. later, frank mora from florida international university will discuss the future of u.s.-cuba relations. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: "politico" reporting that a federal court will not allow obama to proceed with work permits. presents a candidate hillary clinton heads to new hampshire on monday to meet with local leaders at community college students. this after two days of the republican hopefuls at the new hampshire leadership summit.

all of this happens as we are about 560 days away from election day. with so much campaigning ahead we want to hear about from you, specificall about how you would change the presidential campaign process. maybe the link that the process, the money involved, or you may have other thoughts on the issue. here is how you make your thoughts known. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002, independents. if you want to make your thoughts on how you would change presidential campaigns on social media, we are at facebook.com/cspan. twitter, @cspanwj. you can send an e-mail too journal@c-span.org. if you have been watching our

network this weekend, you have heard from several republican hopefuls. you can see those speeches on c-span.org. a countdown clock shows the countdown to the presidential election. as you take a look at that there are several pieces from the past few days on presidential campaigning. from "wall street journal" aps called -- are endless presidential campaigns. he writes, why are presidential candidates only the? one clue is the presidential nominating process, the weakest part of our presidential system and the one part not envisioned by our founding fathers. the first to come it, george washington, would guide the republic for years to come.

what they did not foresee, he adds, americans would develop political parties, which they of board -- -- abhorred. they expected the president to be nominated. john adams and thomas jefferson and the close election of 1796 and 1800. for your participation in this air our first 45 minutes, presidential campaign process, and how you would change it. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . as you call, make sure you have not called in the last 30 days, go ahead with your question or comment, and make sure you turn down your television before you

go on air. we start with area from seattle, washington. how would you change the process? caller: i would tied the presidential election for eight years, and also all of these senators and house of representatives at the same time. we would have elections for everyone. this way, you could have the type of government that you want. also what i would do, you have two senators in texas who vote against certain things. what i would do, if you have senators to vote against something such as disaster relief. if you have democratic representatives in that state it would be left up to representatives. this is how you get the government you want, you wouldn't have to worry about gridlock.

in other words you against the government, the representation that you want. whether it is right-wing wing a, middle, you could vote for it. host: from arizona, democrat brian. you are next. go ahead. caller: please pronounce my name properly. genius robert. a two-part comment on presidential campaigns. we have to make this totally publicly funded -- you know, how they spend money through congress. publicly funded elections. the second part is we have to make compulsory voting. people become so disgusted and

intimidated by them try to hold their jobs over some cooperation -- corporation in a quest to run the world. we need to turn that around. they did the same thing in the great depression. that is my final comment. host: let's hear from thomas and the lucky, wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, how would you change the process? caller: i think they should have term limits. especially for congress and senate. host: start with term limits. how long would you keep the limits to? caller: two years only. host: when it comes to the presence of process, is there a specific way that you would change how presence are elected? -- presidents are elected? caller: i think the way they

vote now -- i think they should just have straight elections where -- yeah, i think they should just have a straight election. host: without electoral politics or the popular vote? what do you mean? caller: yes. popular vote. host: that is thomas from wisconsin. a couple of people waiting in -- weighing in on twitter. u.s. voters don't count anymore, u.s. presidents are chosen in corporate or groups. also, introduced financing transparency for change presidential campaigns of 2016 and beyond. we will go to tony from florida, republican line. good morning. caller: i just want to say get money out of p the public.

a corrupts congress. money needs to be out, 100%. host: how do you conduct campaigns without money. caller: in england and in many countries, they do that. we do not need money. a corrupts the system. money corrupts everybody. a corrupts congress, a corrupts people. we need to get money out. host: the caller was from florida. jeb bush looking at running for the office. he was part of the first of the nation leadership con ference. "washington post" writes about it saying, new hampshire could be a make or break state for jeb

bush. it usually embraces center-right candidates. walker cruz, and others complicate jeb bush is possibility of coming away from the primary. here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] jeb bush: i think one of the differences of presidency from other positions is that someone sitting behind the desk as to make decisions. it cannot be an empty slate. we elected a president who is a phenomenal speaker, but with two years as a u.s. senator with no our caucus met, and before that a state senator.

what did we get? the most liberall president in american history. host: we will hear from other candidates who appeared at that event. also, statements from hillary clinton and the head of the dnc during this 45 minutes. our question to you is how would you change the presidential process? you can add your thoughts to the conversation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. karen is next. go ahead. caller: i think we need to do something about the family dynasties. it is becoming obvious that we have two very greedy families that actually do and and intend to

pass the presidency between themselves. they have turned the presidency in two the equivalent of winning the powerball lottery. it is a way to get around the bribery laws. you have someone who is always running for president in the family, so they always get the sweetheart deals. it has become very obvious. you have a bunch of people who fund presidential elections, and expect to get paid back 100 times over. they will invest in these two families. maybe obama will add his family to it too, and we will have three families. it is a very unhealthy thing. host: aside from jeb bush or hillary clinton, who do you cast your eye upon? is there anyone interesting to you for presidential candidate? caller: i am open to hear from

anyone. i would especially like to hear from someone who opposes all of these wars that have cost us so much money and are so obviously big mistakes. nobody talks about all the mess they have made. host: what about your governor? what you think of him? chris christie. caller: i don't really have a take on him. he seems to come across as a character. host: that is carried from new jersey. let's hear next from andy in new york. good morning. caller: thank you. thank you for doing this topic. this is something i think about a lot. one of the biggest problems i see with our election system for voting for the president is you have various foreign people who keep up on the issues, and that you have people who are not very informed, and they bow on the president on superficial things like how handsome someone is.

they have no bearing on how well someone could do the job. you have talk over the years are getting rid of the electoral college system. actually, i think the electoral college system is very good, and i say to strengthen the electoral college system. one way you do that is how people vote directly for the electors. instead of seeing obama or mitt romney, you see the local people who are running to be a electors. you would have to adjust something so it is that a -- not a bunch of parties on the ballot. imagine pedro and i live in the same county, after work, we could go out and campaign for people to vote for pedro or andy. say pedro wants candidate a, and i want candidate b, we could

go talk about the candidates. then, people could go to a conference and decide what the final winner will be by a caucus or voting system. there are ways it could be determined. you could treat it like jury duty. if someone chooses to be an elector, there were cast a given time off to go to this conference for a week. it would be their only job. it wouldn't be a career say once you choose the president you are done. what this would do is it would eliminate the media control of who gets to be featured to the american public. if you google larry, he is someone who ran as a candidate, and the media essentially disappeared him. they try to do this for ron paul too. i don't think this is good. this would also give a voice to

candidates who you don't hear about and election process, libertarians, green party people. host: that was andy in new york. let's hear from hot, texas -- pat, texas. caller: i do agree that we have to get the money out of politics. i think that publicly financed campaigns is the way to go. the other thing, the airwaves belong to the people. i think during the campaign time, when people are running for office, the airwaves, the tv stations should give an amount of free time. there is no way -- like the first person that i listened to about this earlier -- there is no way that corruption -- i mean , it is terrible. the political system is so corrupted by money right now.

hillary said, i think, that she will spend two and a -- $2.5 billion. i also think, are we going to have another bush or another clinton? is there anybody else that we could elect? host: who would you like to see elected? caller: i can't see anyone. there is no and i see. maybe scott walker in wisconsin. i listen to him. even know i am a democrat, i thought that i like what he has to say. i definitely don't want a bush or clinton. i wish elizabeth warren would run. she is far to the left. i am looking for that person

that will lead us out of this mess. i also agree -- i am sick of war. we have had enough of it. host: that is pat in texas. that mentioning money. also twitter jody saying, take money out of the equation. the caller bringing up hillary clinton, hillary clinton brought up money at her talks and iowa. here is a small portion of what she had to say. [video clip] hillary clinton: we need to build the economy up tomorrow not yesterday. we need to strengthen families and communities, because that is where it starts. we need to get unaccountable money out of the government once and for all, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. host: how you would change presidential campaigns.

let's hear from curb eagle texas on our republican line. here is linda. go ahead. caller: i was calling to give my point of view of hillary clinton. she could be charged with a felony. i can't see why and how someone would let her continue, even though she has her $2 billion. it doesn't matter. she is a disgrace. some people say, let's elect a woman just because she is a woman. that is a disgrace. the democrats are doing very well. host: tamara is next. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have three suggestions. number one, i would end the white house dinner.

it is a form of cronyism and bribing the press. number two, we do not have a sophisticated political dialogue in this country because we only have two parties. number three, i would impose term limits on everybody who is elected in washington. the presidency has term limits we need term limits on the supreme court and the senate also. host: from twitter, james saying that the primary system should and. the rnc and dnc are private corporations. cindy say, no campaigning until january of the election year. phil is next from connecticut. caller: i think what we are looking at is a big allusion here. the i mean -- nothing is taken

into consideration about the biased news media, which basically has biased control to do what they want to do. there are numbers out here. 55 different media outlets owned by liberal billionaires, of which there are 165 of those who are supporters of the democratic party. i don't want to point figures at cnn, abc, or the other ones, but they have proven track records of biased news reporting for the last eight years. host: rick is from buckingham pennsylvania. republican line. caller: hi, how are you doing today? i think people think they will take money out of politics, i

think you will have any politicians left. the reason -- the point people want to make about term limits i would love term limits. if you were a talented doctor, and somebody came to you and said, you can only practice being a doctor for eight years and then you have to get out why would you get a? there is a factor that you have to consider when people are really good at what they do, maybe they should have a career there. people keep thinking about these dynasties, you would just have

to go back and look at the roosevelts, harrison's, maybe the items, there have always been dynasties in politics. that is why we have the electoral college. those are my opinions. hope they are well taken. host: democrats line. here's johnny from fayetteville north carolina. caller: first of all, that last caller, i really do not believe in the electoral system. i think it should be one man one vote. that's how we got bush. i think the supreme court has become so partisan in terms of making decisions. how did we come up with citizens united? if that is the case that corporations are people, when this country was almost brought down to its knees with banks,

nobody went to jail. it is corporations are people. that's all i got to say. i think at this point, the people's votes have been sold off by money. thanks again, pedro. host: from "new york times" a look at the long campaign season saying, running for president becomes a full-time job, sometimes requiring potential candidates to set aside whatever they were doing to pursue it. in 2005, the romney decided to not run for second term as governor of massachusetts, despite having had a successful first term. for candidates who already hold local office, campaigning in fundraising overlap significantly with the job the governing.

again, we are getting your thoughts this morning on how you would change presidential campaigns. if you want to make your thoughts on the phone known (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can post on our social media sites as well. scott, hello. caller: i think we should have all publicly financed elections and even amend the constitution to have a separation of church state, and private industry. i hear all the time businesses talking about hey, i do not want your government in my business. i don't want your business in my government either. it seems they have too much say and too much influence on what we do as the people. host: that is scott in

minnesota. democrats line with his thoughts on the presence of campaign and the process. if you had the ability to change it, how would you add to it? as far as the federal of appeals court, it signaled on friday that it will not allow the president to go forward with a new round of relief for immigrants. as far as the industry show will be able to move forward to break quasilegal status and work permits to illegal immigrants, make it likely that the white house will have to take its legal case to the supreme court. it appears likely that the appeals judges will roll to-one.

