if we are getting a better hold on how to separate them out or is it just means we are going to work more with the kurds? mr. clapper: there are two zones if you will in syria. there is the western spine sort of going from the south, south of damascus and north to aleppo and the extreme east and the phenomenon we're dealing with is the term of art that is used is marbling, where you have these groups and there are hundreds of them. at one point we estimated 1,500 or 1,600 of these various separate groups of varying stripes of ideology and commitment. on the battlefield, there have been tactical marriages of convenience, particularly with the front which is a very

capable fighting force. we're doing what we can to influence the separation of these. it's very difficult when many of these groups are focused on their own local area, their own village, their own town, their own community in a large city. inducing them to separate because it works better for us is a real challenge. >> we're going to extend the talk. reporter: i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the spread of a cyst in south asia and how real that is, in particular we're hearing reports that bangladesh has increasing issues with this and also was wondering in countries like india, back lan szczerbiak and pakistan in particular, how cooperative are the countries with recognizing there is a problem and cooperating with the united states on that? mr. clapper: that is a very good question.

that is a concern because of provinces to use the isil term that appear to be forming in some countries in southeast asia. singling ay without out anyone is that there are varying degrees of recognition and we'll do what we can to share, to enlighten, to educate at least from our standpoint of what is happening in each of these countries. >> is there anyone who hasn't had one before we go to a second round, yes, sir, brian from the "l.a. times." reporter: in syria, have you

een any indications that service to air missiles are in use by anyone in syria and what kind of threat would that pose? mr. clapper: there certainly ave been against the regime. pads. ce is awash in man the regime had them. the active procurement networks, black market, whatever, so there are all kinds of sources for the proliferation of man pads in syria. reporter: are they -- do they pose a threat to civilian aviation in the region? mr. clapper: to civilian, yes, i hope there aren't too many civilian airlines transiting

syria. if i was boarding an airplane and found out i was flying over syria, i think i would skip it. reporter: can you assess the new technologies that would have a disabling feature on surface to air missiles? mr. clapper: man pads or surface to d or air missiles, this has been historically a cat and mouse hing, an action-reaction where you field one and they develop countermeasures and they field another one that counters the countermeasures and it goes on. that's the spiral we're in. as type as go on, we have developed -- not just we have developed improvements in the as bilities of man pads

ell, so that conundrum continues. i can't point to any specific technology that will be the ultimate silver bullet so to speak that would negate man pads. we won't ever, i think, reach that point. reporter: pushing more of that technology in the theater on the table? mr. clapper: certainly where we can in the west as we develop w capabilities and countercapabilities, sure. at you always worry about is whatever capability develop, having it full into the wrong hands and again the pervasive

access to the systems is kind towards the or widespread distribution. reporter: i rant to return to something you said earlier about the revolution leading to a seven-year speed-up with encryption. with the technologieses i have spoken with, they say there is an armed race to stop hackers puncturing their system. can you talk about where that figure comes from and whether it's a good thing to encourage the innovation? mr. clapper: i don't understand. reporter: whether it's good or not that the innovation is sped up if it did? mr. clapper: from our standpoint, no, it's not. that's an estimate which i hink was quite valid by n.s.a.

hat the projected growth maturation and substantiation f commercially available encryption, what it forecast for seven years from, well, from three years ago was accelerated to now because of the revelations, the leaks and so from our standpoint, this is ot a good thing. reporter: it's been a few months that you set up the cyber tech intelligence integration center. i was wondering if you have any doubts personally about the ability of that organization to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and do you have a general update of the status of what operationally it's been doing? mr. clapper: just to be clear,

the president directed me to do this, to establish the cyber threat intelligence integration center and because of all of the controversy surrounding its standup, we had a lot of time to think through what its capabilities would be. it's only 50 people, bear in mind, and we haven't built to that yet, what it could do and what it couldn't do. so we spent a good bit of time engaging with stakeholders, both others that have related missions as well as users and consumers to sort out exactly what the ctic is doing. and the feedback that we're getting from that is pretty positive. just like the reason that my office was set up by the irtpa

was to promote, i believe, promote integration. o just as the national counterproliferation center and others promote integration across the i.c. in those realms, so it is with the ctic. porter: has it been used for offensive overseas? mr. clapper: i'm not going to go there. reporter: director, thanks for doing this again. it's been reported that you agree with senator mccain in that any intelligence obtained from water boarding is not worth the propaganda power that it gives the opponents. does that same apply to in a presidential campaign context when you have a presidential andidate out reinstituting

water boarding? mr. clapper: senator mccain asked me to comment on a hearing on the use of torture as a way of eliciting information. first of all, the science tells you that it doesn't necessarily work, that whether you're investigating for intelligence purposes or law enforcement purposes, the most important hing is to develop and build rapport with whoever it is that you're interrogating. in a torture context, people generally, they'll get to the point where they'll tell you whatever it is you want to hear. so apart from that, the practicalities of the utility of information that's so derived is i think we are much better served as a nation to

conduct interrogation activities in a manner that comports with our standards and our values. i strongly endorse what john brennan said about the use of torture. it won't be through me. reporter: when a presidential candidate, does u.s. intelligence when a presidential candidate raises the possibility of water boarding? mr. clapper: i'm not going to comment on that. reporter: in libya, a major obstacle to u.s. operations there, do you think a political stalemate is close to resolving? mr. clapper: we're very hopeful about the latest version of the government in libya, the government and national court. very, very fragile. it appears that there is room for some hope here. f and as it gains traction and

gains credibility within the very africaious political land - fractious landscape in libya. we're much better off if we can operate with a government and cooperate with one and certainly if we are going to do something militarily that we have some recognized governmental entity that we can engage with and hopefully consent to such operations. reporter: was that nuclear bomb test from earlier this year -- mr. clapper: we don't really know. they claim it was a hydrogen weapon. if it was, it fell way short of what you would regard as a hydrogen weapon or any other type of boost of figures. it's hard -- fission.

it's hard to tell what they were going to do. it was much more modest than what they claimed. >> you have a two-minute question, go for it. reporter: there was a report on "60 minutes" last week with a representative about a telecom network and it was made by any intelligence agency that can access that network can surveil any phone number they can identify which would allow them to sull veil members of congress. the representative is questioning whether the n.s.a. knew about that and if so, why members of congress were never told of that? mr. clapper: i don't know the full history of that. i will tell you we have very, very stringent rules of inadvertent collection on the congress. that's the only time that it occurs. in fact, we're now negotiating with the congress on improving

the, enhancing the manner in which we share that information. that's an old system and of course, it was done on the "60 nutes" thing with consent of users. so that's all i have to say about it. >> thank you for doing this, ir, appreciate it very much. mr. clapper: i think we're done. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016

>> in a little more than an hour, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues with a ted cruz campaign rally from indiana. he'll speak with voters and supporterness franklin and it tarts live 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. earlier today, senator cruz along with candidate john kasich announced plans to cede states in the 2016 presidential race to one another inen effort to prevent donald trump from winning the presidential nomination. speaking of mr. trump, we'll be bringing you live remarks from him at a campaign rally. residents from that state and rhode island, connecticut, maryland, and delaware head to the polls tomorrow for presidential primaries. see that around 7:00 p.m.

eastern here on c-span. with those five states holding primaries tomorrow, we'll begin our live coverage tuesday, 8:30 p.m. eastern. we'll have live results, candidate speeches and your phone calls and comments. ee it all on c-span. >> tonight on the communicators, the safety and security of the u.s. electric grid is the topic of a new book by ted koppel. the book "lights out, a cyber attack, a nation unprepared, surviving the aftermath" examines the potential for cyber attacks on the electric grid. he looks at what could happen, how vulnerable the electric grid is to attack and to the degree in which government agencies and agencies are able to respond to the attack. >> the notion that you are going to give over control of the defense of your industry requires that you give up an awful lot of information that a lot of these companies do not want to give up.

