want to help cuba, but

i think his interest is in the space surrounding russia. i don't think there are many candidates here. the chinese will invest in cuba, no doubt. very hard-nosed capitalist business people. they will not be giving the money away the way venezuela does. but they might invest in cuba. picture.y difficult to cuba, which has not been respectful of private property or foreign investment, getting a very significant flow without major changes in how they treat foreign investment, and how they treat investment generally. property rights have not the well respected in cuba. that is a big problem. are also issues of demand. let's go to bernie, a republican collar. like you seemms to be talking about what sounds like a prelude to things that

happened in ecuador with shell oil and in chile with itt, and in nicaragua. in all of these places, thousands and thousands of the citizens were killed. i was reading a book by john perkins, "confessions of an economic hitman." do you see any similarities between this and those types of things? aret: i think what you referring to is some of the investment in latin america that have caused environmental damage and that kind of thing. the cubans, so far as i know, are welcoming foreign investment primarily in tourism and infrastructure. i don't think they are welcoming foreign investment that is likely to have the kind of impacts you are talking about, --ause to but is not a place cuba is not a place with vast resources. host: if foreign companies are

going to going to cuba, i mean, why would they win cubans don't have a lot of money? is there the demand in the country to buy foreign goods and products? the notion that cubans don't have a lot of money is true in one sense. employedhose who are by the government get $25, 35 dollars a month. they get free health care, free education. most people don't pay rent. that is true. get aerybody is trying to offer. sector and a lot of people have succeeded. and they are uncertain of the future and they are saving a lot of money. i have talked to a lot of cubans about this. they are putting some of it in the banks, but they are keeping a lot of it in their mattresses. i see many countries that go through transitions where people

have saved quite a bit, because of the uncertainty of the situation. in cap,t's go to george florida, a cuban-american, aller.atic col caller: i'm glad to hear the gentleman talk about cuba. i came from cuba in -- when i was seven. i believe that the most damaging thing -- i have been able to look at our side now. i see myself as an american, and i'm grateful to be here. but i'm looking at it from this angle. embargo ont put an us or a blockade on us. we put it on them. and every time the cubans try to make some type of change, we take the goalpost and we move it forward and forward. if you go to many latin american countries and you stay there for one month, from their you go to

-- and then from there you go to cuba, you see enormous developments in many respects. my uncle, for example, he is a biochemist engineer and has for professions in medicine. and he did not have to pay for it. and there are many millions of cubans that i have seen over there that stand behind the revolution. it is not the names that we get like the castro brothers. it is actually a change. i think if we were to tell the you areere, us, listen, welcome in the united states, -- the decision on reciprocity between havana and the united states is not for you to make. cuball have relations with and we will take the embargo that is actually illegal -- if you look at the united nations, they have voted over 59 times

against the blockade. thee is no such thing as castro brothers. it's a revolution. and i think if we have reciprocity with cuba, we will see something similar to what we see in sweden. when we put the pressure on cuba, we actually by default created a system. the other thing i want to mention quickly is that as far as falling apart are not being able to deliver to cuba, i can guarantee that is not going to make you default. if you look at 1993 when the --y asked the soviet union if you look at 1993, when soviet union fell, they continued under much worse conditions. i agree about the embargo.

it just hasn't worked. that it iss to me just keeping the cuban-american community, as well as the broader american community -- there was a poll recently and there was support for changing the policy. support was stronger in florida than the rest of the united states. it seems to me there is a rightness for change in our , not because anybody likes communist cuba, but because the embargo has not worked and is unfriendly to people who really do want a relationship to us. i cannot tell you how many times cubans told me that our cultural point of reference is the united states. they listen to miami fm radio. it is not as if they are as isolated as albania during communism. know what is going on in the rest of the world.

whether cuba's performance after the fall of the soviet union tells us how much -- how it will behave now, i'm not so convinced. it was a very different cuba. it was under much tighter regime control in the early 1990's. and they were able to impose gigantic sacrifices on the cuban people. they call it this peschel -- they call it the "special peri od" if our member greg lee. they used the dollar during that timeframe, not because they wanted to use american currency, but because the peso was not worth anything. now it seems something else has happened. making a halfd to decent living, having some cash in their pockets, having some savings, being able to go out themselves in an

entrepreneurial way, at least in some sectors. it will be very hard to roll that back to the kind of communist austerity that we saw the early 1990's. people don't want that come and they are not ready for it. on twitter, explain the difference between an economic system and the political system, saying they love their economic system because it works. would cubans be willing to give up their free health care, free education, those things they get from the government? i talked to cubans about this and across a very wide spectrum, the answer was absolutely not. whatever happens on the , cubans wille expect their politicians to deliver free health and education. that foreign investment will not be allowed in those sectors. area -- you is an

know, we will have to wait and see. but i don't think the cubans will allow foreign investment in those things. host: kevin in denver weighs in on twitter as well, saying this. muscles in cuba is one thing. their form of government is their problem. jeff in lexington, north carolina. you are next. caller: i have a two-part question. i just wanted to know what would happen if cuba does collapse, how it will affect the american side. know -- i see that you are in a dance international professor -- to leavef, i'm going it at the first question, because we are running out of time. guest: it's difficult to predict the consequences of collapse. in the previous incident, 25 thousand cubans got on boats and