from montgomery, alabama, here is derek. go ahead. caller: i'm going for hillary clinton. a lot of people are saying that hillary clinton is another clinton, and will do that. she will do a good job. we need women. we need to raise this country. i believe she will do a very good job. host: vanessa, you're up next, republican line, new york. go ahead. caller: it is up to the people. basically, people need to open their eyes and see that obama has backed a lot of things that he has been saying from the beginning. people need to open their eyes and see what is important to

society. stay awake. host: as far as the presidential campaign, how would you change it? we are talking to folks about how they would change the process. caller: the timing. the time he basically is more important to have everything incorporating into what. just make it so that everyone understands. timing. stay awake. host: stacy at savannah georgia. democrats line. go ahead. caller: what i want to say is the upcoming election -- not just the upcoming, but all elections -- limit the funding. it's like the koch brothers and water are trying to buy the presidency. they have dubbed it huge about the money.

i don't think anyone can beat them. host: what would taking money out of the process do? caller: because. the more money you have, the more people listen to you. money is america. if you can be louder than the other guy, you win. also, the electoral issue. one vote, one person. host: back to money, do you think candidates should be publicly funded? caller: yes. it would be better if it was publicly funded because they would watch money, it would come out of their pocket. if you're privately funded, like warner the truck giant, and knox, they want a republican

president. they don't want hillary clinton to be president. host: jan at a her thoughts on twitter, get rid of super pac's people are free to spend their money any way they wish. doral says, most individuals who would make great executive for the oval office will run, the process is too much trouble it too much money. we are talking about how you would change campaigns and the campaigning system. (202) 748-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8002 independents. monday tuesday, hillary clinton will be in new hampshire to hold small events. over the week a, republican

hopefuls added their thoughts to what is going on as far as their perspective on the presidential campaign. one of the hopefuls, rand paul, talking not only about what he briefed to the table, but about hillary clinton as well. [video clip] rand paul: when i think of scandals, the one that bothers me the most is benghazi. [applause] the reason is this. we have a potential nominee on the other side who wants to be the commander-in-chief. there is a bar you must cross. will you defend the country? will you provide security when it is requested. for me, it has nothing to do with the talking points. that was spain disingenuous, politics as normal. that to me was not as important. even on the day of, i can accept that mistakes were made, but is

distance is too far away, that should be corrected. really what i fault hillary clinton most is that for nine months they pleaded date added andd day out for help. in february, you have a six man operations unit brought home. much later another six person operations unit brought home. you get to april, and they are saying -- this is ambassador stevens -- we want a dc3 to get around for emergency. you remember, later they were begging the libyans for a plane. they did not get a plane. you know what she approved three days later? and electrical charges for the chevy volt for the embassy and the end of -- in vienna.

we send it over there, then they realize that the plug didn't work, so we spent thousands of dollars on a charging station to prove how green we are, but yet, no money for a 50-year-old played for the -- plane for the ambassador. host: to see the full video, you can go to c-span.org, not only from rand paul, but other speeches as well. tony has up next in california. caller: good morning. there is a solution for the campaign finance e reform. this is what the gentleman on the gyro copter was trying to stress.

if you go to the website- -- wof-pce.com, you will be able to vote and help to get finance reform taken care of. it is good for the republicans independents, and the democrats. it will work and is in full force right now. that is what the gyro copter man was talking about. host: john from normal, illinois. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. my comment is that i ready to get rid of the office of the president. i don't think the presidency has any relevancy to the modern era.

you look back, every time it is the president that has messed things up in history. we had lincoln killed, these guys going to wars, leading us to wars. done with it. i think we should get rid of the presidency altogether. my cabinet officers take care of things. host: so there would be no one leader of the free world in your mind? caller: we don't need a leader of the free world. we need to do some things that make some sense. we need to put people in positions where they can take care of things. a big leader is old school, back to the monarchies. we don't need it anymore. host: that is john from illinois. a newspaper from oklahoma highlights on its front page the 20 year anniversary of the

oklahoma city bombing. say two people were carrying for their grandchildren, a former deliveryman was looking forward to his retirement to take his granddaughter shopping. that was the plan for the day go to social security administration, sign retirement paperwork, and take their grandchildren shopping. the appointment was just after 9:00 a.m. on april 19 1995, he was never late. that story goes on to talk about the commemorative services for the bombing. that story also features pictures. there are some pictures you can see courtesy of "tulsa

world." we continue with our topic president joe campaigns, how you would change them. a lot of people commenting this morning (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. indianapolis, david. caller: my comment is simple. i want more money in politics. i think it is good for citizens to have the freedom to give out any amount that you want to anybody, and just make sure it is noted online or whatever. i think our system is messy, it is made to be dysfunctional. we don't need a lot of laws. we need the freedom of people. no campaign limitss gave us washington, lee k, roosevelt. host: how would more money

improve the process? caller: and doesn't penalize people for having more money and spending at how they want to. tom delay was penalized for the way he spent money. so they don't credible as -- criminalize the political process with these limits, and this -- this money is good, this money is bad. it is all money. host: alice's next from indiana. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: i think we should get rid of the electoral system. i think that every single vote should count. what time limits on congress and senate. i think they are being bought.

get money out of politics totally. no more wars. get a hold of all the hidden money that is offshore that has been hidden by all of these rich people. everybody should pay their fair taxes. host: the front page of "washington post" takes a look at the crime lab of the fbi about some of the concerns saying, the justice department and fbi have acknowledged that almost every examiner have given failed evidence. of 28 examiner's, 26 overstated for think -- for ensoc matches in a way that favored prosecutors in more than 95% of the 268 trials.

this is according to the national association of criminal defense lawyers and the innocence project. you can find that story online. charles is up next from college station, texas. hello. charles from college season texas -- college station, texas. one more time. let's hear from earl in atlanta, georgia. caller: i have moved a lot. i worked for a major family for the last 17 years. i've moved the belongings of a lot of dead middle class and lower middle class soldiers. what i am hoping is that minorities and others will stay away and let the white people, the conservatives, the straight white males, mostly southern do

the fighting. let them fight in the middle east in the next war they are trying to start. host: from "new york times" this morning, police unions weighing in on recent shootings. saying, the instinct of many is to focus on rare failings of all officers. others are considering whether a new more inward approach is warranted. samuel walker, who testified in january on president obama's task force on 21st century policing saying, to get there officers within departments must step forward and take control of

the unions and point them in the right direction. police officers not only maintain respect of citizens they depend on goodwill over salary and benefits in which they have been far more successful than other public employees in recent years. andrew joins us from frankfort, illinois. republican line, talking about the presidential campaign process, what you would change about it. let's go on to stuart, virginia, independent line. how are you doing this morning. basically, we need to open up all three major political parties. we only have the democrats and republicans. as libertarians, i think we are left out a lot, beside c-span. we are left out of presidential debates.

everybody needs to see every debate so that there is better choice in the country. host: roxborough, north carolina, donald joins us. caller: good morning, pedro. listen if there were hate in the campaign, that would be a nice thing. if they would debate without calling each other names. republicans could win the election if they would stop talking evil. obama won the 2012 election by a big landslide of like people voting. they came of voted, not because they wanted to see him again but because of the way republicans disrespected him. they will do the same thing to hillary. they will come up and say, we're

tied of all this hate talking all the time. host: what is the difference between hate talking, as you say, and criticizing candidates? where do you draw the line? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: makes the voting day in november a universal holiday so that everybody can vote. stop all this motor suppression stuff. have a free and fair election. if you would stop abusing throwing raw meat, it would be a beautiful election. every year is like that. republicans will never win the presidency again and thank you doing that stuff. host: that is donnell in north carolina. one more call. this is linda, also in north carolina, independent line. caller: i would like to create a one-on-one televised debate

of present shall cap -- capresidential campaigns and from all political parties. host: how would that work? caller: you would be able to see all parties attitudes and solutions. host: instead of a republican debate, democrattic debate etc.. why do you think this is best? have you see the in other forms? where did you get the idea? caller: i saw in the past that libertarians -- lesser parties i guess you would call them, are not getting the opportunity on the television. they are simply not getting it. host: that was linda, the last call on our topic of how you

would change presidential campaigns. coming up, we will change our topic, looking at events in iraq and afghanistan, what the future holds for american policy and involvement. i guess, max boot, author of the book, "invisible armies." lori wallach of public citizens will join us later with her perspective. i want to give you look at "newsmakers," representative debbie wasserman schultz was there. one of the things that she talks about in this clip is whether you will see hillary clinton face off against democratic primary challenges. [video clip]

>> are you surprised to see them as rivals and how that may play out in your state and beyond? rep. wasserman schultz: i served in the legislators six of eight years when jeb bush was governor. i will tell you, there was not -- in my 22 years in office -- there was not a more inflexible, unreasonable governor that i have had the chance to work with. i'm not just talking about because i disagree with him on issues. i have disagreed with plenty of people, i have served plenty of years in the minority. even in the minority, i have found ways to be affected. jeb bush had absolutely no interest in working with anyone who did not share his opinion. that is not a good harboring of your ability to be president and work across the aisle. he really decimated our tax base

and focused on making sure that we could cut taxes, almost exclusively for the most wealthy floridians, and left us in a very difficult spot when the economy j dropped off, thanks to his brother's policies. marco rubio unfortunately, is trying to market himself as a new republican with new ideas. he has fully embraced all of the republican policies, trickle-down, increasing taxes for the middle class eliminating health care as we know it. to add insult to injury, he wrote an immigration plan, pushed it through the senate and as soon as the right wing extremists and his party opposed it, he ran away from it. the last time i checked, there is a little bit of pressure on the president of the united

states, and of marco rubio could not even hack the pressure of the party, how will t he handled the presidency? host: on art "newsmakers" program, representative debbie wasserman schultz. go to our website for more information on airings and content. joining us now from new york on iraq is max boot, the author of "invisible booth." i want to talk about your piece in "washington journal," where you talk about the president in a fundamental reshaping of foreign policy. can you talk about his foreign policy. guest: he himself was talking

about realigning us from being so involved in the middle east to give it to the pacific. i do not think the pacific pivot has come to fruition, but we have stepped back in the middle east, allowing chaos and tear filled the vacuum. i think his vision goes beyond pulling back, i think he wants to dramatically reorient foreign policy so the we are not enemies with iran, but de facto allies with iran. i think that agenda goes beyond current nuclear talks where president obama is making extraordinary concession after extraordinary concession to get the iranians to sign on the line. the on that, i see very little resistance by the united states on the iranian power grab in the middle east from the persian

gulf. in some ways, we are promoting a rainy power -- iranian power. they received an invaluable assist by the u.s. air force which de facto became at least temporarily, the iranian air force. i see this as being part of president obama's vision to reorient american foreign-policy. i do not think that vision will succeed because i do not think we can make nice with the people who chat on a daily basis, death to america. in fact, i think that vision has been and will continue to make the middle east more dangerous. i think that is the grand design that the president is pursuing in the waning couple of years of his presidency. host: i was going to ask, is that is the case, extend this a few years, what are the con consequences?