there was a bill passed last fall in the senate after years of raininging that now has private industry willing to pass on information to the government, but only after they have sanitized it. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on espn2. >> c-span's "wall street journal" live every -- "washington journal" live every day with policies that impact you. adam talks about the presidential primaries in pennsylvania, maryland, rhode island, connecticut, and delaware. and the director of the center of politics and public affairs at franklin and marshall college previews the pennsylvania primary, the state's historic role as a swing state and its current political climate. and then harvard institute of politics polling director on the latest poll of millennial

views of the presidential campaign and the president and c.e.o. of the mayo clinic talking about the recent trends in health care and how the affordable care act is impacting hospitals. join the discussion. host: our guest is veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald. secretary mcdonald came to this job almost three years ago and his background includes the military academy at west point and he is an army veteran himself. he came from private industry and served as ceo at procter & gamble. hank you for being here. ms. swain: let me introduce the reporters. -- leo shane of "military times" and david wood is the senior military correspondent for the "huffington post." mr. shane: i want to start with the wait times issue.

we had a new report over what constitutes wait time and where we stand now. can you talk about this and what confidence veterans should have that the v.a. is addressing the problem? there still seems to be discrepancies over how the time is calculated and frustration over how it is being handled. sec. mcdonald: if you ask me, the ultimate measure for any veteran and how we deal at that veteran is how they are satisfied with what we do. we have put together a transformation program where the first strategy is to improve the veteran experience. we have used some of the best companies in the world like disney, starbucks, and procter & gamble to teach how to process experienced and work to build delight into those spornses. we're all about satisfaction. this wait time thing has taken

over control of really what should be the real measure. wait times, we believe the data that we are using is good data and we believe that wait times generally are on average three to six days depending on the specialty that you want at which location. but we have admitted two things. if you go to the end of the bell curve, you have people getting same-day access, almost 20% getting same-day access. on the other hand, you have some people waiting much too long. there are some specialties we have to fix and here in the program we have put forward, it is a huge opportunity to fix those. that's why we're working that with congress. ultimately, the measure of satisfaction is really what is important.

and do veterans trust the v.a.? we know the vfw put out a study that over 80% of veterans love coming to the v.a. and love the care they are getting. we are working hard to improve access so more veterans can have that care. mr. shane: are you confident you are heading toward the more friendly customer service model you have been talking about the last few years? sec. mcdonald: i am comfortable that the transformation we are undergoing is heading in the right direction. as we try to move forward with this, we have hired more doctors and more nurses, we have opened up over 4 million square feet of new space and have evening and daytime clinic hours. the under secretary for health testified about our standdowns on the weekend where we get people who need urgent care in. i am confident we are moving in the right direction and it is politically popular to drag us

back to some of these other measures and some of these other things, but i spend a lot of time working on moving us forward to where we need to be. we are trying to be veteran centric, not appointment time centric. . swain: on -- mr. wood: on that point, you measure wait time not from when the veteran makes a caller gets in touch with the v.a. but from which -- sec. mcdonald: does it matter how we measure wait time? reporter: it does to the veteran when there are three weeks before he gets a call back. sec. mcdonald: we are getting more and more veterans in for care. we have 7 million more completed appointments, over 1400 new doctors and 2300 new nurses. we have clinic hours in the evening and the weekend, we built women's clinic to deal with the burgeoning number of female veterans.

i want to get the veterans and -- in for care, but recognize this. as we continue to improve care, more veterans will sake their care from the v.a. 78% of veterans already have a choice, even before the choice act. 78% of veterans have a choice, private health insurance, medicare, medicaid, they have a choice. the average veteran uses v.a. for only 34% of their care, only 34% of their care. if you were to go to medicare to get your knee replaced, let's say that's a $25,000 operation, you pay a 20% co-pay which is 5,000. if you are a veteran and you want your knee replaced at the v.a., it's free. and there are going to be more people coming in for care. we need help from congress because of that goes to 35%, that's an increase of $1.4 billion in our budget we need

to care for that increase and demand. the demand is going to increase and we are admitting that. we have to build the capability to meet that demand. mr. wood: let me talk about the cost model. i've looked at the demographics and the cost, and everything is going up. more women veterans coming in for services. higher per patient costs and service-connected, disabled veterans, all of those things re going up. about 15,000 severely disabled veterans from iraq and afghanistan whose lifetime costs are stay out ahead of us. sec. mcdonald: let's go back to 2014 and take a look at the demand. mr. wood: and congress is not exactly paying even with you in terms of growing your budget. where is the friction? sec. mcdonald: you're absolutely right. if you say what happened in 2014 that created the crisis,

it was a mismatch of supply and demand. remember, congress passes the laws that provide benefits for veterans. congress passes the budget that provides the means of meeting those laws to provide those benefits. when those two don't match, you have a serious problem. what i have tried to do is we have been clear -- we've done the deep business analysis -- the problems in 2014 were not because of the wars in afghanistan and iraq. it was because of the aging of he veteran population. 1975, the year i graduated from west point, 2 million veterans were over the age of 65. in 2017, 10 million veterans will be over the age of 65. we are the canary in the coal mine for american medicine. we see the problems that are going to occur in the united states in medicine before they occur. the aging of the veterans

population was one of the biggest issues that created that demand. the other issue, survivability on the battlefield, 10 times more likely to survive the battlefield. agent orange presumptions from vietnam, things like post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, things we learned about that we did not know about, we are giving post-traumatic stress treatment to vietnam veterans and we did not what it was then. but the reason this is important and i'm thrilled you brought it up is if we do not build the capability today to take care of iraq and afghanistan veterans as they age, four years from now, 30 years from now we will have the same crisis on our hands. that is why we're trying to transform the system to get ready for that capability in the future. mr. wood: why are you having so much difficulty with congress? sec. mcdonald: frankly, i am encouraged. we are working with senator

johnny isakson and richard lumenthal. we're working on a bipartisan, omnibus bill that would solve many of the legal issues that we have today with running the v.a. i'll give you some examples. number one, there are seven different ways of a veteran getting care in the community. each one has different criteria and different reimbursement rate. most providers one of the one with the highest reimbursement rate. those seven methods came from seven different laws that are very complex for v.a. to administer and virtually impossible for the veteran to understand. last october, we put together consolidated legislation and we are working to get it passed. another simple thing, as i have gone around the country visiting v.a. sites, i have been to about 300 v.a. size in my 20 months.

emergency rooms are being outsourced. why would you outsource and emergency room? that's a key capability. what we discovered is this is a law that does not allow our emergency room doctors to work 12-hour shifts. that is what is done in the private sector. as a result, we cannot hire emergency room doctors. everyone agrees that law should be changed. it's archaic, but this is one of about nine different pieces of legislation that we need to get done. host: are you equally as optimistic on the house side of the freedom caucus continuing to push on expenditures? sec. mcdonald: i'm optimistic about the senate and i'm optimistic under the leadership of jeff miller as the chairman and with the ranking member that we can get it done in the house. the thing that was most encouraging to me was we put together this transformation plan that has five strategies. knowing we may not be here

after december because the president changes office, we put together the 12 priorities we want to get done this year. one of them promises veterans they will get same day resolution of their issue if they come to the v.a.. we have 25% of our facilities doing this. the veteran comes and in the same day, they get to talk to a doctor or nurse and they get some resolution on their issue. but to get things done, we have to have the laws passed and the budget we proposed. i went to both committees and said would you please hold a hearing on the transformation of the v.a. and let's talk about these five strategies and 12 priorities. they held the hearing where i was able to talk for a number of hours about how we are transforming the v.a.. and in the room was tremendous