came to the united states in a very chaotic fashion. there were prisoners released i came to the united states, and i think they had to be sent back at some point. cuba, whichtate in is kept -- which has kept pretty tight control over a lot of things for a long time. and if that state is no longer capable of those controls, you get a chaotic situation. drug czars, people trafficking, all sorts of things. and it's only 90 miles from the united dates. -- thoseur interests who say missiles in cuba are one thing and democracy is another -- i think there is concrete interest in ensuring peaceful transition in cuba. and i don't think we are in the

business of insuring a dictatorship. i think we should be in the business of trying to help the business -- help the cubans finance phase, and that makes phase will be more democratic than the current one. host: we are talking to daniel ofwer, who is a professor international studies at johns hopkins university. , "the dangersce of a cuban collapse." he says it's not on the verge. is there a timeline? what are you watching for? how longm watching for the castro brothers survive. i'm certainly watching for how long those venezuelan subsidies continue. i'm looking at the global economic condition -- situation and whether that holds up. but this is like a mudslide -- where was it, southwest? you don't know it's going to happen until it happens.

you have to prepare for it, otherwise suffer the consequences of the situation. i think american policy has been unfortunately directed towards making cuba collapse, rather than the peaceful transition that is in our interest. able tow were you travel to cuba, and the cuban government no -- did the cuban government no you were coming to write a story? guest: i travel to cuba on a license that is available to all americans who say they are going to do research. i came back and told the immigration official who questioned me that i had gone to study peaceful democratic transition in cuba. he was a cuban-american and smiled and said, that is great. it is not hard to go to cuba. you no longer have to write to the treasury in advance. you essentially like -- write your own license there. .here are some requirements

i was required to publish after going to cuba. i have done that, both on my own blog and politico. it seems to me we need a lot more people going to cuba. and when i got back, it seems u.s.ne of many former foreign service officers who are looking for opportunities to travel to cuba, and when quite frequently now. host: why is that? great --think it is a a subject of great fascination for those of us who do international affairs. this lengthy blockade, the attempt to isolate a communist country beyond the point that communism makes much difference to us. i think it is a fascinating study in how to handle things in foreign policy. i don't think we have done particularly well with cuba. host: why the fascination for such a small country? well, it's close by.

but last week, i was in iraqi kurdistan. that is a small country, to, smaller than cuba. it is a small region within a iraq.- within a it is fascinating to watch people build a new society at of horrible conflicts and difficulties, economic problems. the hills of kurdistan were stripped of all of their forest in order to heat homes during the repression by saddam hussein. for those of us who do international affairs, cuba is really, really interesting. the process soge that it produces a half decent result without gigantic cost to the united states is very important. host: on our line for democrats, fortune in bronx. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call. my comment is, i'm a little concerned that i'm hearing about intervention in cuba. anyone that knows the history of -- united dates relationship the united states's relationship with cuba and that part of the world has always talked about the need for u.s. intervention. if you go back as far as the bay , there, and even earlier is always some excuse for u.s. military intervention in cuba. i'm wondering whether that is really necessary, given that we are just exiting too long wars long wars overseas. my question is, in recent history, there is a lot of talk relating cuba to history and cultural exchange, and also in efforts,environmental particularly wildlife preservation. i want to ask the professor if

during his visit or over the course of his studies, has he found that to be increasing recently? is that still going on? is there some effort relating to cuba in that manner or respect? tot: with respect intervention, and particularly military intervention, let me be clear. i'm not talking about that at all. i'm talking about how we shape our policy towards cuba, which means how we shape our policies licenses to travel there, economic exchange with cuba, trade and investment. i am not talking in any sense about military intervention. i think it is totally irrelevant. far as environmental things are concerned, i had only the opportunity while i was in cuba to visit one nature preserve. terrasas, if las

our number correctly. it is a very interesting natural preserve that has been reformist -- has been reformist it by the cubans. it's very beautiful. but frankly, it's a showcase for the foreigners. there's a small community that lives there. the housing is clearly very good. they clearly have made this into something they can show off. i did travel a little bit in the countryside as well. judgeind of hard to environmental issues driving past. i would say that they have quite a few problems in urban planning . i would guess that they have quite a few problems also with lucian -- with pollution. these old american cars look so

picturesque in the photographs, but are also pretty smelly. they were not equipped with advanced environmental controls. i think, on the environmental side, there's probably a lot that needs to be done in cuba. i'm fairly sure the sugar industry as environmental impacts. i don't know how those are handled. but it is exchanges on issues like that, that i think would improve the atmosphere between the u.s. and cuba. as much as we up can, rather than continue an embargo that simply has not done what it was supposed to do, which was to bring down the castro regime. host: here is a tweet from a viewer. when regime's fall,

everybody is ready to protect themselves. there may be some clandestine political party that i don't to takeut that is ready over or something like that, but i know nothing about that. what i've seen in many theations is that when structure falls apart, we all try to protect ourselves and our families. and the effort to protect ourselves and our families, in the absence of police on the cause enormous problems. it is a chaotic situation. today, i could walk, even in very poor neighborhoods in havana, i walked at night without any concern whatsoever. dictatorships are also -- often like that. i had the same experience in damascus before the revolution started. you could walk anyplace.

,hat kind of social control once it starts to collapse, can unleash forces that are very unpredictable. leave it there. if our viewers are interested in this piece, daniel serwer writes for the political. they give for your time. the house is about to come into session. think you for watching this morning.