guest: i think we are already seeing the consequences. it is immeasurably strengthening jihadists in the region. you see countries such as syria, iraq, and yemen being divided between on the one hand shiite extremists and on the other hand sunni extremists. as forcefully, i see more of that polarization because the more that one side is strengthened, the more that the other side, the other extremists are strengthen as well. they both pose as protectors of their sectarian community. i see that trend accelerating, and possibly getting worse. imagine what happens if the deal with iran is concluded in june. at according to the leaks that

came off of the administration have reported yesterday president obama is prepared to release up to $50 billion -- billion with a b -- to iran as a reward for the signing a piece of paper, look at the way the iran is trying to dominate the entire middle east region. imagine how that power grab will be turbocharged if they all of a sudden have $50 billion in new money to spend on arrow bond maliilitias, it will at more money to facilitate the power grab. what you will see is the more the iranians are strengthen, the more the extremists on the other side are strengthened.

the saudis will react, and arb acting with the bombing in yemen, for example. the saudis have declared that if the iranians are allowed to have a nuclear program, the saudis want their own nuclear program. they can get went pretty fast from pakistan. the only thing that could make the current situation worse is a super empowered iran and a nucleus on race -- nuclear arms race. both are things you could see in the next two years if we continue on this trajectory. host: (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8002, independents.

the president spoke on iran, i want you to listen to what he had to say and make comments on it. [video clip] president obama: we expect iran to have an important relationship with iraq as a close neighbor. obviously, the fact that iraq is a shiite might majority country means it will have influence and have relations with iran . and i

hquiet expectation is that from that point on, any foreign assistance that is helping to defeat isil have to go through the iraqi government. that is how you respect iraqi power. host: mr. boot, what is the take away from the presence comments for you? guest: in the first place, he was seemingly welcoming iranian intervention. the only thing he didn't really say anything about is iran's late interference in politics, the fact that they are sponsoring militias that prey on the people i've of iraq, he did

not come in that. he said he hopes for powers will channel their assistance to iraq and the government of iraq, which to some extent iran is doing, but that is not a good thing. iran is dominating the government of iraq, using its proxies to pursue its own agenda in iraq, parsley for the government of iraq, and partially on its own. the most powerful man in iraq right now is a general, ahead of the iranian forces. i don't know why president obama does not show more anger as to what the iranians are doing. they are responsible for bombs that they are dropping on syrian neighborhoods, and chlorine gas ring jobs on syrian neighborhoods, killing children. they are responsible for atrocities carried out by shiite militias, carrying out ethnic

cleansing of sunnis. there is no anger coming from the white house. it is stupefied to me that the president does not speak out more forthrightly why iran, which has been an enemy of america since 1979, and has been responsible for attack after attack on our allies, and is threatening to subvert the entire region and take over the entire region, president obama is not begin out more clearly against iranian power. i think it is a deeply immoral and misguided policy that will backfire. host: the first call for you is brian from illinois on the end that line. you are on with max boot, go ahead. caller: it is a pleasure to speak with you. i agree to some extent about

what you're talking about. what concerns me is most of the people on c-span, all the talking head people in washington, and the thing takers -- think tankers never talk about saudi arabia. that drives me crazy. they have been funding fundamentalists across the world. saudi arabia had more to do with 9/11 then iran did. as far as iran yes, they are meddling in iraq that is their neighbor. iran is a huge country in that region. it's like, we meddle in mexico and south america and governments all the time. wouldn't we be angry if the chinese had troops in mexico and were spending hundreds of billions of dollars in mexico meddling in their politics, like we meddle in middle east politics? it is all about the oil.

there is no two ways about it. let's be honest. talk about saudi arabia. they have played a they can -- the fundamental sunnis have played a big hand. the population has grown what -- fivefold since the 1960's, it and that made people living in the desert. adjust overpopulation and the saudis. guest: first of all, there is no overpopulation in the middle east. anyone who has driven around the region has seen that there is plenty of open space. the caller brings up saudi arabia. we ought to be concerned about the fundamentalist ideology that the saudis have spread over decades. we have rightly pressed on saudi arabia to crack down on terrorism financing.

they have actually, i think, made some progress in the years since 9/11 on cracking down on terrorist financing. they see groups like al qaeda being an existential threat. there are probably individual saudis, like there are but i think we need to make clear right now that while saudi arabia, we need to work on them as well, the most pressing threat we face is iran, a country with expansion right now than saudi arabia ever has been. iran is the country pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a deadly danger to countries like israel, saudi arabia, and other allies around the region. the country's funding and supporting proxy militias in

places like iraq, syria, and yemen. a power grab across the region. they are largely in a reactive mode. it is fundamentally a status quo power in the middle east, whereas iran has been a destabilizing, revolutionizing power p or sees itself as the enemy of power. they sponsor acts of terror. therein government sponsors acts of terror, whereas saudi arabia sees itself as being in the same camp as the united states. while we need to be concerned about what some of our allies are up to, we need to worry about the fundamental nature of its ideology, but we need to make clear the primary, number one threat we face right now is iran. that is something i do not think the white house quite gets. caller: i have got to say a

couple of things. the gentleman, back to school again and reoriented, the country was founded on all peaceful things and everything. i do not think he likes america just like obama. he ought to leave the country. one thing i will say is that congress and the senate should have a backbone and stand up and say, impeach this man now immediately, because he is going to start the third war. it amazing be before he gets out of office. he will start the third war and iran is going to be the one to do it. he is going to be responsible for. i cannot see what his legacy is going to be. he has not done anything good for this country. he goes around and apologizes all over the world, blames america for everything and i cannot see how the people voted this man in two times. i'm a conservative democratic

state of west virginia, and we cannot believe how this man got in office. he should be impeached immediately p are we call our senators and congressmen up and everything and told them to impeach this man and the country should do the same thing, call the senators and congressmen up and peace them immediately. host: we will let our guest respond. can you at your thoughts on the congressional role they want to take in evaluating a nuclear deal in iran and the topic as well? guest: i have been critical of president obama as well that it is lunacy to suggest he ought to be impeached. he has not done anything that remotely warrants impeachment. i think he is pursuing a harmful policy, but i think he is well-intentioned and fully within his power spirit he has not abused his authority.

the caller is just out there in crazy land. in terms of your question of congressional action on the iran deal just a few days ago there was a breakthrough in the senate foreign relations committee where the chairman succeeded in convention -- convincing all of the members to pass a bill that would set up a time of congressional review fared any deal that lift sanctions on iran, something president obama said he would veto and now he has no choice but to go along with it because there are vetoproof majorities in both houses, i think that is a good start in asserting congress passes ability to review a fundamental nuclear deal with iran. i think there needs to be a lot more public debate and more discussion on capitol hill. if the contours of the deal are as they appear to be at the moment, and we do not know for sure, but it's the deal is

concluded, i think the deal needs to be killed because it is a bad deal that will undermine the region and regional security in general and would empower iran and lead to greater instability, greater chaos and greater terrorism than we are already seeing in the middle east. host: charles, colorado independent line. good morning. caller: i would have to agree with the gentleman mentioned about saudi arabia. one thing we should keep in mind is over 70% of the people who live in iran right now are under 30 years old. they do not like these. he is their moderate. he is a guy we should be pushing to get in there to make fundamental changes over the supreme council and republican guard. if we go again that -- against this, it will discredit him and

this will be washed out. us is a first good step. they are persians, they like america. i partied with these guys. we celebrate valentine's day, they want freedom and democracy. if we do not go through with this what will happen is the moderates are gone in these revolutions will not have anymore. the supreme council is dangerous. we do not do this deal, and we have been saying they will get a nuclear bomb since 1992? if we do this deal, we will be able to get in there, plus more monitoring them. it will be a better position all around. if we do not do the deal, where do we go from there? host: thanks.

guest: i agree with the caller passes point that most iranians do not like their theocracy, but i think they are being naive about saying we could empower him at the expense of the supreme leader. it is a little bit like saying, i do not like president obama so i want to a power president biden. vice president is powerless. it is the president who has all the power. in the iranian system, likewise, is the supreme leader, the senior cleric, who has all the power. the notion that we could do this deal and empower rouhani without empowering -- that, to me, is a grand illusion. i know there are people including a lot in the white house, including president obama, who probably we do this deal and iran will open up and

what -- it will become more from the united states and the system will evolve that it will not become a problem, that is nice a nice and beautiful hope. but hope is not a policy. there is just as much reason to fear the consequences of such a deal, which would be too poor $15 billion into the iranian regime. a lot of the money will wind up going to their revolutionary guard corps, responsible for the nuclear program, ballistic missile program, and for exporting abroad, for sponsoring terrorism abroad. some of the money will go to the iranian people, no doubt, and may very well increase the popularity of president rouhani but based on the track record iran, over the last several years doing these negative -- nuclear negotiations, its support for terrorism and crimes against humanity all across the

middle east, none of it has declined. no reason to expect that once the deal has signed its support for all the heinous aspects of the iranian clerical regime will decline. let's hope iran will change the nature of its regime in the years ahead. i hope we do everything we can to help the people of iran peaceably overthrow their unelected dictators. but we should not suspect that somehow by signing the deal, we will magically empower iranian moderates against the hard riders. it is the hard-liners in charge of the iranian regime and they will leave the lion's share of benefits in any nuclear deal in the short run. host: our guest, the author of the book "invisible armies." nick, texas, you are up next with our guest. go ahead. caller: mr. boot.

i supported the president. then president obama joined an event where all former president came up to george h.w. bush and said to him that he has the same foreign policy, but i do not see it. this is not george h.w. bush's foreign policy. how could you say he has the same foreign policy is george h.w. bush? can you explain that? guest: caller's right to be skeptical. president obama came into office suggesting he would take a hardheaded approach to foreign policy reminiscent of that of george h.w. bush. we have said before he admires. to some extent come he carry that out in his first term

carried out by relatively moderate voices such as secretary of defense bob gates and hillary clinton and david petraeus, chairman of the joint chiefs mike mullen. a pretty moderate, centrist team in his first term. in his second term, he is pursuing a different kind of foreign policy which i view as ideology above all. that ideology is basically the notion that america should pull out of the middle east, should not take the kind of leading role it has played for decades in the past. it should be more pacifist approach to foreign policy. in response to that approach, we have pulled our troops out of iraq, which has been a disaster for the region. we have been refusing to do anything in the syrian civil war which has destabilized the

region, and ongoing disaster which paved the way for the emergence of this terrorist islamic state. as a result of the ideology, president obama said he would pull all u.s. troops out of afghanistan before he leaves office in 2017. that will again be a massive disaster for afghanistan and the region that would allow tell them to come back into power. i think the foreign policy president obama is pursuing right now is not at all this kind of hardheaded foreign policy that he pledged to carry out upon entering office here and i wish you would go back to the first term foreign policy. i think we need a reassertion of american power and hardheaded calculation. but i see scant chance of that happening while president obama is in office. it will be a task for whoever is the next president, whether hillary clinton or another republican.