bipartisan support. in fact, i think it was senator isakson if it gets to the senate, i think the house will act on it. for the first time, we will get the system right so we can work on behalf of veterans. reporter: that is cooperation on the policy side. on the budget side, this is the second year where it has come in lower than you expected. do you feel like you are getting the message across that we need to invest this money now or is there something to be said for their argument that the v.a. budget has tripled or quadrupled over the last decade? dumping more money isn't the only answer. sec. mcdonald: you are right. the house appropriations committee cut from the request about $1.5 billion, which seems

like a small percentage but is still money we need to serve veterans. the senate, in contrast, passed a budget with agrees with the president's budget. we are very encouraged by that. what we have submitted as a budget is what is needed to care for veterans. we are not in any way suggesting that less is ok. in fact, as we put these budgets together over time, we have gone as far as to put in their what productivity measures we are taking. what productivity measures are we taking to turn up money so we don't need to request it? one of the 12 rake through priorities is to establish the

spiked chain. believe it or not, we do not have a consolidated spy chain. -- supply chain. we have it for our pharmacy and not surprisingly, we have the best rated chain in the country. but we do not have it in the operations field. if we can get the laws we need and budget we need, we will turn up at least $150 million year in savings we can use for other things with veterans. we happen working hard to treat all veterans who have hepatitis c and there was at one time only one drug that solve this. we got that for a lower price than the market does but now that there is a competitive drug, we have accelerated the program in order to get every veteran cured of hepatitis c.

this would be the first time in history that people with hepatitis c have seen a cure and i think we can cure all veterans with hepatitis c. reporter: if you are trying to run the health part of the v.a. like a business, why not privatize it? the idea is out there and i understand you are an opponent of that idea. sec. mcdonald: we are trying to run all of the a like a business. we are not focusing on the bureaucracy. we look at it through the lens of the veteran, not the bureaucracy. it is a big cultural change and will take some time. when i came into this position and was going to be confirmed by the senate, i asked a couple of senators to take a look at that. should we get rid of the v.a. and hand out some vouchers.

what i found out is that it's not only necessary for the health care of veterans, but the v.a. is necessary for the american public. if you take out any one of the three legs, the school. her. leg one is research. research in spinal cord injuries, research and prosthetics, research and tbi and post-traumatic stress. research for profit medical systems are not going to do. a lot of our research has gone to the american public. we invented the nicotine patch, we at the first electronic medical records. there was a v.a. nurse that came up with the idea of putting a barcode with prescriptions with medical records to keep them

straight. a lot of the innovations that have affected american medicines came out of the v.a.. in a for-profit world, where is that going to come from? we train 70% of the doctors in the country. it is a system omar bradley set up in 1946. aligning the hospitals with the best medical schools in the country. in north carolina, we share 300 doctors with the duke medical school. third is the clinical work. the fact that our doctors do clinical work for veteran patients, if you are a veteran, isn't it nice having someone work with you who has to teach what they are doing because that way you are sure that they know it. it's a great system and

privatization is not the answer. veterans don't want privatization. if you ask veterans, they will tell you they don't want privatization, especially -- reporter: we have seen the commission on care floating the strawman argument, working more to push on those video services outside. if the system is that valuable, then it should be able to stand up to a more private-sector scrutiny and competition. where do you draw the line at expanding that care? worrying about that tipping into the privatization area. sec. mcdonald: we are already doing the outside care.

now, we are doing more in the community and we believe care in the community is something we should be doing. we also believe in the transparency of saving our data publicly. i would like to see other medical private-sector organizations. we are holding ourselves up to transparency. we do hearings on a handful of the 360,000 employees we have. i am all for that. the difference in that strawman proposal, and you know this, the veteran service organizations came out strongly against it, pointing out the fact they are against privatization and of the seven commissioners who signed the report, many of them have an interest in a private-sector medical system, so it's no wonder they would like the

privatization of the v.a. because that is is this for them. third, they tend to present 1 -- 10 to represent one of the two political parties. i'm a former business guy, not a politician and the one thing i don't like about this job -- i retired from the procter & gamble company, but i'm here for one reason and that is to care for the veterans, the brothers and sisters i served with and admire so much. reporter: i can't let you get out of here without asking the accountability question. you proposed changing the important rules for senior executives. there are quite a few folks who want that to go further. how do you assuage concerns at this point that you are taking accountability seriously? sec. mcdonald: again, we are involved in a political season

and the people who look at this are, by nature, politicians. what interest would i have and not taking accountability actions? i come from the private sector and spent 33 years with one of the most admired countries in -- companies in the world. we have been stayed by the merit system protection board and unfortunately, what happened is when the choice act was passed and the law was passed, there were limitations placed on what they could do. they could not come back proposing a more lenient punishment. they agreed with our finding but

disagreed with our punishment. what we proposed is to take our senior executive service employees and take them to title 38 which is what they should do because they work in a medical system. that makes for a faster hiring process and gives the capability to pay competitively. the medical center director who is a title v employee has a maximum salary of $167,000 and they can get twice that much on the private sector if not 2.5 times that much. we have to be competitive because we are competing for the same people. one thing we are hoping that will be in the omnibus bill is giving us that competitive ability to have medical professionals paid competitively

and hired competitively. reporter: this is not a short one, so there are 47,000 private non-governmental organizations that care for veterans. there are things the v.a.'s not allowed to do by law, so they are picking up the slack, which is a great thing. do you chafe against the restrictions congress has put on you? and are there laws preventing you from doing the kinds of things you want to do? sec. mcdonald: one of the things we do is submit legislative proposals. many deal with the archaic natures of the law. 40 of which were new this year, things we discovered this year. having said that, in coming in and send the -- setting up this

transformation program, we were very clear in putting together a strategy, enhancing and partnering with strategic people. we love having partners to do it with. these other organizations are force multipliers. why not work synergistically? have a summit doing on an washington, d.c. called brain trust where i listened to 50 of the newest and best ideas to better care for veterans with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. take advantage of that in the private sector. this one is ethically and morally important -- there are veterans who got dishonorable discharges who, by law, we cannot care for. i have to have a capability i can partner with with similar

high standards of care to get those veterans the care they need. reporter: is that something you are waiting for congress to approve? sec. mcdonald: we are moving out and we have created strategic partners. we have a strategic ownership with the elks. they provided $4 million and 800,000 volunteers. host: we should tell the viewers that you donated your brain to the research you just talked about. sec. mcdonald: i did. i don't think they're going to find much. host: donald trump on the campaign trail has been extolling the virtues of reading business sensibilities to government. you now have two years experience. what is your explanation about how government response to business sensibilities? sec. mcdonald: the things i learned at west point about leadership i have tried to apply

throughout my life. the idea of putting the needs of of the organization above yourself. jim collins calls that level five leadership. the idea of character being a most important point. you choose the harder right rather than the easier wrong. all of those leadership principles work just as well in government as the private sector. the execution may be different, but they work. host: the bureaucracy is responding? sec. mcdonald: i would say yes. it will take time, but we are making progress. host: we're back with leo shane and david would. he's back at his job after spending the last year writing a book about our military service people. we just spoke to secretary mcdonald about his major transformation program.

he is out of a job in a relatively short time. how much of this plan will be hardwired into place before a different secretary comes along? reporter: we will see if he is out of a job. there has been some talk that they would love to see him stay on into the next administration. he may not be able to escape, depending on who wins. a lot of the last two years has been set up to try to hardwire this in. there's still a lot to do and a lot of help they need from congress to get these regulations and policies put in place. we will see if they can get this omnibus pass later this year, that will make a big jump forward for things like appeals reform and consolidation of care

issues. but without that, there's a lot of work to be done. host: we heard a lot of numbers and statistics and you spent a lot of time talking to veterans. are they seeing change? reporter: when you talk to veterans, there are two views of the v.a.. one is that guys are angry that they can't get what they feel they deserve. on the other hand, most people who go in for medical care sing the praises of the v.a. and i've got to say that the medical people and mental health people i have met there are superb. they are really good. a lot of what secretary mcdonald has tried to do is to bridge the gap between the really good resources they have and the problem of getting people in their. one problem is they cannot force a veteran to come in. a lot of guys i talked to grumble about the v.a. and alleys ask have you signed up

for health care? and they say there -- they say there are a bunch of idiots. it has been my experience -- i've been around for a while watching secretaries at the v.a. come and go and they always want to come put their own stamp on it. i'm worried if he is replaced by someone else, it would sweep the top executives out and the problem will continue to fester. host: you asked questions about congress and the appropriations process. congress is generally pro-veteran and pro-military, but they have been giving the speaker a run for their money on issues. reporter: for the first time in the last few years we have heard more people saying we want to support veterans but we don't think more money is the solution.