host: there was a bombing in afghanistan. their president blames isis for the bombing. if the islamic -- it will be the first time they have struck so far from the middle east home ground. you think the islamic state might be responsible for the attack and would you agree with the assessment, or what does it mean for the involvement? guest: i am doubtful there was central direction from the islamic state leadership in syria and iraq. more likely, what you are seeing from libya to afghanistan, which is the islamic state unfortunately, with all its atrocities and success in carving out this fundamental caliphate in syria, the islamic state has become a cool banner for extreme jihadists to

perpetrate horrible acts of violence. what you're seeing in afghanistan and even pakistan is that there are some groups of foreign taliban fighters disenchanted with the mainstream taliban leadership and is the affiliation with the islamic state. i suspect that may be what is responsible for the horrible suicide bombing. i think you will probably see more of that, not just in afghanistan, but countries far afield as libya and throughout the greater middle east. that is a very worrisome trend because it suggests eight -- and even further wrath is asian because the taliban are bad enough, but the is juan mcstay, even more gruesome with the televised beheadings and burnings alive and so forth and so on. all the more reason why president obama should greece --

rethink its ill considered plan to put all the troops out of afghanistan by 2017. if we do that, we are paving the way for troops like the taliban and now the islamic state to kill and burn their way back into power. it is not what we want to see happen after a decade plus of american commitment. host: our independent line, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm calling in reference to the middle east policy with israel. i do not think we should start a war on behalf of what then yahoo! wants us to do. i think we need to stop and take a break and breathe about this. because those people are not starting a war with us.

israel is always fighting in the palestinian people. we do not athletically care what happened to the palestinian people. those people live like they are in apartheid state. they do not have food here and everything that goes in and out of israel, in and out of palestinians, has to be controlled by israel. why do we allow israel to dictate the politics that go on in america? i do not understand it. this is crazy to me that we would let another country tell us who defied and how to treat other people. we should actually be telling israel how wrong they are for treating palestinians so horribly. guest: i'm sorry to hear the caller has been brainwashed by anti-israeli propaganda.

the plight of the palestinians is in fact a serious issue. the caller is far off base to blame israel for the plight of allison's third israel has consistently attempted to make peace with the palestinian leadership. offered to give up more than 95% of the west bank and gaza strip to palestinian sovereignty subsequently raised and all of that the palestinians had to do was to recognize the right as israel to exist as a jurist state and make peace. something he and his successors failed to do. we have a situation where the gaza strip is under the control of hamas, a radical, extremist jihadist organization, every bit as bad as the islamic state, does it -- dedicated to the

destruction of the state of israel. it is impossible for the state of israel to make a deal with hamas am a and in the palestinian areas in the west bank, you have housing authority under an unelected leader afraid to face his own voters and who presides over a corrupt and effectual bureaucracy, unable to keep the peace without israeli help. i think israel has consistently shown that it is willing to do deals with egypt, giving up the sinai in the 1970's. it give up the control of the entire gaza strip unilaterally. israel has not gotten peace. it has gone more terrorist attacks and rocket attacks on its soil, which is why it is uneven -- unable to do a deal with the palestinians. let me clear up the point that the caller also made, a ludicrous notion that somehow

the state of israel is asking the united states to fight a war on its behalf. nothing could be further from the truth. throughout the whole existence of the state of israel, the united states has not sacrificed a single soldier in the defense of the state of israel. we have sex with many soldiers in defense of south korea, vietnam, kuwait, and other states. israel is currently came full of doing its own fights for. capable of doing its own fighting to defend itself and in many ways, to defend american interest in the region as well. the only thing prime minister netanyahu has been saying is not that the united states should fight a war on behalf of israel, but that the united states should not undertake a very bad deal with iran that would empower iran throughout the region and would allow iran to -- keep a nuclear program or not calling the nicest make a war on iran. he is calling to make it better deal on iran. that would be possible, but

unfortunately, it is not going to happen under the current administration. host: there is a story in the new york times this mind talking about the u.s. sale of arms to arab nations. part of them read united states lost restrictions on the type of weapons american defense firms -- meant to confirm his rookie a military advantage, because israel and american states are in a de facto alliance and the obama administration has been far more willing -- with few public objections of israel. as a statement from anthony at the center of strategic and international studies, when you look at it, the strategic calculation -- host: how would you respond to that? guest: i think that is right and one of the ironic and unintended consequences of president

obama's misbegotten policy of a middle east is that he is to factor driving israel and saudi arabia and egypt all the arab states, along with israel, closer to one another than they are in washington. all of those states, traditional american allies, saudi arabia, and others, they are all disenchanted with policy in washington. they think and rightly so that the obama administration is too soft on iran. as a result, israel and the arab states have been growing much closer to one another because they see the number one threat in the region is emanating from iran. they are tacitly cooperating to block the iranian threat to her is going on in the region today. host: ray from arizona, democrats line. you're next. caller: good morning. i like hearing this guy, max boot, talk.

it is nice hearing from military-industrial complex this morning. [laughter] anyway the president has got this handled. you know, he has got a good brain, and he has a plan. you do not know what it is. and that really bugs you. but i guarantee you it does not include losing billions of dollars worth of equipment to a bunch of people who want to fight with each other. maybe he's going to let him fight with each other and kill each other off. then when that is over with if they do not want to make peace then we could blow them up. you got that? guest: maybe the president does

have a secret plan for the middle east. i think it is so secret that nobody's actually aware of it except possibly this caller out there. what i see actually happening with the way the president's actual policies are, not some secret plan this caller -- that exists only in the mind of the caller, what i see his actual policies president obama's actually incrementing in the middle east, and it has led to utter chaos and empowered america's's enemies. what you see is the rise of the islamic state, and extreme a fundamentalist, extremely dangerous nicest state which has been created strong across the borders of syria and iraq. what you see is the civil war in syria continues with more than 225,000 deaths. what you see is in iraq, isis is on the verge of taking the capital of the province, while on the other hand, iranian backed militias are gaining

power at the expense of legitimate government in iraq. what you see in yemen is a civil war going on with the country being split between the iranian backed militias and on the other side, one of the most dangerous al qaeda affiliate in the entire world. you see similar chaos appearing in countries as far afield as nigeria and kenya and somalia where islamists fundamentalist terrorist groups are also on the rampage. this is the result of the current foreign-policy of the united states. i am sorry, but i do not believe there is any secret foreign policy. this is the actual foreign policy and it is an actual disaster. host: springfield massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am not sure if mr. boot is just selling his book, promoting

a political philosophy. i am sure he cannot justify the foreign policy of the previous administration that led to isis, that led to the destabilization that he has been discussing this morning. the gentleman who call before i did talk to -- talked about this is the military-industrial complex, i have to agree with that. maybe mr. boot does not know that. he is expounding that ideology. what he is using to now other people who calling who disagree with him, to the wall, if he is interested in an actual foreign policy, he must know each nation

has an interest in its sphere of influence, and that includes iran. i am 81 years old. i can understand what happened in the 50's with our nation's's involvement in iran. to put off a democratically elected prime minister of iran. i could not disagree with what he said anymore. i am still not sure whether his interest is in selling the industrial complex policy that led to our invasion of iraq that led to the situation that exists now in libya and syria that has been in the making for many years, selling his books. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: let me congratulate the

call on his longevity. but let me take some issue with conspiracy mongering that he and other colors indulgent about some mythical military industrial complex for whom i am supposedly a spokesman to time a spokesman for no one other than myself. i'm certainly not getting my marching orders from the military-industrial complex or from anyone else. to the substantive points the caller makes, i was critical of a lot of mistakes of the george w. bush and ministration. i was someone as early as 2004 call for donald rumsfeld to be relieved as secretary of defense because our concerned about the failures of american policy in iraq. i also want to be fair here and after the disasters of the iraq policy, i want to commend president george w. bush for the

extremely gutsy stand he took in ordering the surge, which decimated al qaeda and iran, the predecessor vices, and made it possible for iraq to develop relatively peaceably between 2007 in 2011. i know that is the case because as recently as 2010, vice president joe biden himself said iraq was going to be one of the shining success stories of the obama administration. it has not quite worked out that way because in fact, the u.s. withdrew all of our troops from iraq at the end of 2011 in disaster followed quickly thereafter. that is the situation we face right now. we need to face the fact of the middle east, to face the fact on the ground and the realities confronting american policy in the region, without getting lost in pointless conspiracy mongering about the military-industrial complex or anything else that gets in the way of the critical observation

in thinking we need to confront issues and figure out a way forward. host: this is ted, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to tell you how many wars america has been involved in since 1900. haiti, dominican republic and serbia, collate, sudan yemen world war i, world war ii, vietnam, iraq one, iraq two, afghanistan. can you tell me how over one million people have been killed in these wars, can you tell me how many iran has started? i would like to make a comment, if i could. host: go ahead and we will let our caller respond to both. caller: the perfect reason is

the crew of the uss liberty. they will not allow the men of the uss liberty to testify. there is no testimony of any man in the investigation, they say they have made many. senators, and congressmen, democrat or republican, they will not do anything about it. host: that is ted in florida. we let our guest respond. guest: the great thing about c-span as you allow all collars to have their voice to it we get to hear voices not normally part of the mainstream discourse in american politics, such as the caller, who is obviously pro-iranian and anti-israeli and and anti-semitic. disease do not want deeper bottle. let me comment very briefly on his skin, when you hear from some iranian apologists who take a line about how the united states has been involved in all these wars.

how many wars has iran didn't involved in? it is true the day states has been involved a number of wars. but we started very few wars because most of the ones we were involved in have been in response to the aggression and tax of others, whether the attacks of pearl harbor in 1941 the attack of the world trade center and pentagon -- various acts of aggression. it is fair to say american military intervention has been the greatest force for good in the world in the last century the as it has been responsible for spreading peace, freedom, and democracy from europe and east asia and keeping the peace p or u.s. intervention has been a tremendous force for liberty whereas iranian intervention has nothing but death, destruction

terrorism, and extremism in its wake. there is no comparison between the democratically elected government of the united states, which promotes freedom, and the government of iraq, which is unelected, unpopular theocratic , extremist, and promotes terrorism and has been responsible for countless acts of aggression including the nice states, acts such as the bombing of the barracks and the u.s. embassy in a -- in beirut, the taking of numerous american hostages, and most recently, over the last decade, attacks which have killed hundreds of american troops in iraq in american direction. iran is an extremist theocratic country that stone gaze, oppressive freedom of speech in its own country and lots of anybody in iran who dares to criticize the extremist regime.

they are now responsible for terrible acts and terrible atrocities being laid out in syria with the bashir assad regime is using iranian ambitions directed by iran to drop barrel bonds on civilians to drop chlorine gas on civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of people. these acts are completely beyond the pale of the civilized world. it is something iran is carrying out on a daily basis. i am sorry the caller is trying to imply some kind of moral equivalence between united states and iran, which exists only in his own lurid imagination. host: talking about iran, iraq, and other foreign affairs matters. thank you. we turn our attention to trade policy in the united states. the public citizen will be up to

talk about any trade deals in congress giving power to event them. later in the program, in an attempt to improve relations to cuba, we will hear the perspective of frank, of the florida international it inversely later in the program on the topic. all that as washington journal continues after this. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> organizations have filed lawsuits against the fcc. monday night on the communicators, we'll speak with the president and ceo of one of those organizations walter mccormick, and supporter of the rules christopher lewis, vice president for government affairs. >> what we are challenging as the reclassification of internet access from being an intermittent -- information service to a telecommunications service regulated as a common carrier pursuant to 19th-century railroad regulation. a vestige of english common law originally applied to railroads and trucking companies and then to airlines, what it has been repealed for all of those industries going on over 30 years ago because it proves to impose new costs on consumers, delayed employment, and really killed investment.

>> we agreement neutrality investments are important and that is important to start with. but we do disagree with the lawsuit, we have been supportive of the rules the fcc enacted and it has now become force of law. we think after a decade of working toward a way to have no neutrality rules that hold up in court, that this is the strongest set of protections we have seen in the three different attempts at the agency to ensure the internet remains open. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is lori wallach, of public citizens

global trade watch. what is your thinking on this approach? guest: it gives the president a lot of exclusive authority. fast track was first established in 1974, created by richard nixon and enacted when he was gone. basically trust out 200 years of congress and the executive branch may trade agreements. one of the strongest checks and balances over trade as the founders came out of the boston tea party. it was a trade war. the founders said we will never again have someone like king george unilaterally, a president making our trade policy, taking exclusive authority to trade to congress. that the executive branch alone could negotiate sovereign. for 200 years of the country, congress told negotiators what to do.

nixon decided he would grab a little bit of authority away from himself and for the first time ever does the following are fast track gets enacted for 3 5, eight years. whoever is president has the authority to unilaterally pick the trade negotiating countries launch negotiations, and congress has no row -- no role, find and enter into them all before congress gets any vote on who the agreement is with p are than the executive branch can delegate authority, another delegation implementing legislation to make any change to u.s. law required to implement the agreement. the bill gets a yes or no vote for 90 days guaranteed, limited debate. they pick -- take the country and at the back end, they get a legislated run of guarantee and

a vote with no amendment. it is a system that has been rarely used in the last 21 years, and congress is only allowed for five years of the last 21. it has cost millions of american jobs and rolled back some very important domestic laws. host: is this only specifically because the trade deal of present want to see what specific countries? guest: fast track is not really use for real trade agreements. on the floor of congress in 1998 when he tried it 171 democrats, 71 republicans said ickes night. congress approves this or goes into effect to delegate authority. the agreement has a lot of stuff on related to trade, like the transpacific partnership, only five of them have to do is

trade. a chapter that rewrites to mystic patents and copyright laws. it is a factor that road tendrils back banks and securities firms. however government spends tax dollars. all that stuff is the kind of stuff that get the fact -- the fast track. it does not matter if you are a democrat or a republican. the notion that somehow the negotiation between the president and the foreign government would reelect wide swaths of u.s. nontrade law makes members of congress trays -- crazy. it is for the transpacific partnership at the present wants this process. host: we'll talk about trade policy and her perspective on. for republicans --

-- the president talked about transpacific partnership on friday. he said about opposition to the deal, and talked that, we will listen to him and get your thoughts on what he has to say. president obama: the politics has always been tough particularly in the democratic party. people have memories of outsourcing and job loss. when i have made to my labor friends in my progressive friends is companies looking for low-cost labeler -- labour have already left. we are already at a disadvantage now. the agreement i'm proposing will strengthen our ability to force other markets open, and strengthen our position compared

to where we are right now appeared being opposed to the new trade agreement is essentially an erratic nation of the status quo come were a lot of folks are selling here but we are not selling their. japan is one of the negotiators in the deal. last time i checked, if you're around washington, there are all kinds of cap these cars. if you go to tokyo -- the current situation is not working for a spirit i do not know why it is. he the opposed to us opening of the japanese market more for u.s. auto policies. it does not make any sense. guest: it is opposition to this set of rules. sadly, what the president is saying, related to what is in

the agreement. the way is actually written would make it easier for multinational corporations to offshore our jobs to low-wage countries. and, putting u.s. workers in direct competition with workers in countries like vietnam, a partner, where workers make less than $.50 per hour. when the president talks about opening markets more than half of the countries in this deal. the issue is not terrorists. the issue is japan drops its currency, which makes it too expensive denominated in dollars to get sold their paired it is like subsidizing exports making it cheaper by dropping the value of currency area obviously bipartisan, 230 house members and writing the president in

2013, saying the tpp had to have supplants against our currency to actually make stuff there. people only selling the stuff here. the president refused. live fast track -- why fasttrack is in trouble is the most critical. it is not in the agreement. instead, they have the exact tax used for the korea free trade agreement. folks will remember in 2012, -- we heard the same argument. it has been three years since it was enacted. the trade deficit has increased 84%. if you claim it would create 70,000 jobs, you plug in the real numbers, the trade deficit increase 84,000 lost jobs.

the agreement was based on millions of jobs lost. we need trade agreements, we need to get in other markets but we cannot repeat the same model. it seems bigger trade deficits and lost jobs. host: talking about the elements of this deal, a lot of provisions there, making it a better agreement overall. guest: to have a detailed analysis, folks should go to ww w that trade watch -- www.tradewatch.org. a guided tour with a provision number and what it means.

the tpa fast tracked, it is largely negotiated. even if the fasttrack has the best negotiated perspective, the white house has said half the tracks are aware already. the sides the point with respect to what will be in the ttp. those who say whatever you do with fasttrack in general, it cannot apply with the agreement. on that front, whatever is said with what is in the fasttrack will not be affected in the agreement. but the dirty little secret is all the 40 pages of negotiating objectives are not negotiable. the reason is, whether or not the executive branch gets those

objectives in an agreement, all the special delegate authorities apply. the president has delegated the authority to sign the agreement they have the right to write the legislation that does not go to committee. boom, onto the floor. whether or not it is the objective, and 90 day guarantee vote, even in the senate. here is another secret, the fasttrack in 1988, it has labor provisions in it. a new idea, no. why? totally unenforceable objectives. if you do a side-by-side comparison come which folks can see if they go to the ways and

means committee, where forward, they are about 100 words different than the previous fast track. they do not make any objectives enforceable. host: we will start with michael in california, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. am i correct that the very secretive tpp is being offered by transnational companies and their lobbyists ndc that is a good or a bad in one country can soon another entry because of multinational operations? thank you. guest: two issues are very important. one provision in fast track sets up a session where there are private sector devices to the u.s. trade negotiators. there are about 550 private sectors who represent big

companies p are all across the spectrum, there is a committee for the drug companies, oil and gas companies, agribusiness. stir it into there are about 25 labor representatives, environmental's, one consumer group, and one former group. he or she who pays the piper calls the tune. those advisers get to have access to the tax, which you are right, the public and the press are not able to see. the advisers get to both say what they think, but they actually get to see the stuff the public is kept away from p are one thing the corporate advisers love that a lot of members of congress are nervous about and a lot of conservatives and liberal -- liberal groups are can -- concerned about, is the second amendment tribunals. the investor state dispute resolution system, what that is,

a very bad idea as well as having the idea of 600 corporate advisers being a bad idea, the what the investor state dispute resolution system is is a system we know is in ttp because it can go to wikileaks two weeks ago and see it. front page new york times today. the system would allow any company operating in the u.s. so foreign investors from the tpp country, would newly be empowered to drag the new test the u.s. government into an international tribunal that by three corporate trade attorneys around the courts and laws. in the tribunal, the corporation could -- demand compensation from taxpayers, treasury money for any law policy, government action or court ruling they violates the investor privileges the agreement would give them. and the tribunal could give

unlimited taxation and there is no outside appeal. we have had corporations pay $400 million after a tax on water use policies, zoning rules . the idea that tpp would expand that when numerous countries are pulling out of that system is crazy. one of the most recent cases is germany plus decision to roll back its nuclear power program after the fukushima disaster is now subject to a multibillion-dollar claim. host: los angeles california. republican line. here is reese. go ahead. guest: great. this is adrian eskimo. -- a dream eskimo. go fuck yourself -- host: moving on.

caller: i was born and raised in flint. about a year and a half ago, due to job loss in the community she is a nurse. and we talk frequently. and 80% unemployment rate. if you go down there, and this is where legislatures need to go, to go into the city and drive around to every corner if it does not bring you to your knees to see what unfair trade has done to a community so well go there. 80% is greater than the country of syria. that is how ugly it has gotten in this country. she is working so hard with people in the community who do not have jobs, to work in situations like this, people who have been so marginalized and

aligned, because of what dale did. and john did. and karl did. they sold out our communities and sold out our country. that is beyond wrong. it is just sick. i want to know white continues. and what are we going to do? host: we'll get a response. guest: the situation is truly gruesome. unfortunately, since our last 20 years of trade agreement, flint is not anomalous, not unusual in this country. we have seen 5 million manufacturing jobs. i was one out of every four manufacturing jobs existing in our country before 1993. we see the jobs destroyed. we have seen over 70,000

shuttered. we have seen u.s. median wages flat even though worker activity has almost doubled. increasing income inequality. the story is not inevitable. it is not that we did not have a choice. the current trade agreements, when i say fast tracking ttp would make it easier to offshore drives, i mean it practically. current trade agreements have all of them a chapter on investments that provide new safeguards that make it easier and cheaper for a company to offshore jobs. if a company -- they can do it they want but we sure as heck should not have trade agreements creating incentives to do it. even the libertarian cato institute makes the point. subsidized off shoring.

something we control p are the current agreements ban the use of by america, weapons and procurement. when procurement dollars go by cars that would have been made in michigan, we are not allowed to give preference to domestic -- in tdp that were job killing provisions. the job loss is not an act of java -- of god. there are a lot of people competing if listeners are thinking, i do not live in flint, the thing is, trade agreements do not affect the total number of jobs in the economy. they affect the quality of jobs and the economy. what sectors to create jobs.

if you're in an area that does not have manufacturing, it is still your issue. it is about wages. here is what happens. let's just say, trade agreements vietnam even cheaper than china, past trade agreements. department of labor shows two thirds of manufacturing workers who lose jobs to training and get reemployed, which is dropped 20%. it is not just their problem p are you have a whole other bit of workers who are competing for the non-offshore poll service sector jobs. they may be in computers. who knows what it is. but now there are more workers in those sectors bring down wages. in some of the fastest-growing sectors for employment, number of jobs, wages are flat even though demand for workers is up. it is a flood of people who have lost the higher wage, better jobs. this is your fight.

host: this is thomas from texas. caller: i want to discuss something no one has ever touched on. it is important. the fact is, like you said, on fast track, few republicans voted for it. mostly democrats did. the fact is, it came in the fast track. i lost $10,000 at my retirement and would have lost even more into the on december 31, 1999. i lost much more. a lot of people today do not know one-on-one across america a day on the top will lose a certain amount of money. this goes to the guaranty

corporation federal agency. that money is then transferred directly to the headquarters of the wto across the ocean. people just do not have any idea. if interest rates by the federal treasury rises by 10% if i percent or 9%, it is the exact amount that will be the exact amount. it is not tax deductible an fashionable way to your people as far back as 1994, december 8 when this came out, it started as a temporary enrollment of the united states wto, january 1 until the 31st of 1999. january 1 of 2000 was the first day of full-fledged membership between united states and wto. if you paid attention, that is when the stock market dropped. jobs rolled out the door to foreign countries in jos.