that's not easy to backup but we have seen the committee come in under what has been requested and say we need reforms more than we need more money here. i would guess that in the end they're going to come close. it's tough to say no to veterans, but the fact we are having more discussions and the fact that the v.a. is looked at as a place for there could be more savings, that speaks a lot to the fiscal restraints on capitol hill right now. host: how much pressure will senator isakson be able to put on? reporter: a lot. it struck me that where he has indicated he's making progress is when he sat down with the veterans committee in the senate and i think he said we spent hours going over it and they came up with a bipartisan agreement that this was something that needed to be done. clearly that has not happened on the house side.

outside the formal hearing process, just sitting down and explaining what he's trying to do one him a lot of allies on the senate side. that sort of speaks to the dysfunction in congress. reporter: senator isakson has done more negotiations with the v.a. and white house than his house republican counterparts. if the white house signs off on this, if they can get house republicans to sign out on it. host: and the pipeline of veterans coming into the system, your facial expression tells the story. reporter: the number of women it is into the v.a. -- going to double and they have unique requirements and demands.

the number of service-connected disabled veterans is going up in their demands are going to increase. this new generation is demanding really costly services and they are very good at demanding services. the the aat they use services more than previous generations. host: and they live in the age of social media pressure as well. that is changing the game as well. thank you for your time. >> "washington journal" is live every day with issues that impact you. theng up, a talk about presidential primaries and present -- in pennsylvania, maryland, rhode island and

delaware. then the director for the center of politics and public affairs at franklin and marshall college. then the harvard institute polling director on the latest poll of millennials views of the presidential campaign. the president and ceo talks about how the affordable care act is impacting hospital. -- impacting hospital. in about 40 minutes, our road to the white house coverage continues with a ted cruz campaign rally from indiana for he will speak with voters and supporters in franklin live at 6:30 p.m. on c-span. earlier today, senator cruise and john jacek announced plans to cede to one another in an

effort to prevent donald trump from winning the presidential nomination. residents of pennsylvania along with maryland, rhode island, connecticut and delaware had to the polls for their presidential primaries. you can watch mr. trump's also here ony c-span. until these events get underway, a discussion about the rules governing the republican convention in cleveland from today's "washington journal." michael steele joins us, the former chairman of the republican national committee joins us for the next 45 minutes to talk about the r.n.c., the republican convention, the race for delegates. but first, mr. steele, i want to ask you about the announcement from the cruz and kasich campaign that they're going to coordinate their efforts and free upcoming primary states to try to deny donald trump the delegates needed for a first ballot win at the convention. how unusual is this? has this happened before?

guest: it's very unusual. desperate times calls for the desperate measures. they're up against a huge clock and wall here in that donald trump has and i think they're beginning to realize and it kind of proves the messaging that's been coming out over the weekend that not only will donald trump get close but likely will exceed the number 1237 that he needs going in because of the wins he's going to rack up tomorrow. the fact that he's now leading in indiana, the fact that he has , you know, really kind of grown up the campaign by bringing in some professionals to know -- who knows how to run this part of the stretch. so it makes sense for them to decide we have to collaborate. while they're doing that, establishment is already behind ted cruz. they pretty much dismissed kasich but now they'll bring him into that camp. what's the argument is donald trump going to make on for the

electorates? they're ganging up on me. they can't let me beat the guys. host: is this fair? guest: well, it is. in politics, something like this is fair. it happens a lot. we've seen that it grassroots level, lower offices. candidates sometimes team up that way. what they're essentially doing is they're not going to compete head-to-head in the upcoming states. so cruz will take indiana. kasich will take maryland. cruz won't compete so much in maryland. so they're dividing up what they think their strength is on the remaining states. so that way, the goal to espull as many of those votes of donald trump given that i've got strength in indiana. kasich won't. host: a remind over the math right now. the number, 1,237 is the number needed to win on that first ballot.

those numbers are going to change tomorrow after the mid atlantic primaries that are taking place. i want to ask you. one of our callers in our first segment says that she thinks the r.n.c. is in on the effort to coordinate. what do you make of that? guest: well, they may have been part of the discussion. someone in the building may have been part of the discussion. i don't think it's anything that emanated with the chairman or the chairman's office. maybe out of the political department or something like that. they may be a part of the conversation at some point of the meeting last week in florida. this has always been a difficult part for the party because they've got to show and demonstrate that all stage has clean hands. they cannot be seen as trying to manipulate the process. they arguably have no control over two candidates decide to get together to team up against the third. they have no control against

that. but they were made aware of it in some way. you know, it's sort of falls back on them in a negative light and makes them -- makes the folks out there believe even more so that you guys are a part of the problem, which is why again, donald trump has done as well as he's done because that attitude has been out there festering for a long time. host: i've heard you describe the job as the guy with the biggest target on his back. if that job was available right now, would you want your old job back? guest: heck, no, no. thank you. the best title that i have right now is former. thank you very much. host: your thoughts on r.n.c. chairman. here he is talking about the need of the party to unify right before this announcement was made on sunday where two candidates were unifying against donald trump. >> it is essential to victory in november that we all support our

candidates. this goes for everyone, whether you're a county party chairman, an r.n.c. member, or a presidential candidate. politics is a team support. and -- sport. and we can't win unless we rally around whoever becomes our nominee. i want to prove the doubters wrong and show that republicans are going to stand side by side with each other, stronger than ever before. and our candidates have a special opportunity to show leadership on that front. our candidates are running for the nomination of the republican party. they're trying out for our team. no one is forcing them to wear our jersey. we expect our candies to support our party and our eventual nominee. host: how do you think that rally around the flag message plays out? guest: well unfortunately for the chairman, that totally under

mines everything he just said. so what makes you think that the supporters of the third candidate, donald trump is going to rally behind a ted cruz or a john kasich should they become a nominee when their perception, if not the reality, has been you've been fighting our guys tooth and nail every way. you've colluded against him. you have worked against him. and now you want us to support your guys now that you've stolen the nomination from him? it's just didn't takes away the central argument, belies the argument that he's making and we're going to movement from this process together and that's just not going to happen. if these things continue town fold the way they have. host: michael steele is the guy who had the job from 2009 to 2011. former lieutenant governor of maryland. here to take your calls, take your questions, republicans, it's 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. independents, christina is from oakland, michigan. caller: thank you for allowing us to call in. mr. steele, i admire listening to you so much. you're so reasonable and i'm sorry sometimes that you're a republican but aren't you glad that you put ron priebus in? the republican party has in dividing people for ages now, and that they played to their extremist and now you've got a firing squad going on. to regards of mr. trump being a businessman, i'm from michigan. we elected a businessman here in 2010. his name is rick snyder. and he was a businessman. he never was a politician. and boy, he got us in a mess.