-- droves. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: there is a connection because one point that is really problematic with the fast track is once congress delegates to authority, a trade agreement implementing bill becomes one of the only things the president can write that does not go to committee to be amended. what happens is all kinds of miscellaneous stuff gets in there because no amendments are allow on the floor -- allowed on the floor either. a rewrite of the entire statute was jammed in the implementing bill of the wto, totally unrelated provision to try to grab more votes to pass the wto, which was in trouble. the wto was passed with more

republican votes than democrats but almost 50-50. that gets back to what kathy said. what do we do about this? the only upside the only upside, may be, to 20 years of all this job loss of unsafe under the trade agreement to having wages pushed down is you got a lot of angry and upset , and now informed, americans. only on the to do is get a view on fast track. if you like it, call your member of congress. if you don't, call -- really call your member of congress. it is very easy to do. you can call the capitol switchboard. you don't have to know exactly who your member is. you just need an address and they can connect you right away. first place to go is inside house of representatives. put that yellow number on your fridge, 202, 3 35, and real

democracy only works if people are being active. 202-225-3121. call and get someone at the switchboard and say where your house number -- house member is and so you want to be connect it. give them your address and you have the house number. ask for the chief of staff. if you get voicemail, leave a message tell your address, and tell them you'd like a letter asking about their position on fast track and give your view in the message. here is the thing -- the members kathy mentioned from michigan, mr. dingell, killy sander levin, they actually go against nafta and did the right thing. they tried to save your job. right now, interestingly, a nephew of mr. kilby and who is leading the fight against fast-track, debbie dingell congressman -- congress member dingell is one of the ones leading against fast-track and

senator levin's brother, the congressman, is leading the fight against fast-track. the democrats are united but if you are independent or republican, there is a block of no votes but there needs to be more work. of course, the president county on the democrats to try and switch them to yes votes is not helpful. it is super important, given all the corporate campaign money going into advertising and lobbyists trying to get fast-track and railroad these job agreements, if you care about this issue and we all should because of the fix everyone of us, call your member of congress. start with house of representatives. this is a vote that could happen within two weeks. host: independent line, rob is up next. caller: thank you. i think the lady a couple calls earlier had it right on the head. the most important question is why? why is this being shoved down our throats by leadership in both parties and the president?

it seems often in the middle the independent, you see the left that they only want this agreement to create more unemployed people and more social people. the rights love it because it puts in union people out of work and make an employee cheaper labor. i think the only solution is to start pushing for a valid third-party in this country. something that could take sides out of leadership and have a little bit more common sense in their approach to everything on the table. thank you. guest: right now in washington, we have an audit situation. the republican congressional leadership is in lockstep with president obama, the democrat they typically haydon, to pass fast-track. the senate democratic leadership is helping to lead the opposition. there is not a single house democrat willing to even sponsored the bill, so the bill went in without a democratic sponsor in house. the fast track bill.

you got this really weird seeing where you got the republican leadership, a bunch of corporate lobbyists, corporations that spent gazillions of dollars to make sure president obama would not be present or get reelected again with the president they love to hate on to pass fast track. the liberals, as you put it, the environmentalist, unions etc., all of those guys are against fast-track and it is the most united opposition i have seen. plus, a lot of small business groups are in now with the liberals and there are a bunch of pretty independent minded republicans either -- you either think fast-track is not constitutional and gives the president unconstitutional powers or more moderate republicans who are very well aware of what happened to workers and main street businesses. there is quite a crew against the ranking file of both parties and eight is an odd alignment.

basically you, the public, will make the difference because there is a lot of corporately pushing for fast-track. the why is sadly not a great mystery. there is a lot of corporate money infesting our political system. 600 the lobbyist with corporations that would make bigger profits by capturing our jobs are calling the tune and setting of these trade agreements. those of the guys who want fast track. these tpp is a little bit like dracula. it is not fare well in the sunshine. if you don't get fast-track to [whistling noise] to congress you will have a hard time imposing that view on our futures. you got a lot of guys with advisers in power and a lobbyist who have given lots of money to congress. that is where you and i make a difference. in the end, it is voters when push comes to shove that beat the corporate dollars. it is going to take a lot of people contacting the members of congress and being clear with them.

this is no joke. this is one of those issues where whatever your view is take your position and make sure your member. host: another why? twitter. from american hero -- the real question is why should our government block and not allowing american to buy things from other countries? guest: the question with this agreement is not about blocking things made in other countries. we have a lot of imports here. whenever you go to a store, if you look at where the made in you can see step from all over the world and also you can see that we take a lot of goods from other countries by merit of looking at our trade deficit. the trade deficit is the difference between how much stuff we export to other countries and how many goods we get and just this past year for 2014, the data if it. over $700 billion trade deficit. that is like .5 drag on -- the net trade balance is part of what is in the form of the growth of our country. the issue is not whether we will

trade but under what rules? for instance, if the tpp were just about ready -- cutting border tariffs and get a minute currency trading and trade was fair and putting basic standards under the trade so no slave labor, child labor, the u.s. worker would be able to compete. the problem is the other chapters of the so-called traded their rents, the off shoring chapter, the investment chapter that gives religious and benefits if you leave. the band -- if you are asking why the government should not be able to spend our tax dollars in foreign goods -- the public can decide. it is democracy. by now, we have a policy and we have had it since the 1930's that says that preference should be given when spending government tax dollars to buy goods or services. preference should be given to buy goods that are made domestically. there is a waiver if it is a lot more expensive, the preference is gotten away.

if we do not make enough of it, the preference -- the preference is waived. it is it -- is it better to invest tax dollars in our communities to create jobs here and create more taxes to make sure the government services we need can run? if you like that policy, we can get rid of it. it is the law of the land currently. it should not be a secret closed-door negotiations with the foreign government that they chalk that when congress and the public -- thomas and the public have not acted on it. host: democrat like, john, you are next. caller: i would like to know who benefits from these trade agreements? to me, it seems like this is going against what president obama's philosophy on america -- anyway, i would like to hear your answer. guest: thank you, john. you and i are of like minds on this. this agreements content -- and a lot of it is secretive -- but i

know so much about it is because the chapters have leaked. wikileaks has a whole festival of tpp chapters. if it is rainy where you are, go to wikileaks and peru some tpp chapters and then go to our website trade watch. are -- trade watch.org to translate the language into what it means to your lives. who benefits? we have seen from past trade agreements, the companies and big ones that are offshore and pay slave labor wages to make the same u.s. and brand-name goods and sell it here, their profits go up. you see that the investors in oil, gas mining have new rights to go to other countries and rip up there or is or make new lines. those guys benefit. there has been a horrific set up cases with guatemala, peru, el salvador of mining companies using those foreign tribunals to basically wiped out with the communities decide should be the use of their land, their water their resources.

to some degree, it is not left versus right but big versus small. you have to be a big company of taking advantage of going offshore which is what these agreements do. to your point, we could have trade agreements that benefit all of us. that is not these agreements. with fast track, the congress basically, willingly puts on handcuffs and agrees to get checked in the trunk with duct tape over their head. instead of having congress at the steering wheel and making sure we are in a new route with trade and new rules that work all of us, it is congress voluntarily saying, i will do nothing to save our jobs, make sure our food is safe, etc. the beneficiaries have been those handful of corporations that have been mainly to look -- to write the rules. we are in a position to change that. this is why this fast track vote is so important. host: our guest talking about trade issues, lori wallach. gary on independent line from

new york. caller: good morning. i hope the american public understands the extraordinary gift that you have. she stole my thunder and she is correct about you must make these on calls to your senators and to your congressmen and the american public, also, must understand that nafta was the beginning of this and this tpp is actually nafta on steroids. i just want to thank c-span for this test. she is telling the truth and the american public needs to get on board and call their congressmen and stop this. this is terrible for the american people. thank you and i will listen to her response. host: lori wallach, the viewer that adds trade deficits have been allowed forever. no politician has ever paid a political price for having one. guest: first law, gary, thank you. for folks who want to make show

that gary and i know what we are talking about go to the u.s. international trade commission's website. an internet -- the website called dataweb and we have a huge trade deficit with the free trade agreement partners. we went with nafta having small surplus with mexico to having a huge trade deficit over $150 billion in 2014. those trade deficits translate to job losses. that you can see for yourself or if you want to see a chart, go back to trade watch.org and it shows a graph for each agreement of what has happened or at trade watch.org, you can go to the trade data web and look at the summation of what has happened for jobs and wages in your state . or you can look up the trade adjustment assistance certified job loss. there are millions of jobs that the government actually gets special benefits to workers who

have been hurt by trade. you can go by your zip code, company, congressional district at our database. just if you don't believe what you are hearing, look at it for yourself. on the point with twitter about trade deficit -- actually, there are some members of congress who are no longer members of congress because of their votes on past trade agreements. that is the reason why we are poised as a country right now to stop fast track, stop the tpp and finally forced the trade turnaround on to a different policy academic she again is trade agreements that work for more americans. that is quite stopping fast track so we don't get more of nafta on steroids, is really important. that fast track basically puts the power to decide these policies back with us versus routing through another agreement. of the members who were unelected because of their trade votes, it is a little bit like jim hightower always says, if you got fox's in your henhouse

you do not have to kill all the foxes, just killed a fox and put it outside the henhouse and all the other fox's go [sniffing] that could be made. they are all a little worried about folks back home and what they will say. it is a job killer, so your calls really matter. host: youngstown, arizona democrat line. here is anna. caller: good morning. i have a comment and question. prior to 1978, i lived in anderson, indiana, for 25 years. there was a lot of small factories and there was also to plants. when i lived there, national tile had already closed. my in-laws had retired from nicholson file. that closed. there was a gas regulator and

that we had guide land which obviously made the lighting for the automobiles. and then we had dealt core. after moving from indiana in 1978 to arizona, i saw the article in a magazine that there was three elementary schools that had closed and i had a friend that work that dealt core and he had been laid off twice and fortunately he was in the navy and they moved to atlanta georgia, and he got a job at the airport working on their planes. now, my question is and comment the first time i heard about the global economy was when president clinton was in office. and when they signed the nafta agreement, i remember seeing president clinton president george h.w. bush, jimmy carter, and i am not sure if it was gerald ford, anyway, there were

four presidents that said this was a good thing. now, my question is, what caused all of this before nafta was enacted. and the summit people lost their jobs that they had to move out of this town that was once booming and if you were not going to be a doctor or lawyer, you work in those factories. can you answer my question of what caused this to happen? host: ok, thank you. guest: first come on your point about schools closing, etc. when good, well-paid jobs leave town and the factories themselves close and companies are not paying taxes you end up having the taxpayers shrink and public service workers from teachers, firefighters policeman losing their jobs. custom all the service sector workers like folks in

construction -- no one has money to have something done youtube there house or build a new house. folks that duke services that are not mandatory but that people buy as an enjoyment because they have the wages to do it -- all of those kind of jobs and up getting hit with a manufacturing job goes. the statistic the government has is there are typically six support-related sector jobs for each manufacturing job so when you are talking about the community-wide impact when you end up like that community, clobbered with manufacturing jobs going, what happened before nafta was the global economy minus these intensifying roles. you are spot on right. since the 1970's, we have seen jobs leaving the united states and manufacturing. in the old days, those with the jobs that were low skill and very intensive and hands-on labor. the difference under nafta and the agreements that came after most recently this korea

agreement but tpp would be nafta on steroids -- it is suddenly safe to move the height scale high wage jobs that have attached to them major investments. it is one thing if you take, for instance, the sewing job. a lot of great skills going into that work, but relatively speaking, the investment of putting in sewing machines electricity is less for the apparel sector than if you have a robotics automobile manufacturing plant was his a multi-hundreds of million dollars investment. with these new investor privileges, you have all the rights to not be regulated, get compensated through the tribunal that is not the domestic court. if anything happens that undermines your expectations as an investor want to have offshore and -- you have all these incentives. actually met up the scale from stuff that actually made sense in the market to the synonymy of off shoring that happened after nafta. and that is it -- and that is what is in the tpp and that gets

back to the caller who said isn't this what the opposite of what president obama says he is one? to some degree, if you love president obama, you've got to stop fast track to save the man and his own legacy from his trade policy. and i website, -- on our website there is a chart that goes to each chapter in the tpp and contrasted to what president obama even said in his last day of the union address. -- last state of the union address. they would give the pharmaceutical companies extra monopoly protections that are against his help care goals. it would allow them to challenge medicare and medicaid and try care and v.a. while -- health purchasing programs which is against his health care policies. there is a chapter that would allow rollbacks to the financial regulations and undoing the financial reform. says who question mark former congressman barney frank

ranking member congresswoman waters and senator warren. there is a chapter that would undermine and then the use of by america and undermined in this structure investment. worst of all, the investment rules that promote off showing an increase pressure -- downward pressure on wages. host: the global trade watch director. if you want to learn more about organization plus, the analysis they have done on these things we have been talking about. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: in our last segment, as the u.s. tinges our stance against cuba, we will talk with frank more of the florida international university. he joins us next as "washington journal" continues. ♪

>> tonight on "q&a," author jessica stern on the origin of isis and what we need to understand about them. >> i think there are two aspects of isis that are very, very important for the president to understand. one is their efforts and successes on social media. and the need for us to respond to that to counter the narrative that they are spreading so effectively and so far. the other is there apocalyptic narrative. of course it is impossible for me to know for sure whether they have -- whether they really believe that the end times are coming or whether they are capitalizing on widespread belief in muslim majority

countries that they will witness the end of time. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is "washington journal" for april the 19th. we have talked at various issues this morning. taking a look at not only politics with presidential campaigns, we have talked about iraq, trade, and also said to talk about cuba in just a few minutes. i want to let you know that when it comes to our first segment, perhaps you did not see those politicians who were a new hampshire over the weekend talk about various perspectives. jeb bush, marco rubio and others. if you want to find out more about what they had to say during the course of the conversation and maybe you missed the broadcast, go to our website i -- i website at www.c-span.org. go to the video library and type

in their names to see everything from the first of the nation event and also taking a look at that. that website is www.c-span.org. you can find out more if you go to that site. you talked about cuba over the last few days and you will remember that over the last couple of weeks, the united states changing policy is -- when it comes to aspects travel, state sponsorship of terrorist, a cause of reaction, especially amongst members in capitol hill. this was introduced by the miami -- by "the miami herald." they said the house bill introduced by of wednesday will improve cubans human right record to any removal of sanctions and the state department said that they plan to start a dialogue about u.s. fugitives living on the island.

congress may see to block the president's action by enacting a joint resolution which obama could turn into a veto. again, a lot of varying perspectives on cuba, especially policy decisions that have been made over the last few days. if you are interested in talking about that, we have a segment coming up that will take a look at that. also, if you want to see everything that has been said, the president has made announcements and we see reaction of congress. we invite you to go to the website at www.c-span.org. type in cuba and you will have the ability to do so. up until then, we want to let you know a couple of eggs from the last segment that we wanted to get to. this is from -- on the trade issue -- we do not have a chance to talk to the guest but you may want to read this article by haley sweetland and edwards and alex rogers on how trade agreements could affect hillary

clinton, especially ask she seeks the nomination. saying senator marco rubio is really on the same side as president obama. host: small businesses is going to be particular clinton stopped in new hampshire, starting tomorrow and tuesday. this of course after they had a chance to talk about that. those visits by the former secretary of state will take

place monday and tuesday. we will talk about cuba, coming up. "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ >> challenging the new fcc internet rules, five organizations have filed lawsuits against the fcc. hyundai night on "the communicators," we will speak with the president and ceo with one of the organizations. u.s. telecoms walter mccormick and a supporter of the rules christopher lewis. vice president for government affairs at public knowledge. what we are challenging is the reclassification of internet access from being in information

service to a telecommunications service regulated as a common carrier to 19th century railroad figuration. it is a vestige of the english common law and originally applied to railroads and then trucking companies and then to airlines. it has been repealed for all of those industries, going on over 30 years ago. because it proved to impose new costs on consumers, delayed deployment, slowed innovation, and really chilled investment. next we both agree that net neutrality protection terms are important and that is an important thing to start with, but we do disagree with the lawsuit. we have been very supportive of the roles that the fcc enacted and have now become a force of law. we think that after one decade of working toward a way to have

net neutrality rules that could hold up in court, that this is the strongest set of it -- that neutrality protections we have seen in the three different attempts at the agency to ensure that the internet remains open. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators is quote on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i last segment looks at cuba-u.s. relations with frank mora. he is the latin and caribbean director, thank you for your time. guest: good to be here. thank you. host: before we talk about the future of u.s. and cuba, can we talk about how cuba ended up on not only the state-sponsored terrorist list but the travel ban? tell us about history that brought us to this point. guest: cuba came on the list in about 1982 at the beginning of the reagan administration with the u.s. it was concerned about

supporting guerrilla groups in central, particularly in el salvador. there were groups that were fighting against or trying to violently overthrow the government that was an ally of the u.s. there was some discussion within the administration as what to do about this. in the end, they decided to face cuba on the state-sponsored list after some secret negotiations that went bad. that really places a number of financial and commercial restrictions on to cuba, not just between cuba and the united states but cuban axes to international and financial assistance. host: as far as the recent actions by the administration on taking cuba off this state-sponsored terrorist list what are the things listed was that for the past six months there has been activity on that front. is that long enough and is that a good enough case to take the country of the list? guest: under the legislation there are two different apartments -- one, the

administration needs to show that in the last six months, cuba has not supported or been involved in any way in the terrorist activities or supported terrorist groups. the second requirement is that the cuban government has to make clear guarantees they will not engage in terrorist activities or support terrorist activities. the administration after five or six months of review, ordered by the president, has come to that conclusion that cuba has not supported terrorism in the last six months and cuba has made as guarantees. the president has decided to remove cuba from the list, but now it is up to congress to debate for the next 45 days. host: what happens after that 45 day period? guest: congress reviews and debates, but congress cannot veto or prohibit the executive from removing cuba from the list. it can make an attempt to pass legislation, overriding in a sense, the president's decision. i'm not sure that congress has the votes to pass that

legislation. i really don't think they have the votes to pass the legislation that will override a presidential veto. host: frank mora, our guest to talk about the future of u.s. and cuba. this after several actions over the administration and the last weeks. if you would like to ask our guests 202-748-8000 four democrats, 202-748-8001 four republicans, (202) 628-0205 four independent -- 202-7 48-8000 24 independents. what other liabilities for not only us but cuba? guest: after this 45 days, there are some restrictions that could be lifted. i think there is a sense among people about this suddenly opens the floodgates. this may be unnecessary, but not sufficient step, towards normalizing economic relations with cuba. at the end of the day, that kind

of restrictions that are imposed or embargo. it comes under a different law. the only congress -- only congress can reverse that law, as you may have heard the president in the state of the union, he called on congress to pass legislation, removing those restrictions of the embargo that have been codified into law in 1996. this is an important step toward normalizing economic relations but it is not sufficient to fully normalize economic relations with cuba. host: frank mora, is it significant that jeb bush, who is interested in running for the presidency of the united states put out treat such as this -- unreal, he says, once again, obama embraces cuba's oppressive debt cash oppressive dictator, rualaul castro. guest: jeb bush has opposed president's decision since

december. opening telecommunications and other areas for engaging cuba, particularly, people to people. the governor and other potential republican candidates have been very clear in their opposition to the president's decision even though i think the number of polls have been taken at the national level, as well as in florida, and a majority of americans -- we're majority of americans, support the president's decision. host: our guest is frank mora with florida international university joining us from miami, the latin and caribbean senate director and talking about the future of u.s.-cuba relations. our first call comes from iris who lives in michigan on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, everybody. i was just wondering if didn't that issue with cuba start over sugar?

domino sugar in the cane fields or something? am i correct? guest: yes, the sanctioning of cuba really began lot -- not long after fidel castro came to power in 1959. the relations deteriorated rather quickly in the early 1960's and the caller is correct in that the stationing of cuba began early with cuba began to expropriate u.s. property in cuba. sugar was not the only one. certainly, there were sugar mills and others that were owned by americans that were asked cooperated by the cuban government. oldest addition, etc.. that really started a process and with -- in which u.s.-cuban relationships deteriorated. host: by the 702-748-8003 four

cuban-americans. where do you see the fault line? guest: university of florida did a poll before the president's announcement and it showed cuban-americans supporting the lifting or i sued saying normalizing relations. what is interested -- what is interesting about the poll is that younger cuban-americans inside and outside of the south florida overwhelmingly support the normalization of relations within cuba. it is the older generation of cuban-americans who are opposed or likely to be more opposed to any normalization or engaging of cuba. this is an interesting trend that we have seen over the last five to seven years. host: this is really from savannah, georgia, democrat line. cash this is willy from savannah, georgia, democrat line. caller: i would like to thank

c-span. i am support of the president lifting embargo. i have been in shipments. you have to think about my position as an american working the docs. we are going to ship cargo to cuba. i think the president has made one of the most gracious positions that any president has made in a while. i commend the caller and the gentleman to make sure this goes through. i would also like to think the president for his boldness in making this a successful program. thank you. thank you to c-span. guest: thank you. pedro, just to add on to the call, i think there is a restrictive shipping that has been going on. cuba has to pay, in a sense cash and there is no credit allowed. there has been some trade particularly in the agriculture area. the caller is bright. if congress passes legislation

and essentially eliminating the economic embargo, there will be quite a bit of shipping and a lot of people looking at the potential for trade -- commerce i should say with cuba. many suspect that if and when that law is passed, and begins to move forward that over a period of five to seven years, trade with cuba can grow exponentially. host: illinois, independent line, teresa, you are next. caller: good morning. i'm concerned about this narrative of cuba being a supporter of terrorist organizations. they supported against colonialization. they supported -- the united state supported the government in nicaragua and they were all brutal governments. none of those people that they supported had the people of this

country's best interest at heart. it was all about corp. were america -- corporate america come as they did today, going around, taking land, oppressive people, and destroying the water supply. the united -- the american public needs to read the history between cuba and america. read the history before you listen to these politicians because the politicians are paid by lobbyists to do what they do. they do not have the people's best interest. there is no place that the united states has gone in the last 100 years or the people are better off now than they were before the u.s. came into the country. thank you and have a good day. guest: yeah, you know, no doubt that during the cold war, cuba and the united states face each other in a number of areas. we were on opposite side of that struggle. cuba and the united states were allies.