he was cut, cut, cut. you know about the plant water situation was going on in detroit. but you know what, on top of it all, mr. snyder is a businessman. he's a millionaire. and we have to pay for his defense funds. , taxpayers, are paying $1.2 million for his defense fund. this is what a businessman does. he doesn't look at people. it's the bottom line, the bottom line. i work in the medical field. i'm a retired r.n. i worked in an operating room. for a corporation that was always crying for money, but they're buying more and more and more things. and i didn't understand when they keep on saying they are losing money. i don't understand business. i always had arguments where i worked at the corporation that i don't understand is always a different budget. you don't have enough money but

you're buying a bigger house. i don't understand that. guest: well, i will try to help a little bit with that. i mean, i'm a small business owner myself, have been for a long time. host: what's the business? guest: just a small consulting firm doing basically sort of crisis management, you know, for businesses and some candidates out there when they get in a little bit of hot water. but the thing to keep in mind, christina, there is a different mindset between a businessman who's never been in politics versus the political animal who's also been in politics. so there's one that wants to keep the machine moving sort of status quo, the politician. and the one who wants to come in and totally disrupt its, the businessman. the problem often time comes and this will be a very interesting challenge for a trump administration which is why having someone around him who really understands how the federal government works, those mechanisms that pull, you know,

the leavers -- levers inside the system operates because this outside view of government is one that is stained by, you know, this sort of characterized or sort of stereotype notion of how government fails to do certain things. one of the things i learned as lieutenant governor of maryland is that government can work if you help it, if you make it, if you push it. you cannot go in with this one size fits all. we're going to deconstruct it, tear it down and rebuild it. that's just not going to happen. so in the michigan example, governor snyder's example, the reality is to just come in with this outside perspective without an understanding and appreciating how you get the machine to do what it's supposed to do can lead to some problems. host: if you endorsed in this republican primary? guest: no. host: do you plan to? guest: no. not at the moment. host: let's go to carlos in

florida. carlos, good morning. caller: good morning, mr. steele. it's a pleasure talking to you. i've been a republican for about 22 years. hispanic. and i was just -- my concern that i'm sitting right -- seeing right now is the new guy lives in a box and joe and scarborough and they're supposed to be republicans and one of the things that i'm concerned about is that i see this situation where fox news should change its name to "trump news." because all you see is trump news. it's ridiculous. it's not even fair. trump talking about being unfair, he gets 80% of the news cycles. let me make two points and then i will hang up that i will listen to you. i'm not anti-trump. i'm pro-ted cruz.

like o'reilly and all of these , you know,ing that they are anti-and antiestablishment. and ihe establishment have been a republican for 20 years. i'm a conservative. i want conservatives values out there. trump has compromise on abortion, everything i have believed, he is going to compromise. i will never vote for him because he does not believe what i believe. host: we got your point. guest: he makes a good and interesting point. the constitutional conservatives, cold -- social's conservatives, those who feel the process over the last 15 or 20 years, probably longer, they have been pushed out of the

outside in the party has pushed them out of the situation. establishment types follow the money trail and not the people trail. about, we will take out the irs p retirement or when we shut down the department of education as conservatives. day.s a glorious people go, it never happened. that is the point. it never happened. this frustration. the problem with ted cruz, he made a calculated risk early in the campaign. he decided to be nice to trump, -- night things to trump nice things to trump. it seems like so long ago. now he is going head-to-head with him. there is a credibility problem. all of a sudden, you have a problem with the guy when six months ago, you were like,

donald trump is a fine character and a good man and i have no qualms. wait a minute question mark now you do? what changed? donald trump, this is for his voters that are important, the same guy today as he was when he announced. all the crazy that has happened in between, they are like, ok, we got it, we understand it. i like someone, now i hate them. he is just like, he said straight up if you attack me, i'm coming after you and otherwise, you are good. those who tried to play cute with him have been bitten by the process. kasich did not have an approach because for three quarters of the contest, john kasich was relegated off-camera, an unfortunate result of the process. i had a real problem with the way the debate stage was set at

the very beginning, which relegated very good and credible candidate to off-camera, basically. part of his problem is folks don't know who he is or much about his narrative. ohio, he could ultimately wind up beating hillary clinton, and i know democrats who said if he is the nominee, they will look at the campaign a lot differently. he is -- trying to play catch-up with that. any kind of alignment he has with ted cruz is a way to keep him in a game for the remainder of the contest. mark is in cloverdale, california. good morning. caller: you kind of answer my question. i was wondering if this was more a john kasich lyrical moved to team up with ted cruz and stay in the race and become more

relevant, or is he just giving up and is in cahoots with ted cruz and just wants to be trump? is theno, i think it former. a smart move for kasich or he is in the cycle. people are talking about him in connection with ted cruz today and trump. have their name in the headline. that is a good thing for john kasich as he looks to go in certain states in the next two weeks to get a strong second-place finish. host: the indiana primary is taking place on may 3 where kasich said they would step away from the two states with ted away,aid they would step oregon in may 17 and new mexico in june 7. if there are dividends, paying off later down the road. think it trump gets a

very good run, particularly with the you, you have got to watch. 17 delegates will be assigned straight off the box just straight off the that. you have delegates who will not be assigned, who are at large, they have pledged that they will go in their state. that could be a boon for someone like trump if he does well on tuesday. unpledged and pledged delegates are causing consternation for some as they are learning the process and here is donald trump last week in new york, talking about the system being raked going into the convention. right.mp: the system is it is not meant for a cow like me who has not taken any money from these special interest. i am self funding the campaign. i paid to come up. system, just like

so much else in government is right. but i have never seen anything have colorado or wyoming, in the case of colorado, they were supposed to vote. they said there were no changes made but there was. people saw i would do great in colorado, and all the sudden in august, they change this is some and took the vote away from the people of colorado. they did not give the vote to the people of wyoming. done really well because i'm good at dealing with the bosses, but you have had it and you say, forget it. to hotels,e them out on planes, whatever you want to do. i said no way. we are going to get there can we don't need it. it is a raked and corrupt system. we will get there and i believe we will do it more easily than people think and we will do it in the first ballot, we will get

to the big 1237. do you understand this concern among some with so many different, located rules heading into the convention that it might seem rate this system? absolutely. the system has a few kinks that need to be ironed out. you step back and realize a couple of things about this year. this is the first time, and i have said this for a while now, and folks in the town to not get it still. the folks in capitol hill, they are not driving this. timeis really the first that people have decided to take control of it. the election of the nominating process, they are exposing a lot of things and along comes strong -- trump to put a big spotlight on it. we have seen how the process is worked.

going back a number of years. normally you have the nominee. you do not think about which delegates are bound and which are not bound. you do not think about the primary of the caucus, where the state party has a convention and then allocates those delegates. we now have a light on the process and people see it for what it is. they say wait a minute. caucusto the polls or by and took all the time to participate in the process in a have not voted in 30 years, first time i voted in 10 years, and you are tell me the guy i voted for does not get the most delegates because you have a secondary process in which you will allocate those delegates and my guy loses? that strikes them as patently unfair. that will lead to changes in the system by the time we get

to 2020. people will not tolerate a system in which the person who actually wins does not. pennsylvania, charles is a republican. you are on with michael steele. caller: here is a good example of a rate system. awas just watching here about half hour, msnbc, they were interviewing delegates. they had a woman on their and ,he fellow asked her a question who are you going to vote for as a delegate. she says ted cruz. said, even if the people vote another way? you still going to vote for ted cruz? she says yes. that is an example of a rate system. how can she even be a delegate?

i have a comment. everybody needs to rally around trump, bottom line. kasich has been in washington and ted cruz has been in washington. they need to rally around trump because washington needs a good shaking up. guest: with respect to the she is probably committed to ted cruz and depending on the rules, i do not know if this was a pennsylvania or maryland delegate, but depending on the rules of her state, she is not bound to a person who wins their state. pennsylvania, they are more likely to be bound after the first though, the first vote at the convention, and she is biting herself to ted cruz afterwards irrespective of whether or not ted cruz or trump wins the state. that is what the rules allow.

part of what you have seen ted cruz do is go out and grab right,es and say, all trump is going to win pennsylvania, and you're going to have to vote for him on the first one but i need you to be bound for me -- to me for the third ballot. ted cruzhat you see doing right now which is what donald trump had failed to do at this point because they did not anticipate the backend of the process. we saw this in louisiana and virginia and georgia. had to go out and actually locked down the delegates for third or fourth ballots. the latest poll, trumpet 45%. at 45%. that is happening tomorrow along with four other states here on the east coast. dave is in rochester, michigan, an independent. good morning.

caller: good morning. your analysis.e you are one of the very few to.blicans i can listen but anyway, as far as a rate andem, i am an independent i have been voting democrat. i hold my nose and vote democrat. both parties have let the working-class down. rate with both parties, fordemocrat and the dnc hillary, and bernie rocked the vote. point, if trump got income i used to think he had no chance. i think he has got a slight chance. sure, with cruise or anyone else, i think it will be worse you have got to work -- .ole with trump

i'm still hoping for bernie. i think he is one of the few politicians who is really talking about the right issues. both parties have let us down. i could take you for miles and of manufacture and decay and not just around detroit. fort wayne and northern ohio, flint, where is the conversation? you strength on a very important point, an interesting one for the cycle. as i travel, one of the most fascinating things to hear when you talk to a bernie sanders well, if who says, bernie loses, i'm voting for trump this fall, portland they have primaries, i do not know

which i will vote for, bernie or trump, that argument works for those voters along the lines they just mentioned, and that is manufacturing, creating jobs in our industrial belt of the nation, which we offloaded a lot of those jobs and to the extent they still exist, wages have been severely suppressed. we have two individuals who are opposite sides of the same coin talking about restoring the value of manufacturing, the worker, and how important it is that it is not centered around wall street but main street. that will be a question between trump and hillary because trump aces her on that. sanders have bernie

going into the narrative with donald trump, which may rub a lot of republicans the wrong way because of trump passes views on trade issues and the like. it is where mainstream america is here that is the strength of the trump candidacy. he brings into play voters who otherwise would not necessarily be there for the republican party. into women and hispanics not liking them and what the polls show, but in a general election, you always have a reset with voters and candidates. looking fresh, head to head, they themselves come at each other very definitely -- differently than in the primary. if got bernie and martin o'malley at one point on the other side. line for democrats

were herbert is waiting in georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. good to see you. educated and you are aware of what is going on in america. as a black person, i am 65 years old. breathe so ted cruz has not talked to none of the black caucus or nothing else. person being in the republican party, i do not see the party looking more like me. up -- i'mo caught caught up in the character. wondering, i want to be a member of the party, not a wing of the party.

you do fight for the individual. i would love for you to keep on doing it. the thing is the republican party has got to come back and do more. for example, come into for the schools, they get people like steve harley and tavis smiley. you do not see people at a black republican party, janet jackson we do not see, them in the black community. i do not see them in miami and i did not see them in georgia. you have opened up a big box there. there are a lot of reasons we

see the current party structure operating the way does. the court of the argument is the key thing. i made it very important and very clear to the 168 members of the national committee, that they have to be in the community. they cannot build the party from top down. it is not a washington centric organization nor should it be. you should know who the black leadership is in your state and york county, whether through the ncaa peak, the urban league, whether it is the black chamber or whatever is going on in the community, you should have the finger on the pulse if you are about the business of making the argument for your party relevant in the conversation that they are having in those town halls and community. and hearo sit outside the institutions and

organizations and individuals articulate what we perceive to be a conservative message, that they are just like us and they agree with us on the life issues and the family issues and the economy. how do you know when you're not fully engaged in the conversation. as one thing to say black folks, we know you appreciate the do,life message, and they but then when you do not talk to them about voting rights, they go, that is great, that was your issue so we are not driving pro-life in the black community, where driving voting rights. see her actions as being antithetical to the issues in voting rights and that creates the tension the party needs to address and the only way to address it is to be in the neighborhood and the community all the time. i remember the first week after i was elected, i hosted a town

in harlem and three of people showed up spur of the moment. the blowback i got from the party officials was stunning. it ranged from, where you going to harvard -- that is where the future votes are. if you want to grow and expand the party, you better be in harlem, those boroughs in those parts of the city and the community that you are currently now walking past. host: have the efforts fallen by the wayside? guest: i think they have their they are mixed result in people like to point out you had this meeting or that meeting. it is not just having the meeting. it is doing with the concerns of the community. when you have the voting rights andsitting was no action going into a presidential election cycle, where do you think or how you think you will engender trust from that community was something that is important to them that they will perceive to be as problematic if

there are problems this fall. they will blame you because you had a chance to fix it and do something about it. it is that simple. put out an autopsy talking about hispanics and we have got to reach out to a candidate is out there talking to donald trump talking about, mexicans, we're building a wall, that message is counter productive to your image in the party. you have got to correct that and make sure the message, regardless of who the candidate is, is the one who is driving the day. that is a struggle. the only way to do that is in the community. host: centreville, virginia, tonya is waiting period caller: -- waiting. caller: good morning. to share two messages, one for all the american people.

either be born in this land or sit on the ground that. if you really love your country, if you really care for your security, if you really care for thesafety of your children, future and the honesty, vote for donald trump. that man is maybe not politically correct and maybe not freezing his words to scholars and whoever in offices but heike to phrase it, is honest you get what you see. he is not faking it. he loves this country. he will make this country way greater than what it is at the moment. he will bring the glory of the past.

to the best of his effort and his ability. host: michael steele. guest: you cannot walkway from the passion you hearing your voice. and the concern. that is consistent across the country with those who support donald trump. i do not hear the same passion for the other candidates. i just don't. you do not hear it for the other 16 on stage. trumpis something donald withone that has connected the american people. a growing number of them, that is personal for them. it speaks to the frustrations but also their hope. he talks about america being great again, a lot of people see their stories on that.

i want the businesses to be successful again and my family to be strong again. i want my country to be first and foremost again. observing politics and being a part of it, it is a game of emotion. you do not hear that emotion about the other candidates out there. if he asked you to be his vice presidential running mate, would you do it? guest: [laughter] oh my gosh. i do not know. we would just say that for later. host: hartford, connecticut, kim, line for independents. because of calling the delicate process. there is such a light on it now. they pick who want to be delegates. causing anger in america.

i want to know how the republican party will take care of the problem because it will cause such a problem in the next election that the systems going to go and there is going to be so much animosity for republicans that they may not worldo be -- how in the can they stop the problem? finger on one the of the conundrums of the establishment on the hill, mcconnell who backtracked off of the comments he made about the process, got into the weeds and overstepped the line and looked like he was putting his fingers on the scale in the selection process, none of that is lost on voters out there. do is keepc has to clean hands. that is why you saw the chairman last week going to florida

saying, we are not making rule changes and not touching the rules. they sit down and take it with the rules here and there, we celebrated in 2012 where they literally blocked ron paul from getting his name nominated on the floor, would not allow the man to speak at the convention when he brought all of the energy and new voices into the process. to have thatfford happen, certainly donald trump, who raise all kind of hell if they did. they cannot have that happen. you will so you're going to see them let the process unfold naturally. host: but if it was not donald trump, if the establishment -backed candidate that was nning at this point in the process, would the establishment be wanting the others to get out of the race?

guest: yes, the establishment guy would be the one in the front. let's say if rubio was in the position donald trump is in right now. there would be all kind of push. you wouldn't have had a stop rubio effort that formed. you wouldn't have millions and millions of dollars used against him in the primary process. that would have been a great hugh and cry from leadership on the hill rallying around the establishment candidate. all of that would have annoyed the heck out of the base and we saw that happen in 2012. what happened? almost three million americans stayed home and didn't participant and mitt romney lost. that's what happens when you put your fingers on the scale. they can't let that happen this time. there's enough baggage they're going to have to carry. when you hear folks talking

about if donald trump is the normal knee, we're going to lose the senate, the house, the senate. first off, i built that house. we're not losing the house. that house the going to be good for a few more years. number two, the senate is in play not because of donald trump but because of the supreme court nomination process. the party took a hard-edged position that is now beginning to put in peril six or seven u.s. senators who were already in trouble because in is a democrat cycle, meaning democrats have fewer seats up for re-election than republicans. republicans have 24 seats. i think they have a smaller number and some territory that plays to the map for the democrats. host: let's go do georgia. with mile steele, former r.n.c. chairman. lewan, go ahead.