there is no question that cuba was supporting the revolutionary movements that were committed to the violent overthrow of governments. during much of the cold war. since the end of the cold war and collapse of the soviet union , cuba has really in a sense retracted from that kind of activity. i think over the last number of years, cuba has tried to make a point and people will disagree that they are no longer in the business of supporting revolutionary movements but supporting democratic governments that are willing to support them. cuba has today, diplomatic relations with just about every country in the world and they find that kind of didn't -- diplomatic engagement the best way to circumvent u.s. -- what they view as u.s. attempts to

overthrow the government. host: chris smith of new jersey has legislation taking a look. one of the things he highlights, mr. frank mora, is that the woman joanne, a black liberation army number is convicted of killing and new jersey trooper and asked that cuba stop providing refuge for her and other terrorist organizations. can you expand? guest: there are a number of fugitives of u.s. law living today in the cuba who committed crimes, including killing a new jersey policeman in the 1970's. the united states has assisted and president obama is now insisting they engage in a dialogue and conversation to talk about this issue of fugitives. as i understand, they will be talking about the issue. cuba has been reluctant in the past two not even discussed the issue, but they are willing to discuss the issue, whether they were overturned this fugitives back to the united states is not very clear. not sure when those negotiations

are going to be held, but the fact that they will be talking about this for the first time could be significant. we will have to see whether cuba does actually return this fugitives, who have ended commit crimes in the united states. host: republican lie, miami, for the, dahlia. caller: good morning. i would like mr. mora to comment on the fact that cuba, right now, is the one running venezuela. venezuela is mixed up in spain with a new movement called -- which is nothing but a communist party. cuba is going to use venezuela to do their dirty work. besides that, cuba has a hold on the people. just last week, they beat up the

cuban-american's that would to panama that were putting flowers in front of jose martin's statue. they came out of the embassy in panama and they beat them up. that is the way cuba does to their own people. if you think they come here because what they want is credit because they have not paid anybody. if the united states businesses think they will get paid by cuba and if they give them credit, they are out of their minds. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: sure. i think there are a couple of issues that the caller -- there is no question that the cuban regime is a dictatorship. it is systematically -- it

systematically represses their own people and it has for the past years. it is also true that cuba is a kind of special relationship with venezuela. in that cuba provides not only technical assistance in some social economic wrong, but also in the intelligence area. it is in cuba's interest to maintain the maduro and mschisto regime. they have been providing significant amounts of oil meeting much of the demand for energy that cuba needs, although that has been cut the last few months. with respect to spain, there is a left party, rather extreme party that the caller called that sees venezuela and cuba as a kind of model and very supportive of those governments. it is not clear yet whether the party in spain that the caller referred to will win the election, but there is no question they have gained some

political support. i would only argue that the situation in spain and the possibility that podemos might win, is on the economic section -- economic situation that has often open up opportunities for this party to gain political traction and perhaps political power in the country. host: how long will raul castro stay in power and who was next? guest: he has said that he will leave power in 2018, which is the next term for i think the decision went the party -- communist party meets. not too long ago, he appointed a vice president. a vice president that is of a different generation. i think what you see, and if you look at the makeup of the ruling regime at the highest levels, all these men, and mostly men are in their 70's. in the case of raul castro,

their 80's. one of the younger generation-folks that are at the top levels of the ruling party and ruling government is miguel diaz canel. he is in his 50's, i believe and he has some -- worked himself up and legally and constitutionally, he would be the next one to assume power in 2018. if something happens and raul is incapacitated, he is technically supposed to resume power. in cuba, it is never clear whether the dynamics behind the throne who are operating to see who becomes president. there is in a sense, certain factions or frictions within that compete for power. it is still unclear but at least constitutionally, within the given context of dictatorship, it is supposed to be the vice president, miguel diaz canel. host: we have set aside a line

for cubans. 202-7 48-8003. go ahead. caller: i wanted to say that this program is extremely informative because a lot of your callers are not listening to the corporate spin about lifting embargo. a lot of your callers and your narrators truly know that this will not help the cuban people. we have not gotten the true picture of how the cuban people live. the lack of human rights and dignity. if we delved into it and look at it the clear picture and not what the media tells us, the cuban people will not be better off. this is for corporate america. i have deep empathy for the dock worker who needs more business once more business and believes opening up will help him. what is it going to do for the

people? the cuban people do not need mcdonald's, they do not need disney, they do not need -- they need their human rights. their god-given rights. i just -- my heart is broken. it is just woken. -- it is just broken. i beg people to look further into what this will do in the ramifications for all of the cuban people. thank you. guest: i think, as i mentioned before, one should not be naive and one should clearly understand that in cuba, there is a repressive regime that systematically represses intimidates human rights on the island. that is undeniable. i think what the president has done on december 17, is that he believes that engaging the cuban -- the cuban people through

different means, and he is always emphasized telecommunications, opening opportunities, not with the cuban government but in spite of the cumin -- cuban government and creating space for people-people engagement will create opportunities for the potential for change on the island. it won't happen overnight. we must not be naive that the cuban regime will simply not allow these kinds of things to happen. the president has simply said we have tried an approach that has not served our interests and it is time to do something else. an approach, as we saw in eastern europe, when you engage those people in really commercial ways and on political ways, it does offer the opportunity for change. host: hastings, england, nor met joins us on the phone. -- norma joins us on the phone. caller: i will be brief, i might met -- run out of money because i'm on pay as you go. iran for the cuban crisis and

they talk about winston churchill. i say winston churchill gave us democracy. john kennedy gave us our lives. if you people are listening to the program, they don't realize that and they want to do research and don't realize what a strong role kennedy played. that is all i have to say. thank you a good program c-span. ok, bye. guest: i think the caller alludes to a lot of history between the united states and cuba. it has been at history a confrontation -- it has been a history of competition, use tool hostility -- mutual hostility and as the caller indicated, at one point in the 1960's, we almost saw really the destruction that could have led to nuclear war that would have really leveled and had a tremendous impact on our civilization. host: homestead florida, them a cut line. willie is up next.

sorry, let me push the button. i apologize, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. good for him and subject. i want to touch briefly, president obama was here not long ago at fiu professor frank mora, and he talked about this a little bit. normalizing relationships with cuba. what i saw -- i saw a gap. what i mean by that gap is the difference between older cubans -- i think they were for to add -- referred to as cubans in south florida and the younger generations of cubans. i want you to reflect upon the difference between that cap between the older cubans, the cubalistas and the younger cubans. what i mean by that is that the younger cubans support the

restoration -- withholding the restoration of the normalization of relations with cuba as opposed to fan the generation of cubans who overwhelmingly -- from what i see from the polls -- favor restoring relations with cuba. i just wanted to hear what you had to hear what you have to say about that. thank you. guest: sure, the caller is right. the president was at florida international university not too long ago and he spoke mostly about immigration. of course, cuba was also an issue that was front and center at that time. as i indicated earlier, there have been poles and fiu, ford international university, did uphold that confirmed much of what your caller just said. that those individuals between 24 and -- cuban-americans, i'm sorry, between 24 years old and 35 years old are overwhelmingly

in support of this kind of action or policy change that the president has taken. if you look at folks in sort of the 55 years old to 70 years old range, approximately, they are much less supportive of the president. i think that has to do in part with those cuban-americans in their 60's came many years ago early in the revolution. they came to miami and sort of had that historical memory of the trauma, if you will, that perhaps younger generations those in their 20's and 30's do not have. seeing the cuba issue as one way -- the best way of dealing with it is not by isolating or taking punitive action but to engage in. many engage in because they have family back home and they see no

positive outcome from this continuing policy of trying to isolate and punish, if you will, the cuban people and cuban government. host: the republican line from arkansas, lynn. good morning. caller: i was wondering if you had all about measuring the levels of democratization as far as george h w bush is trade initiatives with china back in 1989 versus obamas trade initiatives with cuba today? guest: well, there is really no imported trade initiatives with cuba at the moment. the president has moved in that direction, but as i indicated earlier, not until the embargo is removed by the u.s. congress can we really have trade

initiatives, much like we do now and have had for some time. -- have had for some time with china. certainly since the early 1980's and late 1970's. we will have to see. to see what the outcomes are, if any, of engaging cuba economically. i think the president is making a bet and the bet is that this engagement will create, as i said earlier, the kind of space and opportunities that will empower cuban people to control the future of their country. host: frank mora, talk about the snapshot of the cuban people themselves. how many are young and how many still hold economist philosophy versus other philosophies. is there a way to break that down? guest: sure. there about 11 million inhabitants on cuba. cuba is an overwhelmingly young country. it is also quite significantly after-cuban population --

afro-cuban population. i really don't think anybody buys into the communist philosophy in cuba. in fact, i am not sure of the cuban government buys into it since they began to talk more about nationalism then about coming as him. communism is a sort of supposed -- supposed to be this ideological force or legitimizing entity that is supposed to support the regime, but really frankly, and the data shows this from people coming from the island, no one really, and it is a small minority of people who really believe that communism is the way forward for people in that island. host: let's hear from ray in taylor michigan. democrat line. overhead. caller: hi, this all falls into the last subject that you guys were touching upon.

with the free trade deal. it is all about the act of 1871 with the act that washington is the district of columbia. people need to realize that we become the corporation, so the corporation needs free trade with all the world to work as a corporation. we are corporations within the corporation, as -- as as citizens. thank you. guest: i think the corporation's business and private sector would be involved in any kind of commercial engagement with diamond. i really don't think that president obama is motivated by that. i think president obama just simply believes that the previous policy was just a bad policy. a policy that was not to be

results or the desired outcomes that we wanted. he just believes that this is just a practical, most effective way of achieving our objectives in cuba. host: here is dave from athens alabama, the line. you are on with frank mora from florida international university. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. but i don't understand in this whole debate is what is in it for the united states of america? i see what is in it for cuba and it is some tourism, that is good. some trade with cuba is good for cuba. what in this whole thing is good for the united states of america? i will hang up and listen to your answer. guest: thank you for your question. i think, once again, the president believes and he is committed to the issue of democracy and human rights.

as he indicated and said at the last summit of america's held in panama a few weeks ago, and i just -- he sustains and argues that a free democratic prosperous cuba is in our interest and it creates opportunities for stability. yes, economic opportunity is not just for cuba, but for the united states again, i do not believe that president obama is riven by economic interest or corporate interest. -- corporate interest in his change of policy. his change of policy is simply about finding ways of achieving our desired objectives or goals. host: our guest is the director for the latin caribbean center at fort international university. he is frank mora talking about the future of u.s.-cuba relations. thank you for your time. guest: thank you, good to be here. host: tomorrow, you will hear from rebecca shabad to talk

about budget negotiators as they meet this coming week to hammer out budget agreement. that conversation will be at 7:45. at a: 30, jo -- at a: 30 joye frost will talk about national crime victims' rights week. we will talk about the department of justice role and assisting victims of crime. and then at 9:15, we will be joined by nicole clowers with accountability office and they are looking at redundant federal programs in 2015. few will find out about these areas of government that basically do the same thing when it comes to some programs and have a chance to talk to her about it. all of that, plus, we will look at the papers and take phone calls. "washington journal" comes to at 7:00 tomorrow, we will see you then. ♪

>> here on c-span this morning, "newsmakers" is next with florida representative and dnc chair, debbie wasserman schultz. then a hearing talking about sexual misconduct by dea agents overseas. later, recognition of the 20th anniversary of the oklahoma city bombing. pedro: joining us on "newsmakers," representative debbie wasserman schultz hoosiers florida and is the chair of the democratic national committee. thank you for joining us.