coip how y'all dining? good morning. i'm going to push back on that donald trump thing. anybody that look like you and myself, how do you explain the -- incident when he led a lynch mob against them kid that wound up taking over half of the youth away from them and never apologized. will you also tell me about the two incidents where the government and the house discriminate? and also, can can you please explain to the american people when donald trump found out about our president in the birthright situation that he hired the detective to do? guest: right. a lot of that -- what the caller drills down on are issues that will come back this fall. all of the issues from the

birther issue to some of the dealings in his business affairs and some of the social issues at have bothered new yorkers that donald trump may or may not have had a part of. he's going to have to address those issues. it certainly will be fodder for the hillary clinton capable. and that is concern for the party right now, is how much of that weighs down the effort to win this november? if the distraction is we're reliving birtherism four years later kind of deal. my bet is that won't be as much of an issue as a lot of people hope it will be. the birther issue, when it's been brought up even in this cycle so far, he's dismissed it himself, has not taken the bait. and i think that's going to be the real challenge, whether or not hi takes the bait on those imes of questions.

host: after tomorrow, indiana is up next and that's the state where the kasich campaign has agreed to step away to allow the cruz campaign become the competition against donald trump. nate is on the phone. what do you think about that? caller: if you're going to hitch a ride on the republican vehicle to the white house, don't get in and start complaining about the radio station and the temperature and the wheels and the driver and how fast we're going. look, the system is set up to protect the party. if you go to the convention, if you don't have a majority of the republicans, how do you expect to win in the general election? you got one of two problems, or both. you either don't represent the rty or your negatives are so bad that you cannot win the election. and the party is protecting itself. it doesn't want to lose the house, the senate, the judicial.

so if the system is not rigged, and to be unfair, but if you go into the convention and if you don't have a majority, how do you expect to win? host: michael steele, nate makes the same point that an earlier caller did. donald trump so far in the sieved -- aign has almost four million republicans have voted for somebody else. guest: that's the primary process. he's gotten 42%. his opponents have combined 51%, 52% of the vote. fine. but there are some assumptions that are made here. if you look at the 51% against him, why do we assume that donald trump isn't the second choice for some of those voters? so if kasich or cruz drops out.

that 51% doesn't automatically go onto whoever is surviving. donald trump will get some of those voters. i agree with nate, the process is the process so donald trump took advantage of the opportunity to expose something that people weren't aware of and 56% of republicans themselves now are saying that whoever has the most delegates should get the nomination so even the party itself is not buying this idea, that as he said, you have to in the 1,231, 1,237 coming the door. no, if donald trump has 100 delegates or less, he still gets it. host: robin, an independent from new york. caller: mr. steele, i've been watching you for a while now and i understand that people are upset, the ing is-- system is

rigged. but the system is rigged and trump is taking advantage of it. i would argue that if you look at his behavior, he will serve his own interests, rather than those, that woman called very upset about the system and how it affected her. why is no one in the republican party pointed out what he's doing, his past behavior and so -- to suggest that he, in fact, would even be supportive of that woman. she acting out of his own interests. i do not tr understand -- guest: just real quick, the party has. the stop-trump movement has. they waited too late to do it. they waited seven, sitting months into the campaign to go after donald trump. no one took jeb bush seriously, no one took advantage of the opportunity that he afforded the party when he opened up an attack on donald trump. the response from donald trump

was you're low energy. it took him out of the campaign but there was no backup. ted cruz was friendly with donald trump. didn't want to offend him or go after that. now that they're trying to do that, it doesn't have credibility with the voters. what's changed? donald trump is saying is same crazy stuff he said eight months ago and you said nothing. at least the guy is standing and fight for something i -- he believes in, right or wrong. that's the guy i kind of trust right now and that's the problem convincing voters to come their way. host: michael steele, chairman of the r.n.c. >> we go lye to franklin, indiana for a campaign rally with texas senator and presidential candidate ted cruz. he's meeting with supporters at

the johnson county fairgrounds with indiana stoat hold it presidential primary on tuesday, may 3. tomorrow, residents in five states, maryland, connecticut, pennsylvania, iowa and delaware head to the polls for their primaries. c-span plans to bring you live results, candidates' speeches starting tomorrow night at :30 eastern. once again, we're in franklin awaiting the start of a ted cruz campaign rally. here's more about the plan to seed states in the 2016 -- cede states to one another in an e. to prevent donald trump from winning the republican nomination. >> at "washington post".com this is the headline -- senator cruz and kasich device a strategy to keep trump from clinching three primary states -- indiana, new mexico, and oregon. joining us from indiana is sean sullivan, who is following this

story. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me, steve. >> what's behind this strategy? >> i think this is a strategy borne out of desperation for ted cruz and for john kasich. they are looking at the remaining primary map and seeing that their chance to stop donald trump from clinching the republican nomination outright may be quickly disappearing and basically what casic and kruise have decided is not to run against each other in states where the over guy has a better chance of beating trump in a one-on-one rails. is now indiana, ted cruz effectively in a one-on-one race with trump after kasich has said i'm basically not going to really go hard for the state. and in exchange, ted cruz has basically ceded new mexico and oregon to john kasich, preparing

him for a one-on-one race against trump there. kasich thinks those states are favorable to his centrist brand of politics and that he stands a better chance of being chosen. this is all with the goal of trying to keep trump under the delegates.r of 1,237 >> we'll know next week whether this stage is effective. but is it too little, too late for the cruz and kasich campaigns? >> that's what i heard from a t of people even at a cruz campaign -- rally earlier today. one woman was wondering that. would it have been more appropriate to do something like this in january or sneb but there's an argument to be made having some sort of arrangement

like this where certain candidates competed in some states and basically didn't compete in other states might have slowed trump in some places. if it definitely works, you'll -- if it works, you'll definitely hear more about why didn't this happen six or -- or eight weeks ago? >> you commented in your article in the "washington post" it's an unusual and urge end strategy. is there any precedents to this? >> i can't think of any. it's unusual for opponents in a presidential rails to come together with a common goal of beating another opponent. the ind of think fuels argument that donald trump is making day in and day out on the campaign trail, that the party establishment is going behind closed doors and they're trying to rig this, trying to steal this and when you have something ike this happen in plain view,

campaigns basically saying that's exactly what we're doing, it certainly adds fuel to donald trump's argument. >> he has been running an anti-establishment campaign going after the republican party and this seem tots field rights into that. >> it really does. up till now his complaints have mainly centered on the delegate battle, which is a very or key -- archaic process. a lot of people don't understand it. even people like me don't fully understand it. but when you have two campaigns saying we're working together to take down trump. that's much easier per voters to understand and ultimately get angry about and become furious over. >> next tuesday, the grrks >> where you are is next

tuesday. how is this all going to play out? >> well, it should play out according to the plan that kasich and cruz have set in motion that next week is a cruz victory in indiana. polls show the race is pretty close between ted cruz and casic and that's far from a sure bet. oregon and new mexico, if kasich were to win those, up a situation with, depending on how california turns out, you might keep trump under that magic number. in california, you have a bunch of microprimaries taking place across the state. it's possible that the state could split their delegates among kasich, trump, and cruz. if the casic and cruz forces are successful, you'd have trump somewhere below 1,200.

where they can make the case hat this guy is not the one to support to claim the nomination. >> you mentioned earlier how one woman had talk towed about her response to this strategy but what are you hearing from the campaign, from the candidates' statue and from those who are attending his events? >> i think they're hopeful that this will work, sharpen the line. in indiana there's clearly been anxiety in the last week among cruz and his allies about kasich stealing votes away from him. there was a pro-cruz add that was launched last week that not only went after trump but went after kasich. i think they feel with this development they can go to voters and basically say this is a choice between ted cruz and donald trump and they can have more credibility making that argument.

they say indiana as a must win. a loss here would be devastating to ted cruz next week. >> sean sullivan, who covers politics for the "washington post." thank you for being with us. >> thank you, steve. >> back now to franklin, indiana where in just a few minutes we'll have live coverage of a ted cruz campaign rally. he'll speak with voters and supporters ahead of tuesday's primary. voters in five states tomorrow head to the polls for their primaries and c-span plans to bring you live results, candidates' speeches and your phone calls. until senator cruz comes to the stable, we'll show you a portion from today's "wall street journal" on the health care law. jorge: back at our desk, the executive director of consumers

u.s.a., a consumer advocacy group that has long supported the health care act. the nation's largest insurer united hements is scaling back its participation in the a.c.a. it says it's losing too much money in area. how big of a problem is this for the affordable care act? guest: i think the story is much ado about relatively little. united health is the largest insurer in the company but they've not been the largest participate in the ampedable care act. actually in 2014 they sat out participating in the affordable care act and so their foot print in the beginning was virtually nil. hey have -- they did expand in 2015 and 2016 but the reason i say this is much ado about

relatively little is because the impact of their withdrawing from various markets is really not going to be a major change for people participating. and the reason for that is that 70% of the -- communities across the country, there are at least three insurers that are offering coverage in the marketplaces and that's beyond the ones that united provides so there's still going to be substantial competition and the kizer family foundation said that if they withdrew, it would have at most about a 1% impact on premiums. host: i looked that the study too. in 536 different counties in this country, united health has a -- if united care does a

complete withdrawal from the affordable care act. those counties are left with only one insurer. what does that do to competition and possibly prices? guest: the areas you're referring to are essentially rural areas, not the largest areas. and clearly we do wants to see competition. so my hope is, as we've seen with respect to the affordable care act, we are going to see other insurance companies provide coverage in those marketplaces and so there will, i believe in some of those places will -- there will be substitution. instead of united, there will be other insurers. we don't know if united is going to pull out all across the country. they've said they're going to pull out in close to half a dozen states. what the kizer study showed is what the impact would be if united decides to withdraw all

across the country. host: if you get your insurance through a.c.a. exchanges, give 2-748-,000. at 20 employer-provided insurance. 202-748-8,000. mixing up the lines a little bit. i want to hear your experiences, with the affordable care act. but the newspaper story about the united health pullout has this quote -- united hements is not alone in warning that financial markets are reaching dangerous levels. some blue cross-blue shield plans have raised the prospect of pulling back. concerned that this becomes a trend? guest: i don't believe that's going to happen. i think the biggest concern that people have and have expressed is that we may see a number of insurance companies increasing

premiums and that always is concerning, but there are two things i think your viewers should keep in mind. number one, the real concern for individuals is what are you going to be paying out of pocket? and the vast majority of people who are participating in the affordable care act are getting very substantial subsidies and so if premiums do go up, those subsidies are going to go up as well and so the impact on the pocketbook of individuals is going to be minimized. host: some would argue that it's the impact on the taxpayer pocketbook that's going to go up through those subsidies and there's a congressional budget offers study that came out recently putting the cost over the next 10 years of the a.c.a. $136 billion higher than what they estimated last year. guest: right, and that figure was a whole lot lower than when

the affordable care act was initially adopted. the reason for that is that one of the things that the opponents of the affordable care act said. they tried to stair people and say if you have employer-sponsored insurance, there's going to be huge dropbacks from employers in whether they continue providing coverage. that has not happened and as a result we don't have quite as many people who have joined in the marketplace as we would have had had therein that migration. host: ron pollock, executive director of a group that has long supported the affordable care act. if you you have questions, about the a.c.a. cost is, premiums. the a.c.a. is six years old. doug is in blue springs, missouri, gets his insurance through the a.c.a. exchanges. doug, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you.

ron, a couple of questions real quick. what's your background? guest: i hate to tell you, i started off as a lawyer. i've been running various public interest groups and i was dean of a law school and i've been directing families u.s.a. for over three decade. caller: are you a physician or have you ever dealt with health care payments, co-payments or were you involved in the health care act in any way before your position? guest: i'm not a physician, i'm not a nurse. but we were deeply involved in the debate about the affordable care act. families u.s.a., for over three decades has been one of the leading groups to try to get major health care reform. adds you know, at one point we

had about 50 million people who were uninsuranced and a lot of people who needed access to care couldn't get it. one of the things we at families u.s.a. tried to do was to make sure we would get health reform that would make health care access to believe people across the country. caller: how much do you make a year? guest: i make over $200,000 a year. host: we have a couple of other callers. did off question? caller: yeah, ron, i do. appreciate the commitment to health care, i really do. on the other hand, i think it's big scam. host: concerned by people that

a.c.a. is a big scam. what is the proof at this point six years in from your perspective? guest: greatest proof is that over 20 million people who were uninsured before now have health care coverage. you have people who were excluded from the health care system because they had a health condition, whether it was asthma, diabetes and insurers wouldn't provide coverage to them. that no longer occurs. insurance now is real insurance. it doesn't stop when you have a major illness or an accident so that's a big deal. women are no longer discriminated in the premiums they pay. young adults is can continue getting coverage through their parents up to their 26th birthday. the affordable care act has done an extraordinary thing for millions upon millions of people. host: kim gets her insurance through her employer.

he's -- she's in ohio. kim, has your insurance changed in the past six years since the implement station of the affordable care act? caller: yes, my insurance has gone up and we pay over $300 more a month and we don't get any different coverage. it really irritates me after listening to president obama saying our premiums would golf down,, which of course, i didn't believe anyway. now i'm facing the reality of my insurance premiums going up and i have kids in school, one in college and it's not a good time to have extra expenses. i'm extremely disappointed. i -- it may have helped some people but it's hurting a lot of people. guest: well, there's no question that prior to the affordable care act and after the affordable care act passed, premiums still have been going up. so what kim is describing is

something that others have experienced as well. that is not caused by the affordable care act and this has been a trend that's been going on literally for decades and it's something, hopefully, that we will deal with in the future but that is not a factor in the affordable care act. host: has the a.c.a. bent that curve? guest: modestly. has it done so adequately? i don't think any of us would say that health care costs have been moderated sufficiently. a story in today's paper, for example, there's a great deal of concern about what's happening with prescription drug costs and they have been going up very substantially and that's something that's going to have to be a top priority agenda for the next administration. host: going back to the curve, was the a.c.a. supposed to bend that curve more or was it sold as something that would bend

that curve even more? guest: i think that when the affordable care act debate began there were duel object -- dual objectives. the key objective was to ensure that those who had been excomplowleded from health coverage for many years could now have access to coverage. it isn't completely fixed. we still have a significant way to go. there also was a desire to start a process of getting costs down. that process is beginning but has a long way still to go, and the reality was, to pass the affordable care act, it was not an easy task. you needed 60 votes in the united states senate and guess how many votes were gotten? 60 votes? needed 218 votes in the house of representatives. we got 1 -- 219 votes. if you go too far in pushing the

pharmaceutical companies, the insuranceers, hospitals, etc., it probably would have lost. initial stems were taken. but we have a long way to go. host: sim -- tim is on the line for those who are uninsured. tim from myrtle beach, south carolina. tim, good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate c-span. i enjoy listening to it every morning. let me tell you about my situation. i got into the marketplace and my people up -- premium was zero because i'm on a fixed income and i couldn't afford it but i didn't want to get a penalty when they filed my taxes because they would take it directly out of my social security. it's a no-brainer. but the next year i called up and they told me they no longer have that plan and the only plan that could